132 25 7760 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/730640b1fc869f19d616c3fafebcaa27.tif be45268c9a972814df3ed7b19dfe9acd PDF Text Text Kent State University Campus Security Advisory Committee 4 Minutes of Meeting (13 of March 16, l9?2, 10:00-11:00 a.m. M" ”T Present: Dooling, Eastman, Green, Rawitch, Roberts, White Absent: Huffman 1. Chairman Roberts called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. and announced that we did not yet have a full committee: (a) Huffman is leaving the university, and (b) four undergraduate students have yet to be appointed. Hence, all discussions at this meeting were informal and unofficial. 2. Dooling was appointed interim secretary. Besides taking minutes, the secretary is responsible for coordinating the collection of news items relevant to the committee's charge. Members should clip relevant news items and forward them to Dooling. 3. There was discussion on the make-up of the committee: (a? Because campus~community relations are so important; a member of the community should be on the committee. (b) A representative from the non-academic petsonnel on campus should be appointed to the committee. (c) The committee should have legal counsel and this person should not be the administrative appointment to the committee. Chairman Roberts will discuss these matters with Vice President Roskins and ask that mmittee membership be expanded to 13 or 14 to incorporate t e above suggestions. 4. The committee discussed its charg possible procedures. Eastman will ci thesis which dealt with campus surveil and exchanged ideas on ulate a copy of an M.A. ance. 5. Next meeting is scheduled for Wedn Bowman Hall from 3:15 to 5:00 p.m. sday, April 5, in 111 D. James Dealing Secretary \\~ » https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d5a71cac743134f1970a6d038e5a8bc7.tif 99fef235d0dd20063a4121a1bf46650b PDF Text Text K ent State University 4 Campus Security Advisory Committee I—Iinutes of Meeting (2) April 5, 1972, 3:35-4:15 p.m. Presents Dealing, Eestmeng Greenﬁ hanitch, Roberts, White Absent: none 1. Chairman Roberts called the meeting to drder at 3:20 p.n. and announced that it was an unofficial nesting due to lack of n quorum, 2. Chairman Roberts made the following announcements: (a) In a.ﬁerch 21 memo to Vice President Roskens, Roberts requested an administrative replacement for John Huffman and that this person not be en attorneya Three additional members were requested: an attorney, a member of the Kent community, a non-academic employee. (b) Vice President Rosknns replied that the requests are in order _ zandiaiked the committee to nominate at least 2 possibilities for each:: , .A p03 t on. - 3. After discussion, the members nominated the following: Attorney: Charles Zonkehr, Norman Purnell Community: Albert Peoples, Joseph Shannon hon-academic: none A Chairman Roberts will contact the above individuals before submitting ggeéggnenes and will discuss the non—academic personnel appointment with s is. w to White announced that it would be at least two weeks until the re— 7 naining students would_be appointed to the committee. Dealing was directed to write the student president and Student Senate to urge them to appoint students by the next meeting. 5. chitch Suggested that we read the report of the President's Commission: on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967). It will soon ‘ be available in the bookstore. “r % i; ‘ #3 a . 6. Roberts suggested that we look into the Lubetkin commission report, 3 which had suggested the formation of this committee. ’ 7. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 19? 1972 in Room 111 Bowman Hall from 3:15 to 5:00 p.m. D. Jamie Dealing Secretary https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/cbea6e7f6e7ddebfd03451ba2a68ca74.tif fdb4674aa0ab70efa2dd30346e835976 PDF Text Text Kent State Univei sit'y Sirens Sectzrity idvisory Committee Minutes of heating (3) April 19, 1972, 3:20~L: 20 p.m. Prsent: Dooling, Eastman, Greene, Peabody, Rawitch, Roberts, Smella. ' Absent: White 1. 2. 3. he 5. 6. Chairman Roberts called the meeting to order and introduced two new student members: Robert Peabody and Frederick Smell. Two more student; members need to be appointed. Regarding the other members nominated for appointment: Zemkehr declined but recommended Norman Sandvoss, whose name was substituted as a nominee. Roberts read number 3 of the charge to the committee, stating that security records should be our first order of business. The present lan to combine the records of City and Campus police was discussed. oberts suggested that Ur. Fyke and Chief Myers be invited to come in-agg explain the plan. Roberts will invite both men to our next meet g. The methods by which the committee could evaluate police record keeping were discussed. what freedom would we have to examine files? Ilhat type of files are kept? Do other police and military agencies have access to KSU files? Roberts suggested that we first gather information on current plans for record sharing with the city. The next step would be to tour the facilities of the campus police. Then specific questions can be addressed: e.g., allegation file, video tape files, records on faculty, etc. Roberts will solicit free times from all members in an attempt to come up with a regular meeting time. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 26, 1972 in Room 111, Bowman Hall from 2: 20 to 5&00 p.n. if D. James ng Secretary https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e8e783c63636634726c664b3fc1a2ecd.tif 399644ce22e3934a8d97f43ca0e65651 PDF Text Text Kent State University Campus Secudty Advisory Csmittee é ‘ I~Iinuts3 of Meeting (22,) ‘ Ap‘ﬂ 269 19729 3330 "' 5'00 Pom. Present: {lglingp Eastmn, Greene, Peoples, Raultch, Roberts, Sanduoss, ’2 ts ' Absent: Peabody, Smells l. Chaiman Roberts called the meeting to order at 3:30 pang. and announced a new charge to the cornmttee fats President Olds. We are to draft a policy statanent on surveillance as soon as possible. 2. Roberts introduced two new :zembers to the committee: Norman Sandvoss and Albert Peeples. 3. Roberts announced that because of the pressing issue of surveillance the meeting with Chief Mynu-s was cancelled. Mr. Fyke was invited to come to discuss surveillance rather than City-Campus cooperation. Mr. Me was unable to attend this reestiug‘ be We were asked to oper our nesting to the public. In reaponse, the guzzling policy (moved by stiteh; seconded by Greene) was unanimously 0p 3 The Campus Security ldvisory Committee will normally meet in cloded session, but a meeting can be Opened to the public by a majority vote of members present. 5. The comittee was given a draft of 12/15/71 pro osed policy statement on surveillance from the office of the president. T a discussion of surveillance centered on the following points: -The need to consul? with Fyke and to attempt to thoroughly under- stand police procedures. «gagged for inspe-ztion of police activities, including random spot 9 o «- *Ias Ron Mohr a pnarocateur and what did he contribute to campus security? - when can we check on implementation of any surveillance policy? A three step process was arsed u x (a) Intertieu Fyke; (b) 1:255:12 preposd policy; (c) Get Fyke's reaction to it before sending it to the President. 6. The following questions were assembled for the meeting with Mr. Fyke: (3) ~. Can CSAC have a complete roster of personnel along with complete budgetary infomation? (b) What is the philoso hy toward surveillance. with special attention to constitutional guid r _ s? (c) How are informants develOped, what money is available to "pay informants; are students used as informants? (d) . What training do undercover agents have? Are students used for this purpose? (e) Do campus police work with other agencies undercover? (1') Should campus police he a full police force or only a security force? (3) What are the Civil Service constraints in the firing of personnel? (h) Specific information on Ron Ivlohr. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a239e10b3b4136f12a571acc4b90fcc7.tif 9e02eb61761a039f8afbd13aa3c77ba1 PDF Text Text OSLO V2072 Page 2 7. The following motion {moved by Eastman, seconded by Sandwas) was adoptdbyavooe of7to : All meetings of 08110 will be routinely tape recorded. Requests ggtmofftetape (thatareinitiatedbyapereonspeaking)will 8. The next meeting will be held when Mr. Fyke is available for discussion. Do JQ‘S 9001138 Secretary https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b5727e4890f58269c50030617d2419e4.tif 137ed26a91968f3c637bb42102b58734 PDF Text Text Kerr; Etate University Campus Seczrﬁty Advisory Comittee Idinme: of meeting (5) April 27.‘: 1922, 7:00 - 9:00 pan. Present: Dealing, Eastman, 'lreem, Peabody, Rewitch. Roberts, Sendvoss Absent: Peeples, Snelle, Wh Use 1. The committee met to rwise and vote on a draft of a policy statement on smeillence. 2. Two meetings without a quorum had taken place earlier in the day: (a) 0:00 a In - 12 0( upon. (noel Eastman Greene Rawitch Rob s sense on was am on ag'directiox’z of the’comittee. Wt pressures were muting the comittee more investigative than t (M 2:00 - oo (wooing. Eastman. Greene. Rawitch. Roberts, Sendvoss . cy statement on surveillance was drafted. 3. After lengthy re-workin ‘ and discussion a policy statement on sun-- veillance we completed and uwarded to the President. Roberts was to cmicete to the president that the comittee needed to discuss the policy with Mr. Fyke before if: could be considered our firm recommendation. Secretary https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8121f05520a1385c09235656610170c6.tif cc58f041bd33e3ce27a1d400ca56feb0 PDF Text Text \\ : Kent State University Gampts Security Advisory 01mittee Inmates of Meeting (6) April 29,, 3972, 3:00 - 5:00 pm. Present: Dealing ,Eastman. Greene, Peabody. Peoples, Rawitch, Roberts. Absent: Sandvons: Smells. Also Present: {tomes Fyka: Dirac». or of Campus Security 1. chairmen Roberts called them: eating to order at 3:00 pan. and made tmannouncementsx (a) Hazel Peoples has been appoint. ed to the aommittee as a representative non-asst! e. b) The policy statement on surveillance was forwarded to the president on U28. He was told that it was a working document, but it was assumed that he had the amhority to use it in its present ferm4 2. '~' IIr. Fyke discussed two topics with the comitteo: (a) The Ron Hebr- incident and (1») his reaction to the propose: docment on surveillance. 3a In respect: to the I-Iohr incident,1‘yke made the following points: a IIohrwaeclearedui’allchargesbyi‘ederalauthorities. b IIohr did not act Impmdantly or law otently. c IIohr we properly trained, operating abally and with Fyke’s approval: heme onthe verge so: solviLngseveral import ant eases. Theinc incenid was related to these im estimations. {dg IIohr was illegally set up for most. e IIohr did not engage in entrapment, nor has anyone so charged to e31 Waryeg agent so . was not surveil 1 any campus organization. as such, but several maphave been membersofone armors ups (g) IIohr’s salary is--- a civil Service minimm and he mass for no other Eh} ; he cement as to was there are additional undercover agents on We a ' ' t. is to the policyr'statemant on surveillance, Fyke had these general manta:- & "Secret watching.” on campus has been reduced 80% since Fyke took ovary; - e police here the same dut as other police encies: to note’ct and property. a __ _ activity a necessary for spurpose. . (a) 032m surveillance" :is mtine and necessary, without it the university so. ((15 President Olds can't be vay to criminal matters; should not be me: in operational dot sot surveillance activi in office'who goes under must remain there for an to 10 month uilli‘ollow a number of different leads and develop general (I) he proposed policy on surveillance would handicap campus police. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/68112caf5a95fc57bd61328177f7213b.tif 6dcf2c626ef7e571a54617ab6344f7d7 PDF Text Text 08m: 4/29/72 hgu 2. 5o ngG‘B specific “meats on the 'docmwnt: “Po 1 - :33 ether invisigative technique..." is unduly restrictive: a . e-‘. b 'p. l; “gate and exception-1)...." is not. tzue. e p. 1; “notify resident... . ." impractical and legally questionable d L. 2. #19) It must Ea clear that; students can , t. to police ‘mluntaril: Students are never paid for information. -' tenant mpliee , . , ,. this is presently the cat}. A discretion is needed. ‘04 '(‘P'v 2. #3 - It is not gaucy to emeiile 4 nations as such, but it met be clear hat police may aux-we 3 individuals who are t (p. 2. is! mgmbere of organisations. - - - '5 "private agemy" no problem; but assigned to or released to would prevent a state grant for at—cmmty narcotics squad. 6. It was decided that Rebate would contact" President Olda to not ' ' him theta few important changes were needed in the document and that t‘ was W 103' him to meet with the comitteea‘ - ,. ‘ D. we Secretary ' https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/bc2bd4736336c307d5d6ace823eb6258.tif 99caac2f97acb788aa2d631f3fc91c3f PDF Text Text Kent State University Bampus Security Advisory Committee 4: ﬂﬁnutes of Meeting (7) May 5, 1972, 8:00 - 10:00 a.m. Present: Dooling, Eastman, Greene, Peabody, A. Peoples, Rawitch, Roberts, Smells, White. Absent: H. Peoples, Sandvoss Also present: President Glenn Olds. Executive Vice President Ronald Roskens, lssistant Attorney General Eric Gilbertson. 1. President Olds announced a new charge to the committee: we are to do an "objective, competent, reflective review" of campus security. The review must be objective and confidential; it must be completed within 30 da s. Olds will act on recommendations within 7 days. The committee will vs the fill cooperation of the President's Office thro h V.P. " Roskens. (The written copy of the charge is dated may 5, 1972 2. Olds also announced that later in the morning an announcement would be made concerning the Mohr incident. Upon receipt of an affidavit, Civil Service proceedings will be initiated. , g. In response to questions, Olds made the following points: a) The Board of Trustees has authority to maintain law and order on campus and can delegate that authority to the president. The president, therefore, has authority over campus police records. One or two committee members could be given access to police records. (b) In certain critical cases where confidentiality must be maintained, the sident’s office will obtain answers to specific questions and determine whi records are strictly confidential. (c) Olds will call student president Slocum to see about filling the remaining student positing on the committee. 4. Olds, Roskens and Gilbertson left, leavin the committee to discuss the charge. The discussion centered on the fa owing points: (a) The difficulty in having Roberts and the Department of Criminal Justice involved in an investigation of the campus police. {b} Morale problems in police department. c The changing complexion of CSAC. a: 5. After discussion it was decided by consensus to accept the charge. Roberts suggested that we could probably do a reasonable job on points 1 and 3 of the charge within the 30-day period. Roberts charged the committee a (a) to'alienate nobody" and (b) to "make all proceedings absolutely confidential To facilitate our work, the committee was divided into the following sub- committees: a Attitudes of students and police (Dealing; b Conceptual model of security (Rawitch, w to) c Present Erectices and training (Eastman, Peabody A. Peoples) d Records eeping practices (Greene, Roberts, Smel a). written charges were to be sent by Roberts to each sub-committee. 6. The committee unanimously agreed that prior to acting on our charge a face-to—face meeting with Fyke and Olds was absolutely necessary. Suc a.meeting was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. Saturday. May 6, in 111 Bowman Hall. D. James cling Secretary https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/dd3f5b67dad4e4b8310e9c911af92a1c.tif ed9c33e0cbc62143d270d5054cfa0a98 PDF Text Text Kent State University Campus Security Advisory Committee // Minutes of Meeting (8) g¢r May 6, 1972, 9300 ~ 10:30 a.m. Present: Dealing. Eastman, Greene, Peabody. A. Peoples. Rawitch, Roberts, Smells, White. Absent: H. Peeples, Sandvoss Also present: President Glenn Olds, V.P. Roskens, Dr. Ronald Beer,‘ Director of Security Fyke. 1. President Olds distributed copies of the may 5 charge to the committee and also a Feb. 10, 1972 policy statement on the collect on, retention, and dissemination. of infbrmation about students. 2. Olds made the following clarifications of the charge: ‘wuae (a) In reference to #1, there are a number of different views on the of a campus police force: (1) securit only; look doors, etc. (2) highl professional skilled police force. (3 ferce that supplements local pol ce. 4) force whose main job is to handle things and keep other police ferces off campus. Examples of different styles: John Carroll (1). Kent State (2) Akron U. (between 1 and 2) ;« b) In reference to #4, the main thrust is to make recommendations that allow 10 ically from the findings under #2. The personnel part is not aimed at viduals. The committee should look at the general question W ﬁnkﬁeﬁhggtkm of personnel are needed. Special personnel problems 0 3. _le expressed reservations about the committee having access to records. It we be unethical and illegal. It is university policy to maintain confidentiality of individual records. An individual has a right to see' his own records if not pending prosecution. Roskens suggested that records be pulled without names. This procedure seemed agreeable to the committee. The Greene sub-committee will work out details with.mme Fyke. h. The next meeting will review the char as to and progress of the various sub-committees. Arv. Lubetkin will be in ted to attend. The meeting is scheduled fer Friday, me. 13, 1972 at 11:00 arm. in 111 Bowman. (Later the meeting was.rescgeduled for May 20). D. James Secretary https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2d0b9fc9b9aa70b5122feb1b88ce61f4.tif 43e9415ebcb3454c700b740b9d0cbc4b PDF Text Text Kent State University Campus Security Advisery Committee é’ Minutes of Meeting (10) May 24, 1972, 10:00 e.mo ~ 12:00 noon Present: Doolingg'Greene, Peabodyﬁ A“ Peopleeg HQ Peeplee9 Rawitch» Roberts, Sandvose, Smella, White. Absent: Eastman 1. Greene reported on the progress of his subwcommittee on recordSm keeping. 2. Dealing reported on the progress of his submcommittee en attitudes and Opinions. ‘ D. James Doo¢ing Secreta. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d2d3fb9cd15f6ea9859f495040d8aeda.tif 7c877f8c9074f47d17f6fdf1f13c0e56 PDF Text Text Campus Security Advisory Sommittee Minutes of meeting (11) May 3Q. 1972, 10:00 a.m. m 12:00 noon Kent State University '4; Present: Dealing. EaStman. Peabody. Rawitch, Roberts, Smells, White.Greene Absent: A. Peeples, H. Peeples, Sandvoss 1. Chairman Roberts announced the deadline that the committee would have to operate under: 2200 e.m. Egidayg guns 2 “ - r t o1 all'su mcommittee reports for discussion, to be incorporated by Roberts into §inel committee report over the weekend. ‘approval of final committee report. ssion sec 2. Dooling reported that: (a) 520 questionnaires were sent out to students. (b. 799 were sent to faculty. (c 200 were sent to nonuacademic personnel. {d the telephone survey in the Kent community was nearly complied. (e) intervieWS'with policemen will be carsied on this week. 3. The Greene committee on records and files reported: (a) Kent City Police Chief Myers felt that the city could take over police functions at KSU if the campus decided on a security force onlya- but more money would be needed. Kent City Police are very undermanned. ‘(b) Ravenna Chief Summers is opposed to any consolidation with Kent. Ravenna has spent 600 hours backing up Kent, while only-receiving 60 hours »in return. ‘ (c) Sheriff Hegedus feels that KSUWeeees a police force because of special university probleesé Feels a greater need for surveillance. (d) The subucommittee has begun a process of seeing the files_and eval- uating the record keeping operations. ‘ (e) Committee discession centered on the importance of knowing the policy on releasing intelligence information. A. The Rawitch subwcommittee distributed a handout listing 3 possible models for a campus police department. 5. The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, June 2 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 111, Bowman Hall. . V https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c9471af7cdbd124752894888ab1e1b03.tif dc76cb97a0b8945f36a3dc0103aafad9 PDF Text Text Kent State University 5 Campus Security Advisory Committee ‘ minutes of meeting (12) June 2, 1972, 9:00 a.ma « 12:00 noon Present: Dealing. Eastman, Greene, Peabody, A. Peoples, Ranitch, Roberts, Sandvoss, Smells. Absent: H. Peoples,_ﬁhite. 1. Note: The substance of the issues discussed at The Dealing sub-committee reported on the results of the questionnaire sandy egg police interviews. Suggestions were made for interpretting t e res ts. The Greens sub-committee reported on record keeping and files. Purging of files, sharing of information with Kent P99 and the value of the files for the police were discussed. The Eastman sub-committee on police operations reported on a number of recommendations. The Rawitch sub-committee on alternative models for a campus police .department presented its report. The committee discussed the merits of allowing campus functions to be absorbed by the Kent City PD. .ieeting is contained All in the four subuconmittee reports. D. Jame s‘v Secrets https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2b2b05c6cce07cc27043cdd87daa6a87.tif d5c691df511f8af69a547b4af3f0d8e3 PDF Text Text Kent State University ' Campus Security Advisory Committee_ (: Lﬁnutes of Meeting (13) J1me 7’ 19729 7:00 perils '5‘ 10:00 1392319 Present: Dealing, Eastman, Greene, Peabody: Rawitch, Roberts, Smells, white. Absent: A. Peoples, H. Peeples, Sandvoss. l. 2. 3. The four suhucommittee reports were distributed. (Dealing, Eastman, Greene, Rawitch) Chairman Roberts outlined the main points of the subacomnittee reports and the issues that needed to be settled before the final report could be compiled. An outline of the final connitteelﬁhd report, containing a list of "decisions", was distributed as the beds for discussion. It was agreed that we should have a campus police department. The following were agreed to be preper functions for the department: ~anti—drugs work (oil, 113, 2?) , . usurveillance as described in our previous recommendation The following should ngg be activities of our campus police department: «parking enforcement «general political intelligence gathering Degree of effort in various areas would depend on the seriousness of the crime. It was agreed that we could not make more specific recommendations on this point at the present time, A series of straw votes were taken after discussion of consolidation with and/or copperation with the Kent PD: ' ~combining of both into a single department? NO (2Y3 SN, 2?) «single safety director for both? BO (3~5~l) ~City take records & comm; KSU separate patrol? EEKE UEDECIDED (Zwl-é) «Combine records & communications of both? UNDECIDED (3-O~6) A series of straw votes was taken on the question of sceperation with other police agencies: ~00unty~wido consolidation of records a communications? UNDECIDED(&*L~1 ~County~wide cooperation in training? ES (9~O—0) —0verall cosperation with Kent PD and other agencies? YES (7-O~2) The recommendation on size of the campus police department could not be settled. It was agreed that the size should not be lowered at the present time until the committee could make a more specific recommendatim The importance of a'definite sin for morale purposes was stressed. President Olds and Director Fyke should work out an agreement on the basic philosOphy of the campus police department. There shOuld be a Special budget for overtime required by demonstrations. The recommendations of the‘Eastman report were endorsed fer the areas of selectionB training, promotion, and civil service reform. Regarding present police leadership, it was agreed to point out the areas of trouble. The committee agreed that Roberts would write the final report and forward it directly to president Olds. , D. James Dooling, Secfy https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c75dd815e3ef04f3e61fa386dcd69aa8.tif d8c1200d075fc418c025f012108ebf63 PDF Text Text Kent State University Cam us Security Advisory Committee .Iinutes oi’ Euieeting (14.) Jill? 31’ 1972’ 7:30 13.31. "‘ 9:00 10.31. Present: Anderson, Dealing, Eastman, Greene, Peabody, H.Peoples, Roberts, Smells, white. Absent: A.Pe0p1es, Rauitch, SandvoSs. l. A new student member of the committee was introduced: Tom Anderson. 2. Chairman Roberts announced that the meeting had been called to go over President Olds" reaponse to our committee report. The Olds resPonse was dated Junde 19, but not received by Roberts until July 13. 3. A memo from white to Roberts was discussed. It was_agreed that additional recommendations and changes in the report could be made. Roberts clarified the statement in the report that files were not kept on the political activity of students. Eastman raised the additional point about records on faculty and recommended that President Olds order Fyke to purge the intelligence records. a. Smells expressed dissatisfaction in not being able to actually see the files that are kept. 5. Eastman recommended that we not allow ourselves to get caught in a time-frame.bind with future recommendations. 6. It was agreed that Roberts would draft a memo to President Olds, summarising the concerns expressed at this meeting and outlining the unfinished business before the committee. 7. The next meeting was scheduled for August 3 at 8:00 a.m.‘ ., , J/‘.‘ Secretar, https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/27f2d0367b46d795918bffd252785d0a.tif a901b4e38dfdb88f382112363601563b PDF Text Text Kent State University‘ 6: Campus Security.Advisory Committee Minutes of Meeting (3.5) August 3, 1972, 8:30 a.m. ~ 9:30 awno Present: Anderson. Dealing, Eastman, Greene, Peabody, H.Pe0ples, Rahiﬁhhﬁ Roberts, Sandvoss, Smells, ﬁnite“ Absent: A. Peoples, Rawitch. l. 2. 3. 5. The meeting was called to discuss the Roberts” draft of a memo to President Olds (dated Augo 1, 1972). It was agreed that we would clear up the matter of intelligence files by the end of August and begin work on other issues by about Oct. 1‘ Roberts agreed to send a memo to Fyke, requesting written statements on the specifics of intelligence files. Fyke was to be asked to res nd within a week and then a meeting with him and the committee so be scheduled. In the event of poor attendance, the meeting with Fyke would be considered a meeting of the Greene sub-committee. «” The'following changes in the Roberts memo were suggested: ~add mention of the fact that we do not have an administration representative on the committee. —do not include the White memo A ;eneral discussion of the nature of the campus police department le to a straw vote on the question of turning over campus police functions to_the city of Kent. Smells, Eastman, and Greene were in favor. Dealing and white were undecided. The other five members present were assumed to be against the idea. D. Jan Dealing Secret https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2aff20f74216c46e735149109f2cc91e.tif 7a196cc9b9811baae6073c65c60a50b9 PDF Text Text Present: Anderson. Dealing, Greene, Roberts, Smells, White. Absent: Eastman, Peabody, A. Peoples, H. Peoples, Rawitch, Sandvoss. Also Present: -James Fyke, Director of Security 1. 2. 3. 4. Kent State University Campus Security Advisory Committee Iliinutes of Meeting (16) August 18, 1972, 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. ‘§\\\ Because of the lack of a quorum, the meeting was considered that of a sub-committee of the whole. f n o no. Fyke was present for discussion/his memorandum of August 15th on the keeping of files and records. Fyke made the fbllowing points: a. Intelligence files are the working files of SID; all types of_ infbrmation. b. Intelli ence files have been shared with Kent PD since summer of 19 ; Pres. Uhite‘s cabinet gave tacit a proval. c. Host information comes from.students. faculty ~ employees; not from police surveillance. d. Ifbingelliggnce gathering is not done by KSU PD, will be done y sent ; e. Advantage in having it done by KSU PD; more first-hand knowledge a leavening influence on rumors; city couldn't handle it. f. Hypocrisy to have KSU PD destroy records and turn over intelli- ce to Kent PD; files merely stored in a different place. g. e favors increased consolidation with Kent PD; duplication of departments is professionally indefensible. h. Good intelligence saves money in overtime pay to meet potential trouble; a trade-off of resources. -~ 1. Fyke is sensitive to deployment of resources in department; took many men off intelligence; 2 men do it all. 3. most manpower. time and money is devoted to security, not to intelligence work, dung work, etc. k. No provate layer can get information from KSU PD without a signed re ease from the applicant; but arrest records are publ c; police officers can get info on a need to know basis. 1. The campus community is not aware of the crime on campus; the Daily Kent Stator is negligent in not printing crime news. In a passing comment. mr. Fyke suggested that Mike white had broken the confidentiality of the committee meetings with him and President Olds. . he will send us more details on this and the committee will address tself to the problem. In discussing the ﬂuture work of the committee, Smells suggested that monitoring procedures are needed to see that our policy recommendations are implemented. Dealing suggested that we could not accomplish much more until tne summer was over and the full committee could meet. 5. The next meeting will be scheduled for sometime after Sept. 16. D. J Secretary https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6d672cb8d8273ef70381507db1b09922.tif 0c190763233e79d120ad6aa2b83233fd PDF Text Text I _.,,. f K m. ﬂauihw" r ‘2 / KENT STATE UNIVERSITY Campus Security Advisory Committee Minutes of Meeting November 3, 1972 3:00 p.m.-H:3O p.m. Present: Anderson, Dooling, Eastman, Fixler, Lubetkin, Morris, Rawitch Roberts, White Absent: Fisher, Greene, A. Peoples, H. Peoples, Sandvoss 1. New members who were present were introduced to the committee: Allan Morris, Tbbie Pixler, Arv Lubetkin. One new member , Wayne Fisher, was absent. 2. Roberts reported that James Fyke, Director of Security, had been gw . 313 advised by his attorneys not to appear before the committee because fa if; 5. j a new member, A. Morris, 1: a plaintiff inlﬁzfalse arrest suit l Morris' presence or the possibility of discussing that suit seems to be Fyke's rationale for not appearing at the CSAC meeting, though Roberts said that when he talked with Pyke on Tuesday, Oct. 31, Fyke admaiild'that\h2aﬁes sorry he had ever appeared before the commit— awwwat“K, tee 34/941 “/3 Ia¥3jav chr £44622, an”, Mg; 3. Because Pyke was absent he could not substantiate his allegations against White that White had released confidential information damaging to the police department and its operations. He charged this at the August 18 meeting of CSAC. Roberts gave a copy of part of White's memo of August 21 to Fyke so that he might answer White’s questions concerning the allegations. Fyke had been asked by the committee and by a memo from Roberts (9/9) to present evidence documenting his charges. Fyke said he would but he has not as yet done so. (Copies of White's memo were also dis- tributed to CSAC members today.) Anderson, Morris, and White asked Roberts to again ask Fyke to be present. Roberts was to check regarding Fyke's accountability and g 53” responsibility to CSAC. Morris volunteered to not be present when »3 gﬂ» Fyke attended a CSAC meeting. ” f “3% Anderson and White said that is not necessary just as long as 3 m§-:,kﬂ CSAC does not talk about Morris' suit while Pyke is present. a? ti?” 4. The policy of closed and open meetings was discussed. Roberts felt today that internal matters had to be discussed and thus saw a need for confidentiality. White said a change in the policy is needed; all meetings should be opened and closed by committee vote, not vice versa. Rawitch: We are a committee, not conducting open hearings. We could meet with the press after our meetings. Voice vote was taken: meeting closed for today. Policy will be more fully discussed next week. S. Roberts explained why last week's meeting of October 27 was can- celled. There seems to have been confusion over the matter of who was a legitimate member of CSAC. y» 3 p K 7%.. u ,2 ‘5: M as https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d60e9efe49a38839ccc85beb03028266.tif 60a1bf5308d2c99427e685f66991d9da PDF Text Text CSAC - November 3, 1972 Page 2 Several students suggested meeting more frequently. Chairman Roberts said he had so many other responsibilities that he was "going under.” The suggestion by Anderson was that a co—chairman be elected next week in order to distribute responsibilities. 6. Definition of confidentiality was discussed. Rawitch: objects to a member of CSAC being billed to the public as a member of CSAC. Example, White being billed as a member of CSAC at a Ron Mohr panel sponsored by student government. White: Student government made that leaflet, not White. However, as their appointed representative, one certainly can be billed by them as a member of CSAC. It establishes an understanding of how one might be informed. Rawitch: students on the committee ought not to act as pipelines to Student Government. Roberts: "Information discussed in here is to be treated confidentially." Fixler: We should not hide the factsfrom people, whether the facts be about weapons possessed, employees hired, budget, etc. Dooling: We do have an obligation to report to Faculty and Student Senates and bodies. This was even a part of CSAC's charge. Olds has agreed. Rawitch: We need a consensus policy regarding confidentiality of the committee. Anderson and Lubetkin agreed to work up their own ideas in order to facilitate discussion of a policy of confidentiality. 7. Again, accountability of KSUPD to this committee was discussed. Rawitéh: It is disappointing, for instance, that Fyke would not be specific in his allegations vs. White; and that he has still not documented them. The primary question: What effect is this committee having? Dooling: We must move on to important matters such as the issue of hard drugs, even if Olds has not responded to all of CSAC's recommendations. 8. Suggestions for next tasks: A. Determine what happened to CSAC‘s initial series of recommend— ations, i.e. a progress report. Dooling will go through Olds memo of June 19, 1972 and see what Olds promised. He will present a proposed letter to be sent to Olds to determine what promises have been ful— filled. CSAC will write to Civil Service, police, et al., for similar purposes. B. Another letter will be sent to Fyke asking that he address himself to the questions raised in White's memo regarding a breach of confidentiality. C. We will seek further clarification from President Olds, Director https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a3f5c115a0a960a2b6a112eadb94cdc0.tif 7e1d20941fd34da3004a8d39bb5c5ca1 PDF Text Text / 4v 7- ' X3, .‘ﬁt‘n’ﬁk w 3;? V g .3» f at M/ $9.5" E; 3,1“, (“7“ v; . _I"‘ fix u £ Mm W ﬁfe! {J . M 4 fr" : «4 95"”? j; 61/! ,9 v 15;." W ,5: {4' u, % ’5 5X ( 1 2‘5“} I {£6.37 '51!!!” Mirrjf W (f ‘1‘) @155” g N d , 4 s/ .. ‘5 Mi , n if” 3 ’ f CSAC — November 3 -, 1972 C? g1 [a m, 7 m 1w“ W m Page 3 , rrrr J? (2217' W”, (”eff ‘ s $73!: I 131. ’1’ “lie, A ’ 5a.?“ ' 5' ,."né the proper philosophical basis for a campus security 1 e is disaffected with the present of the KSUPD and its operatio s on campus. Campus olice forgews.’” ‘ policies functions, NRWW:M M ama-L,~K- W" ‘3 etc. are comingwenwaxﬂﬁfﬁ%ﬁﬁf 1rection than @lds would wish. ; W’yv¢@wﬂ , - 1W“ w 10. The committee shall meet regularly, every Pr1day at 3.13 P. M e in 111 Bowman unless otherwise decided. Respectfully submitted, Michael White Acting Secretary Mth https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b12a715b0026749ff30dabc5c406e675.tif eabd6e54676e3a7e72f502834d7b8eab PDF Text Text KENT STATE UNIVERSITY Campus Security Advisory Committee Minutes of Meeting . November 3, 1972 3:00 p.m.-4:30 p.m. Present: Anderson, Dooling, Eastman, Fixler, Lubetkin, Morris, Rawitch Roberts, White Absent: Fisher, Greene, A. Peoples, H. Peoples, Sandvoss 1. New members who were present were introduced to the committee: Allan Morris, Tbbie Fixler, Arv Lubetkin. One new member , Wayne Fisher, was absent. 2. Roberts reported that James Fyke, Director of Security, had been advised by his attorneys not to appear before the committee because a new member, A. Morris, is a plaintiff in a false arrest suit against Pyke. Morris' presence or the possibility of discussing that suit seems to be Fyke's rationale for not appearing at the CSAC meeting, though Roberts said that when he talked with Fyke on Tuesday, Oct. 31, Fyke admitted that he was sorry he had ever appeared before the commit- tee. 3. Because Fyke was absent he could not substantiate his allegations against White that White had released confidential information damaging to the police department and its operations. He charged this at the August 18 meeting of CSAC. Roberts gave a copy of part of White‘s memo of August 21 to Fyke so that he might answer White's questions concerning the allegations. Fyke had been asked by the committee and by a memo from Roberts (9/9) to present evidence documenting his charges. Fyke said he would but he has not as yet done so. (Copies of White's memo were also dis- tributed to CSAC members today.) Anderson, Morris, and White asked Roberts to again ask Fyke to be present. Roberts was to check regarding Fyke's accountability and responsibility to CSAC. Morris volunteered to not be present when Fyke attended a CSAC meeting. Anderson and White said that is not necessary just as long as CSAC does not talk about Morris' suit while Fyke is present. 4. The policy of closed and open meetings was discussed. Roberts felt today that internal matters had to be discussed and thus saw a need fOr confidentiality. White said a change in the policy is needed; all meetings should be opened and closed by committee vote, not vice versa. Rawitch: We are a committee, not conducting open hearings. We could meet with the press after our meetings. Voice vote was taken: meeting closed for today. Policy will be Imore fully discussed next week. S. Roberts explained why last week's meeting of October 27 was can- celled. There seems to have been confusion over the matter of who was a legitimate member of CSAC. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5c52fb2b4899790091bdf959c2019db6.tif 83fd93adec68e1a1efb46279ff7415a2 PDF Text Text CSAC - November 3, 1972 Page 2 Several students suggested meeting more frequently. Chairman Roberts said he had so many other responsibilities that he was "going under." The suggestion by Anderson was that a co-chairman be elected next week in order to distribute responsibilities. 6. Definition of confidentiality was discussed. Rawitch: objects to a member of CSAC being billed to the public as a member of CSAC. Example, White being billed as a member of CSAC at a Ron Mohr panel sponsored by student government. White: Student government made that leaflet, not White. However, as their appointed representative, one certainly can be billed by them as a member of CSAC. It establishes an understanding of how one might be informed. Rawitch: students on the committee ought not to act as pipelines to Student Government. ' Roberts: "Information discussed in here is to be treated confidentially." Fixler: We should not hide the factafrom people, whether the facts be about weapons possessed, employees hired, budget, etc. Dooling: We do have an obligation to report to Faculty and Student Senates and bodies. This was even a part of CSAC's charge. Olds has agreed. Rawitch: We need a consensus policy regarding confidentiality of the committee. Anderson and Lubetkin agreed to work up their own ideas in order to facilitate discussion of a policy of confidentiality. - 7. Again, accountability of KSUPD to this committee was discussed. Rawitch: It is disappointing, for instance, that Fyke would not be specific in his allegations vs. White; and that he has still not documented them. The primary question: What effect is this committee having? Dooling: We must move on to important matters such as the issue of hard drugs, even if Olds has not responded to all of CSAC's recommendations. 8. Suggestions for next tasks: A. Determine what happened to CSAC's initial series of recommend— ations, i.e. a progress report. Dooling will go through Olds memo of JUne 19, 1972 and see what Olds promised. He will present a proposed letter to be sent to Olds to determine what promises have been ful— filled. CSAC will write to Civil Service, police, et al., for similar purposes. B. Another letter will be sent to fyke asking that he address himself to the questions raised in White's memo regarding a breach of confidentiality. C. We will seek further clarification from President Olds, Director https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/422c27a26039043776e5601001a0cda6.tif d0e0cb68e7379dfd34823c542deb8c02 PDF Text Text CSAC - November 3, 1972 Page 3 Fyke, and assistant attorney general Eric Gilbertson as to why Fyke will not appear before CSAC. 9. President Olds has asked the committee to assume a new charge, i.e. to determine the proper philosophical basis for a campus security force. He is disaffected with the present policy of the KSUPD and its operations on campus. Campus police force's goals, policies, functions, etc. are coming in a different direction than Olds would wish. 10. The committee shall meet regularly, every Friday at 3.15 P.M. in 111 Bowman unless otherwise decided. Respethully submitted, Michael White Acting Secretary Mth https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5e320c02de7daf7ed1d53f2e8ba0586b.tif e855aa0d6572575e2047f4d99b83abcc PDF Text Text 1-!A Campus Security Advisory Committee Charge The Campus Security Advisory Committee has the following responsibilities: 1. To provide suggestions, guidance and advice to the Director of Security on means to achieve optimal cooperation between the University Security force, the academic community and the greater community at large. 2. To review operational policies and procedures and, accordingly, offer recommendations to the Director of Security and the President of the University on ways by which the department might improve its services. The Committee shall have access to all information and materials releVant to the policy or procedure under study. 3. To reflect the concerns of the University Community on sensitive issues related to Security. In this context, an immediate responsibility of the Committee shall be an assessment of the question of surveilance and the accessi- bility of Security records. The Committee shall regard as its proper purpose the nature and kinds of information gathered, rather than upon whom such information is gathered, and the confidentiality of information made available to them shall be preserved. The Committee is, in this instance,'specifically charged to formulate a policy recommendation on this sensitive subject. It is expected that all facets of the matter including legal and ethical constraints will be weighed. 4. To submit periodic report regarding University Security operations to the President and other appropriate parties, including the Chairman of the Faculty Senate and the President of the Student Body. Committee Membership The Committee shall consist of 10 members and a chairman appointed on the recommendation of each respective constituency. 5 students, 5 faculty (one of whom shall be appointed chairman by the President) and one administrative officer. Members will be appointed for one year with reappointments confirmed by the respective constituency. Committee Meetings The Committee, at its first meeting, will elect a vice chairman to serve in the absence of the chairman, as well as a secretary. Meetings may be called by the chairman, acting independently, or on the request of five committee members. All meetings must be chaired by the regular or vice chairman. Seven members will constitute a _quorum. The Committee, at its first meeting, will establish its own rules of procedure. 2/7/72 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/dbeae5a35b5316158e0caaea0bf47dbc.tif 360e2f2586a786f6b2aad60781086c52 PDF Text Text KENT STATE UNIVERSITY campus Security Advisory Committee Minutes of Meeting (18) November 10, 1972 3:15 pm. ~ 5315 p.13. Present: Anderson Dooling ' Eastman Fisher Fixler Greene Lubetkin Morris. Rawitch,’Roberts,’Sandvoss: White) ’ ’ ' Absent: A. Peoples, H. Peoples. l. mIa-‘lﬁnutes of the November 3 meeting were discussed and the following changes were e: Section 2 to read: "Roberts reported that James Fyke. Director of . Security, had been advised by his attorneys not to appear before the comittee because of a law suit in which he was involved. The resence of a new member, A. Morris, a plaintiff in the false arrest a t, makes the non- a pearance more crucial. IeIorris' presence or the possibility of discussing t t suit seems to be Fyke's rationale for not appearing at the CSAC meeting, though Roberts said that when he talked with Fyke on Tuesday, Oct 31, Fyke stated that his attorneys were sorry he had ever appeared before the com 96. '9 Section 9 to read: "President Olds has asked the committee to assume a new charge, i.e. to determine the proper philosophical basis for a campus force and act on that philosophical base, to prepose a structure that will allow the funct ons to occur that will result in obtainment of desired goals. The minutes. as amended, were approved. 2. Anderson was unanimously selected vice-chairman of the comittee. 3. Anderson moved that we petition the administration to allow the committees. to have a co—chairman. Seconded by White, the motion was defeated by a vote of 5 for.6 against, 1 abstention. a. The issue of confidentiality was discussed at length. Two statements M ' Watson and Lubetkin, served as the basis for discussion. There was s division within the committee on this question. It was moved by Eastman, seconded b White that all meetings of 68110 be open and that the issue of confidenti ty be left unresolved. Defeated: 3 for, 6 against, 3 abstentions. It was moved by Anderson seconded by Morris, that all meetings would be considered non-confidential unless specifically voted otherwise by the comiti: Defeated: 2 for, 6 against, 1. abstentions. , . It was moved by Eastman, seconded by Dooling, that the committee dishes '1. and that a new committee be appointed. By consensus, the motion was tabled until the next meeting. 5. timlt was agreed that the following items would be discussed at the next mee g: a the motion to disband ”I? 4’ 5‘ b the nature of the current charg to the committee c a cement by Morris that there conflict of interest on the comittee d a letter 7‘30 President Olds asking for a report on the current status of our previous recommendations. 6. Next meeting will be on Friday, November 17, at 3:15 p.m. Bowman o 08 00‘ Ram-eta.” https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/833e4b7d8a1d033887b04d8fa478ce28.tif 707d5a5678c7eaf8c4e63948483a47e4 PDF Text Text KENT STATE UNIVERSITY Campus Security Advisory Committee Minutes of Meeting (19) November 17, 1972 3:15p.m. — 5:15 p.m. After discussion, Eastman moved that the committee disband. Eastman aalled for close of debate — motion to close debate defeated. Dooling left. Motion to disband was further discussed. The question was called and the motion defeated. Moved by A. Morris, seconded by A. Rawitch "To keep all committee deliberations and proceedings confidential. The only information released will be in the form of a final action of the committee in terms of a report or recommendation with provision for a minority report at that time—-with the pnder— standing that committee members may at any time present' documents to President Olds.” Question: 6—yes O—no 3—abstentions Moved by T. Fisher— to express mutual confidence in the present committee membership. — Failed for lack of second — General debate followed concerning possible conflicts of interest in the committee membership. Motion to express confidence in Roberts as Chairman. Moved by Green, seconded by Rawitch——passed unanimously. Meeting Adjourned. Allen Rawitch Acting Secretary Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Minutes Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1972 Description Meeting minutes for the Campus Security Advisory Committee between March and November 1972. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 26 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/30a562e38ea3ad327296664523ea97e2.tif 6b2f428f601f6a252d846cdf42340961 PDF Text Text Kent Stater October 19, 1971 ”ﬂ [0,”;er Campus Briefs Dwight Law, 19-year-old Kent State freshman, was arrested yesterday morning in the Student Union by Commander Robert Winkler of the Special Investigative Division. Law, who lives at Silver Meadows Apartments, was charged on a warrant for the sale of hallucinogens, a felony. According to police, when Law was searched, marijuana was found on his ,person. An additional charge of possession of a hallucinogen, a misdemeanor, was ﬁled against Ilaw. " He was booked at the Kent City Hall and at his arraignment sentencing was ,deferred pending an investigation of a prob atiohary ofﬁcer’s report. Law is being held in the sheriff’s office and'will go before the Portage County Grand Jury. I a: an: *- iChapel Hill Mall will be the scene of ;_;IO(_ent State University Day Saturday, Oct. :aaz.' Forty-four university departments will ‘ set up displays from 10 am. to 6 pm. in the mall so the community can see KSU on / display. ‘ Student entertainment is needed. Any interested students should contact Jacob Urchek at the Community Relations Center at 2200. * * * Campus police are investigating a pedestrian accident that occurred at 12:08 pm. yesterday at the campus bus stop in front of Franklin on Hilltop Drive. Paul Cseh, 18-year-old freshman was rushed to the Health Center and then taken to Robinson Memorial Hospital after being struck by a car. He was treated for multiple contusions and then released. The driver of the car was a non-student Cuyahoga Falls woman resident. According to Steve F arrner, a senior accounting major who witnessed the accident, the victim ran in front of the car as it was going around a stopped campus bus. . 7 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d0e7850dfc570055fc1a608d6b367d00.tif 37178d3376b0e647f3753a40d3057906 PDF Text Text October 20, 1971 Cops seek ‘ attackers Campus police are looking for a suspect(s) connected with four attempted assaults on campus last week. Ofﬁcers said they have yet to determine whether the incidents are related. It was reported by campus police on Oct. 15 , that a girl was grabbed and thrown to the ground behind Music and Speech. She managed to ﬁght off her assailant with a “well-placed” knee kick, as reported by the KSU Police Department. Three days later, at approximately 11:50 pm, another girl wasjumped by a man as she was walking by the water tower near Front Campus. It was reported by Margot Herman, information officer with campus police, that the girl was badly beaten and had to be taken to the University Health Center and then to Robinson Memorial Hospital for treatment after the attack. Another incident was reported near the Ice Arena when two patrolmen heard a girl screaming “rape.” They could find no one in the area. Herman added that it would be very wise if girls would not walk on the campus alone and especially not after dark. ‘ She added that while the investigation is underw_ay,the use of short cuts should be . abolished. ' OCTOBER 20, l 97 l w, https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8cb8b07498255b0ff1630358edf069da.tif 354e60a2dfd588c1e37b6d3ee4697567 PDF Text Text Kent Stater October 21, 1971 Police to start student ridership Students will begin to see three people riding around in police cars, instead of the customary one or two. ~ This is not an increase in security, but a program started by student government to create more communication between the ‘ police and the students. ' The student-rider program, will allow students to ride with policemen on patrol, according to Bob Peabody, special assistant for security relations. “Students will be able to go out on the beat with the policemen, and get a feel of what the police are doing and look at the situation from their point of View,” Peabody said. “We also hope to have students accompanying policemen on foot patrol,” he added. ’ Anyone is welcome to join the program and ride with the police, Peabody said,but right now only “campus leaders” will be involved. _ “So far we have 20 ‘campus leaders” in the program, and a possibility of having six people a day ride with the police. “This means we have a possibilty of having a large number of people going through the program,” Peabody said. There will be a meeting for anyone interested in the program today at 7 pm. in the Student Senate ofﬁce, Student Activities Center (SAC). " ' , Tom Fisher, assistant to the director of security, will be at, the meeting to answer any questions that students may have. Students who cannot make the meeting may obtain applications from Peabody or Cliff Shorf, assistant for security relations, at the student government office. Peabody said that the program will be continuous and students may obtain applications at anytime. ~ Speaking of the purpose of the program, Peabody said, “It is easy to hate a symbol, but it is muchharder to dislike a person.” - “For this reason, wevare trying to get students and police together on a more informal and personal basis, and get rid of the stereotyping,” he added. ' “How many students we can get through the program willldepend on how many students the police are willing to take, and how quickly suitable time schedules between police and students can be worked but,” Peabody said. - to -9\"‘\ - The program is expected to begin early next week, he added. . https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1ab6898bfc74d03e72ecb11b1b990095.tif f4d02c27ddf79a36605384ddb36900d6 PDF Text Text October 21, 1971 Campus Security dealing in figures Editor, the Stater, I can’t believe it! Kent State’s director of Campus Security is now/resorting to bombarding us with reports of rising crime on campus. I hope everyone realizes the credibility of the Oct. 14 State: article. Mr. Fyke offers no statistics, just double talk. First, he tries to make the correlation between one type of typewriter being stolen and an organized crime ring moving into our campus. Then he said the amount of students informing on drug dealers has doubled. Doubled from what, one student to two students? I ﬁnd it hard to believe that most students would resort to these secret police-like tactics. Finally, he said that police have no indication of the amount of hard drugs entering campus yet ”police are sure they are on the rise. Yes, Mr. Fyke, I am sure you would like to see the police force’s $980,000 budget passed while the rest of the campus tightens its belt. Susan I. Barnle Campus police giVe answers If you have questions regarding police, law, courts, rights and every-day problems involving the law, the Stater may be able to help you. We are providing a question and answer column with the help of a member of the camptrs police, Ted Gersdorf. ' All questions should be addressed to Ted Gersdorf in care of the Daily Kent Stater' 100 Taylor This weekly column will answer as many questions as space permits. OCTOBER 2 l . l 97 l M, https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/547812021645858499689b0c42ecc7e9.tif 76fc5059e2b8e82cf3630d09685a7e4f PDF Text Text Kent Stater W October 22, 1971 ’ Too many ; policemen _ . V .\ on campuswn l a... Editor, the Stater, I believe that a 64-man police force and a $980,000 budget is ridiculous and there are just too many police for one university. In my home town there are 80,000 citizens and approximately half the police on campus. I deliver pizzas at night, and I can count on seeing at least three to four university police cars every time I go out to deliver. Plus on weekends campus police also ridewithcity police. 4 p 7‘ Now I read Mr. Fyke’s’article 9 on campus ewe. This article contains no real statistiCs, only generalizations and guesses, such as one type of typewriter being stolen means an organized crime ring has set up shop on this campus. Fyke says the police cannot measure ' the amount of hard drugs on campus, yet they know it is on the rise. Mr. Fyke thinks he is talking to paranoid adults who worry about a missle gap and believe everything the FBI says. I hope the students realize that Mr. Fyke is trying to create paranoia and - promote his $980,000 budget! Name witheldgby request https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7da72ace53e13ad88a8885e78d1e9c81.tif 8ffe83eff24b9d4d8287328e5c806d8c PDF Text Text Fien‘b ututhr October 22, 1971 16. V" (N Police Campus police have been the target of a lot of criticism from many quarters lately. Some faculty members have taken aim at their salary levels, others gripe about police carrying guns and just about everyone complains about the parking tickets. Being a policeman on this campus is not too easy a job at all. Non-thinking people who use no logic blame the police for just about everything. Of course there are some . problems, every organization has some. We don’ t agree with everything the police do, but it must : certainly be recognized that they have done an excellent job in many aspects under trying circumstances. We think the recent fuss about salaries was a little far-fetched. There can be no doubt, the police work 40 hours and earn their money — the time cards show it. If the time isn’t recorded, they make no money. Police carry weapons as part of their uniform, We Would like to see that changed, but definitely no members of the campus police force have misused their weapons. We know of no instance where guns were misused and we do check. They have not overreacted. Parking tickets don’t do a lot to help the police 1mage. We think someone in the power tower should get the wheels set in motion to change the situation. Currently Portage County gets the mOney — all of 1t from trafﬁc tickets. We could see parking tickets if the money beneﬁtted the university. But the Current set up is stupid. The university gets poorer by paying police to write tickets, the police get writer’s cramp from filling out ”forms and Portage County gets richer. And everybody gets frustrated. Campus police have definitely shown their willingness to cooperate with and attempt to understand other segments of the campus community. No doubts can remain about that with the start of the new student rider program with the police. Campus police have made the attempt. We think others should try to understand the police. They are human, too. We think some people should stop the talk and take a look at the people. ( . Id, 2 7;]? O p i n io 11 Legal questions members of the university community have will be answered m a column with a question and answer format starting next week. The column will deal' m facts, not opinions. No questions of a . political nature will be accpeted. Ted Geresdorf, a campus policeman, will answer the questions. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a1c46517c9f086fb93ddbf8ee12f2ca4.tif d4fb1e5c9ca6b06e71f77c9892017fdc PDF Text Text “Murmur-nu- “vmnbu October 26, 1971 Baycott class. for protection ' By Steve Mikash , - Guest_Columnist _ - _ ' After reading the article, "Cops Seek Attackers,” in the Oct. 20 DKS I thought it appropriate to'denote the complacent manner in which the so-called “liberated” women of Kent State responded. The silence could be felt all over campus. As these were only vicious sex-crimes against women, there seemed to be no reason for the ' community to get excited. Besides, there were only four, last week--no big thing. That is, if one takes rape in its current function as amethod of releasing anxieties. Consider for instance the dozen or ' so in Pittsburgh after the World Series which were hailed as part of the celebration (it was reported that crowds even cheered attackers on). I _' just wonder if things would be so complacent if ithad been assaults on four of the ever-expanding KSU police force. . ' One would also be curious why it is more important for our police to be downtovm busting hitch-hikers than to be on campus protecting students -- even if they are just “chicks.” Not to say this university has ' been duped; but why do you think there is no longer a push for a student $10 head-tax for area 1' f t' This not only pertams to the rape issue, but other areas as well -- for instance the lax speed limit and crosswalk enforcement on campus (and in town) resulting in the daily pedestrian abuse of students that ‘ only by the Grace of God has only resulted in one serious injury so far. Why can we mount a police force of '100 men to protect ROTC members from marshmallows, but when rape is committed simply tell women not to walk after dark. If women truly seek equal respect, I suggest they not go out in daylight either, until it is safe to walk on KSU at night. In other words, to boycott classes until the KSU police come back to campus. And if we can’t get protection, then let’s demand the police force be slimmed down to what it used to be and stop paying a private subsidy to the city ofKent. /" https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8b5c335827d6f903930bfef20f248865.tif 1431bff40ab710a996fd15d8f1d82b79 PDF Text Text Tune oops in to KSU atmosphere Editor, the Stater, While reading the Oct. 5 issue of the Stater I noticed that Dr. Olds stated the Lubetkin Reports V gives the percentage of 72 per cent of those students who want the police armed. - a However, it should be known that this survey was taken during the summer sessiOns when there is no. clear variation of students ’ around as compared to the fall, _ a winter and spring quarters. . It is not really a glorifying feeling when one of our fine ' ggcommunity relations officers S pulls a gun on you for writing on a " sidewalk with chalk. There are many universities in this country that prohibit their community relations officers from carrying guns. and from sources available to me, all aspects of the college community are alive and well. ' The student-police relationship is definitely at a higher level than compared to the one presently here at KSU. I call for actions that will look ‘ into the activities of our police ~ force and to make them more in tune with the university atmosphere that now prevails. / A Gestapo Type Larry Raines rY KENT STATER ./[_: (D/‘LC/VZ ( https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4709e4f145279558ed99e315fc4f5b3e.tif b31b8bdd1d952fb3f22665175dfd6f40 PDF Text Text gent Stater October 27, 19 v _.. -._....... W. (0/2 7/7/ 71 Bomb call empties dorms By Patti Campbell A telephoned bomb threat which resulted .in a seven hour room-by—room search ended at 7:55 yesterday morning for an estimated 800 girls in both Prentice and Terrace halls. Police said that the one call was made to the university information center at 1:18 am. at which time a female voice relayed the message, “There is a bomb set to go off at seven in both Prentice and Terrace.” The information center called campus police at 1:22 a.m.'Two teams of police were dispatched to search the dorms. . Girls in both dorms were informed of the threat by the inter-com system and were asked to check their rooms and assemble the items they would need till 8 am. “The girls were served an early breakfast and the entire ordeal was handled in a very cooperative and efﬁcient way,” said a spokesman from Terrace. In other police action, two Wright Hall students were arrested this morning by campus Patrolman Larry Schnider and were later arraigned in Kent Municipal Court and released on $1 ,000 bond. Frank W. Gallese, 20, of Philadelphia and Deane Ehant, 19, of Marietta, were charged with “forced entry” of vending machines. Their hearing is set for Oct. 29 to allow time for obtaining counsel according to police sources. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c1f60cc6b9e7b6a0943f4f2c1dac0af8.tif cd1035e99863041a58d548cacc7a947b PDF Text Text Kong Stater October 27, 1971 ~31 in Community Relationsairs complaints - Any complaint that concerns relations between the Kent’ community and the university will be considered by the Community Relations ofﬁce, according to Jacob Urchek, director. . Urchek, whose office is located at the University Golf Course, said most complaints registered by students concern off-campus housing. Apparently many students have encountered difﬁculties in securing their deposits because they fail to understand the terms of the contracts they signed, he explained. . Fru— Complaints concerning any downtown merchant are also considered according to Urchek who outlined the procedure for a student who feeIS‘he has been treated unjustly. ' The student should present a written complaint to the Community Relations ofﬁce. If the c0mplaint is deemed valid, Urchek, who is also president of the Kent Chamber of Commerce, will contact the executive vice president of the Chamber, Edward Glassner. In cases where the report returned by the Chamber of Commerce does not satisfy the student’s complaint, Urchek said he would attempt to arrange a meeting between the student and _ the alleged offender. To “bring the two ‘ together...nose to nose,” said ; Urchek, could help solve the problem. After the May 4, 1970, incident, many students complained of a general policy of overfpricing in the Kent community, according to Urchek. A study was initiated by the Chamber of Commerce to compare prices with surrounding communities. No appreciable price differences were discovered by the investigation, Urchek said. Re-emphasizing the role of his ofﬁce, to handle any thing with a bearing on community-university relations, Urchek cited a complaint registered this summer by Kent citizens, rather than students. Apparently a fraternity had failed to cut the grass on their property, Urchek related, and people were upset by the students lack of sensitivity to the community. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6bdb0a413b3a142a847ff5f02c518398.tif a4740ddcc32fb8da8da69bd29bbcb0d5 PDF Text Text Kent Stater October 28, 1971 Editor, the Stater, 73 . 7 ' The horror of Orangeburg, Kent State, Jat 7Qn Stat; San the 7fungus7 of7 Amer continues to alloW men with loaded Weapons to stroll its7-7‘ walks, drive its streets and eat in _ its cafeterias. And, mind you, despite all their pIOfessional police training, 7 they are merely men; mortalslike 7 you and me who are subject to the universal weakness of vamty, * pride, fear and anger just as the men and boys who shot their guns at Jackson, Kent and Attma were 1 andare 1 , _ One ‘ wonders in 171151, , connection— what prompted the DirectOI Of Garnpus Security, James Fyke, to pose in his shirt sleeves for the Sept 29 edition of the Record Courier, a pose in Which a pistol prominantly punCtuates his protoplasmic ,y equator. was it the photographer s suggestion or Fykeé’ which 7 resulted in that pistol-packmg pose? Or Was it merely the ‘ printer s devﬂ" » The effect of that picture is not a matter of question ithas further irritated the sens1b111ty of .. those who object to the presence of ﬁrearms on: their campus,a campus which, ' W 0 ol w o rth consciousness, KSU blithely 7 statistic indicating that cam usj ‘ defend themSelves from the7‘7, 7 the less lethal but 7qu 7 effective chemical p7 7 And we have two otlferb 7’7of77 { relevant information '7’ .1) those 1 linen who wpre armed”), " enforcement Ofﬁcials. Unless we see a verifiedi patrollmen have regularly bullets of oppresscns durin the _1 paSt deCade, I think 1t' is proper'to‘ 7 _7 argue I) that campus patr lmenf i ﬂaunt their 38-caliber ph uses 7 unnecessarily 2) that mediate castration is appropriate 3) th 3 devices be given them 7 stead. .7 P . https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/40966f5e99a21abf71912f6adb276170.tif b3a1c9b1c9f700d7921923d9da56c7df PDF Text Text POIiCe activities Uncontrolled By Michael D. White Guest Columnist Rec en ﬂy the AkIOn-Kent communities have been bombarded by newspaper accounts of the improved training and growing cooperation among. local law enforcement agencies in patrolling the university and “protecting” university residents. The articles tell us that so much has been done and so much still needs to be done in the realm of police work that continued improvements must be sustained . by an increase in the budget for security operations. Beyond the fact that most other "educational budgets of the university have been decreased and beyond the fact that the security forces seem to think their need for an increase is far greater than any others -- Iwould raise several questions: (1) Why is a great deal of money being used to conduct heavy surveillance at school functions (even such innocent and conservative functions as the Freshmen Week Party)? For what purpose are pictures being taken and films being made of all those . who are present? For whom is this being done? Who is being protected? (2) What other methods of surveillance and “fact” gathering are being done by“ our’ ’security forces at KSU? To what extent has this investigation been carried? What ﬁles are held on each student and what information is to be found in these ﬁles? Certainly _ the police do not halt their activities at picture-taking. They are surely seeking more than the identity of people; they must naturally want to know all they can about those persons in their files. But, by what authority, by virtue of what right, do they compile such information? And how can we be sure that such information is accurate and correct? Perhaps the questions which are most important and underlie these preceding concerns for our freedom and privacy are more to the point. _ (1) Who controls KSU’s security forces? Last year Misters Roskins and Beer (et. 31.) said they and President White could , only make requests of the campus police, that they had no ﬁnal authority over what the security forces do or how they do what they do. (2) For what purpose are the police still equipped with lethal weapons, both in the day and the night, even while they perform the ordinary duties of directing trafﬁc, patrolling streets for speeding drivers and investigating misdemeanors such as dormitory thefts and shoplifting? (3) Has there really been a change in the attitude of the police to the students? Last week an incident occurred to me which suggests the police in this town harbor hidden resentment toward students, letting this wound fester with their arrogant demands for superiority and authority over what they consider to be inferiors, i.e. the students. A speeding car had been pulled over to the side of the road near Tri-Towers. The police car, however, did not pull clear to the side but remained in the midst of the road, illegally blocking traffic. The road there is painted with double yellow lines, but at the place where the cars were stopped one could see for a sufficiently long distance whether there was oncoming traffic. One car was between myself and the policeman. Apparently the driver of that car knew what the police are like, for he did not try to go around the stopped cars. I waited several moments for the cop to motion traffic around but he did not - so being a cautious driver as well as a free thinker, I drove around the cars when it was safe. The cop yelled at me to pull over, and approached me saying, “Do/you know what the hell 3 yellow line is for, boy?” It is important to note that after he told me to pull over he motioned ., ' all the other trafﬁc backed up behind his car to go around. I told him the reason I passed was 1 II 11.1 _ ‘L‘l __ car over and that his vehicle was holding up trafﬁc. He quickly checked how his 'car was positioned and realized he was clearly in the wrong (the police do not have the right to block traffic at their will). Then, he replied, “Well...it’s a damngood thing you didn’t go clear out in the intersection. Another time, another place and I’d arrest you -- this time I’ll let you go.” Why did he pull me over and then motion the other cars around? Because I did not, as he would have me do, play “Mother, may 1...?” I did not wait for his signal, his authority. But if I broke the law by passing this trafﬁc jam, does he have the authority to break the law by directing cars around the same jam? And if it is not illegal for cars to go around the tie-up, why must I, a reasoning and responsible citizen wait for another to tell me what I already know is right? The demand placed on us by the police to “play army,” to be submissive if one is a man and to r . a. ,. - neﬂu btater “mu-mm...- a m v—«W‘mml 4. 1 - P -\.~‘ Cocooer .<8, 1971 10 (as I 7! be Tcoquettish with these chauvinists if one is awoman,the demand to address a cop such as this as “sir” after every sentence is not only ridiculous but it is also an horrendous insult to one’s dignity. It permits the cop’s arrogance to grow even in the midst of his own illegal acts and his own inconsiderate, deprecating way of speaking to us citizens. The police, after all, owe respect to everyone -- not just those who fawn on them and make them feel superior. And the police, being law enforcers, must be made to enforce such laws for themselves. For, as the main character in the movie Billy Jack said, “When the police break the law, there IS no law. There’s only a ﬁght for survival.” The point is: Who guards against the illegal activities and intolerably insolent attitudes of the police? Even when he realized ‘ he himself was breaking the law, the cop spoke to me as if he, the great white paternalistic policeman, was showing me, the hard-core criminal, mercy and justice by not citing me. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5e6136d99b81cc05c1b5be522dd505f4.tif fd58e44c76c61b4b3098fe8d672ffe8b PDF Text Text By Bill Slocum . Student Body President One of the most distressing questions plaguing citizens today is the question of who controls the activities of the police. That question takes on serious implications when one recalls the startling revelations of widespread (and apparently uncontrollable) surveillance activities being carried on by governmental; agencies including local and state law enforcement organs. The following items derived in part from testimony before Senator Sam Ervins Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights last March raise troublesome inferences for our own security operations: -- The United States Passport Ofﬁce keeps files on 243,135 Americans “whose applications may be of interest to the government and to law enforcement agencies.” -- Christopher Pyle, former military intelligence agent, testiﬁed that the Army persists in gathering information on “political dissenters” despite the stated orders of the Pentagon to the contrary. -- A directive issued by the Army in February, 1968, as part of its program to keep civilians under surveillance shows that senior ofﬁcers of the Army at that time feared a “true insurrection” should external subversive forces develop successful control of the racial and anti-war dissidents who were active at that time. -- Assist. Atty. Gen. William‘Rehnquist (Nixon’s most recent Supreme Court nominee) testiﬁed before the committee that the Justice Department would vigorously oppose any federal legislation “which would effectively impair this extraordinarily important function of the federal government.” ’ -- Robert Mordin, also an assistant attorney general, readily admitted that the Justice Department does not have “specific, published documents to regulate the surveillance activities of the FBI.” -- The FBI’s National Crime Information Center has active ﬁles on some 2.5 million Americans. The center is linked to 104 law enforcement control terminals in the US. and Canada. Control pol/o . .7/ // -- Documents stolen from the FBI regional ofﬁce in Media, Pa., reveal'that systematic observation of political groups, ranging from the Black Panthers to ecology groups, is rampant. Indeed, a memorandum egg 0 fly/ties ‘ from J. Edgar Hoover to all FBI regional divisions urged. immediate intensiﬁcation of surveillance activities to produce the illusion that there “is an FBI agent behind every tree.” Equally frightening is the extent of surveillance activities being carried out on our own campus: -- Undercover agents have been operating on this campus since 1966. The extent of their activities range from photographing political rallies to deliberately entrapping individuals as in the case of , the Music and Speech incident two years ago. - Testirnony was illicted at a suspension hearing last spring to the effect that campus security forces . systematically observe and record the movements of speciﬁed individuals on the campus. ‘ -- Testimony by the former head of the campus security division (obtained by attorneys representing students whose residence hall rooms were searched in May, 1970) implies that in addition to students’quarters, faculty offices were searched as well. ‘ -- One need only attend any “political” rally to observe the unorthodox number of security personnel photographing individuals attending those gatherings. Even such events as the fall freshmen mixer are not exempt from the scanning eye of the campus security department. These observations underscore the importance of the introductory question. Some would argue that since the president of the university is the head of the KSU administration in name only, he ought to be in a position to sharply curtail these unsavory practices. The argument, however, is weakened if one recalls that the campus security department is a “duly constituted law enforcement agency under . the laws of the state of Ohio.” Control,therefore,is vested in the state rather than. in the university. Nonetheless, programs carried out by the security department cannot operate without funding. Funding is provided by the university. Conceivably, then, indirect control, or at least control of certain kinds of security operations (viz. surveillance),can be exerted by the University. . The safeguard is simple: President Olds can specify the amount of funds within the security budget to be used for certain kinds of activities, make the same public and empanel a security review board to- oversee the expenditure of all funds within the campus security department. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d594827f8aeeef2d86d63698fba08542.tif 9da0970b39b812be0ee00d836349a82c PDF Text Text gent Stator Eovember 2, 1971 No guns for cops Rim-GSC Graduate Student Council approved a resolution Friday recommending that uniformed campus police not carry pistols during daylight hours except when transporting money and during an emergency. . The council represents approximately 3,100 students. President Olds will receive the resolution today. The council also approved 3 ~ resolution suggesting that Dr. Olds allow its chairman a voting seat on the President’s Cabinet. Friday, Dr. Olds told GSC chairman Jack Eynian it would be necessary to get Student Government’s permission before he could award access. Yesterday Bill Slocum, student body president, indicated he believes the GSC head should be on the Cabinet. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d8786d3b16d2a883b7b43aa6f8d94ddb.tif 9ad12c2e606be4709e12fd5614383535 PDF Text Text J 1 - 3'; en L; November 5, Stator 1971 Campus oops do help Editor, the Stater, Everyday there is at least one letter in the Stater attacking the campus police. We feel the time has come to express our views. Maybe some students will open their eyes. Two weeks ago, a resident of our dorm was found in the lobby unconscious on the ﬂoor. Alarge crowd had gathered but everyone was frightened and- nobody would help. The boy was having some kind of attack and could not breath and when he would not wake up someone ran to call (\l J the police. f. \\l 4 Within minutes, three campus poliCe, one woman and two men, arrived with an ambulance. The woman got to the boy ﬁrst and cleared the people away and kneeled beside him. He had stopped breathing and .was turning blue. Some of the kids really started getting scared but the’ woman started mouth-to-mouth breathing and talked to the crowd to calm us down, all at the same ‘ time. A girl near the boy started crying that he was going to die, but the woman kept talking to her between breaths and she calmed down. The crowd was quiet and we just stood there watching them work over the boy. People crowded around and she had to ask them to step back so that he could get air. Several times she Opened his mouth and cleared his throat and then went b ac k to mouth-to-mouth breathing. The other two ofﬁcers were on the ﬂoor beside him managing the crowd and loosening his clothing and getting him onto the stretcher. The woman was still breathing for him as they took. him to the ambulance and put him in. Later,jwe heard that he - nad choked on something and was in the hospital but that he was going to be OK. People are still talking about what happened that night-If it . had not been for the campus police that everybody gripes about a boy would have died. They were ' there in minutes working together to help that boy before anyone could even think of what to do. They coped calmly and cooly with a-crowd of people who were more in the way than a help. They did'not stop to ask the guy what his political views are or whether he was a radical or why he had long hair. They just saved his life. It will be along time before we forget what we saw that night. It is hard to describe what we feel, except to say'thank you to the ofﬁcers who were there. You saved a life. We just wonder how many times the police have been there and gone unthanked in the past. We just wonder how many of the students who complain about the campus police would still be " Complaining if they had been on the stretcher that night. _ Residents of ' Beall-McDOwell Hall https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/700538fa01d7f2130a34781c82d32234.tif 3500aa9e2e6b6995e3835426c96c88aa PDF Text Text . Callers likely to be caught {Kama MM lawns... (9 mags-1 ' . Vﬁ$+hqdf? Lﬁhli'hs't if __(. By Joel Taylor Bomb threats cost KSU about $75 each depending on building size, but people aSSIstaht to James Fyke, chief of campus security. “The university has been plagued with a rash of bomb threats lately,” Fisher said. “The heaviest week for these hoaxes was the last week in October.” During this time the campus police investigated seven of the 12 threats they have received this year. Many of the calls can be traced, using a -’s ecial meth wh1ch iscom letely within .m-uw- e 6 a1 framework Fi er sardﬁm one student was caught last spring, Using this method, and was sentenced to six months ‘ 'njail and ﬁned $300. Making a false bomb threat is subject to one year in jail and a $1,000 ﬁne, the maximum penalty for any misdemeanor. Fisher pointed out that the target for bomb threats has reversed itself since last year, most of the threats being on residence buildings, rather than class buildings. ' “It is senseless,” Fisher said. “At least last year you could see some sort of reasoning behind it, that is to get out of a test or something. But, this year it is nothing more than group harrassment, inconveniencing large numbers of people.” The problem the police face with these threats, is the fact that they can’t afford to ignore any of them, no matter how unlikely the possibility of a bomb seems. This costs the university, and ultimately the students, a lot of money, Fisher said. Fisher explained that when a call is received, most of them coming through either the police phone or the Information Center (672 -3000) that the police follow a speciﬁc procedure One thing the officer does when he receives such a call is to ﬁll out a form describing the caller and what was 'said, Fisher explained. He also alerts a member of the bomb squad, which is on duty at all times. This ofﬁcer then evaluates the situation, using the data on the form ﬁlled out by the ofﬁcer, and decides what type of action should be taken The officer may decide to evacuate the building or simply carry out a search, according to his evaluation of the situation, Fisher said. So far this year, bomb threats have been rr '-~. pent btater W, 11/29/27 (13 o 3 o- 5-” "T (D 9.3. U) 0 0 SP. *2 5 X (D C called in on the Education Building, Dunbar, rrentice, Terrace, Leebrick, Stopher, Franklin, the Library and Nixson Hall, Fisher disclosed. He pointed out that in this list only one of the buildings, Franklin, was called in during normal class hours. "‘The rest merely affected those persons using the buildings for non-class purposes,” he said. November 10, 1971 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2f86f952f6281c0cc6dee5d6c630d191.tif 4f400cb720682f3542c66a5e324f648e PDF Text Text .I‘i._e.n.t.- QEEQE November 10, 1971 ‘ —-‘.*r7l Student vs. police: Case still pending ' by bob Downing - . Managing Editor The United States Supreme_C_ourt,will_neverheanthecasggfgaw , Hickerson vstﬁnt $1an University PolicegDepartment. . m‘charges against Gary were dropped. Therefore, Judge Robert Kent of Kent Municipal Court never got to hear the case, either. - .. . Gary, a senior recreation major, was arrested the morning of Oct. 23 under strange circumstances and charged with “trespassing”--in the campus police station. News Analysis And, to confuse thersituation even further, the accounts given to the Stater by Gary and the campus police differ. Gary’s account is also substantiated, in part, by Wayne Fisher, resident adwsor 1n Moulton Halélary gave the Stater this account of the activities which led to his on cam us: Emil 3 a.m.pthat morning, Gary who had been drinking said he had nothing to do. He lefthoulton Hall and “wandered up to the campus police station to shoot the bull.” ‘ ' _ . . . Gary said he talked to the officer on duty in the campus pohce station. Gary said he introduced himself to Dispatcher James Spickler and the two talked for a few minutes. According to Gary, “The ofﬁcer was very friendly. “We were talking and the officer went around back, so I got up and folloWed him,” Gary said. ' . Gary followed the officer into the radio room, accordmg to pohce sources. . . Gary said Spickler became alarmed. Spickler took hlm Into a second room and told Gary to sit there and wait. Gary said he did so for 1,5, minutes and “I was getting scared. I didn’t know what was happemng. As a result, Gary slipped out a second door, went through the shower room and went back to Moulton. He told no one there what happened and went to sleep. . ’ At 5 a.m., Fisher awakened Gary and asked him to come to Fisher s apartment where campus police arrested Gary on trespassmg charges. He was taken downtown where he was booked, fingerprinted and photographs were taken. ~ The ﬁrst court appearance, Thursday, Oct. 21, ended shortly after it began. Gary Was granted a continuance by Judge Kent in order to obtain legal counsel. ' Gary indicated that Judge Kent “read the charges as if he couldn’t 7 ﬁgure out what the case was all about.” A week later, the police were granted a continuance. Last week, Wcmgﬂmdmpggdwand thelcasewas refeasts.thesugsmggnsigst preamnhishsedsi’iﬁé supervision oﬁtephen Sivulish.director..9f..S,_tysi§i1_t._Coﬁdﬁctprogra'fhs. " “ ' W " " seafaring” to Ma, die ”Herman, the “ pBIice ,_ information ofﬁcer, charges were dropﬁWﬁk‘diwgﬁlt'it dietitihavé‘td go through the courts.” Sivulich said all information ab out cases must come from the students because “of the conﬁdential nature of the cases.” He said, “I can’t even tell you if there is or was a violation.” The facts of the case were intriguing to the Stater at the time. The discrepancy of facts confused us. Since case was going to court, we were in danger of prejudicing the case in court. However, now that the charges have been dropped, questions can be raised. . The police account gave no mention of Gary returning to his dormitory. They'said he was arrested on trespassing charges because he entered the radio room, “a limited access area.” ‘ According to police, only five or six officers have security clearance to the area. ., - ' Police also said that Gary asked to talk to an ofﬁcer. “He was given every opportunity to speak to an officer,” the police information officer said. , ‘ Gary, who is known by roommates and friends as “quiet, introverted and the sort of person you would not expect to get in trouble,” is almost apologetic about the whole incident-with reservations. > ‘ He said, “I did a dumb thing. I was, in effect, disrupting the operations of the whole police station. Maybe they could have arrested me for public intoxication. “It was a dumb thing I did.” Gary’s apologetic tone is part of his personality. He admitted he had once considered being a member of the State Highway Patrol. He is the » image of a straight-laced, conservative young man from the Midwest, not the rabble-rousing radical. Gary, however, admitted, “I still have questions about why this whole thing couldn’t have originally been kept within the university through the Student Conduct program. They really didn’t have to arrest me. ’ “I’ve tried to get answers and I’ve gotten nowhere. I still have my questions.” ., §odo we. ' . https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d0b51f9ab52f682ae1002d6b2d25202f.tif a4978b7b37b2ce6d79d966cc1685434f PDF Text Text November 11, 1971 Mother’s warning comes true atKSU Editor, the Stater, ' The stupidity of some of the “informed” people around here amazes me. In regard to the individual who wrote the brilliant article last week on KSU’s 64 man police force, I have only one thing to say, and that is, “What is your bag?” In the ﬁrst place there is no such thing in this country as a city with 80,000 people and only half the number of police that we have here. First, math tells me that with 30 police and three eight-hour shifts you come up with only 10 policeworking at a time. This is not counting the secretaries. dispatchers etc... Now, in the second grade I learned that when you divide ten into 80,000 you come up with an 8,000 to 1 ratio. Are you trying to tell me that one policeman can handle eight thousand people? Come on now! Again I ask you, “What is your bag?” My mother told me that Iwould meet people like you someday, but I. never thought it would be in college where people are supposedly intelligent and “informed.” I" will say this, “You have a valid argument but let’s not ﬁght ﬁre with ﬁre, let’s ﬁght fire with water.” Name witheld by request. ’/ I https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8c323d7883451c9b458968f303105024.tif e41546cac509c8768e0e1c22574ac7d6 PDF Text Text hen: stat November 10, . Tri-Towers Police beat? Foot patrol units of campus police at Tri-Towers will be one of the topics at a meeting Wednesday night at 8 pm. in the informal lounge of Tri-Towers. James Fyke, director of KSU security and his administrators will be there; all interested students are welcome. That particular tepic, foot patrol, is surrounded by questions. _ When the Stater received word of this meeting, Jim Levine, Kent State student who will be heading the meeting, said that the police wanted to have foot patrol in the Tri-Towers area and that many students were upset about this. Levine said that this was the police’s idea to have the patrol. On the other hand, Tom Fisher, administrative assistant to Fyke, told the stater that they had no plans for such a move. “This is their (Tri-Towers) idea,” Fisher said. He said that the force would like to have foot patrols in all the dorms which would enable students to meet and talk to the e ofﬁcers and also minimize on’ thefts] But .this .move was impossible because of “lack of man power.” Fisher emphasized that Levine’s story was inacqnpte and that they had no plans for such a move. In a ﬁnal confusing turn, Greg Krzyston, area coordinator_ for Tri-Towers, told the Stater that he was the one that , was . I” l‘"' \3' approached on‘the idea or foot patrol. He said that two officers asked him about the idea to try and get a consensus - on the idea. The ofﬁcers told him, Krzyston said, that the police have now broken their units into groups of three and now have more men on duty than cars, available. Instead of having men with nothing to do, they could go out on foot patrol. Krzyston said, the officers gave two reasons why it would be a good move. Those were the same reasons, Fisher gave the Stater previously. Krzyston said he felt that the idea came “up through the ranks” and for that reason perhaps the administrators did not know about it. ‘ Krzyston said feelings are varied on a foot patrol. Those who have had thingsstolen, feel it would be a good thing, he said. “A lot of people are negative about it,” he added. ‘ He said that many are complaining that this is not fair, that while trying to create an off-campus type atmosphere, there is conﬂict because police do not patrol College Towers or off-campus houses. Krzyston said the dorms will have the ﬁnal word on thefoot ’ patrols, but it is not clear who wants them or if there is enough manpower to create them in the ﬁrst place. f -yL“7/. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a4b3e9393a13df800b9a17fc1ac4dbb1.tif d0c0869a00c67698bb1b5ade07dda5f1 PDF Text Text Rene m .m. l OVEN ~Editor, the Stater, An interesting item, signed 'GAO (General Accounting Ofﬁce?), appeared in the most ‘ recent issue of FYI, to the effect that the Kent State University Federation of Teachers’ (KSUFT) newsletter stood “refuted.” How one refutes a whole newsletter, of course, is somewhat of a mystery or accomplishment, depending on your viewp0int. It seems the administration is very uptight about those salary figures we released, calling them “inaccurate.” Two weeks earlier the police claimed our figures , were ‘incorrect. ”’ Again we publically state that these are the exact figures any Ohio Citizen can examine for himself ﬁrst-lurid in the statehouse. They are, m fact, the identical ﬁgures KSU administration submitted to Columbus for the December 1970 print out! ' An attempt to disparage our newsletter by casting doubt on these exact ﬁgures is pure propaganda; but then vertical communication seems to be the whole purpbse of the FYI ,maybe it should be called “OPL” (Old’ 8 Propaganda Line). Any lack of detail in these ﬁgures 18 due to the very manner in which KSU $submitted them to Columbus in “cater Wm.“ er 16, 1971 Of claims that KSUF T salary f/gures exact ,3;- We suggest KSU give the exact budget and other ﬁgures required to see just where all the money is indeed going and then there would be no chance for oversimpliﬁed or misleading" information.‘ The taxpayers of Ohio have a right to know how we are spending their money. Larger figures for instruction and - auxiliary services were taken from the Ohio Board of Regents’ Annual Report; they are exact and were presented as they were found. What is disconcerting about such FYI items is that they are like “Harry Truman memos,” embarrassing, both to readers and writers. What is dangerous in this particular memo is the call for “corrective consultation.” Is this a call of prior censorship of a newsletter? If so, you can bet on it, there will be no prior censoring of anythrng KSUFT will continue _to publish pertinent facts. And, it will not become so demagogic as to appeal to faculty “loyalty.” That item has to be earned. We shall continue examining every facet of this university and call ’ for concemed faculty to unite, to counter any and all attempts at ‘ cover-up and propaganda. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/125f75c006688776e0e6a881bbeda8b6.tif f4789a2cc39c99fe9dfb3ec992b98ebd PDF Text Text ﬁovember 10, 7071 *1 e Truth? T // ,/ 65/ ’7/ Once again communication is the word surrounded by confusion and questions. This time, the question surrounds the creation of foot patrol units walking the dorm areas, more speciﬁcally Tri-Towers. The coordinator of Tri-Towers says he was approached by two ofﬁcers who suggested the idea of foot patrol in the dorms to create better relations between students and police, and to cut down on thefts. I . Tom Fisher, assistant to Jim Fyke, head of KSU security, has said he knows nothing about it. He said the dorms evidently suggested the idea. So we are again .faced with conﬂicting stories. Fisher says there is not enough manpower to create such a program, and reportedly the two ofﬁcers who suggested the foot patrol said there was a surplus of men. The reason being that the police units are now set up in threes and there are more police on duty than cars available. If there is a surplus of on-duty police, then perhaps our force should be cut back. Fisher emphasized the fact that there wasn’t enough manpower which is hard to believe with a staff of 88 , one of the largest campus forces inthe nation. We are tired of never getting the truth. Campus security should be open to campus people. We have the right to know what we are ﬁnancing...and ﬁnancing to the tune of a requested $800,000 plus. For that kind of money, we could have police to guard the police. And if the idea of a foot patrol is being considered by the force, we hope they will consider the feelings of the students that they are working for. After all, we do pay their salaries in an indirect way. We can see why students might want more patrol forces guarding them against theft, but on the other hand, having armed police walking through what is to be a living area is a disgusting thought. But,‘we are oeing premature in discussing an issue ﬁlled with holes, and questions. All we want is for someone to ﬁll the campus in on what is going on. And, to do it truthfully. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7148f4403d6adfd25074f7917384affc.tif 36527f94b14417bac372351a7c6ebcc5 PDF Text Text Kent gpateq November 23, 1971 Night covers odd ' pOIiCe activities Editor, the Stater I know the expression goes, “have gun will travel,” but how far is it legal for the gun to travel? ’ _ g The reason I? ask is that on. Wednesday, Oct. 20, at approximately 11:15 p.m., I observed one of our campus cops, not City of Kent police, pull over a bright Dodge Dart at the intersection of Longcoy Avenue and the detour of route 43. In case you are not familiar with the area, Longcoy Avenue is on the other side of the tracks, off. the detour route, over one-and-a-half miles from the campus: It is beyond the furthest stretch of my imagination how this area can be considered part of the campus, and therefore, lie in the realm of the~campus cop. . I would have gotten more than the ﬁrst two numbers of the license, which were even themselves hard to get, if the cop car in reference had not taken off like Pamelli Jones en route back towards town, through one of Kent’s residential areas. I would like to close with onemore expression which I believe the cops should heed, “the night has a thousand eyes.” T ”123/”?! mm: Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: News Clippings Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1971 Description News clippings related to the Campus Security Advisory Committee from the Daily Kent Stater, published in 1971. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 22 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/84c4eb6d0b3e027a278dcc55180d8014.tif f75cb6f485a6af6b2787d9cf8eedd92a PDF Text Text KENT srATER March l0, H71 Roberts heads committee 1 , 0 Prof. Earle Roberts, chairman of the Department of Criminal ‘ Justice Studies at Kent State University, has been named chairman l .l , program. of the new campus security advisory committee. 7 Six others, including faculty, an administration staff member and a student, also were named to the 11-member committee. Four students, nominated by Student Body President William Slocum and conﬁrmed by Student Senate, will complete the group. Appointments were announced by Dr. Ronald W. ‘ Roskens, executive vice president. Those named will serve for one year. ' Dr. Roskens said one of the immediate duties of the committee will be to study the question of surveillance and the acCessibility of security records. “The committee shall regard as its proper purpose the nature and kinds of information gathered, rather than upon whom such ' information is gathered, and the conﬁdentiality of information made ‘ 7 available to them shall be preserved.” Prof. Roberts, a former police chief of Battle Creek, Mich., came to Kent State in 1965 to develop the law enforcement education _1 , . , a“ b.-- https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/90e6f98d45c4806e7d56338c5273fead.tif e41f99d4fb564e97f18f32c906a57eb5 PDF Text Text w .. u— nn W u W W.“ u ACLU is watching ‘ the watchers at work By Barbara Child Guest Columnist The aftermath of Kent State’s tragedy two springs ago brought an unseasonable chill that clenched people’s jaws and sent them seeking shelter. If they had their pictures taken at rallies and campus meetings, they wondered if they would end up in police dossiers--even if the photographers had not been policemen. What was happening to News Service photographs? Why did developing firms tell camera buffs who took pictures on May 4 that their pictures had not come out? Why were many, particulary activists, having peculiar difﬁculties with their telephones? Professors had additional worries. Some began half-heartedly joking about themselves as the “Dirty Dozen” after their students were questioned about them by the FBI. Some found their offices disturbed, clearly having been used, not just cleaned, particularly those whose windows looked out on BUS headquarters or the Commons. Were informers in classes and at meetings? What about agents provocateurs? And why, two years later, do the questions multiply? Federal espionage, p'olice dossiers, wiretapping, inﬁltration--these are all forms of surveillance, many made more efﬁcient by an advanced technology serving an insidious tyranny that calls itself “law and order.” The American Civil Liberties Union has made surveillance one of its primary concerns because of the threat to citizens who lawfully use their freedoms of speech, press, assembly and association. Threat creates fear. Fear chills dissent. And the chill M can crack the foundation of a democratic society by expanding the powers of government beyond lawful limits. The Portage ACLU begins to convert concern into action this week by bringing to Kent John Shattuck, ACLU national staff attorney and surveillance litigation director. With degrees from Yale and Cambridge, Shattuck currently teaches at Princeton, besides working for the ACLU. He will speak on “Surveillance and Data Collection” and show a film,“The Assault on Privacy,” at 8 pm. Thursday, April 6, in Lee. B Bowman Hall. The public is invited. 7“ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/adc7945da1622d0b7ee37c78fa369c38.tif 5514a58e1ed30677f0b21f93d7995388 PDF Text Text The Cleveland Plain Dealer April 7, 1972 Holds KSU Meetings ACLU Investigates, ,0 37/772 ‘Spying on Campus): I KENT (1P) _ The Ameri- ' can Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) thinks “Big Broth- er” may be watching Ohio college students a little too close for constitutional com- fort. " Benson Wolman, execu— tive secretary of the Ohio ACLU-Was here yesterday along with national ACLU officials for talks with Kent State University 5 t u d e nt 3 a n (1 faculty to~ determine whether the university is spying on the campus com- munity. “We’ve noticed excessive university budgets for cam- p u s » security,” Wolman said. vr“At'Kent State it’s OV- er a million bucks. And it doesn’t all show up in terms of uniformed officers.” WOLMAN' AGREED that Kent State, where four stu- dents died in a 1970 campus confrontation with 'Ohio na- tional guardsmen, was a special case when it comes to security. “But the same phenome- non has appeared at other schools," he said. “At every major state, university there . has been some degree of surveillance. The question is how great it is, and how much it offends the Coristi4 tution.” Wolman said the ACLU survey, still in the early “discussion” stages, would ' concentrate on surveillance by campus and. state law , enforcement agencies, al- though he said it might turn .. up some examples of feder- 3 , a1 spying, too. He added that court. ace; jg; tion would follow if stu-r‘ - dents’ constitutional rights were being threatened. £0 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1b93e680bf224222b2440e5dd185181d.tif 3a8d449e5a6256743bf09c22f2675dbd PDF Text Text Kent, KSU chiefs view Centralization of Kent and Kent State University police nt and crimina ings~ Wednesday night. Council asked both mento appear and ex communication 1 records in the lice department has been pro- lice departments. Chief Joseph Myers and KSU chief James Fyke explained their proposa oil members lidation of services will save both departments money, nate duplication of e force on a s and prepare Kent to meet ffer state police require- ' ments,'Myers and . Cost of the conso ed .to cost between Fyke told, council. come from the cit -un services, put the tronger radio 1 to six of nine city coun- during committee meet- LIFESAVER RADIAL TIRES in stock. let’s deal. B. F. Goodrich, Ra- lidation is estimat- “ $5,000 and $5,500,' The funds could iversity share of ;______ ,. ,I ,r' I *‘i W/ :2), ﬂ 5v) // n» x A cost Cats $375,000 the state” plans to spread among several Ohio municipalities housing state universities. Joseph Sorboro, council president, said no state funds will be released prior to July. Kent is scheduled to re- ceive $45,594 of the $375,000 special fund. The one-year grant is to be used for police and fire safety purposes. It is not known at this time. if the grant will be extended beyond one year. _' , Before the state’s Board of Control (SEE CHIEFS, PAGE 3) w w https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ff56be25c95e1502523f2382dedb4603.tif 4fc604a8246482d529a5ed0e4f8eeb60 PDF Text Text ‘dVaVo-Ic—u—r-I—a Record~Courier april 13, 1972 Chiefs say Kent, KSU?E police could cut costs ' (From page I) releases the funds, both the city and university apparently must agree how to spend the money and receive the approval of the Board of Regents. Sorboro reported both Mayor LeRoy Satrom, who is in the hospital for minor surgery, and KSU President Glenn Olds have discussed plans for the special funds and have apparent- ly submitted a plan to the regents. “Council was unhappy it did not have details of the proposal or a copy of the plan submitted to the regents,” said Sorboro today. ‘ Council does not know what the spe- cial safety funds will be used for. The money may be used for training or hir- ing police and fire personnel. Myers said the centralization would not cause any “loss of identity or pow- er for either department. No one will be relinquishing any jurisdiction. We are looking ahead to what the state requirements will be and trying to boon nun cfnn ahead ” ._ ' . g . “'s.191s8uno£ asaqz JO iuamdoxaAap [3130s pue Burn-[19M [12913qu ‘smBiJ 9111,, no inq ‘Kauour uo iou ‘uoissnosrp 919 James 01 911111 SA! 12111 Hamill/ti [[1111 99.18:: mm AIqeqoad sueapauiv 1sou1 mg '[esodmd s‘pmoq eiummeo 91p ‘01 Anuaaayrp 1999.1 mm 91d09d , . '9111011 1u999p e 11 9p1A01d Pln°3 aqs 113} P09 1! (133103 paiuem aqs 31 811112911 1mm 3 01 11131.1 911: 9111211 pmom ppm 2 J0 ssoI 1mm pane; 191110111 Kue 13m paziseqduxa 9H 'Ks.19Ao.n 4109 9sne9 o: ide pue 9A11990A01d s1 [esodOJd 9111 19m p9p99uoo ‘119119 ﬁll/ll 1J3QOH ‘ueumieqo 8.0qu BILL ' 'pueneN 'SJW papuaiuoa “‘91noq will 9A?“ 07! NEE-I 9 SW PIN0 1911: ‘szuaJed paidope 1mm amoq p008 e 30 aoueqo 9m seq ppm 3 new” 'pies 9qs ‘s191u99 aiea-Kep .10 stomps [moeds Kq .10 siuamd antidope Aq 91110:) -._19Ao aq Alissa iouueo gem “su19[qo.1d [euonowa ui-mnq 9Aeq uaipnqo ‘9uroq‘ e qons u; 81311111 10 smaK 19.191199 19ml” smalqmd [monomer III-1mm °U91p11q9 119m .10; 9.199 1u919331p -u1 Kmoiuem 9p1A01d cum “Slamoui mun” 9q 01 £19“ A1911 9.12 KoueuﬁaJd 9181111313911; 111 s19329d91 91u01qo 9.19 01111 uauxom .1911 paaurAuoo peq Kpms [eiﬁowpos J0 smelt pies ‘pmoq 9m 10 1901119111 12 ‘nuemm ,(mnmn ‘cnn the city’s police office and makes a duplicate of the record for its campus files. - Councilman Dal Hardesty (R-2) asked if KSU police would be able to use city traffic tickets if the two systems cen- tralize. Hardesty wants the city and not the county to receive the yearly estimated $45,000 revenue from the traffic fines. Fyke explained his men could use city traffic tickets if they were authorized city auxiliary police powers. As auxiliary city police they could operate under city laws. As it is now,sthe ,. university police serve under state laws T and revenue from traffic fines goes to Portage County. . Both departments use a Law Enfor'-" cement Teletype System machine which , rents for $109 a month. Centralization would eliminate the use of one of the machines and each department would ‘ share the cost of the equipment, said Myers. ' Fyke heads a 48-member police force. Since January, KSU has lost ap: proximately 37 offices through layoffs - and resignations. Layoffs due to budget cuts contributed to the largest loss of personnel. When Fyke came to KSU in. , 1971 the department employed 104'" people. ‘ » _ .Myers’ Iheads a department of '22- police officers. ‘ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/032dcb9d21f87dd7d7d6151492a0ad7f.tif 5a4919cc065a984d5d1de39f9b82a978 PDF Text Text Akron Beacon Journal April 25 , ”I9 KSU Undercover Agent 7421’ 72 Held On Arms Charge KENT - A 25.year-old member of the Kent State University {police force, who superiors say has been work ing' undercover for nearly a year was arrested by Kent (‘ity police Mondav night for possession of illegal weapons, a Federal offense. Arrested as he crossed the lawn of his apartment build- ing at 264 Dale st. carrying two weapons desc1ibed as a Russian AK-47 machine gun and a Chinese RPG rocket launcher was Reinhold “Ron” Mohr. KENT POLICE, in an offi- cial piess release issued 10- day. said they were acting on i1110rmation ieceived fro m lawyers Howard Allison and Bruce Miller and KSU 5111' dents Ken Johnson and Allen Morris. Both students are members of the KSU chapter of the Vietnam Veterans Against the. War. Allison and Miller are lawyers 101' the KSU Legal Aid Clinic. U. S. Treasury agents from the Alcohol, Tobacco and firearms Division are to ex- See UNDERCOVER, Page 'A-2 (Undercover A gent Faces Arms Charge Continued I1 mm Page A-l 9€zs;<§;z amine the weapons today to determine if they are. illegal. Mohr will be held until deter- mination is made, police said. "KSU Police Chief {l :11 n es kae, called to the police sta lion confirmed Moin was :1 member of the campus force. Fyke said Mohr had been on the 101cc two years and was assigned to the special investigation division as an ,. undeI cover investigator deal- ing primarily with narcotics cases and “organized crimi- nal activities that may result in CI 1mm against the univer- sity. " ‘ MORRIS said his organiza- tion learned from an “inside source” that Mohr was a 11n~ dercove r policeman. lie claimed Mohr had tried to give his group the weapons. "He has been under suspi— cion fox over a year but it was only a tow months ago we learned he was a KSU un- dercover cop," Said Morris, who was with Mohr -at the time of the latter’s arrest. Fyke described the arms as “some t y pe of automatic weapon and a rocket launch- er.": Both weapons contained ' foxeign malkings, Fyke said Fyke said Mont explained to him the weapons were in- operable and souvenirs “If the weapons are illegal then there is nothing about being a policeman that will help him. 11 is definitely against police regulations," Fyke said. “If Mohr is found guilty 1 will have to ask for his dis- missal " https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/841ce8c32eacd4737994d3f11170f4f2.tif 3855d23b47a6c9df6029757ab0bb90cd PDF Text Text Md 99223.32 April 26, 1972 “\e .2“ K5 U police aide jailed for weapons . A Kent State Universit ' g y police u - dercoveragent who was arresterii timeless mw C o n fis c a t e d w e up 0 n. 5 said antique, useless threatened a law ° ' 'unéversity. suit against the heinhold Mohr 25 a me , , mber campus police force for two yearSOfvg: _ :0p.m.ashec’ the yard. in. the parking lot of his 2(2):? mentt budding at 264 Dale Dr., Apt. 10 mgr; r n:isrid charged With possession of Police said they acted on ' a ti fr two members of the anti-war veiieraiirirsl group, Ken Johnson and Al Morris and Ilgruce Miller and Howard Allison: two ent attorneys representing the group. Kent police told the Record-Courier that Mohr has not posted a bond and is voluntarily remainin in _ jail until federal authorities determine whether the AK-47 .Russ1an-built machine gun and the Chinese-made RPG — rocket- propelled grenade launcher ~ are illegal and inoperable. In a statement released toda b u I t universny, Mohr. who is single gndyalgg a KSU student majoring in industrial , . s release also said agents from ‘Joseph Myers, Kent ' ‘ . ' 0hr “maintains thartiohce chief, said re‘llic: and not fireable.” o nson, 27, a histor student from Ashtabula}: ggiguﬁi: orgamzation became suspicmus of Mohr two months ago. At that time Mohr broughtthefWeapons to a small meeting of the anti-war group, according to (From page 1) Johnson. ,The location of the meeting was not disclosed by Johnson, but he said it was in “the north part of Kent.” _-1“We’ve seen him around quite a bit,” said Johnson. The head of the anti-war group said he learned about Mohr from “the rank and file of the (KSU) police department. The average KSU cop had nothing to do with this undercover ac- tivity.” - Johnson said his group has waited until now to inform on Mohr because “we wanted to wait for our sources within the police department to confirm for us the fact that this person was in fact a cop.” ; He said the organization has “an in- ‘ternal security group which checks «these things out. The majority of our members did not know about this and we {were afraid he was going to plant these things (weapons) on somebody.” 1 “We have sworn testimony from our members that Mohr said the AK-47 was good to kill pigs with,” Johnson said. ' The anti-war leader said Mohr had listed his major source of income as the “Kent State University Police Depart- ment” when he made the financial arrangements for purchasing a judo and ' karate school in Ravenna. The Record- Courier was unable to learn what self- defense school Johnson was referring to. Neither of the attorneys representing the anti-war group were available for comment today, but Johnson said the group’s action has not been agreed on. He said a lawsuit will probably result if Mohr is not found guilty, of the violations. The lawsuit, be indicated, would include both the university and the KSU police department. ‘ “They’re (the university) going to try to whitewash this whole thing. These weapons are illegal in every sense of the term. It doesn’t matter whether he is a cop or not, he can’t have these things,” Johnson said. Johnson said he learned about weapons during a year’s 'duty in Viet- nam. KSU’s director of security, James Fyke, was unavailable for comment. The KSU chapter of Vietnam Veterans Against the War has 123 members who pay $1 a month in dues. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0e93ff5f2e5dafa17be51b16f7456667.tif 9503e942ad7f825c0d997dea7f11117a PDF Text Text t . W. 2213 King Staten April 26,1972 KSU undercO ver agent freed; spends night in iail on firearms charges By R. F. Livolsy Campus Editor Reinhold Mohr, a KSU junior ' and undercover agent for the KSU police, was released- at 12:30 pm. yesterday after charges ﬁled against him for illegal possession of ﬁrearmswere dropped. Mohr had been arrested at 7:43 pm. Monday when Kent city police, acting on a tip from attorneys Bruce Miller and Howard Allison, apprehended him as he walked out of his Dale - T errace apartment M o r r i s , vice-president of the KSU ' Vietnam Veterans Against the . War (VVAW),said, “We set Mohr up.” They said they had asked - He was carrying a Russian-made AK-47 sub-machine gun and a Chinese-made rocket- propelled grenade launcher wrapped in a ' beach towel. Ken Johnson and Alan president and Miller and Allison to call the police on the matter, and that arrangements were made to have ‘ Mohr apprehended. Kent police Chief Joseph Myers verified the WAW members’ account. Myers, at a press conference yesterday, said, “Morris told - Mohr that they were going to Morris’s home to take pictures of the weapons for a liberation leaflet to be distributed on campus today. We staked out Mohr’s apartment waiting, for him to leave with the weapons.” Mohr, 25, was held overnight ' in the Ke n t City Jail, awaiting the arrival of agents from the . U.S. " "Alch 01 , Tob acco and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service. The federal agents were called in because possession of the ﬁrearms, if operable, is a federal crime. However, upon arriving at the city jail at 11:45 am. yesterday, the federal agents . found the weapons were inOperable, and Mohr was released. Morris, on the other hand, denies the weapons were in operable, claiming he examined the AK-47. “A hole had been‘ drilled in the gas chamberwnich ’ (Continued on page 3) Ron Mohr https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d078e8607c3ca6401a7ee6474dc43537.tif 37d2573a6f0cd43088d4b8fbbaa688c0 PDF Text Text Kent §£ater April 26, 1972 TKSU agent freed ., 6' after night in jail (Continued from page 1) would make the weapon a non-automatic,” “but still completely operable.” According to Johnson, the VVAW has known Mohr, a VVAW member, to be an undercover agent for several months. Johnson called Mohr an “agent provocateur,” saying Mohr had planned on planting the weapons with leaders of the VVAW so they would be arrested. KSU Security Chief James Fyke admitted that Mohr works for department as a special investigator probing narcotic cases and “illegal organized activities.” He said his department generally employs about ﬁve special investigators. Police chief James F yke. Morris ‘ said, " Fyke denied that his men attemped to set anyone up for arrests as Johnson suggested, and 3 added that “any such action would result in dismissal from the force.” According to Benson A. Wolman, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, “Mohr has been on the university payroll for two years and is presently recieving $918.40 per month.” F yke would only say that Mohr has been on the force since he took over the force, and that Mohr is a full-time employe and member of the Ohio Civil Service Union. The action by the WAW was, according to Fyke,'an attempt to “embarrass my department and to induce a split between university police and city police.” According to one of his two roommates, Ed Mocker, Mohr is taking one course this quarter, , supposedly to devote more time to the Karate Club, of which he is president. Both Mocker and Richard Casey, Mohr’s other roommate, said they did not know he was working for the police. As of last night, the whereabouts of Mohr was unknown. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9f73b041a4f936d9fefe97d467663d4a.tif b65611acfb56aee5c162784806afc964 PDF Text Text _...—.——— 1_... "“‘P'F‘. ... -_, ., i f' g, t i. 1- S Akron Beacon Journal April 26, 1972 KSU Undercover- Agent Cleared Oi: Arms Charge By JOHN DUNPHY ‘ KENT — Kent State Univer- sity undercover Reinhold “Ron” Mohr left the city Tuesday on a “leave of. absence” after he was cleared of charges he illegally possess two Communist- made weapons Federal agents from the ' firearms division of the Treasury Department 5 aid they dropped the charges be- cause the two weapons — a Chinese automatic rifle and a Chinese rocket launcher -- were both inoperable. They said a small hole had been drilled in the rifle’s gas chamber. KENT City Police Chief Jo- seph Myers said. however, the weapons’ being out of or- der did not make them entire‘ ly legal; “They could be made oper- able,” he said. “The Federal agents’ proce- dure is to inspect the weapons, check the background of the ' person and determine that the Weapons have not been used policeman _ Reinhold Mohr . . . 31.1971 demonstration in the commission of a crime. Then theyallow the person to abandon the weapons to Fed- eral authorities. ” City police arlested Mohr with the weapons in his pos- - session Monday on a tip from two student members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The students — Ken John- son an d Allen Morris —— Charged Mohr had infiltrated their group as an “agent pro- vacateur” and was trying to sell them the weapons to “set them up” for arrest. MOHR’S BOSS, Kent State Security Chief James Fyke leveled a counter-charge. “Mohr was set up by the 7 veterans to embarrass the. campus police department and cause a split between the campus and city police. forces.” he said. Fyke said campus under- cover agents are not permit- ted to “Suggest, merge, in- timidate or cajole any person ' or group into any kind of crime, nor are they allowed to participate in any activity of entrapment.” Fyke confirmed Mohr was on leave of absence and said the officer could be off for as long as six months but that he expected Mohr back “with- in two weeks to a month.” MORE, 25. a campus pol.- iceman f01 16 months. is a third-year KUS industrial arts student. Fyke said Mohr had pur- chased the two Chinese weap ons as “trophy items or man- tle pieces ” - -City Police Chief Myers said Kent pol-ice did not know Mohr was-an undercov- er campus officer until after they arrested him Tuesday; 0111131131511 of Mohr’s role came Tuesday from Ben-son" A. Wolman, executive direc- tor of the American Civil Lib- erties Union of Ohio. He said ACLU staff mem- bers would continue to inves- tigate reports student political groups are subject to surveill- ance and infiltration. ~ In a telegram to State Au- ditor Joseph Ferguson, ‘Wolyw man said, “Mohr has been on the university :payroll for two' years and is presently receiv- ing $918..4.0.a-month.. . . “Our continuing investiga- tions give us cause to believe there is little or no accounta- bility for public funds used for campus surveillance.” https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9fe88df4e4457c5aaae60382ffd6af09.tif b2695e1b2e38abaaf5ff0d895c302610 PDF Text Text Record Courier "April T~2 , 1972 . Fyke slams weapons" exposure By AMY RICHARDS James L. Fyke, director Of security at Kent State University, has termed the exposure of a campus undercover agent “a deliberate attempt to embar- rass the department.” Fyke made the statement during a press conference Tuesday following the release of Rheinhold Mohr, a 25- year-old full-time member of the KSU police force. Kent police took the sophomore from Pennsylvania into custody Monday evening. Acting on a tip from Kent attorneys Bruce Miller and Howard Allison, pa— trolmen found Mohr carrying a Chi- nese-made AK-47 automatic rifle and a rocket-propelled grenade launcher across the parking lot in front of his Dale Terrace apartment. Alan Morris, a member of the KSU Vietnam Veter- ans Against the War, was with Mohr. Morris and Ken Johnson, another member of the Vietnam Veterans group, reportedly asked Mohr to pose for leaflets after they discovered his identity as a plainclothes policeman. They then called the attorneys. In the past several months, Mohr, a black belt in karate and a veteran of Vietnam, had approached members of the group and informed them of his weapons, according to Johnson, a graduate student from Ashtabula. Johnson and Morris, a freshman from Cuyahoga Falls, accused Mohr of acting as “an agent provocateur.” Mohr, who receives an $8,486 ,an- nual salary from the KSU police de- partment, was released at 12:30 pm. Tuesday, and the weapons were sent to federal alcohol, tobacco and tax. authorities in Youngstown, Fyke and Kent Police Chief Joseph Myers told ruled the weapons inoperable, refer- red questions to assistant U. S. Attor- ney Edward Molner. Molner, however was unavailable for comment. ‘ Kent police pressed no charges against Mohr, Myers said. Federal authorities have ruled the two weapons inoperable, according to Myers. Myers also said Mohr’s possession of the guns was not illegal. The KSU security force director ad- mitted during the press conference that five nlainclothes policemen are assigned newsmen. Federal authorities, who Fyke: exposure done to shame police at KSU 5W2 to a campus Mod Squad—”a group which watches student demonstrations and group activities. But Fyke said he did not consider the Vietnam Veterans Against the War a subversive group. Mohr also has attended several Students for a Democratic Society meetings, according to Tom Grace, a member of that group. Mohr, a karate instructor, could not be reached Tuesday. But his roommate accused the veterans of “framing their buddy.” “He considered them his friends,” Richard Casey, a sophomore from New Jersey, told the Record-Courier. Mohr, who reportedly opposed the Vietnam confrontation, _ attended the veterans’ meeting as an individual, not as a policeman, Casey said. Casey admitted that his roommate believes in “constructive criticism” and viewed his job as “protective.” “He could 'check up on these groups and find out whether they were stock- piling arms, and if they were, then he could tell the police,” Casey said. “It’s sort of like taking matches away from a baby?’ - Mohr probably agreed to the photographing because he wanted to show the police department “that he was doing a good job,” Casey said. Casey, who toured Europe with Mohr last summer, said the weapons are inoperable. A quarter-inch hole has been drilled through the barrel of the riﬂe, he said. Morris claimed the hole went through the gas chamber. , “He got hung for having ornaments on. his wall,” Casey said. (From page 1) https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/844c72bc219d8cff989470aede1defbc.tif 393d6e7e8eabe304878500ef33ab9390 PDF Text Text REcord Courier April ém 1.972 Olds to police bodyrl get facts on weapons The president of Kent State University has asked the Campus Security Advisory Committee to investigate the circumstances of Monday night’s arrest of a KSU policeman on an illegal weapons charge. Dr. Glenn A. Olds told the Record- Courier today he requested Prof. Earle B. Roberts, chairman of the committee and head of the Department of criminal Justice studies, “to get the facts on this matter.” Rheinhold Mohr, 25, a full-time member of the campus police force for two years and also a KSU junior majoring in industrial arts education, had two fOreign-made weapons in his possession when he was arrested by Kent city police. Mohr was arrested when he walked out of Apt. 101, 264 Dale Dr., Kent with Al Morris, vice president of the KSU chapter of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and one of two persons who informed police that Mohr would be carrying the weapons. Mohr was released from Kent city jail at 12. 30 p. m. Tuesday after federal agents from the Tax, Alcohol and Firearms division in Youngstown determined that the weapons were “inoperable” and therefore not in violation of federal law. Mohr was not charged. For the past year, Mohr had been Olds to police . body: get facts in weapon case %é7 ( From page i ) 'working with a special division which wore street clothes and investigated “narcotics and illegal organized ac- tivities cases,” according to a statement released Tuesday by the university. The anti-war group charged that Mohr was an “agent provocateur” used by the campus police to spy on its activities and plant the weapons on its members. _ James Fyke, director of campus Security, said the 123-member- organization was trying to “embarrass” KSU’s police department. Fyke also said Mohr is continuing with his department in a different position. “Obviously, I am concerned anytime a problem that has been given this visibility and potential implication arises,” Dr. Olds said The president said he would like to have the facts “as soon as possible.” Roberts said his committee, which was appointed by Dr. Olds March 7, will meet this afternoon. The cha'n'man told the Record-Courier that the president “has asked us to take this .specific case as a point of departure and to recom- mend a policy statement on sur- veillance. ” Roberts said his committee “will become involved in the present case.” The committee has 10.members, in- cluding students, townspeople and professors. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0c31db3b2fcb5dd940ead455688e846c.tif c000727e2f39afebb0d023c700e0228c PDF Text Text 7% X ”Too many ‘agents’? Remember “Tommy the Traveler?” During the height of the campus rioting a few years back this federal under- cover agent toured the college campuses in upstate New York, taking part in radical counsels and, according to some sources, actually en- couraging rioting and destruc- tion by student radicals. It seemed for a while that Kent State had its own “Tom- my the Traveler” this week when an undercover University policeman was caught with two illegally - possessed weapons, an automatic rifle and a gren- ade launcher. According to two members ‘of the Vietnam g‘Veterans Against the War, he made a clumsy effort to plant the weapons with the group to make'them lookviolent and to discredit them. - On the other hand, police sources claim he was framed by the Veterans group, and ac- tually lured into a trap. We think the whole thing. ought to be thoroughly investi- gated by the University, and this no doubt will occur. If he was set up, it was a shabby joke indeed by the per- sons responsible; if, on the other hand the hunter became the hunted and the agent was caught in his own lair, then tumabout is fair play. ’ And while the university is investigating this particular in- cident, perhaps it ought to look into the advisability of having on its payroll five undercover agents who look into “sub- versive” activities on campus. One cannot help but wonder if that doesn’t seem to be carrying campus security to, its extremes. , , ' ’ ‘ Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: News Clippings Publisher Publisher of the original item. Some of the content included was originally published by the Akron Beacon Journal and the Record-Courier. Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1972 Description News clippings related to the Campus Security Advisory Committee from various sources, published between March and April 1972. Topics include the ACLU's investigation of surveillance activities on campus. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 13 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ed6601ea85e4e06226eacb7a8f2e4d3c.tif c8f30bce1e0319f79e184114493832fd PDF Text Text A heated controversy over the alleged undercover activities of Reinhold Mohr, member of the Kent State University security force, was climaxed today by Mohr’s removal pending a hearing before the State Board of Personnel Review. ~ Mohr’s removal by President Glenn A. Olds was announced this morning in a public statement released by the university. . The dismissal followed an intense discussion on the Mohr case between students and Dr. Olds on Thursday when students produced affidavits charging that Mohr had encouraged the Vietnam Veterans Against the War to use violence. . , It was understood that Mohr would have 10 days in which to file an appeal of his removal and then a full hearing would be held before the State Board of Personnel Review, probably in. REINHOLDMOHR '3‘“ Columbus. The Mohr case came to light on April 24 when the 25-year-old campus police officer was taken into custody by Kent police for carrying an automatic. riﬂe and a rocket launcher. Both weapons were made in Communist Chin; d w Charges against Mohr were oppe ‘ : after agents of the U.S. Treasury Olds re mOVeS Department confiscated the weapons. / They termed both weapons “inoperable.” Cu, n de rcove r In annoulggingd Mohr’s removalCi 0' ice m a n President 0 sai , “It is to be hope that this action will end the rampant ; p 7. accusations and remove the dispute to a proper and orderly forum where it can undergo prOper adjudication. Mr. Mohr will thereby be afforded an opportunity to confront the charges being made against him in a just and fair setting. “Great concern has been expressed in the Kent State community over ac- cusations made concerning the ac- tivities of Mr. Mohr, an employe of this university. These have culminated in the filing of formal charges alleging that Mr. Mohr sought to provoke certain Kent State University students to'cer- tain acts of violence, accompanied by sworn statements, by certain persons from within the university. . , “The university has presented these charges and statements to Mr. Mohr who has categorically denied the same. Inasmuch as the university is not equipped to provide a dispassionate atmosphere in which a formal hearing may be held to protect the substantive and procedural’rights of both Mr. Mohr and his accusers; and, inasmuch as the charges are of such a serious nature as torequire that both Mr. Mohr and his acCusers be given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence on their behalf in order that this controversy can, \ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2db119be90817560a0316f4992aec9a1.tif d70633c737deb99bc4cbd88ed3c12305 PDF Text Text be resolved finally; Mr. Mohr hasbeen removed from his position pending an appeal and full hearing before the State Board of Personnel Review.” In Thursday’s session with students, President Olds said no formal charges had been placed against Mohr because no evidence had been presented that Mohr had acted as an “agent provocateur,” as charged by the veterans’ group. As a result of that statement, students within a half hour’s time produced three affidavits charging that Mohr had at- tempted to encourage the veterans’ group to use violence. It was reported that the affidavits had been in the hands of an attorney. Jeffrey Beutler, an anti-war activist, charged in the session that Mohr had encouraged the veterans to use the confiscated weapons to kill other campus policemen. _ The “Rap” session between Olds and students took place in Tri-Towers Thursday in connection with the memorial for four students killed on campus May 4, 1970. Participants in- cluded Dr. George Wald, Nobel prize- winning biochemist who was here as the main speaker, and Sister Elizabeth McAllister, one of the Harrisburg, Pa. Seven. ‘ After the Mohr subject came up,- Dr. Olds was called and he joined the discussion. ' . Use of campus police to infiltrate campus groups long has drawn fire from the students. Dr. Wald told students that if the veterans’ “agent provocateur” charge would be proved, it might constitute a conspiracy. Several students said they feared Mohr might return to the campus ”carrying a grudge and a gun.” Dr. Olds assured them that he would not. - It was reported that the American Civil Liberties Union was prepared to file suit against Mohr. Whether or not the ACLU proceeds with such action in light of Mohr’s removal could not be learned this morning. Meanwhile, Bruce Miller of Allison and Miller, Kent attorneys, said they provided the attorney general’s office and President Olds with all the in- formation on the Mohr case in their possession. . “We did this so that a course of ac- tion might be determined,” Miller said. “If we were to take any legal action, it would not be just against Mohr, but against all undercover surveillance.” https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/be3c8ce7a30d9ed9d5ba2a9697458e83.tif 3470411ab47ef8655881c1f52bdacab5 PDF Text Text Plain Dealer May 7. 1972 ‘ \h‘KSUHead Suspends - Ex-Undercover Agent Plain Dealer Special KENT, 0. ~— Kent State University policeman and former undercover agent, who students alleged urged violent campus disruptions, w a s suspended yesterday b y university President Glenn A. Olds. The suspension of Rein- hold Mohr, 25, of Jefferson, Pa., is in effect pending a hearing before the Ohio Personnel Board of Review. " Mohr, a civil service em- ploye, has 10 days to appeal the suspension. f In a statement released yesterday, Olds said that he . ‘had “sworn statements by a certain person with the university” claiming Mohr “sought to provoke certain K S U students to acts of violence.” ‘ ’ . Olds said Mohr “ca- tegorically” denied the charges when they were presented to him. . Mohr was not. available for comment. - ' -~ MOHR WASremovedq from his job as acampus policeman so that hearings can be held in a “just and fair setting” Olds said. Mohr was charged nearly two weeks ago by Kent city police with illegal posses- s i o n of a Chinese-made AK47 automatic rifle and a rocket launcher. Charges were dropped after Federal agents said the weapons -were inoperable. Members of the campus chapter of the Vietnam Vet— erans Against the War, 1a- b e Ii 11 g Mohr an “agent provocateur” in complaints to Olds that said he urged them to Commit acts of vio- lence on the campus on sev- ' eral occasions. AFTER MOHR was tar- rested and revealed as an agent, James Fyke, Kent security chief, charged that the incident was a deliber-‘ ate attempt by the antiwar groups on campus to em- barass and discredit the university police force. Olds said after the arrest that surveillance of campus activities will not be carried out until there is probable cause to believe that a crime is either being committed or planned and that there is no other appropriate inves- tigation technique available with which to obtain evi- dence. ., https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/da2aac4d42665f3c2a4bf7e4bcfcd0de.tif 71c52cd17e00a1afbef77c8fab859302 PDF Text Text -.-. .. 3 -~. .. - - .. .- a. if. t; C OTCU‘" 'v Ca 3.4.1.” .1. L:- T M...” New... awe... ..-........ m... Viet veterans Will contInue police protest - '- By AMY. RICHARDS The Vietnam Veterans Against the War at Kent State University will con- tinue to press for the elimination of the security _’department s Mod Squad, Vice President Alan Morris said to- day. The group will hold a rally on Wednesday to protest the employment of campus detectives according to Morris. His announcement followed by two days the suspension of Reinhold Mohr, a campus undercover agent who re- portedly observed the veterans’ orga- nization and Students for a Democratic Society for a period of two years. “The suspension was something We expected,” Morris said. “We were sur- prised that it took so long.” Mohr, a sophomore from Pennsyl- vania, was to meet this afternoon with his attorney, Perry Dickinson of Ra- venna. Mohr, a civil service emplo'ye, ‘ has eight more days to file an appeal of the suspension pending a hearing ‘\ \ KSU Vietnam 'vets continue police protest (From page 1). before the State Board of Personnel Review “Basically, they’ll have to prove they removed Mohr for good cause,’ Dickinson said. - State employers can dismiss civil service workers for a number of causes, which include drunkenness, immoral conduct, incompetence and» rudeness to the public. James Fyke, KSU director of securi- ty, would make no comment today on Mohr’ 5 suspension. “.Any statement could prejudice Mr.‘ Mohr’s constitutional rights,” he said. The department had not assigned Mohr to campus duty for two weeks; Fyke said. But Fyke also said that he had planned to bring Mohr back to the campus. Dr. Glenn A. Olds, KSU president, announced the suspension Saturday. “It is to be hoped that this action will end the rampant accusations and' remove the dispute to a proper and orderly forum where it can undergo proper adjudication,” he said. ~ The suspension followed a heated exchange between the president and (members Of the veterans organization during a rap session in Tri Towers. During the session Thursday, members of the student group submitted at; fidavits. They accused Mohr with of- fering an AK 47 riﬂe and a rocket launcher to a number of members. They also accused Mohr with acting as an “agent provocateur.” Kent police took Mohr into custody two weeks ago when they found him carrying the weapons across the parking lot' In front of his Dale Terrace apartment. Agents from the U-. S. Treasury Department ruled the . weapons inoperable and Mohr was released after the ruling https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/89c51c22bbe1b9fc5a711f4e69d50e4b.tif ea14924a5b1875c821f53d478805562b PDF Text Text Advisory unit eyes security The Campus Security Advisory Committee -at Kent State University, which has already given President Glenn A. Olds a policy recom- mendation on surveillance, is now studying the overall scope of security at the university. The committee chairman, Prof. Earle Roberts, who is also chairman of the depart- ment of criminal justice studies, said the committee is working on portions of ' the original charge (to the committee) dealing with policy and procedures, and the need and nature of campus security. He said President Olds has asked the committee to study further several aspects of security. The committee has been asked to: — Recommend policy concerning the nature, need and scope of campus security; — Review present policy and practice; _— Provide suggested policy regarding the relation of campus security to the wider local, county, state and federal security and law enforcement agencies, and — Evaluate present policy, practice and personnel and future need in light of any recommended policy. 'l'j‘aculty members, in ad- dition to Roberts, are Dr. ' James D. Dooling, assistant professor of psychology; Dr. George D. Eastman, director of the Center for State and Local Government and professor of political science; Charles L. Green, director of the Center for Human Understanding and assistant professor of sociology and anthropology, and Dr. Allen Rawitch, assistant professor of chemistry. Student members are Michael White, 'a graduate student from North Canton, sophomore Fred Smella, of Walhonding and senior Bob Peabody, of Akron. , Mrs. ' Hazel Peoples represents the non-academic personnel, Norman Sandvoss \ 1s a local attorney and Albert Peoples represents the city’s residents. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/499ca26c829ceed75503c65a4e6f6ed8.tif 1ddbafd64d4c93d85aeaecf5eb0e71f5 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/53da6a0177b40c3d97cbb4bfcb7e26ef.tif cb9528103d78a26875201b474f29438d PDF Text Text Record Courier May 11, 1972 Z—Record-Courier, Thursday, May 11, 1972 Committee studying‘ Kent State security ' The Campus Security Advisory Committee at Kent State University, which has already given President Glenn A. Olds a policy recommendation on surveillance, is now studying the overall scope of security at the university. > - ' The committee chairman, Prof. Earle Roberts, who is also chairman of the department of criminal justice studies, said the committee is working on por- tions of the original charge (to the committee) dealing with policy and procedures, and the need and nature of campus security. ' He said President Olds has asked the committee to study further several aspects of security. The committee has been asked to: ' — Recommend policy concerning the iature, need and scope of campus security; -— Review present policy and prac- tice; ~ Provide suggested policy regarding the relation of campus. security to the wider local, county, state and federal security and law enforcement agencies, and ' ' — Evaluate present policy, practice and personnel and future need in light of any recommended policy. Prof. Roberts said the president’s request for additional study is “an ex-, pansion, but natural transition, of our original charge.” 1 Regarding “the committee’s action in providing a policy recommendation on surveillance first, Prof. Roberts said .“we (committee members) just felt that ' a policy on surveillance, which was also _ part of the original charge, was the first to pursue.” He added that the committee wants to gather factual data reﬂecting the moods of the entire campus community, townspeople, on what people feel about security. “We only hear from the vocal few; it’s important to grasp the moods of everyone so you don’t respond only to small, but vocal groups.” “We have to establish,” Prof. Roberts explained, “what the nature of security is to be here at Kent; once it was almost just a nightwatchman-type role, now it’s that of a police department. We’re also interested in how the Security Force can improve its services. . .the whole overview of security,” Roberts said. The committee is comprised of five faculty members, three students, a representative of non-academic per- sonnel on campus, a Kent attorney and a Kent resident. Faculty members, in ~ addition to Roberts, are Dr. James D. Dooling, assistant professor of psychology; Dr. George D. Eastman, director of the Center for State and Local Government and professor of political science; Charles L. Green, director of the Center for Human Understanding and assistant professor of sociology and anthropology, and Dr. Allen Rawitch, assistant professor of chemistry. Student members are Michael White, a graduate student» from North Canton, sophomore Fred Smella, of Walhonding and senior Bob Peabody, of Akron. Mrs. Hazel Peoples represents the non-academic personnel, Norman Sandvoss is a local attorney and Albert Peoples represents the city’s residents. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0a3da9759256a7af4c621b47db445276.tif 277418e13bac1c7e38627e28810ad491 PDF Text Text Felice disperse profesfe By AMY RICHARDS Police from eight areas swept over the Kent 'State University campus and E. Main St. to disperse approximately 150 students Thursday night. The sweep followed. a brief student. march-on E. Main St. Police made no —- .344. n - _ arrests on the campus. Windows again were broken in Ohio Bell offices at 154 N. DePeyster St. Kent firemen also reported minor damage in the Plain Dealer agency at the old Erie-Lackawanna station on Franklin Ave. Firemen, called to the scene at 12:20 am, found two beer bottles which had been filled with gasoline and hurled into the room. At 10 pm. KSU marchers walked from a rally on the Commons, leaving approximately 600 behind. Those who remained on the campus pleaded with the splinter group to refrain from, marching. IQC..5%:Z rs In ﬁfenf , “Civil disobedience, isn’t the thing to do because we’ll get arrested, and we’ll put more money into the sys- tem,” Richard Neff, a sophomore from Mogadore, said. . But Norman Caulfield, a former stu— dent, advised the group to march. , “Why are you people sitting here?” he asked. “Richard Nixon is sitting in his-office and laughing.” , Carrying black flags, the students marched across the Commons and the front campus to E. Main St. As the students began to block traffic one block east of Lincoln St., Glenn Frank and Tom Davis, Faculty Senate ob- servers, pleaded with the marchers to return to the campus. A car turning west from University Dr. knocked down one person. A few minutes later, another car barreled through the crowd. Students leaped aside. The group moved west on E. Main St. and reached the far end of Hilltop Dr. They then turned east. At 10:20 pm. patrolmen from the campus, Kent, Stow, Streetsboro, Ravenna, Brady Lake, Windham and the Portage County Sheriff’s Department arrived. Silas Ashley, a sophomore from Cleveland and a student body president candidate, took the faculty observer' https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/05900109fb75ee235bdbb8ab5e644e26.tif b1d53e67b93cf6c2334a35b4c5512074 PDF Text Text '3‘} _. f. ﬂ «.4 3 5'1. ...,. ,..‘ ,. 7,, .11. .;. \. LA. ix.” uC‘ LA: .1. $4. . . . .......... -7 r3. mm :r-r' ’1 -i-.f"‘— -wf 15.3 .4”, a. Police in Kent fire flares on KSU campus (Frbm page I) microphone as police read the order to disperse at the corner of Main and Lincoln Sts. “Please move to the campus,” Ashley said. Approximately 50 patrolmen marched from Main St. to the front campus and set off five flares which arched'over the crowd and landed a few yards from Hilltop Dr., lighting the area. At 11 pm. police marched across the front campus and drove the students to the east side of Lowry Hall. The crowd and the patrolmen then moved to the Commons. “Take your time,” Kent Police Chief Joseph Myers advised the police. “You’ve got a long walk.” The patrolmen formed a line across the north side of the Commons and six police vehicles drove onto the turf. Approximately 80 students gathered around the victory bell, but began to move voluntarily a few moments later. Approximately 30 students gathered on the roof of dormitories. Another group retreated to Tri Towers. Twenty policemen swept past the west side of Taylor Hall in front of Memorial Gymnasium and back to the Commons. The police line which remained behind moved across the Commons, but at midnight the patrolmen turned around. They marched to the Administration Building where they boarded waiting buses. and left the campus. » https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4e66ddfbedde16cb7dc0ed7c046004a5.tif 0b6b3457f34ddc782ce187895dc232da PDF Text Text Kent W' May 199 1972 There have all: the police gone? ”Ia/mp This is a warning. to all students, faculty members and. membersof the university community. Do not leave your room, come on. campus or even walk out when your class is over. ' Law and order has become so refined on this campus that you may be breaking the law, even if you don’ t realize it. You may be inadvertently trespassing, committing petty larceny or verbal abuse. Thirteen students who were on campus yesterday can vouch for this, they themselves being notorious cnminals If you do dare to go outside, your chances of being. arrest-ed will be much less, however, if you have never ‘ ‘ made any typevof political statement, spoken at a rally or belonged to any campus organization such as the Kent 25. ' Statistics show that these subversive, demented individuals are most frequently, the “hardcore lawbreakers.” We certainly can’t Criticize the police for making these arrests; after all, they have a duty, to protect us from these “weirdos. ” These are the‘ ‘perverts” that are trying to fill us with ridiculous notions about the war being wrong, and, in doing so, have said nasty things about our “infallible" government, loitered, picked up hats and even used bad words The chances of breaking a law, or having your mind corrUpted by “sickies,” are not the only reasons for staying indoors. There IS an additional danger. A third major risk is being assailed by a group of rufﬁans, disguised as policemen. Even though these men dress and look like our own campus policemen, we can clearly tell by their actions that they are‘not. Who ever heard of a campus policeman pulling a gun on a student for having an “attack—trained,” Vicious, five—month-old puppy on a leash, or making flying tackles on students for throwing catsup? Our own campus police certainly would not resort to these tactics or make arrests on trumped up charges like these men did; Surely these men are only members of some outlaw motorcycle gang, posing as our “protectors4in-blue.” On these grounds, we are making a plea to the real . policemen and James Fyke to return to our campus and rid us 'of these imposters. Mr. Fyke should be especially concerned because one of the imposters bears a remarkable likeness to him and the others look much like his own men So please, Mr. Fyke, if you are anywhere within hearing ' distance, please come back. We need to be protected, not molested. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/888d778a9aaccf6687251145ce491473.tif 789bb08ad64767016736f93c7d91c36d PDF Text Text Kent Stater May 23, 1972 ’ Let students tiCket cars _ Editor, The Stater, Regarding the poor enforcement of the university parking regulations, I wonder why our university police are saddled with this less than professional responsibility. Many progressive cities hire other than fully trained policemen to write parking tickets. Among these are women and students, both of whom we have in vast supply. Individual students, of course, are just as capable of enforcing parking regulations as individual policemen. The factor critical to effective enforcement would be the runnber of students enuﬂoyed at a reasonable rate of pay. Corollary to this, isn’t there some way Portage County could share in the cost of parking regulation enforcement since the :ounty receives the monies :ollected from parking fines? David Voorhees Librarian https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/fdeced7cb6fd12e8d9e5202a84e95cf0.tif 4e3cc447433ace87864301bc69581895 PDF Text Text CHARLES J . Daily Kent Stater FRAN KHOUS ER - .1 At ROTC disruption K SU policeman taking pictures for press? BY R. F. Livo/sy , Camp us Editor While carrying a camera at last Thursday’s demonstrations against ROTC, Charles J. (Jerry) Frankhouser. of the ‘KSU security force, dressed in street .. clothes, identiﬁed himself to a . person at the disruption as a member of, the Cleveland Press. James Kolber of Kent said he approached Frankhouser during the protest and asked, “Who are you taking pictures for?” . Frankhouser answered, “The press,” according to Kolber. This was-about 1:30 pm. Kolber, 23, said that when he 1 quizzed Frankhouser further, Frankhouser showed him a press card from the Cleveland Press. I Kolber added that .Eranldiouser’ s .. “' 3 picture was on it ‘ ” ‘ ACcording to Kolber and KSU student Robert Hoiles, Frankhouser, an administrative specialist in the police ﬁscal- yperformance unit, was carrying the camera outside the Administration Building along Hilltop‘Drive wheremuch of the protest took place. Several students said they saw Frankhouser. show. Kolber the card. Dick Campbell, managing editor of the Cleveland Press, told The Stater, “Frankhouser does not workvfor us. He worked for us from October 1967 to 3 February 1968” but hasn’t worked here since.’ Campbell added, “There are no expiration dates on the press card. We try to pick them .up when people leave, butnow and , then we can’t.” Frankhouser, when asked over the phone that afternoon if he did show a student a press card from the Cleveland Press during the demonstration, answered, “Yes.” When asked if he worked for the Press, he replied, “Yes, part- -time.” However, contacted again yesterday, Frankhouser said, “I don’t want to talk about it anymore.’ He added, “This thing has gotten out ”of hand.” Loris Troyer, Kent editor of the Record- Courier, . said, “Frankhouser used to work for us also, but no longer does.” Asked if Frankhouser worked .for the Record-Courier Thursday, Troyer said, “No, he didn’t.” Hoiles, a news correspondent present at the ROTC disruptions, ~said, “I saw Frankhouser hand a roll of ﬁhn to Commander Richard Savelle of the KSU security force at 1:42 p.m. Thursday in the bursar’s "office in the Administration, Building.” Hoiles- said Savelle was in uniform. Security Chief James Fyke told The Stater, “I am not aware of specific activities between Mr. Savelle and Mr. Frankhouser.” Fyke also said he did not know if Frankhouser was using a press card. When asked if he would condone F rankhouser’s posing as a newsman, Fyke said, “No, I wouldn’t.” https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/312eff15b1d29e8cc4cb0fefde507c27.tif b7da4417725a97cab39bf57f2cea5ec7 PDF Text Text Testimony belongs in the courtroom PW 57777L Students at a rally yesterday made a public appeal to Director of Security .i‘ames Fyke to participate in an open forum to discuss the 17 arrests in connection with ROTC disruptions last Thursday. At ﬁrst glance, the idea might seem like a pragmatic and worthwhile one. - According to the prescription presented at the rally, Mr. Fyke could seemingly mend a “communication gap” between some students and the KSU Police Department by openly discussing events, tactics and reasons behind the arrests. Furthermore, participation in such a forum would seemingly indicate an honest effort on Fyke’s part to show students that channels of communication -- other than in the form of a press conference -- between students and policemen do in fact exist. However, Mr. Fyke at this point in time has indicated that neither he nor any other arresting ofﬁcer can participate in such an open forum. We feel his reasons deserve close attention. He has said that he believes any comment -- being a potential witness for cases that might wind up in the courtroom -- would be improper and potentially prejudicial, inasmuch as he would be subject to cross examination by both the prosecution and defense. Considering that all the 17 cases could very well end up in court, we ﬁnd Mr. Fyke’s reasons for not attending an open forum valid and substantial. Whether affecting the students or the prosecution, we cannot question the fact that anything said in an open forum by those very same persons who might find themselves on the witness stand would have an important bearing on the. fairness and pretrial protection of future proceedings. Some of the questions in the minds of some need to be satisfactorily answered -- the question on whether selective arrests were made based on a list prepared before the ROTC review, in particular; But would the open forum, in an attempt to break a_ communication gap, serve the best interests of justice? In light of potential consequences, we feel such an'attempt would do more to hinder and possibly obstruct justice than to further the cause for , justice No one can be sure of the consequences of what might be said at sue h a meeting ‘ g as Furthermore, lVr. Fyke undoubtedly would have to answer “no comment” to almost all the questions posed. This type of response, regardless of its validity, would do little except further divide students and the police. For fear of tampering with justice after the'fact, we are willing to wait to hear testimony housed under the proper authority «the courtroom. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/cff1b166082b66eaa7daef53f69128c5.tif 61d443546735e5347d5ae4945a5c89df PDF Text Text Jaily Kent Stater May 2a, 1972 FykedeclinesVets’ can 5,, to Participate in forum Director of campus security James L. Fyke declined yesterday to participate in an open forum called for by Ken Johnson, president of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), at a noon rally. Johnson said to a crowd of about 170, “If an open forum isn’t arranged by 'I‘hursay, there will be another rally at noon Thursday. From there, we’ll go up to Pill Hill (police headquarters) and, by God, then they’ll talk to us.” Fyke told the Stater, “I could not take part in an open forum nor could Officer Winkler because a number of the students have been cited and it would be improper and potentially prejudicial to discuss any cases which might reach court. “I, as well as any potential witness,'would be subject to cross -examination under oath by anyone accused of criminal action.” _ Johnson called the rally a “public service rally to educate the students so they could make up their own minds about the campus police.” Also, Johnson said, “We won’t refer to the campus police as pigs, but last Thursday they‘ acted like a ‘bunch of animals.” He was referring to the arrests during and following the demonstrations at the ROTC Review ceremony. Michael Carmedy, one of those arrested, said, “The police are using a lot of Gestapo tactics, and we have to nip that in the bud now. The bigger it gets, the harder it will be to destroy.” One girl, Ruth Gibson, described her arrest to the crowd: “I was sitting on the stairs in front of the Administration Building with a friend. All of a sudden a ‘pig’ comes tearing by, chasing a man. “The ‘pig’ tackled the man and jumped on him. As he did so, he lost his hat and club. I approached the hat and saw students jumping up and down on it. “I picked up} the hat, a mistake on my part, and watched the police duff the man while standing about two yards from where I picked the hat up. “I was attacked and grabbed from behind and a club was held up to my neck. I struggled until I realized that my attacker was one of our men in blue.” Gibson was charged with petit larceny, among other charges, for stealing the hat and ﬂeeing. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d33292aa93d1b489783d76301776a8fe.tif 05cb7c10fc4fbc7ff0a730985526a696 PDF Text Text By Robert L. Hoiles James L. Fyke, director of KSU security, and Joseph E. Myers, Kent city police chief, /' were subpoenaed by ACLU, lawyers yesterday in connection with a false arrest suit ﬁled MOnday in Federal Court in Cleveland. ' Robert- Winkler, a KSU detective, was also subpoenaed. From behind the locked doors of police headquarters, Fyke resisted the 'lawyers’ initial attempts to serve him with a ' subpoena and students’ attempts to talk with him. , Both refusals occurred almost simultaneously in the I.campus police station. ' .1, ACLU , subpoenas Fyke, Myers j At 1:15 pm. American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio (ACLU) lawyers Benson A.’ Wolman, executive director of the Ohio ACLU and Leonard J. Schwartz, staff counsel, entered the station and attempted to serve six campus police officers with subpoenas. _ The subpoenas were to formally notify the ofﬁcers that they have been named as defendants in a false arrest suit " filed Monday in federal district court in' Cleveland by- three former KSU students. Wolman and SchWartz also intended to serve subpoenas to - Thomas Kelley, investigator, Investigations Division; Jeffrey Spelman, advisor, Student Police Training Project, Staff and Inspection Division; and Karl Rissland and Joseph Fisher, patrolmen, Patrol Division. The ACLU ﬁled the suit on behalf, of Craig Morgan, Columbus, and Alan Morris and ' Kathleen Grifoni, both of Kent. The suit asks $5,000 actual damages and $20,000 punitive . damages for each client. Morgan was arrested on May 21, 1971 , the suit asserts, while he “was serving as a university-authorized peace marshal.” He Was arrested, the suit charges, “Intentionally and in bad faith.” The former student body president was 4 :4 ,«r T .,. gem. 5:. rp - r."- ...‘....Il\i t.) .1. . ;' .. mm...» . . 4 3 charged with unlawful assembly. “We think Craig Morgan was arrested in retaliation for an earlier lawsuit, one in which he challenged the illegal search of dormitory rooms that occurred in May 1970,” Schwartz said. The suit also charges that Grifoni and Morris were taken from their apartment building “where they were watching a demonstration” and charged with “failing to disperse to their homes.” The pleadings said that their arrest was in “willful disregard” of their right “to be secure in their homes from unlawful seizure” and that they? were prosecuted because they https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/66f7b201b4e25323c792996efd521fab.tif 9f22e980dce594bfceca6f9672755d44 PDF Text Text “displayed characteristics of appearance, personality and opinion unpopular with the defendants.” Schwartz read off the names "of the six officers and asked to see them. The ofﬁcers asked Schwartz and Wolman for their identification. The attorneys showed their ID’s. Schwartz asked to see Fyke and said that he and Wolman had been empowered by federal district court in Cleveland to serve the subpoenas. “You either have Mr. Fyke come out and get serviced or the US. Marshall will come down from Cleveland and service him, ” Schwartz said. An officer went from the desk to tell Fyke of the subpoenas. Within a few minutes, the Ofﬁcer came back to the desk and took telephone numbers where Fyke could reach the lawyers. The barristers then left the building and explained the lawsuit to students and reporters. “It’s our understanding that Mr. Fyke actually took part in the arrests,” Schwartz said. Students who talked with the lawvers offered them various complaints. One student - complained of surveillance. Schwartz said a “surveillance suit is in the process of being put together and will probably be ﬁled next week.” The lawyers, arrived in a student-clustered hall in police headquarters. Students lined the hall and chatted among themselves. The police and students peered at each other through the glass in a locked door An “authorized personnel only” sign faced the students. A wanted poster that featured Fyke’s picture was stuck to the door and faced the police. An hour earlier, at noon, between 100 and 125 students , met on the Commons and then marched to the police station. They marched to the rear door of the building and then, after a few minutes, walked around to the front door. About 35 crowded inside the corridor. “We’d like to see Mr. Fyke - and Mr. Winkler,” a student said. “Who should I say is calling?” Fred Rice, a patrolman asked. ‘ ‘Th 6 students of this campus,” someone answered. The students were told that Fyke and Winkler were both in a meeting and not available. An open forum between the two I'and'student's was not held. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0f3736eba0025c7d2e943f3dd7c9cf90.tif da8de7a08fe5857933973bc1df951cad PDF Text Text 1‘ ‘91‘ 3.4;}. -:' w v ~-~. , - - . . __ r1 i A '1’- ..Lua. :lfl $.1E/Cv—Su‘3i v watt-sup. «m: v. vm- v.~I«'-.-:>~ {a} 1‘7 /'\ L‘yfd. _..¢ :-"'. ‘v "—2 , 9 Police Chief at KSU‘ Snubsé Protesters ACLU Grou" By Richa1d G. Ellers- Staff Writer KENT—Kent State Uni- -'versity Police Chief James L. Fyke refused yesterday to meet with a group of demonstrating students or American Civil Liberties Union officials who came to serve him with official not- ice of a civil rights case filed against him. Later in the day, Fyke relented enough to accept the subpoena Benson A. Wolman, exec- utive secretary of the ACLU in Ohio and lawyer Leonard J. Schwartz said they did not know students would be massed at the campus po-- lice station when they came to serve the notice. FYKE SAID later he did not want to accept the sub- poena in front of the stu- dents protesting campus se- curity procedures. The civil rights charges filed in U.S. District Court in Cleveland Monday ac- cused several campus and Kent city' policemen with . false arrest a year ago of Craig Morgan, former stu-' dent body president, and two other students, AlanG Morris and Kathleen Gri— foni. A Wolman said the ”ACLU. serves many of its own sub—1 poenas to save money.._ “WHEN FEDERAL mar- shalls serve subpoenas, We have to pay fees plus a mileage,” he said When he was first told Fyke would not meet with him Schwartz said, “you wouldn’t think a policeman ,of all peOple would try to avoid service. '1." 't'i .ev' up 1...“— https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a001f4b6d72e9d87a81eb87191295c6e.tif 309e9ce8def34b6232c166b8df2a2d4f PDF Text Text ”CCOI' “ 0'.=.I."j 6-2:: ‘EEm—a :-. 1' I. .a.u.1- , s- v‘ "\o M- 1'WW’ Egg .L (a ACLU attorneys serve Fyke; protesting students rebuffed By AMY RICHARDS Two American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorneys and 100 Kent State University students called on Security Director James Fyke Thursday. The ACLU lawyers, Benson Wolman and Leonard Schwartz, got to see Fyke. The students, however, did not. Wolman and Schwartz came from Columbus to serve Fyke with notice of a lawsuit brought on behalf of three KSU students. The serving at the po- lice station happened to coincide with . a demonstration protesting Fyke’s di- rectorship of the security force. The students also wanted to see Fyke. ' “If we had known this was happen- ing, we probably wouldn’t have come today,” Schwartz said a few minutes after he left the police station recep- tion room crowded with students. Schwartz and Wolman, however, were unable to serve the notices dur- ing their first visit at 1:15 pm. The two returned at 2 pm. and met with Fyke and Commander Robert Wink- ler. All but a handful of students had left when the attorneys made their second call. “There were no problems,” Wolman said. “It all went amicably.” Wolman also chided several demon- strators who were talking about Fyke. “It’s not fair to cast personal asper- sions on his life and background,” Wolman said. The lawsuit — filed for Craig Morgan, 3» KSU graduate; sophomore from Cuyahoga Falls, and Kathleen Grifoni, a former student — charges nine ’ KSU and Kent city policemen with making false arrests during demonstrations staged in May, 1971. Schwartz and Wolman hand-delivered the notices to Fyke and Winkler. The attorneys, said they probably will mail Alan Morris, a' the notices to the other defendants. The defendants have 90 days to answer the suit. KSU policemen named as defendants in the suit are: Fyke, Winkler, Thomas Fisher and Thomas Kelley, who now work for the Ohio State University - Security Department, and Patrolman Karl Rissland. Kent police named as defendants are: Chief Joseph Myers, Sgt. John Rose, Patrolman Wayne Peoples and Patrolman William Sutliff. The first appearance of Wolman and Schwartz marked the high point in Thursday’s demonstration, which fiz- zled shortly after 2 pm. At noon, students left the Commons and marched to the police station. There, they asked to see Fyke. Harold Rice, a court officer in the auxiliary services division, said the director was tied up .in a meeting The demonstration participants decided to wait. Approximately 30 stood in the reception room. Others sat outside the police station. At 1 pm. the ACLU attorneys arrived and the demonstrators cheered an- nouncement of the serving. Rice told Wolman that Fyke was in a meeting, and the attorney threatened to give the notices to a United States marshal. Sch- wartz and Wolman left for the first time. The demonstrators also started to depart. . ' Wolman passed out corrections to the lawsuit. The ACLU had listed as a defendant P. G. Sellman, a Kent businessman. The attorneys learned Tuesday that they had named the wrong man. Jeffrey Spelman identified himself as the KSU officer who arrested Morgan, Sellman said that he had never worked on a police force. Sellman threatened to bring his own lawsuit. In the news release, Wolman and Sch- wartz apologized to Sellman. But in the same release they named the officer as- P. B., not Jeffrey Spelman. Wolman then c0rrected his correction. . “We’re getting there,” Schwartz said. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6c116c671a49bad7eed5d458dbe8cf59.tif fbac5faae4375fe4ad4a533f88938ab9 PDF Text Text DAily Kent State; May 5091972 Of police, students Rally behavior ‘wrong’ Editor, The Stater, After witnessing the demonstration against ROTC on May 18 by 50 to 75 students and nOn-students, I felt compelled to write this letter. At this demonstration the ROTC departments showed to the university what they taught their cadets. The cadets who were involved in this confrontation showed a degree of self-discipline, maturity and pride in themselves and their organization that in four yearsat this school I have not seen equalled. These cadets were physically assaulted, spat upon, harassed and intimidated by a group of people who believed in a cause (ROTC abolishment) that they felt was too weak to present logically so they resorted to violence. What was the purpose of their action? Were they really trying to change cadets’ minds by assaulting: them? After May 4, 1970, when the anti-military feeling was running highest on the Kent campus, 75 'per cent of the students supported ROTC being on campus. Judging from the crowd May 18 (onequarter of one per cent), I would say that this support has increased. I believe that this is due to the students taking a logical approach to ROTC and ﬁnding ou. the facts about ROTC instead of allowing some “student leader” to ﬁll their minds with out-and-out lies and incite them to use violence. For anyone who is truly against ROTC, that demonstration did nothing but intensify the determination of cadets to resist being pressured by these vocal minorities. In conclusion, I would like to say that I have learned about, and seen more violence from the “left” on this campus than I was ever taught in ROTC classes What I have learned and other cadets are currently learning is ‘ what was shown by the cadets outside Rockwell Hall on May 18. Richard M. Sackett Battalion Commander Army ROTC Cadet Battalion https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ce3df1ece9bbeaab957b47ac5f97ae8e.tif 5750b8f73f5c1242f9092c69db210be8 PDF Text Text .,., 1 J.‘ . .. a ..( .. ,..,_ ._ ~.-- -. ., suds: L: C‘ fay-3’" uO v.1." .1- . Kent State U. conducts police practicessurVey A scientifically-selected sample of Kent State University students and faculty were sent questionnaires Thursday to gain their opinions on policing in general and campus police in particular. The survey is being conducted by the University’s Campus Security Advisory Committee, chaired by Prof. Earle Roberts, chairman of the criminal justice studies department at KSU. Roberts said, “Students will be asked to give opinions on a wide range of questions concerning police practices. A similar questionnaire will be ad- ministered to faculty and non-academic employes (including policemen).” In addition, a brief form of the questionnaire will be administered by phone to a random selection of Kent residents. The work is being done as part of a charge to the committee by President Glenn A. Olds to recommend policy concerning the nature, need and scope of campus security, as well as review present policy and practice. Earlier, the committee gave Dr. Olds a policy recommendation on sur- veillance, which was adopted. ‘ ' “All selected members of the com- mittee are urged to respond — and to respond swiftly — in order to make the project a valid indicator of attitudes and opinions,”_ Roberts said. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/436903c6b378ac8fc72f6fcd6122ec83.tif eb59769b12cfcd1b5afaed09cfb25ab2 PDF Text Text Kent M June 2, 1972 Coed protests reg I lack of police protection Editor, The Stater, ‘ . . Rapkes and beatings are not unknown to this campus in the spring and fall and because of these possibilities, I’m tired of seeing campus police cars parked side by side with their lights off every evening so that patrolmen can sit and talk. Three spots to commonly see patrol cars parked in pairs are in the Taylor Hall parking lot, behind the University Supply Center and by the gate leading to the new Student Center. Our tuition is paying the salaries of these men to offer protection ’ for students on campus - whether they _ are returning from the library at midnight or juSt out walking. ‘ I resent all the crying about monetary cutbacks in security when this sort of thing is going on nightly. a, KSU is not the safest campus in the country and it won’t “be as long as campus policemen ﬁnd it more important to sit and‘igab rather than to patrol the campus at night to help protect students. Pam Church _ -'l‘HE DAILY KENT STATEF \ .._..‘,_'_ . .1); 4 _. . :._ _r_ _,_..'v 3.1. .‘ ',_;_ _ . ‘.» rm" ., .> .‘. 53- - -.- .- .r https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/26f0a31ec04ab78271b061d9939b3a6f.tif 600f85a5eb84c65468fee1e3dc54ccb0 PDF Text Text Board Scolds Olds {JV li/IML Kent Undercover Agent Reinstated COLUMBUS (E) -- Saying the whole thing smelled of a Grade B movie, the State Personnel Board of Review yesterday reinstated a fired Kent State University un- dercover policeman. It also criticized Univer- sity President Glenn A. Olds for firing the officer and passing responsibility for a hearing onto the board. The firing of the offi- cer was called “appease- ment” to student groups. Olds declined to comment. . Patrolman Reinhold Mohr, 25, was fired May6 after he was arrested by. Kent city police on a weap- Ons charge. His role as an undercover agent for campus police he- came known when he was arrested. He had been a student and part-time cam- p u s policeman before be- coming a full-time police- man. OLDS BASED the firing on testimony from three students who said Mohr at- tempted to sell a machine gun to students and encour- aged them to blow up a campus building. Kent police arrested him in April on a charge of pos- sessing a Russian-made machine gun which he pur- portedly was attempting to sell to a student. Federal agents said later th e- gun was inoperable. Mohr testified he used it as a prop to gain confidence of student radicals.’ THREE STUDENTS testi— fied. they heard Mohr incite students to 'use violence against police and encour~ age others to bomb a camp- us building. The review board said the student complaints against Mohr appeared to be retal- iatory and unfounded. It said his arrest apparently resuilted from a studentv “setup.” The board also said the '- policeman’s firing was an obvious appeasement to student groups reacting against undercover surveil- lance tactics. ‘ “WHEN SUCH appease- ment results in a clear—cut. violation of the civil service laws and the rights of the individual, this board must bring it to a quick halt,” the » board said. The board’s written opi- nion also noted: “This case has enough plots and counterplots, espi- onage and counterespionage and the good guys being the bad guy s and bad guys being the good guys to make several Grade B mov- ies or television series, or at least a paperback novel.” https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0f152401bff87776cc74f13860d72fb4.tif 27e807c7a08c6fafe6c7392b17b7637f PDF Text Text .two weeks chargingeKSU POL. ‘ice Chief James L Fyke and “"tent of the answer which de- ' . MOHR, 25, waspfired by the By JOHN DUNPBY 3: Beacon Journal staff Writer KENT— The Ohio Ameri- can Civil Liberties Union said , Friday it will file suit in Fed- eral catirt against Kent State University officials in the wake of the State 1 Board of Personnel Review ruling to reinstate former campus un- dercover a gen 1: Reinhold “Ron” Mohr. Lennard Schwartz, ACLU staff counsel, said the suit will be ﬂied within the next others With “illegal surveil- lance” and attempted entrap- ””“ir. . \ university May‘; 6' after six students presented affidavits ‘chargmg he tried to prevoke pstudents to Violence last March? and tried to get stu- dents to blow up Rockwell Hall April 12. The Board exonerated Mohr at «11 -L......-.. ...._'l -..J._ ._1 1 1 . opposed to » poliCe Akron Beacon Journal October 1h, 1972 ”'CCLU Will Sue In I Eidents" testimony the BGard " said: “The first thing to be re- membered is that? each of theseYoung men was one of the peiis’ons the appellant had 1 - under "surveillance.” “Secondly, the sitting mem- bers of the BOard- were not favorably impressed by the demeanorof these ree wit- .ness‘es on the stand. In sever- al instances, it was the man-i her of speaking and thetone ‘of voice rather than the‘con- tracted from their credibility.” “Thirdly, it was obvious from the overall testimony that the" three ac‘cusers were surveil- lance- The Board concludes that :they had a very direct interest’inithe outcome of the matter.” ' ' _ Olds has yet to comment on the Board ruling which ac- cusedhim. of “an attempt to ﬂﬂff M/xyﬁa equipped to prd‘vide a dispas- sionate atmosphere in Which a formal hearing may be held ., to protect the substantive and procedural rights of bothMr, Mohr and his acchsersl” ASSISTANT Att'y. Gen. Eric Gilbertson, who represented Kent State at the hearing,-_ said “the" university and Dr Olds were unjustly criticized, in the report. ”' "’ ' “I don’t believe the Board .expected us to hold a kanga- roo court trial on the campus for Mr. Mohr. The University . isn’t equipped, to handle a'.. hearing of"this type. I. believe “‘ "Dr. Olds did the right thing at thetime. “THERE' were some seri- ous charges made by the Six' students and .I don’t think he ‘1 (Olds) could ignore them '— saying in effect the students were lying It was necessary i for Mohr to be fired. so the Board could 'hear the case ,Johnson claims the Universe; ity had his address in Ashta-J , ' hula; ’but never attempted to contact him» ——»*1 —. ,. .4 - 1 , who was apparently perform- The subpena,-1t wast..— 2 learned; was mailed to the. ing his duties properly must ' wrong address in Kent. Johnson sa1d he Was “abso—"_ lutely- amazed they c 0 11 1d , ~reinstate this character. ” r “The Vietnam Vets Against 1 the war are not going to let” the thing settle down,” he added: 11.; ’_ IN its ruling the Beard. Said the [case had enough» to 3* plots and counter- -plots make several Grade B mow ies, but concluded: ' “no merit WhatsoeVer fact that a police..1officer, hired and paid by the Univ- ersity to enforce the law and 7' wait for a hearing before this Board in order to clear him- self ’of accusations" Which had . and had to undergo remeal from h1s poSitiori, public embar— . rassment and financial loss. “It is to the credit of Mr. Fyke that he did not recom- mend this removal},’ The decision was sigﬁﬁdﬁby members Earl W. Allisgh°and ' Frank E. Avren, both Repub- . - licans. Board Chairman “Probably the most disturb; ' ing aspect of this caSe is the James E. Hughel, a Demo- crat, was absent. -.. z https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e9c0e68f63ee1d3214840b52534d7fe7.tif c9576012af4a51075a4ef64b19c910cc PDF Text Text Record~Courier October lb, 1972 KSU officials hit for 'appeasemeni' Kai/of??? State board upholds Mohr By ROBERT DRUMHELLER ’ R-C Columbus Bureau COLUMBUS — The State Personnel Board of Review Thursday reinstated former Kent State University Under- cover agent Rheinhold Mohr, 25, to the university’s police force and exonerated him of charges by KSU officials that he advocated “killing pigs” and destroying Rockwell Hall. The university can now appeal the board’s decision to the Portage County Common Pleas Court. Mohr can recover lost wages, which amount to about $3,200 through the courts. In an ten - page written decision, board members Earl W. Allison and Frank E. Avren found that Mohr’s dis- missal was “an attempt to appease certain elements of the campus community and lower their vociferous protestations.” Circumstances surrounding Mohr’s case, they wrote, involved “enough plots and counter-plots, espionage and counter - espionage and ‘good guys being the bad guys’ and ‘bad guys being the good guys’ to make several Grade B movies or television series, or at least a paperback novel.” The board severly criticized . the university officials for not expediting a hearing for Mohr. “Probably the most « disturbing aspect of this case is the fact that a police officer . . . must wait' for a hearing before this board in order to clear himself of accusations which had no merit whatsoever, and . . . had to undergo a removal from his position, public embarrassment, and financial (SEE EX-UNDERCOVER, PAGE 3) ‘Anti-surveillance’ suit mulled by ACLU The Ohio chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is con- sidering filing a suit in federal court as a result of the reinstatement of former Kent State University undercover agent Rheinhold Mohr by the State Personnel Board of Review. According to Barbara A. Child, - chairwoman of the Portage ACLU chapter, the suit would seek “injunc- tive relief” against entrapment and general surveillance by state univer- sity officials and police. She said Ohio ACLU officials will have to read the 10-page review board decision before deciding if a suit should be filed. Ohio ACLU executive director Benson Wolman is expected to make an announcement on the Mohr case later next week in Columbus. The local ACLU official said she “was simply amazed by the ineffi- ciency and clear bias of the board. “The tone of the docunient is so anti- education that if I didn’trknow better I would guess the members of the board were either ex-policem‘en or ex-prose- cutors,” she said. She also cited bias on part of the board “because they continually con- ferred with defense counsel for instruc- tions on how to proceed.” She went on to call for the removal of the board members “if they can’t sit without showing bias. As everybody knows the evidence was overwhelming against Rheinhold Mohr. There was no way anyone could make the evidence . look otherwise.” V REINHOLD MOHR https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b5698aba291835334e8a107224e08da7.tif b8109cdea722428d636e54bdc4193ef6 PDF Text Text '(From que l) ‘ "108.3" ‘ ‘ The board commended Security Director Janice L. Fyké' for 'not recommending Mohr’s dismissal. ' ‘ The boaid. also stated that althouEh the university attempted to appease campus groups “appeasement only leads the way to more excessive demands and greater confrontation v “When such appeasement results in a clear- cut violation of the Civil Ser- vice laws and the rights of an. in- dividual, this board must bring it to a - - quick halt." ' Mohr was ~detained by Kent city police on April 24 for possession 'of,. usisian°- illegal weapoiis — one a R ., m'a‘de AK347 automatic riﬂe — last May immoug h charges were later dropped afterg Fyke identified Mohr as a univer51ty policeman and federal officials . ‘té’rmed ‘the' ﬁligréearable” and legal, Mohr was dis- Board members pointed out that the charges “are so serious that they would justify instant dismissal from his position." But, they continued, the‘ evidence rebutting the charges “is such that many persons must surely wonder why these charges were ever . filed in the first place.” The review board summarily dis- missed testimony by three witnesses who testified that Mohr offered to sell weapons and advocated violence. During the hearing on Mohr’s appeal this month, Thomas Grace and Greg Hawthorne— who were roommates while students at Kent State — and Jeffrey Beutler offered testimony that on March 7 Mohr advocated “ldllinE pigs (policemen). ” However,_ Allison and Avren wrote that because the three witnesses found out that Mohr had them under sur- veillance “there 'is no doiibt that 'at least the baSis for bias ”and prejudice in speakinE and the tone of voice i'ather than the content 0f the answer which " th credibility of the discredited by the board because “it was obvious from the overall tes‘tir'ndny that the three accusers were opposed to pelice' surve . “One of the direct results of their accusations against (Mohr) and his removal Was to completely end the undercover suryeillance at Kent State Universi ty." The board’s decision also pointed out that Mohr was given “a. great deal of discretion” in his activities by his superiors. Mohr was hired by KSU as a member of the “mod squad” students who checked university building security in the evenings. Later he was» hired by femier Police Chief Donald L. Schwartzmiller as an undercover agent assigned to report an campus “ac- tivists. ” “In this assignment ” the decision states, “Mohr had the full confidence .of superiors and was given wide latitude as to his working hours, his activities in associating with students weapons ‘ ’ ‘ credibility of Beutler because his testimony related only to the sale of - the weapons, which we have already w'struck down as being an invalid charge. ” On another point, the board found that Mohr had been “set up” when detained by Kent City Police. “We imagine the unwitting Kent City Police officers 'were somewhat chagrined when Security Director Fyke was called and had to save his officer from false arrest charges by exposing his true identity as an undercover agent. " . . That “chagrin" ‘the board wrote, “Was probably mild compared to that of gthe accusers andnplotters of the . arrest when they learned ’all criminal ' . charges against ‘fink’ had been ' droppedﬂ Apparently, the decision stated, this led to Grace, Hawthorne arid Beutler filing affidavits concerning Mohr’s dismissal. Board members questioned why the three did not go to university or police officials at the tifne of the incident. It was two months after the March 7 incident, when Mohr allegedly offered weapons for sale and advocated “killing pigs ” that. ‘_‘they told their version to the proper authorities,” according to the board The board also was “shocked”to hear evidence that one of the uses of undercover officers was to check on prostitution on the carnpus, which admittedly exists $13? InveStigator Winkier had ear "’i" confirmed this at the October 11 mm ‘, mugs“; https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3d76d72025b946bd58f8edc12f0128a0.tif 737bdc7bc7d5275ce9b87a5d56a9e52c PDF Text Text _/ , Surveillaggsm In a‘strange turn of events, the State Personnel Board of Review has reinstated Reinhold Mohr, dismissed from the KSU campus security force. last spring. Charges against Mohr, a student working as an . undercover agent, were serious. In sworn affidavits, " members of the KSU Vietnam Veterans Against the War ' claimed that Mohr had urged them to perform violent acts against Campus police. ' - -. Mohr was arrested April 25 by Kent police when they- stopped him carrying an automatic riﬂe and a grenade launcher. Charges were dropped when agents from the U S. Department of the Treasury termed the weapons “inoperable.” After Mohr was dismissed by KSU President Glenn A. ' Olds, he appealed to the personnel review board, ~since he is classified as a civil service employe. Now five months later that board overruled Dr. Olds and charged Olds with _ “buck- -passing. ” It can hardly be thought that the review board was objective in its decision when it harshly condemned Dr. Olds ’ and Kent State University for dismissing Mohr likening the situation to a “grade B movie.” In actuality, on such an emotionally—charged issue as an alleged “agent provocateur" Dr. Olds’ s referring the case to the review board was well-advised That Dr. Olds should be chastised for trying to find an ' objective moderator for the charges and denials sounds like ' petty politicking. In the long run, however, the overall question seems to have been obscured. Reviving the Mohr case is like kicking a dead horse; it is 'a release of pent—up frustrations and little more. The real issue is the continued use of undercoVer surveillance agents by the KSU campus'police. ' Last spring,‘ Mohr was one of what KSU Director of Security James Fyke called “about five special investigators” working for the campus police. Purpose .of these investigators was said .by Fyke to be probing of narcotic cases and “illegal organized activities.” The use of any so—called undercover agents to spy on the activities of Kent State University students is an outrage. Like the Watergate affair, the use of such agents is .- the manifestation of the fears of those in power that the people cannot be trusted. . In East Germany, the people no longer speak of ' politics even in their own homes in the presence'of their _ friends. They never know who is listening. _ Kent State is not East Germany/Where the lack of privacy' is now definite and understood. Kent State is Where there are still undercover agents employed by the“ campus security forCes, anonymous and able to move 1’1eely among us And we never know who is listening. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5a2c2896410566c7e1d0846009a7d6da.tif 6ce174dd394cd0e276f7f18f7e82fac1 PDF Text Text // 4*; Q :0 An open meeting to “educate the student body about the Reinh'old Mohr situation” isescheduled for 8 pm. today . in room 110 Williams Hall. According to Karen Czujko, student body vice- -,president the issue will be discussed at the meeting by a panel familiar with the Mohr issue. The panel will answer student questions. Members of the panel are lawyer Howard Allison, Michael White, a member of the university’s Security Advisory Commission, Alan Morris, ice- president of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (WAW), 'Beutler, also from WAW. Czujko said the meeting is sponsored by Student Senate which; she said feels Mohr’ s reinstatement to the campus police force last week “was a whitewash.” : She added, “We want to get Mohr off campus.” Mohr was dismissed by KSU President 'Glenn A. Olds last May. when seVeral students accused him of malfeasance inf ‘ his position as an undercover agent. for the campus police investigating alleged sub ve r sive activities of student organizations. and Jeff pen meeting set gen Mohr decision The accusations against Mohr included claims that he— urged the bombing of Rockwell Hall and the use of automatic weapons against the campus police. Last Thursday, the State Personnel B oard of Review ordered Mohr reinstated, claiming that the testimony of students against Mohr was “not credible.” _ Dr. Olds said he was shocked “at the editorial manner in which the Board dealt” with the Mohr inVestigation. . Czujko said, “The nature of the questions at the hearing was vrhetoriCal. The whole thing was a rubber stamp. Their decision was pre-determined.” She continued, “People are upset that that kind of surveillance and provocatiov ' goes on.’ According to Benson, Wolman, executive director of the Ohio American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU, . is preparing to ﬁle a suit on behalf of the WAW, one of the groups investigated by Mohr, against KSU Security Director James Fyke and the university for illegal surveillance and attempted entrapment. Wolman said the suit should be ready ‘ within two weeks. 3.1:1' https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d9c4e63b0769e7d1823970148b0c8b19.tif 729ba867e6e402226d5a42fbf6afcbfb PDF Text Text l l VK7 Campus Security Olds predicts enrollment out if Issue 2 passes KSU President Glenn A. Olds said in a press conference yesterday that if the state income tax is repealed, “We would have no option but to cut the enrollment and faculty of the university.” Olds said that Harold Hovey, Ohio director of finance, had estimated the consequence of the tax’s repeal would reduce Ohio’s income by 25 per cent. “In absolute terms,” he "said, “our budgets might be reduced not only by 25 per cent-~but could conceivably be reduced even further.” “We have tried to ﬁeld a quality education with cripplingly limited per-student support from the state. The notion that we can cut that support even further and still Mﬁﬂﬂ' overdose on campus. As your article pointed out, the student E “> .‘.’..’ 0.) U L: 0 D4 m :3 Q. 'E N U Q) .1: H Iva—q O 2 .O' H D .5 'U C‘. N a) 3 8-: "U C: " . ° a s a ..... a .E a 9-: O O O . surVey clari ied Editor, The Stater, I would like to clarify three points that appeared in the Stater article describing the opinion survey I conducted for the Campus _ Security AdvisOry Committee: ‘59; as H (I) a): Hat: 8 ”"8 0w Tic: ~50.) H1) “H a) on {50 tn A MES v> O 3 service the same number of students with any kind of quality is a ﬁction of the ﬁrst order,” Dr. Olds said. The only alternative left open to him, should the tax be repealed, Dr. Olds said, would be to “radically” reduce enrollment. This would eliminate the possibility of higher education for students in lower income brackets who, in Dr. Olds’ words, “could not possible be responsive to escalating student fees.” As a result, Dr. Olds said he is “appealing to thoughtful people of the state to defeat Issue 2 on the ballot.” He explained that both the Parents Association and the Faculty Senate have come out on record in support of this position. (1) The article stated that “the Campus Police did not seem to attract any negative (2) The article stated that ‘ “the majority of students said they did not want the Campus Police to go after drug pushers.” comment. from the students.” There were indeed negative comments from students, but only from about 22. per cent. More students (27 per cent) were favorable, but most students tended to be neutral (50 per cent). s «3H 9—: 00>,o >“aaaqn=abgmsaas wage pﬁg H: "do” "" wv :HH 55385:“; E'EWMEQ'S ﬁg: '6) 0:... RH: Cﬁﬂuwsﬁmse‘ :NQEJOOE OOOHm-ﬁ'acochmok ‘O'HOGQQ’E Out :63” ®> "-40.6 “o (D m > 94 q :3 F: 1—! "Emog-iow'at‘emac 25:5585’8 5336033353 _§83 8gwﬂtgm% “mgwcom' 4:0“ H ge-owwac w§§=253£“-§“$°83 0238*"188 "q :H o "" "" It: ”-0 ov-t goiaémtgﬁ gaaagg Egmaaa .3 S's-So guwcﬁ 8,233 30.: so < “mpﬁmﬁﬁ-emms‘: °" mgéés "a“onaﬁmwwscsggg swag—c: ”>1 “wuqno>,.—tu 'og‘m o kids-13000 otﬁé’ﬁaegzo 0a.. ossoouuﬁuomogw °:>.>‘t:a.. 3385833303083503<m9go ° 0“ o no 0 ,5: 3&8:E.E%Bmauw/EMHQ 03:99 £339 499%; When asked about campus surveillance in relation to the Ron Mohr case, Dr. Olds said he did not know of the presence of any so-called undercover agent " last spring. He also said that he had visited the KSU security department Monday and, in terms of information ﬁles on students, “The only ﬁles kept are on criminal action or intended criminal action.” Although he said that it would be “premature” to comment on the preliminary report of the Institutional Planning Committee that will be. released Friday, Dr. Olds called the draft that he ~had seen, “impressively incisive. It will confront the. university with some tough decisions,” he said. ‘. '* ' ‘ ‘Campus Police should make a major effort to get rid of hard drugs like herOin.” In cent wanted the Campus Police to investigate a case of herom The particular question asked another question, only 16 per. about pushers of heroin, and a whopping 73 per cent agreed that https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2c1cd2dc6da311af5ef597c8f1f432b4.tif b910bdb4320eaf61b7eb3ac54ae7eda2 PDF Text Text Mohr reidgtated; Oldscriticized By. R. F. Livolsy . Campus Editor Reinhold Mohr, one-time undercover agent for the KSU police, has been ordered reinstated to his job by the State Personnel Board of Review (SPBR), Thursday. Mohr, who was ordered dismissed by KSU President Glenn A. Olds following his exposure as an agent by the KSU Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) last spring, was cleared of charges of provoking students to employ violence against police and encouraging the use of explosives to destroy’ Rockwell Hall. , ‘7 In a statement received by the Stater last night, Dr. Olds resaid that while the university will honor the SPBR’s niling, the ‘ original? ‘action of the university ' L Twas justiﬁed. It was not designed it to appease anyone Nor does it. :1 seem necessary to apologize for V, violence, protect the rights 0f *a'patrolman Mohr and insure a :5; legal base for testimony of the ’ aCchSors.” — ' The SPBR’s report said that the evidence in support of the charges was “such that many » persons must surely wonder why these charges were ever ﬁled in the ﬁrst place.” Earl W. Allison, a member of the three-man SPBR, told the Stater, “We think the matter could have been handled better at the university level. These students made their charges , against Mohr; then the university president, rather than risk the students’ displeasure, appeased the students by ﬁring Mohr and passing the buck on to us.” However, Leonard J. Schwartz, counsel for the Ohio ACLU, called the board’s report a “blatant whitewash.” Reinhold Mohr Schwartz ' said, _ “Any objective analysis of the court transcript from the hearing shows obvious and blatant bias on behalf of the members of the board.” 'According to Schwartz, “We will be. filing suit in the, immediate future on behalf of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War against KSU Security, Director James Fyke and the university for illegal surveillance and attempted entrapment.” Mohr was exposed as an undercover agent last April when he was arrested by Kent City Police for possession of illegal weapons. According to the SPBR report, Mohr was “set up” by the VVAW. In order to clear him of the charges, Fyke had to admit to Mohr’s status as a police ofﬁcer in the special investigations diViSion of his department. The charge” was dropped when federal authorities found the weapons were inoperable, and therefore not unlawful. Dr. Olds dismissed Mohr when he received afﬁdavits from six students accusing Mohr of trying to provoke them into . illegal activities. Olds said at the time,“‘Mr. Mohr has been removed from his position pending an appeal and full " hearing before the State Board of Personnel Review.” All six students who ﬁled afﬁdavits were subpoenaed by the board, but only three appeared to testify against Mohr: Thomas Grace, Gregory 'Hawthorhesandz-Jeffrey- Beutler. Kenneth Johnson; ‘NOﬁnan Caulﬁeld and Mike Brock did not appear. Brock declined to appear because there is a warrant outstanding for' his arrest in connection with an alleged ﬂag desecration, a misdemeanor. None of the six are attending KSU this fall. Grace and Hawthorne told ,, the hearing board that Mohr came to their apartment on March 7, 1972, and showed them- a Russian AK-47 submachine gun which they claim Mohr told them would be “good for killing pigs.” They 1 claimed that Mohr’s statement regarding “pigs” amounted to an offer to use .the weapon for that purpose. * The board concluded that Mohr’s statement was not an offer, and, since the weaponwas not found unlawful by federal authorities and Mohr possessed it with the knowledge of his superiors, they dismissed the charge that Mohr sought to provoke students into violence against law enforcement ofﬁcers. The board also noted that , they were dealing with a case of Mohr’s word against that of Grace and Hawthorne. In reference to the statements of Grace and Hawthorne, the , ' board said, “This is just not credible testimony‘.” The charge that Mohr openly advocated the destructiOn of . Rockwell Hall was dismissed because the board said it felt there was no evidence to support suchacharge. Mohr told the Stater that he ' A 7 had no comment regarding the. board’s decision, but he did say he had been “expecting the worst.” https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4826eb18f247051b5ee1d634ac28498a.tif 428b511a471eedaa1cfddb2c01dba47b PDF Text Text F yk e refutes R- story On Leep: James L. Fyke, director of . security at KSU, has taken issue with an article that appeared in Monday’s Record Courier. Ina formal statement issued by his ofﬁce, Fyke labelled as lIntrue statements which hold him responsible for the remOval order of Patrolman Elmer K. Leeper and that name Fyke as . the appointing authority in the case. ‘.‘Both are _totally in error in that both the appointing authority and the retrieval order must come from the director of non-academic personnel,” Fyke 'said. - » r , lhe article contained excerpts from the reinstatement order issued by the State Personnel Board of Review in ' the Leeper case and listed Fyke’s name in parentheses in the middle of a quoted sentence. An editor for the Record, Courier, Irving Shear, said that no interpretat1on of the reinstatement order had been - made, although he was aware that Fyke’s name did not appear ' .in the text 011 the order issued. : A sub headline for the article read‘State blasts Fyke. ’_The text . ,_ Was confused as to the prep” W 7 ‘1' of the story criticized the“? . removal order of Patrolman Leeper. F'yke’ s removal order No plans for a correction or .1 retraction are being made at this ‘V time, Shear said. ‘ . According to the ﬁve- page . ’ statement issued by the stately? 7‘ board, Leeper admitted under - ‘ ' cross— -examination to the chargesu-‘t , brought against him and the‘ board found him hot guilty despite the admission Fyke’s statement said the departmen ., statement.“ , ' refuted that he issued the https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/80d4285eced92c2bf9c7b7d76021aada.tif 5ebee49d9ffe701aacfe1909bd721e5d PDF Text Text ,The administration of Kent State University was correct in dismissing Reinhold Mohr but ‘ was wrong in removing Elmer ,VK. Leeper, Jr., both from the a, University’s security-fOrces. a ” Both cases havifé‘f’v'a familiar ’,1ink, in the , way seCurity, opera- ,itio’n‘s are being handled at iKSU.‘ The state "Personnel Board of Review reinstated both, KSU security officers re- cently. ' . The Mohr case involves sur- veillance reminiscent of the methods andqtac'tics long since criticized ‘by Congress and by y the courts. Spying on students in this fashion goes beyond func- tions of security forces at a funiversity. ~» . iltSVWOuld be noteworthy if they administration.;ﬁf the university ,, would ever care to publicly dis- . close" the entire extent of this ‘ -Student spying and then divert . Jnoney spent ' for this,» purpose “F1910, “the Iriain purpose of the ‘in?iversityjeducation;is: 4 g The administration" ‘was cor- rect in dismissing Mohr when it learned the full extent of this spying. ' - , Then there is that gray area of Whether Mohr actually insti- gated riot and dissension by showing what later turned out to be useless weapons to stu-v ‘ dents. Also, the state board ne- ver subpoenaed students actual- ly involved in this undercover caper. , , y _ Then in the case of Leeper he fell into dislike with his immedi— ate superiors andwas subject of this intense KSU security sur- veillance one hour and 45 min- utes before he was scheduled to goon duty. , Leeper had a {legitimate reas son for not greporting“ for a so-called “red-a1ert’_’ because of ' his visitto the university health center, where a doctor ordered him off duty for two days due ‘ to exhaustion. ._ The administration of KSU' should investigate the entire ‘ matter of; campus security with" an eye ,to‘war‘d‘ia changeto Iavoid - recurrence of Similar matters; https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3758edab4da051dd62bf8b0b7560a566.tif 3a609711acb51fcc8a8bcbb39c66fe74 PDF Text Text tie girl and I used to Sit in me >vie_s and Watch redskins scalp cent God-fearing Christian :n. I hated the bastards. I was ogrammed to. Little did I ow that it was the white man [0 was destroying the Indians :1 desecrating-their culture. “And so it is in Vietnam. We programmed to hate the >ple of North Vietnam. We taught to think of them as r enemy rather than as human ngs. Because if you think of m as humans it’s a little bit n4. 3.W3'-". I:-.. _ , 4.4 J~ J-yu. :'.,. ‘ . v 1 Ha I D "II, I ayunu LU Americans .over the radio in North Vietnam,” she shouted. Fonda appeared with George smith, a former POW. Smith said, “When I'say that I was treated badly, people smile ‘ because that’s what they want to hear. But, when I say that the people of North Vietnam are - human beings and that they treated me as a human being, people get upset because that’s not what they’ve been led to believe.” ')f I‘ Ar ' .’.‘C. - .'..> , camera factory.” Arid yet only now with the recent bombing of the French embassy are we being made aware Of what is going on,”said Fonda. At one point she held up'a small bomb that she said was the most popular anti-personnel weapon in use. “This weapon is being used against people hiding in air raid shelters,” she American people and their government. While we drop bombs onthem they study our history to try and gain a greater understanding of our way of life. When I asked them why they don’t hate us they replied, “If our peOple ever learn to hate, we are lost.” When asked-to describe the peOple of North Vietna , she ’ . Ear-POW George Smith said, “They are a people of steel, yet gentle as clouds.” Fonda has been traveling to campuses throughout the nation in an effort, as she says, “to educate people on the immorality of the war.” 64/ 25/ Olds predicts enrollment Cut if Issue 2 pass ' KSU President'Glenn A. Olds Said in a press conference yesterday that if the state income tax is repealed, “We would have no option but to cut the enrollment and faculty of the university.” Olds said that Harold Hovey, Ohio director of finance, had estimated' the consequence of' the tax’s repeal wouldreduce Ohio’s, income by 25,per cent. “In absolute terms,” he said, “our budgets might be reduced not only by 25 per centubut could conceivably be reduced even further.” “We have tried to ﬁeld a quality education with cripplingly limited per-student support from the state. The .. notion that ..we can cut that " support even further and still service the same number of students with any kind of quality is a fiction of the ﬁrs order,” Dr. Olds said. The only alternative left open to him, should the tax be repealed, Dr. Olds said, would be to “radically” reduce enrollment. This would eliminate the possibility of higher education for students in lower income brackets who, in Dr. Olds’ words, “could not possible be respOnsive _ to escalating student fees.” ' As a result, Dr. Olds said he is “appealing to thoughtful people of the state to defeat Issue 2 on the ballot.” He explained that both the Parents Association and the Faculty Senate have come .out on record in support of this position. When asked about campus surveillance in relation to the Ron Mohr case, Dr. Olds said he did not know of the presence of any so-called undercover agent last spring. He also said that he had visited the KSU security department Monday and, in terms of information files on students, “The only files kept are on criminal action or intended criminal action.” would be comment~on the preliminary “premature” to report of the Institutional Flaming Committee that will be released Friday, Dr. Olds called the draft “impressively incisive. It will confront the university with that he had seen, \ sometough decisions,” he said. . https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e0904c3ba4345d497c962b7c2629e4e4.tif 5a320d51520b077fe1cad6b329d54d63 PDF Text Text VII Number 18 @¢/Q;/ 32 Kent State CUnchrsity " ‘ In contrast to last year, when freshman enrollment showed the 28 per cent drop, this year’s total number of ' freshmen, 5,362, is about equal to that of last year, 5,372. Hall said the decrease in total: enrollment was a reflection of a nationwide and statewide trend. Hall said there are many reasons for the drop in enrollment: --the end of the draft has given the. prospective student worried about the draft the choice of whether or not to go to college; - 4the uncertainties over the summer abOut the loan program which led to a 10 per cent decrease in loan application; -‘-the general uncertainties of the total ., economic picture having left some students without jobs this summer; and the fact that fees are just too high. out-of-state fees are “outrageous.” “We‘ve had a drop of more than 600 out-of-staic students this year because we have priced ourselves right out of the , market," he added. L By Richard Hackman While in=state fees are high, Hall said, ' ‘ ' i . 4:3 77‘, ‘ ' u‘ . a ‘ﬁ'lﬂ r u r” ' /_ . 1 a . ‘1 K”: \ u ' ., _ r, , ‘ ,(s . w 5 a . ‘71. he“, .‘ i, I '1 . .’ ’ry ‘ f « " a li‘i‘l~ t} , , \ in i > a; swat-*3 According~ to President Olds, he "personally taken steps to insure that there is no surveillance on campus." He added there are also no records kept by the campus police that do not relate to criminal acts and President Olds said he has made sure that James L. Fyke, director of security, understands this. Only about 50 persons took the Opportunity to talk with KSU President Glenn A. Olds yesterday afternoon at the first open forum this fall. He informally discussed and answered questions on topics ranging from ”surveillance on campus" to individual student problems. 30b Gage. student body president, students still look to us for academic https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/56eb1998485cdf0fc14061444d1eda51.tif ef46b3a632e6f89e0edbd6c9e96af4b7 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/54b82c44aa1b25fffc284bf92d7f8241.tif 18266cf773b356eddf72e914c45f5222 PDF Text Text .. - am; - l ,g_ t: ‘3' u r _ k“ {\4}. .‘ \QDHﬁ A" E,§ 4‘ maﬁﬂ ° ~H—V H‘Fz-qvag f q/ / “W9 \____: €747," Vmﬁ K “\W \a‘. . /\»><‘° \ «are? . . , , . Weltwommumeations system, motor pools. ant. tlllUnlilth data pt: \ N \(9 s9tﬁimtees. ' \_\o‘) ~ 8 wt SWNﬁf ars ge. {€5,2le to . , .2 _ - Parttcmanfr. besides i.‘ , wrll inetide .- . on \llllCC of 1‘. lt ' partment oi Commerce, Small Business 'llfxiv l’nvironz.‘ amt l’i Science l‘ouialation, Ofl'ire of l'eoitomic t),~ ur- nzo Action SecuritytThiefs Say ‘l‘hievery is the Ne, «gurity prod” z; r l . 'l‘hicverijIieir No. 1 security chiefs of 5}» i'astern college». i la Problemon(‘ampus a questionnaiae fi'i-.- the Burns Sew. an. i, -' study tt")_:1lttl/£ttlt)lt. ifs: directors, when... camp. . ,. dent and academic population of more man one million, said campus dz..ii()lt.\‘lt‘~.iw tr. 7. are on the 'wane and they now are moi-x. concerned about combatting what thv Vt, incidence of theft and other crime. In reporting that demonstrations have abated, 1mm? of the securm (sin; .1- Problems of parking, vandalism and intruders were l-iilkk‘d next in orde, The security chiefs answered the open-ended qu._:-.tio.a'iaire about the; :t l as follows: thefts. 38; parking, l4; \l'aaaalisni, L; intruders, 12; budget, 3, t . .v, manpower, 5; administrative apathy, 2; racial lx.ll$l0ll.\. l; and intimidation, .l. The security officers said, by about four 3-» on; that student frilidii’l‘Q‘f . : e creasing, out four said bomb threats were a growing problem. Half the survey participants said serious crimes are more nurtuero...» mi.» , 'zli :l: ten feel the situation is unchanged. Only one said serious crime war u‘aereasing. The survey participants were among attendees at a colkg: st‘xarity sent". . it i institute and Pace College on the Pace campus. Among the speakers was .9 o i secretary of the lnternational Assocration of College md Unit’ersity Security .5, 2; upsurge of campus thefts involves equipment such .2. movie protectors, typt t. business machines, and automobiles. Crimes .of violeme. he said, int-2’- _.r- arm. , . a) rape. Ford Offers Fellowships The Ford Foundation has armies i, o For Research on Women fellowships for the 1973-74 academic yea. r; .; role ofwomen in society. The purpose of the renew ; fr it eunpletion of promising research related to contemporary problems itithi‘iy . .o . p icy and action. The program is being funded for one year on an t . i: is extended. - ' Nominations must be submitted by department chairmen or izt t' - n win etc are supplies" by the foundation. Direct applications by candidates will not be act-c “lo. hold the doctorate or have had equivalent research training or exit.“ cast, :zte’ .. , - .'. . la. bers of a co"cge or university in the US. or Canada. Johnson Fund Supports The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation a: ,_ l .. _ New Denver Med Center $588,000 to establish a center in Denver 1 - :i w; who abuse or neglect thCir children. It will in of Colorado Medical Center and will be called the Nat anal Center for ' of Child Abuse and Neglect. The center will build on the university’s c a. which includes pediatricians, pSychiat-rists, public z‘iealti'. nurses and social https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9261f145f53a08d3ed3f8a523c0a572f.tif 6a3082c9df456f29ca734511664c3464 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/deadc65e1249e684af10aa022f8ed259.tif 926df7e05172b9aca9d91930f0d987af PDF Text Text Survey shows low police morale ( From page I) of the security director. The majority of the faculty members agree with the students on the question of surveillance. But 44 per cent of the staff members feel surveillance shOuld ’ be left in the hands of the security direCtOr. Most of the campus security department members agree with those Staff members. The students find themselves. divided on the issue of drugs.‘ “While students are quite Willing to‘ see the campus police go after the pushers of heroin, they also do not see the campus police as the appropriate agency for inVestigation when students have a heroin problem,” the report -states. “When this.is combined with , the generally negative opinion as to * how drug problems are currently handled, a confusing picture emerges.” ' Seventy- one per cent of the students say they “have a high degree of paranoia when it comes to police ac- tiVity, ” and the campus security department is facing a serious morale “ ‘ problem, according- to the report. Some members of the security department feel they are not treated fairly in promotions and job asSign- ments, according to the results of the survey. Recent budget cuts and lay-offs have “seriously hurt” morale in the department, the report states. / Students and faculty members do not want the campUs police involved in‘ . political activity, according to the . report. But‘staff members and town- speople see such activity as necessary. Among the 72 t0wnspeople questioned by phone, “there seems to be a general feeling that the police do a good job 'of making the university a safe place to live,” according to the report. Members. of the campus security . department give themselves a good _to fair rating on that question. “Campus”, policemen seem" most disappointed with their performance in the area of drugs, giving a fair to poor rating,” the report states. While the largest number of students feel neutral about the security depart- ment, most members of the faculty and ‘ staff suppert the campus police, accord- ing to the study. . . s, ' The committee aISO reached two _; other conclusiOns: ~ ~The University community wants a _’.’ police department, and sees security as ' its primary function; ——And the department needs to be- ' more effective in its public relations. . Dr. ,Glenn A. Olds, KSU p'res1dent, created the committee last March. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e037f1e6efa25445920182267c50ad9f.tif e0e41cc7dd080bed10486f1786aa00ea PDF Text Text Leeper reinsta ted in KSUPOlice iob Patrolman Elmer K. Keeper of Dover, Ohio, was reinstated to the KSU Police Department by an executive order from the State Personnel Board of Review (SPBR) last Friday. The Board found him not guilty of the specifications brought against him by the university this past summer. The charges stemmed from ‘ allegations that Deeper was remiss in his duties last May when he ragga—earn sick prior to his tour of duty and for alleged immoral conduct with a female passenger in an ofﬁcial vehicle. Leeper was‘ reported to have times after phoning in sick. The Board decision cited “the preponderance. of evidence must lie with me... appellant if ,, for no ‘W’M‘embers disclaim CSAC “inewS, - ’ .z ’ grate/6M .(x - i.» Editor, The Stater, . We, the, undersigned members of~ the Campus Security [Advisory Committee, cannot be « associated with the so-called ”reports” that were prepared ' andf'zissued‘ "‘by' four of the been seen on campus several ' 4"» ;.~. ‘other reason than that the Board members were totally confused- by the witnesses despite our effOrts to clarify the testimony.” In a ﬁve-page statement, the Board criticized the university for its poor handling of the case ' and for the unnecessary cost to the State of Ohio which is expected to run in excess of ‘ $2,500 in back pay and expenses. , The report stated that, patrolman Leeper reported in sickiprior to his tour and reported to the university dispensary where a doctor placed him on a two-day relief from duty” due to exhaustion. Leeper' had" worked for the police force 42 hours out of the 7 previous 72dun'ng a “red alert” I? .".~‘-_'1¢.-- t » - a - : 1 student members --"of the committee; They were acting independently'of the committee and, therefOre, do not speak for the committee. We are concerned by the bias and inadequate research that characterize these “reports.” They contain a mimber of distortions of fact that :lead to unwarranted inferences. We are; equally ’ concerned that the conﬁdentiality'bf the committee. has been violated in such an irresponsible manner." ' " . We would characterize the issues raised'in, these “reports” as falling into three categories: .a) a number of issues have already been dealt with by the committee and acted upon by President Olds; b) several other important issues were still under consideration when the committee disbanded. VThese . need furthervitstudy":so that ,, “cause .of. disorders, on , , --ﬁrm, factual base, and c) many . the responsibilityl'of membership V16 ? We campus earlier in the week, according to the report. The question of alleged immorality centered around confusion over the student “observer program” by members , of the university testifying "' before the Board,raccording to the written repert. ' The three-member Board’s decision was unanimous with one of the members absent. No statement has been made by the . KSU Police Department at this time. ’ ' ' ‘ The university personnel departmentis expected to , announce the effective date of ' ’ ,Leeper’s return to the force later . ‘ this week." Hewill be reimbursed -' ~ - for all wages lost during» the 'appeal.:‘ . _. ‘ .' . recommendations will have. [a of the issues raised in the “reports” were never considered by the Campus Security Committee. As far as we knowfl these charges remain unveriﬁed 1' and unsubstantiated. . In short, we seeia number of 1 important, substantive issues that need careful c0nsideration by -a new Campus Security I AdVlSOI'y Committee. We hope that each person who assumes ‘ will'be committed to objectivity and fairness to the committee’s charge. D. James Dooling George D. Eastman Charles L. Greene - Arvin I.Lubetkin Allen. Rawitch VB. Earle Roberts Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: News Clippings Publisher Publisher of the original item. Some of the content included was originally published by the Akron Beacon Journal and the Record-Courier. Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1972 Description News clippings related to the Campus Security Advisory Committee from various sources published between May and December 1972. Topics include the Campus Security Advisory Committee and campus protests of the ROTC. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 38 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Demonstrations Kent State University. Police Kent State University. ROTC May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d48ff9d4147b39fc790c2f34301c2412.tif 401d170a43343272042abc81a822a868 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/140266a6a0f8a736a951b2d3b5f2d632.tif 0b95435e1445ed5878e1db3f3427980c PDF Text Text u: “A ovt'll‘b nu, PUUALV. ‘ fortable jets, greater capacity and cleaner jet engines. They conclude with an invitation to readers to write in for an illustrated booklet, “Economics of Air Transport: An Overview.” While all four ads tend to exaggerate the airlines’ record of public service, one ad is far and away the most deceitful. It depicts an airline inspector, carrying ’ a clipboard, who stands inside a giant jet engine. He is evidently checking the machinery for something or other. The headline beneath the photo reads: “Our newest no-smbking section.” The ad then continues: “That’s right. The engine. On our newest planes, the wide-bodied jets, the engines don’t smoke at all. And the older jets are smoking less. Why? Because we’ve invested millions of dollars to reduce air pollutants from our engines. Though emissions from scheduled airliners are only 1.2 per cent of the nation’s total, it’s' still too much for us—‘and you.” ~What is really “too much,” however, is the readiness of the .ATA to distort the facts of this matter. The truth is that, while the industry has indeed removed the smoke from most of its jet exhaust, it has simultaneously - increased the emission of a far more poisonous substance: .‘nitrogen oxides. In their tinkering to get rid of the AIIUIV yuunyuuaa, IIIUIU \rUlII" ,smoke, the industry engineers have succeeded in pro- ‘ _ ducing an exhaust trail worse than the old one. -S_moke, although the most visible of jet pollutants, is “QUITE LEGAL, QUITE ETHICAL’ TE!)~ JOY ‘ Mr. Joy, 0 free-lance writer, lives in Kent, Ohio, and is com- pleting a book on the Kent State killings. ‘ I. Three weeks after the May 4, 1970 killings at Kent State University, Ohio state Senator and KSU administrator ‘Robert E. Stockdale told a hand- -picked group of Ohio newsmen: We need a real, statewide intelligence system that could identify these [radicalsl—could grab the necessary legal mechanics. and could with the cooperation of na- tional authorities identify, convict and rid ourselves of this type of professional scourge. That type of thing is , very essential. We have to be able to identify and rid our campuses pretty quick of the next 100 or 200 . . . - with a minimal amount of legal procedures which almost makes it essential that under certain conditions we're going to have to have a red alert which would set aside some of the slow, slovenly, you're innocent until , proven guilty tradition. Two years later. on the evening of April 24, 1972. Kent city police otiicers. acting on information from two local attorneys staked out the p:;r“1-=.t i111 11f titmim nth studtnt 01:17. 1'2.) :11 1;.11‘1. “ t .. .- persons came out of one of the buildings. lhcy were 144 nu “10' Ivan; uunuxxuu vulva, ulvuuutv bunny Euauo, can do much more injury to public health. The thinking seems to be: out of sight, out of mind. And, of course, the ad fails to mention that the airlines applied even this token dose of cosmetics only after public pressure had become a serious national clamor. Finally, while it is true that jet engine pollution ac- counts for only 1.2 per cent of the national total, it is ,as much as 75 and 80 per cent of the pollution in the neighborhoods around large airports like JFK, O’Hare and Los Angeles International. ‘The information served up in the second part of the industry’s campaign is equally self-serving and mis- leading. One piece, a slick, 13- page, chart-ﬁlled item, argues that the airlines are a highly efﬁcient, well- -man- aged, lean, dedicated team of public servants Another, called “Rising Employment Costs in Air Transport,” urges that the government put curbs on the unions of airline workers. The airlines obviously believe that the investment of $1.5 million in this kind of campaign will pay off. As the Hill & Knowlton proposal candidly concludes: “This approach . . oﬁers the industry an opportunity to create a climate in which its Washington aims can be more readily achieved in the years immediately ahead and in the long term future.” Sadly enough for consumers, they are probably right [1 E A11 KEN? §TATE , “Reinhold “Ron” Mohr and Alan Morris. Both were KSU students and both were members of the campus chapter of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (WAW). On a prearranged signal from Morris the police moved in and arrested Mohr. At that time they had no idea who Mohr was. All the city police knew about him Was that he was carrying a Chinese-made AK-47 automatic riﬂe-r—the kind used by the North Vietnamese Army—and a Chinese-made, rocket-pro- pelled grenade launcher (RPG). They knew too that Mohr had been trying to pass the weapons to members of the VVAW, saying, “They’re good to kill pigs with. " Mohr was taken to the city police station for booking. Once there, he revealed himself to be an undercover agent for the KSU security force (the campus police). His assignment, he said, had been to inﬁltrate the VVAW and other radical and anti-war groups. Mohr was held overnight, pending a decision on the legality of his pos- session of the weapons by agents of the Youngstown ofﬁce of the Alcohol, Tax and Firearms Division of the Internal Revenue Service The next morning federal agents found the weapons to be inoperable. After he had sign (1 i1“ :11 1:11'.‘ ’31 r.'. .._..-_~...1.~ ‘11:.) r 1 w'. . ._.'-1>‘_',‘1 '..1.‘..“."’.\ ‘31:: L.‘.‘..;3Z;.:‘.::.i I. -,‘.::..' .s .. . . was no. ammunition at hand for them. in addition, the THE NATION/January 29, 1973 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5e916841cb4aef48315950d3c68f3f62.tif 54a097f99b7c2eb09cc5d760ce8ad9a9 PDF Text Text . . , - AKM’S'I had a hole drilled in its gas chamber changing it from an automatic to a single-shot rifle. The question of the legality or illegality of the weapons was thus carefully side-stepped, and, under subsequent question- ing by newsmen, KSU director of security, James Fyke, admitted that the weapons were “not necessarily legal.” A few weeks later, while appearing before the Campus Security Advisory Committee (CSAC), com- sed of faculty and students, Fyke changed his position somewhat. He said, -“Under federal policy any police ofﬁcer working in any undercover status is automatically -exempted until such time as he comes back to the sur- face from any of these illegal gun kinds of violations.” Subsequent checks made by CSAC members at three other IRS branch ofﬁces in Ohio have disclosed that more possession of the ﬁring mechanism of either weapon -——much less the whole weapon—is illegal. In the days following Mohr’s arrest—which was made possible by a tip to the VVAW from a campus security ofﬁcer—a series of accusations were made against him. Members of the Joe Hill Collective, a Marxist-oriented descendant of the Students for a Democratic Society, filed ' a series of afﬁdavits stating that Mohr had tried to induce them to dynamite Rockwell Hall, a 3-story granite and brick building that houses the KSU Army and Air Force ROTC departments and the student records ofﬁce. Another person claimed that Mohr had set up a plan with the “place,’time and dates” to kill three-Kent city police ofﬁcers; This perSOn refused to sign an afﬁdavit because, he feared physical retaliation from Mohr. Other members of the Kent community have admitted buying marijuana,_amphetamines and chemical hallu- cinogens such as LSD from Mohr, both for their own use and for resale. Apparently, though, Mohr’s drug traf- ﬁcking is legal under a recent decision handed down by the US. Ninth District Court of Appeals. Ruling in another case, the court held that undercover police ofﬁcers were permitted to buy, sell and otherwise use illegal drugs in order to maintain and enhance their images. _ Mohr's arrest came at a tense time on the campus -—the week before the second anniversary of the May 4th murders. Students demanded that action be taken to pre- vent a recurrence of the use of undercover agents. Fyke denounced the arrest and the resulting uproar as a “false issue" and “a test of my credibility and honesty." It was, he said, “deliberately created as a hoax. These kinds of lies,” he said, “are putting us in a l984-type situa- tion." The whole incident was the result of “the spring offensive of a combination of anarchists and starry-eyed individuals“ led by a “well—trained cadre who know their revolutionary manual well." Speaking to the CSAC, Fyke said: ’ What we have done is quite legal, quite ethical. We have not invaded the privacy of any persons. This is - the question I have not resolved in three years at Kent State—who are these people who are involved in these political activities that ha \e been l1 11med in 111): 11:1y by (erui or indifcct 5.1'1'1'1 "1‘1." *1 “f 1 are a! 11. .113 i 11 :Ltnoitl 1-1!») 1'. 511111. the nature of being a studtnt. No» Air. has been invaded. He has been publicly detained. [They] i011? 5 tli 11111.) Tue NATION/January 29, 1973 took away his constitutional and civil liberties by ex- posing him. Newly appointed KSU president, Glenn Olds, a former ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council and Nixon campaign adviser. told the Daily Kent Stater that “before he came to KSU he would not have believed the level of discontent among the students and faculty over security and would not have believed under- cover agents would have had such an impact on the community." As a result of increasing student pressure from the Mohr affair, Olds on May 1 issued a “Recom- mended Policy Statement on Surveillance.” (William McKinley, Olds's executive assistant, has since called the statement—prepared by the CSAC—a “bunch of garbage” and openly admitted that its release was no more than a ruse on Olds’s part to defuse a potentially explosive situation.) Two main points were made in the recommended Policy Statement. First, surveillance—or secret watching as the CSAC called it—would not occur unless there were probable cause to believe that a crime was either being planned or being committed and no other appropriate investigative techniques were available. Furthermore, if surveillance were to become necessary, the director of security would notify the president of the university in writing. ' Appearing before the CSAC, Fyke objected to the requirement of written notiﬁcation; it was unduly cum- bersome and impractical. Further, he said: “I am not privileged to discuss these cases with the president be- cause he is the public. It would not be legally or ethically' possible for me to do so.” According to Fyke, he was responsible not to the university president but to the Portage County prosecutor and the law director of the city of Kent. Continuing, Fyke said, “I feel that there is no police agency—bar none—which takes its oath of‘ ofﬁce seriously that can operate without covert, secret surveillance activities on occasion. Once somebody says something to another person-the thought is no longer private, it is public. Therefore for me to overhear you make the comment or for me to be the third person in a group when you make the comment does not put me in the role of being an eavesdropper or surveiller. If you don’t want anybody to know it, don’t say it. Don’t, write it. Don’t do..anything with it." The'second main point in the proposed Policy State- ment was that no students would be employed or used voluntarily by the KSU security force for surveillance, nor would they be paid for information voluntarily given. Full-time police ofﬁcers who attended school were spe- ciﬁcally exempted. Mohr was just such a case. On this point, though, B. Earle Roberts, chairman of the criminal justice studies department at KSU and chairman of the CSAC, told me: “I don’t deny that there are undercover agents on campus who are unpaid and who are constantly giving information and intelligence. It’s part of the times." Then, warming to the subject, he concluded: “It‘s in the finest tradition of American law enforcement.” iyke expanded on this point before the CSAC. ‘l hate ‘i'lt‘.l.l.l.. it" i fl't' \) (7.1 {2 Ethan-1.11 ' .iiilt)” .. ; ..t‘t1‘ .1 'ics 1.»: 12‘1‘1 :t tits: 17.)?! is :1 11:1 i' There are, he said, “informers in every s11‘1gle group, 1451 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0f05dc694473a46a7f491517193a5d67.tif 1919a6071cfc50d3a6bdf10b5c489f8e PDF Text Text | 'Q. t K to current criminal cases.” J H -\ L ‘ 1 ‘ including some of the most covert, supersecret members of the most radical, militant organizations. ” One ‘of the most useful groups of informers, Fyke told the CSAC, was the Faculty Senate Observers a group set up after the‘l970 killings to provide unbiased monitoring of demonstrations for the faculty’s information and . guidance Recognizing the implications of what Fyke had said, CSAC member and chemistry professor, Allen Rahwitch, burst out: “If that statement with regard to the Faculty Senate Observers gets out of this committee, they’re destroyed. Our constituted duty is to be objective " observers reporting back exclusively to the Faculty Senate.’ While the CSAC-Olds proposed Policy Statement .laid down guidelines on the use of undercover agents by the KSU security force, it made no mention whatsoever of their use by other police agencies. Early last November Fyke admitted that he knew that agents from the Portage County sheriff’s ofﬁce, the four-county regional drug control agency, the Ohio State Patrol, the Ohio State narcotics squad, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investiga- tion and a federal task force were operating on campus. He said that other agencies, too, may have had agents . . working on campus at that time but he did not know for - sure. He said agents from the Federal Bureau of Inves- tigation, the US. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and both Army and Air Force Intelligence had worked the KSU campus from time to time in the past and probably were still around. {On the same day. that he promulgated the proposed Policy Statement, Olds announced that photographic sur- veillance would be restricted to “speciﬁc matters related Three weeks later, the Stater carrieda front-page picture of KSU security ofﬁcer Jerry Frankhouser, dressed in. civilian clothes and carrying a camera at the site of an anti-ROTC demonstration. Upon being challenged by Stater reporters, Frankhouser showed them a press pass indentifying him as a phbtographer “for the Cleveland Press. A bit later the Stater reporters saw Frankhouser pass a roll of film to. a uniformed KSU security ofﬁcer. Their suspicion further aroused, they called the Press and were told that Frankhouser had done no work for- the paper in ‘more than four ‘ j years. ' Frankhouser’s use of press credentials was not without precedent at Kent. In June 1969, Margaret Ann Murvay, 1 a KSU student, appeared before the US. House Internal Security Committee and told them how, during the . previous school year, she had assisted the KSU security- force while acting as news director of the campus station, WKSU. After recording interviews with student activists or taping the proceedings of political meetings, she would duplicate her tapes and pass them to KSU security . ofﬁcers. ' On May 4, 1970, a man with a camera is said to have run screaming and waving a pistol from the shootings on Blanket Hill. The Scranton Commission and the FBI ’ identiﬁed the man as Tcrrv Norman, 9. free-l mee photov- rapher. Yet others 1111c said that :‘11‘12‘1‘132‘1 ‘1'1 petitedly to friend; that he was ex ﬁlmed by :11; 1‘ 1’11. Further, newsmen from the NBC news bureaus in Akron 146 i _ bikes: and Cleveland uncovered the fact that Norman had been employed as a KSU security ofﬁcer. Following the killings at Kent they tracked him to assignments, first with the Washington, DC, Police Department and, more recently, with the Miami, Fla, Police Department. After more than a year of trying, the NBC newsmen were unable to get a satisfactory report from the FBI as to whether or not Terry Norman’s pistol had been fired on May 4, 1970. - Immediately following Mohr’s arrest, Olds in- structed the CSAC to investigate the incident and its wider implications. The focus of their investigation shifted rapidly from the Mohr case to the intelligence operations of. the KSU security force in general. Fyke, himself, neatly drew the connection between the Mohr incident and the security force’s general policies. He told the CSAC: “One of the purposes of undercover agents is getting intelligence. I do not deny this at all. It is not rare and it is not exceptional. It’s just a continuing kind of thing where once you’ve started one agent you can put ten more men‘out to follow up those branches from the ﬁrst.” Almost immediately the CSAC split into two factions. The anti-Fyke group, consisting almost solely of the student members, was led chiefly by Mike White, a young Methodist minister and graduate student in philosophy at. Kent. The pro-Fyke faction was made up mostly of faculty, administrators and nonuniversity people. It was led by Roberts, the CSAC chairman, and Dr. George D. East- man, director of the KSU Center for State and Local Government. One of the charges that White leveled most strongly against Eastman and Roberts was that they were too closely tied to Fyke to reach an unbiased assessment of the KSU security force. Both Eastman and Roberts had , been Fyke’s teachers at Michigan State University police school from 1960 to 1963. (That was the same time that the MSU police school was setting up Diem’s secret police operation in South Vietnam.) Later, Fyke and Eastman worked for the Public Administration Service, a consulting ﬁrm, in Chicago. While there they served as consultants to the President’s Commission on Crime, helping to write the commission’s report on police administration. In 1965 Roberts came to Kent State as coordinator of ' ' the law-enforcement studies program. He was follOwed two years later by Eastman, who took over the fore- runner of the present Center for State and Local Govern- ment. In 1969 Fyke arrived at Kent State. working ﬁrst as a researcher in Eastman 5 operation. After the killings all three served as consultants to the university commission set up to reorganize the campus police department. Finally on January 1,1,971 Fyke became KSU director of security, a position analogous to campus chief ot police In addition, Fyke and Roberts were major con- tributors to the book Municipal Police Administration edited by Eastman in 1969. Published by the International City Managers Association, it is the standard work in its ﬁeld. When I asked Fyke about his connections with the ()li‘i f l‘.'. ), it: 5 ill lltllli l‘C it. .11 i‘.’.‘:: ﬂux) 11;“: 1"..1." 1111111: stu MSU . 313;.1: ‘ ; 1i. man denied having had anytlung to do with lyke 5 being Irma union/January 29, 1973 ~, https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b8efcae5ea74bd0201ed90cce1dfd89d.tif e78cbc5d80c733e77a5a448d83890602 PDF Text Text 44 v‘—e—‘. v...._.1-_ 1 ,e 1?. -' ‘IAAAA v.-- p “employed at KSU. All three denied having been involved in the MSU Vietnam project. The ﬁrst major issue of dispute within the CSAC was the keeping of intelligence dossiers by the KSU security force. White pushed for inspection of the ﬁles by the CSAC; Eastman and Roberts resisted. On May S, 1972, Olds granted CSAC permission to inspect the ‘records. The next day Fyke moved to block the inspection, claiming that it would be “unethical and illegal.” Finally, 1% ,r " .1‘ .‘ at the end of May, a CSAC subcommittee was allowed to \ look at the index to the intelligence ﬁles, but not at the ’ actual ﬁles. . , The subcommittee found 3,000 names in the index— ._ only ﬁfteen of which concerned active criminal cases. Almost all ﬁles were less than a year old. The names Were indexed according to the following criteria: persons , arrested or about to be arrested for narcotics, violent ' revolutionary activity, gambling and prostitution; names sex- - submitted by other agencies; victims; informers; related crimes and pornographers. The index also con- l'tained noncoded entries of activist faculty, Kent city ministers and members of the VVAW, the Black United Students and the Kent Gay Liberation Front. According to the subcommittee report there were no index entry codes for property theft—the most common campus crime ‘ -—or for such other fairly common crimes as assault or . 'drunk and disorderly. One evening late in the spring quarter, while the effort to gain access to the ﬁles was being pushed, White drove from the KSU campus to downtown Kent to visit some friends. Shortly after arriving, he looked out the front window of his friends house and saw an unmarked car parked across the street with two KSU security otlicers inside. Parked a short <5; 3:111:13 31.19111: was a KSU 111.1%? cruiser hill! 11.1 o more. 01;.‘rs i:;...}:. 1:. criv-zv .1 the house was another 111 1111;111:113 car 1'111‘1 i'iic'c‘ . - security ofﬁcers and director of security i yke inside. White r111: NATION/January 29, 1973 and a lawyer- friend went outside to ﬁnd out what the KSU police were doing. They t1. ere told that a license plate check was being run on the lawyer 5 car which was parked in the driveway. Later, when the CSAC asked Fyke what his department's jcrisdie tion was outside KSU property, Fyke said, “Our authority ott campus is that of a private - citizen.” Throughout the spring and summer, Fyke denied re- . peatedly that the information in the intelligence dossiers - was being shared-with other agencies. Finally, at the August 18th CSAC meeting, he reversed himself and admitted that for more than a year and a half the KSU security fbrce had been exchanging ﬁles at weekly and biweekly meetings with local police departments, the Ohio State' Patrol, the Ohio National Guard and other agencies. i' According to CSAC documents, Fyke also expressed a belief that “any employer has a right to know all he can about a prospective employee, regardless of whether it is information of a noncriminal or personal nature.” The dissemination of the KSU intelligence data is prob- ably far greater than even this would indicate. In one of his ﬁrst moves as security director, Fyke tied the KSU security force into the FBI’s National Crime Information - Center (NCIC), a highly computerized information stor- age and retrieval system that by 1975 will provide every police agency in the United States with access to the records of every other police agency. While the battle of the dossiers was being fought ,. in Kent, Ron Mohr was moving toward a reinstatement hearing before the Ohio State Personnel Board of Review. The hearing was held in Columbus on October 4, before .I. two of the board’s three members, Frank E. Avren and Earl W. Allison. Avren is a former state highway patrol- man; Allison isa former prosecuting attorney in Franklin County (Columbus), who admitted during the hearing that he had supervised undercover narcotics agents as part of his job. There are at least four peculiarities about the hearings. First, neither of the two veterans who exposed Mohr. Ken Johnson or Alan Morris, was subpoenaed to testify. Second, the witnesses against Mohr were intensively questioned off the record about their political and social beliefs. Third, the name of Jim Rucker—the man whom Mohr identified during the hearing as having sold him- the AK- 47 and the RPG—was deleted from the ofﬁcial transcript. Finally there was the board’s ﬁnding which reinstated MOhr. It said, in part: .the Board {was} not favorably impressed by the demeanor of these three witnesses [against Mohr] on the stand. In several instances, it was the manner of speak- ing and the tone of voice rather than the. content of the answers which detracted from the credibility of the witnesses. . In view of the commendable way he was carrying out his undercover assignment and his straightforward and candid testimony, as opposed to the many factors de- tracting from the credibility of his accusers, we are com— pelled (sic) to ﬁnd [for] the appellant” At that point the university. dropped its efforts to remove " ‘ ' 1:111';;v"rc:. 4-23;". ' .lii I',1‘.11'- 111’..il1;.‘ .3 Ci.i'1'11.‘.’.- \ .!:;1,, “1' ve told liesident Olds hes lost control of the police 1. 11.1. 1 V https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a34c1284f8808a02e40fac271c3d510b.tif 227309ebad93dd4de500a39ae8ce4429 PDF Text Text 1 O / / ’ department. There are people up there who have no ‘ notion of the-First Amendment to the Constitution. They think they’re going to hold back the Communist tide. Our Constitution’s been abrogated up there and it has to be reasserted. ” Speaking before the CSAC, Fyke said: “The president’ 5 ofﬁce knew about Ron Mohr many months ago. They 'rknew that he was under. They knew his name. I had assistance from the personnel office in seeing that his name was not publicly bandied about. So I’m not taking anybody’s heat. I don’t want anybody thinking I was doing anything underhanded and scurrilous and secretive and that other members of the administration didn’t know anything about it.” On November 27, 1972, the Ohio Civil Liberties Union ' and the ACLU national ofﬁce brought suit against Kent State University, its top officials and members of its .security force in U.S. District Court in Cleveland. The ACLU charged the university with unlawful acts of provo— cation. Further, acting on behalf of the VVAW and vari- ous students, the American Civil Liberties Union asked more than $250,000 in damages and an injunction against any further undercover political surveillance on the part of the university. On January 5, Ohio state attorneys moved for dis- missal of the case. The state called ﬁrst for sovereign immunity. Since all the defendants were being sued for the performance of their ofﬁcial duties as they under- stood them, the state attorneys argued, the suit in effect was really against the state of Ohio. Therefore the ACLU and the Kent plaintiffs must have the state’s consent to be sued. Ohio would not consent. Further, the state attorneys said that even the alleged violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights “does not, in itself, preclude the operation of sovereign immunity,” because under- _‘ cover police operations, including Mohr’s activities as a provocateur, are part of the state’s “highest function; namely to react swiftly and decisively to insure the pro- tection of the public security.” The state of Ohio also contended that, since nothing had happened to them, the Kent plaintiffs had no grounds W. E. CHILTON HI Mr. Chilton is publisher of the Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette. Not the least signiﬁcant event of 1972 was the late autumn announcement out of the Chicago headquarters . of the American Medical Association that the annual budget had been tightened and revised, due to the drop in membership. For the first time in decades less than half of the country’s 325,000 doctors v. ere pm in r 113’1 \ dues. Among the missing was Dr..Geo.;:_:e 1 ....s Sloane, who quit in 1971 in anticipation of being a Democratic candidate for mayor of Louisville, Ky. His 148 WCDAN for pressing the case. The state attorneys wrote: “Plain- tiffs would apparently seek a recovery from this Court because they have developed a paranoia and are plagued with fears that have never been realized. Actions under the federal Civil Rights Act must be based 011 real and not imagined or speculative” violations of one’s consti- tutional rights. The state attorneys continued, “The Con- stitution does not guarantee that government officials disclose their identity as such to any person. The risk of being . . . betrayed by an informer . . . is the kind of risk we necessarily assume whenever we Speak.” Finally, the state attorneys called for a dismissal of the case because the plaintiffs were not really interested in claiming damages. Rather, the plaintiffs were seeking a broad-scale investigation of KSU’s security and intellig gence-gathering activities, to be conducted by themselves as private parties armed with the subpoena power of a federal district court and the power of cross-examination. The state attorneys warned, “courts should not venture into a realm foreign to the judiciary, one in which manage- able standards may not yet have been developed, to resolve the competing claims as to the appropriateness of technical details of the security system.” What it all comes down to is that the state of Ohio has declared the highest function of government to be the maintenance of security. To achieve this end the state {of Ohio has time and again shown itself willing to permit, even to demand, that its security ofﬁcers perform acts that, were they committed by a private citizen, would be criminal. It is no coincidence that the chief case cited by the state in its move to dismiss the Mohr case was Krause v. Rhodes. Krause is a Pittsburgh electrical com- pany executive who is trying to sue the state of Ohio for the wrongful death of his daughter, Allison. Along with Jeffrey Miller, Sandy Scheuer and Bill Schroeder, she . was killed by the Ohio National Guard on May 4, 1970,_ at Kent State University. The courts held in that case that the Guardsmen who killed the four students and wounded nine others were agents and instrumentalities of the state and, as such, immune to justice in the U.S. courts. . [:1 resignation, world’s shrillest lobby. Sloane has been decrying AMA policies since moving to Louisville in 1966 after two years with the U. S. Public Health Service. , He has written for the Louisville Courier-Journal articles which contain such comments as this One, bor- rowed from the dean of the Harvard Medical School: “To ask the American Medical Association to expcn~ ment with medical—care deliverv is rather like as‘inn {be l.t::‘11‘-..11.:‘u4;:\:1} 7::‘11 :1 t1) 1'.“;":.1.‘1=.~1 " 51l111111.lit‘1 tttttczattd It) lettuce £11.. .12... . - workers.” Another Sloane essay defied local conventional wisdom fmn NATION/January 29, 1973 it is safe to conclude, didn’t distress the https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/33d165e41655f77b140bdf9030f43332.tif f76a46edb54cd6bea15d22d3273187b1 PDF Text Text ESPIONAGE AT W * "ml/ire Legal, Quite Ethical’ ran JOY Three Weeks after the May 4, 1970 killings at Kent State University, Ohio state- Senator and KSU administrator 2 Robert E. Stockdale told a hand-picked group of Ohio newsmen: We need a real, statewide intelligence system that could identify these [radicals]——-—could grab the necessary legal mechanics and could with the cooperation of na~ tional authorities identify, convict and rid ourselves of this type of professional scourge. That type of thing is very essential. We have to be able to identify and rid our campuses pretty quick of the next 100 or 200 . with a minimal amount of legal procedures 'which almost makes it essential that under certain conditions we’re going to have to have a red alert which would set aside some of the slow, slovenly, you’re innocent until proven guilty tradition. ' Two years later, on the evening of April 24,1972. Kent city police ofﬁcers, acting on information from two local attorneys, staked out the parking lot of a pre- dominantly student-occupied apartment complex. Two persons came out of one of the buildings. They were Reinhold “Ron” Mohr and Alan Morris. Both were KSU ‘ students and both were members of the campus chapter of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). On a prearranged signal from Morris the police moved in and arrested Mohr. At that time they had no idea who Mohr was. All the city police knew about him was that he was carrying a Chinese-made AK- 47 automatic riﬂe—the kind used by the North Vietnamese Army—and a Chinese-made, rocket-pro- pelled grenade-launcher, (RPG). They knew too that Mohr had been trying to pass the weapons to members of the VVAW, saying, “They’re good to kill pigs with.” Mohr was taken to the city police station for booking. - Once there, he revealed hlmself to be an undercover. agent for the KSU security force (the campus police). His assignment, he said, had been to inﬁltrate the VVAW and other radical and anti-war grOups. Mohr was held overnight, pending a decisiOn on the legality of his pos- , session of the weapons by agents of theYoungstown ofﬁce of the Alcohol, Tax and .Firearms Division of the. Internal Revenue Service. The next morning federal agents found the Weapons to be inoperable. After he had signed them over to the federal authorities, Mohr was, released. Both weapons were declared inoperable because there was no ammunition at hand for them. ‘In addition, the iAK-47 had a hole drilled in its gas chamber changing it from an automatic to \a single-shot riﬂe. The question of the legality or illegality of the weapons was thus carefully side-stepped, and, under subsequent question- ing by newsmen, KSU director of security, James Fyke, admitted that the weapons were “not necessarily lega .” A few weeks later, while appearing before the Campus Security Advisory Committee (CSAC), com- posed of faculty and students, Fyke changed his position somewhat. He said, “Under federal policy any police , ofﬁcer working in any undercover status is automatically exempted until such time as he comes back to the sur- face from any of these illegal gun kinds of violations.” Subsequent checks > made by CSAC members at three other IRS branch ofﬁces in Ohio have disclosed that; mere possession of the firing mechanism of either weapon —much less the whole weapon——-is illegal. In the days following Mohr’s arrest—which was made possible by a tip to the VVAW from a campus security , ofﬁcer—a Series of accusations were made against him. Members of the Joe Hill Collective, a Marxist-oriented descendant of the Students for a Democratic Society, ﬁled a series of affidavits stating that Mohr had tried to induce them to dynamite Rockwell Hall, a 3-story granite and brick building that houses the KSU Army and Air Force ‘ ROTC departments and the student records ofﬁce. Another , person claimed that Mohr had set up a plan with the “,place time and dates” to kill three Kent city police ofﬁcers. This person refused to sign an‘ afﬁdavit because he feared physical retaliation from Mohr. KENT STATE Reinhold Mohr Other members of the Kent community have admitted buying marijuana, amphetamines and chemical hallu- cinogens such as LSD from Mohr, both for their own use. and for resale. Apparently, though, Mohr's drug traf- ﬁcking is legal under a recent decision handed down by the US. Ninth District Court of Appeals. Ruling in another case, the court held that undercover police- ofﬁcers were permitted to buy, sell and otherwise use , illegal drugs in order to maintain and enhance their ~ images. ’ Mohr’s arrest came at a tense time on the campus —-the week before the second anniversary ofthe May 4th murders. Students demanded that action be taken to pre- vent'a recurrence ofthe use of undercover agents. Fyke denounced the arrest and the resulting uproar as a “false issue” and‘ ‘a test of my credibility and honestyy ” It Was, he Said, “deliberately created as a hoax. These kinds of lies,” he said, “are putting us in a 1984-type situa- tion.” The whole incident was the result of‘ ‘the spring offensive of a combination of anarchists and starry-eyed individuals” led by a “well- trained cadre who know their revolutionary manual well.” . , ' Speaking to the CSAC, Fyke said: What we have done is quite legal, quite ethical. We have not invaded the privacy of any persons. This is the question I have not resolved «in three years at Kent State—who . are these people who are involved in these political activities that have been harmed in any way by direct or indirect surveillance? Students, I think, are always paranoid about something or other. This is the nature of being a student. Now Mr. Mohr’s privacy has been invaded. He has been publicly detained. [They] took away his Constitutional and civil liberties by ex- . posing him. Newly appointed KSU president, Glenn Olds, a former ambassador to the United Nations Economic and Social Council and Nixon campaign adviser, told the Daily Kent Stater that “before he came to KSU he would not have believed the level of discontent among the students and faculty lover security and would not have believed under- cover agents would have had such an impaCt on the community.” As a result of increasing student pressure from the Mohr affair, Olds on May 1 issued a “Recom- mended Policy Statement .on Surveillance.” (William McKinley, Olds’s executive assistant, has since called the- statement—prepared by the CSAC—a “bunch of garbage” and openly admitted that its release was no more than a ruse on Olds’s part to defuse a potentially explosive situation.) Two main points were made in the recommended Policy Statement. First, surveillance—or secret watching as the CSAC called it—would not occur unless there were probable cause “to believe that a crime was either being planned or being committed and no other appropriate investigative techniques were available. - Furthermore, if surveillance were to become necessary, the director of security would notify the president of the university in writing. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/77cbff3e9d40117ba011b0ee7a9a4c08.tif df562f0dbf5c98f7e4f82b96fd1c567e PDF Text Text James. Fyke Appearing before the CSAC, Fyke objected to the requirement of written notiﬁcation; it was unduly cum- bersome" and impractical. Further, he ”said: “I am not privileged to discuss these cases with the president be- cause her the public. It would not be legally or ethically possible for me to do so.” According to Fyke, he was responsible not to the university president but to: the Portage County prosecutor and the law director of the city of Kent. Continuing, Fyke said, “I feel that there is no police agency—bar none—which takes its oath of ofﬁce seriously that can operate without covert, secret surveillance activities on occasion. Once somebody says . something to ‘ another person the thought is no longer private, it is public. Therefore for me to oVerhear you make the comment or for me to be the third person in a group when you make the comment does not put me in the role of being an eavesdropper or surveiller. If you ,don’ t want anybody to know it, don’t say it. Don’t write it. Don’t do anything with it.” The second main point in the proposed Policy State- ment was that no students would be employed or used ' voluntarily by the KSU security force for surveillance, nor would they be paid fOr information voluntarily given. Full-time policé oﬁiCers who attended school were spe-r _ ciﬁcally exempted. Mohr was just such a case. On this point, though, B. Earle Roberts, chairman of the criminal justice studies department at KSU and chairman of the CSAC, told me: “I don’ t deny that there are undercover agents on campus who are unpaid and who are constantly giving information and intelligence. It’s part of the times.’ Then, warming to the subject, he concluded: “It’s in the ﬁnest tradition of American law enforcement.” Fyke expanded on this point before the CSAC. “I have , probably 100 persons who on a voluntary basis report various activities of what they feel is a criminal nature.” There are, he said, “informers in every single group, including some of the most covert, supersecret members of the most radical, militant organizations.” One of .the most useful groups ofinformers, Fyke told the CSAC, was the Faculty Senate Observers, a group set up after the 1970 killings to provide unbiased monitoring of demonstrations for the faculty’s information and guidance. Recognizing the implications of what Fyke had said, CSAC member and chemistry professor, Allen ' Rahwitch, burst out: “If that. statement with regard to the Faculty Senate Observers gets out of this committee, they’ re destroyed. Our constituted duty is to be objective observers reporting back exclusively to the Faculty Senate.” While the CSAC-Olds proposed Policy Statement laid down guidelines on the use of undercover agents by the KSU security force, it made no mention whatsoever of their use by other police agencies. Early last November Fyke admitted that he knew that agents from the Portage County sheriff’s ofﬁce, the four-county regional drug control agency, the Ohio State Patrol, the Ohio State . narcotics squad, the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investiga- tion and a federal task force were operating on campus. He said that other agencies, too, may have had agents working on campus at that time but he did not know for sure. He said agents from the Federal Bureau of Inves- tigation, the US. Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and both Army and Air Force Intelligence had worked the KSU campus from time to time in the past and probably were still around. On the same day that he promulgated the, proposed , * Policy Statement, Olds announced that photOgraphic sur- veillance would be restriCted to “speciﬁc matters related to current criminal cases.” Three weeks later, the Stater carried a front-page picture of KSU security ofﬁcer Jerry Frankhouser, dressed in civilian clothes and carrying a .camera at the site of an anti-ROTC demonstration. Upon being challenged by Stater reporters, Frankhouser showed them a press pass indentifying'him as a photographer for the Cleveland Press. A bit later the Stater reporters saw Frankhouser pass a roll of ﬁlm to a uniformed KSU security ofﬁcer. Their Suspicion further aroused, they called the Press and were told that Frankhouser had done no work for the paper in more than four years. Frankhouser’s use of press credentials was not without precedent at Kent. In June 1969, Margaret Ann Murvay,. a KSU student, appeared before the US. House Internal Security Committee and told them how, during the previous school year, she had assisted the KSU security force while acting as news director of the campus station, WKSU. After recording interviews with student activists or taping the proceedings of political meetings, she wbuld duplicate her tapes and pass them to KSU security ofﬁcers. On May 4, 1970, a man with a camera is said to have run screaming and waving a pistol from the shootings on Blanket Hill. The Scranton Commission and the FBI identiﬁed the man'as Terry Norman, a free-lance photog- rapher. Yet others have said that Norman bragged re- peatedly to friends that he was employed by the FBI. Further, newsmen from the NBC news bureaus in Akron and Cleveland uncovered the fact that Norman had been employed as a KSU security ofﬁcer. Following, the killings at Kent they tracked him to assignments, ﬁrst with the Washington, DC, Police Department and, more recently, with the Miami, Fla., Police Department. After more than a year of trying, the NBC newsmen were unable to get a satisfactOry report from the FBI as to whether or not, ' Terry Norman’s pistol had been ﬁred on May 4,1970. ms - \s‘ 5&3 333%. KSU President Glenn A. Olds Immediately following Mohr’s arrest, Olds in- structed the CSAC to investigate the incident and its wider implications. The focus of their investigation shifted rapidly from the Mohr case to the intelligence operations ' of the KSU security force 1n general. Fyke, himself, neatly drew the connection between the Mohr incident and the security force’s general policies. He told the CSAC: “One of the purposes of undercover agents is getting intelligence. I do not deny this at all. It is not rare and it . is not exceptional. It’s just a continuing kind of thing where once you’ve started one agent you can put ten more men out to follow up those branches from the ﬁrst.” Almost immediately the CSAC split into two factions. The anti-Fyke group, consisting almost $01er of the student members, was led chieﬂy by Mike White, a young Methodist minister and graduate student in philosophy at Kent. The pro-Fyke faction was made up mostly of faculty, administrators and nonuniversity people. It was led by ROberts, the CSAC chairman, and Dr. George D. East— man, director of the KSU Center for State and Local Government. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9e557667bedd4f0a941b4d95b42eb3ba.tif 479e826c263b07e4f652c934c9c47402 PDF Text Text One of the charges that White leveled most strongly against Eastman and Roberts was that they were too closely tied to Fyke to reach an unbiased assessment of the KSU security force. Both Eastman and Roberts had been Fyke’s teachers at Michigan State University police school from 1960 to 1963. (That was the same time that the MSU police school was setting up Diem’s secret police operation in South Vietnam.) Later, Fyke and Eastman worked for ‘ the Public Administration . Service, a consulting ﬁrm, in Chicago. While there they served as consultants to the President’s Commission on Crime, helping to 'write the commission’s report on police administration. ‘ In 1965 Roberts came to Kent State as coordinator of the law-enforCement studies program. lie was followed two years later by Eastman, who took over the fore- runner of the present Center for State and Local Govern- ment. In 1969 Fyke arrived at Kent State, working. ﬁrst as a researcher in Eastman’s operation. After the killings all three served as consultants to the university commission set up to reorganize the campus police department. . Finally on January 1, 1971, Fyke became KSU director of security, a position analogous to campus chief of police. In addition, Fyke and Roberts were major con- tributors to the book Municipal Police Administration edited by Eastman in 1969. Published by the International City Managers Association, it is the standard work in its ﬁeld. ' p When I asked Fyke about his connections with the other two, he said that he had been Roberts’ and East- man’s student at MSU. Roberts at ﬁrst denied this. East- man denied having had anything to do with Fyke’s being ' employed at KSU. All three denied having been involved in the MSU Vietnam project. The ﬁrst major issue of dispute within the CSAC , was the keeping of intelligence dossiers by the KSU security. force. White pushed for inspection of the ﬁles by the CSAC; Eastman and Roberts resisted. On May 5,. 1972, Olds granted CSAC permission to inspect the records. The next day ‘Fyke moved to block the inspection, . claiming that it would be “unethical and illega .” Finally, Ill/I4 AA 4 1", at the end 'oflMay, a CSAC subcommittee was allowed to look at the index to the. intelligence ﬁles, but not at the actual ﬁles. " The subcommittee found 3,000 names in the index— only ﬁfteen of which concerned active criminal cases. ’Almost all ﬁles were less than ’a year. old. The names were indexed according to the following criteria: persons arrested or about to be arrested for narcotics, violent revolutionary activity, gambling and prostitution; names submitted by other agencies; victims; informers; sex- related crimes and pornographers. The index also con- tained noncoded entries of activist faculty, Kent city ministers and members of the VVAW, the Black United Students and the Kent Gay Liberation Front. According to the subcommittee report there were no index entry codes for property theft—the most common campus crime -—or for such other fairly common crimes as assault or drunk and disorderly. One evening late in the spring quarter, while the g effort to gain access to the ﬁles was being pushed, White drovefrom the KSU campus to downtown Kent to visit some friends. Shortly after arriving, he looked out the front window of his friend’s house and saw an unmarked car parked across the street with two KSU security ofﬁcers inside. Parked a short distance away was a KSU police cruiser with two more ofﬁcers inside. In the driveway of the house was another unmarked car with three KSU Security ofﬁcers and director of security Fyke inside. White 1 “rec. TAKE THAT, Tame V00. and a lawyer friend went outside 'to ﬁnd out what the KSU police were doing, They were told that a license plate check was being run on the lawyer’s car which was, parked in the driveway. Later, when the CSAC asked Fyke what his department’s jurisdiction was outside KSU property, Fyke said, “Our authority off campus is that of a private citizen.” ' » Throughout the spring and summer, Fyke denied re- peatedly that the information in the intelligence dossiers was being shared with other agencies. Finally, at the .August 18th CSAC meeting, he reversed himself and admitted that for more than a year and a half the KSU security force had been exchanging ﬁles at weekly and biweekly meetings withlocal police departments, the Ohio ‘ State Patrol, the Ohio National Guard and other agencies. According to CSAC documents, Fyke also expreSsed' 1a : belief that'““ar‘iy7 employer has a right to know all he can » about a prospective employee, regardless of whether it is informationof a noncriminal or personal nature.” The dissemination of the KSU intelligence data is prob- ably far greater than even this would indicate. In one of his ﬁrst moves as security director, Fyke tied the KSU security force into the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC), a highly computerized information stor- age and retrieval system that by 1975 will provide every police agency in the United States with access to the records of every other police agency. ’ While the battle of the dossiers was being fought in Kent, Ron Mohr was moving toward a reinstatement hearing before the Ohio State Personnel Board of Review. The hearing was held in Columbus on October 4, before two of the board’s three members, Frank E. Avren and . Earl W. Allison. Avren is a former state highway patrol- man; Allison is a former prosecuting attorney in Franklin County (Columbus), who admitted during the hearing that he had supervised undercover narcotics agents as part of his job. There are at least four peculiarities about the hearings. First, neither of the two Veterans who ' exposed Mohr, Ken Johnson or Alan Morris, was. subpoenaed‘to testify. , Second, the witnesses against Mohr were intensively questioned off the record about their pelitical and social beliefs. Third, the name of Jim Rucker—-the man whom Mohr identiﬁed during the hearing as having sold him the AK—47 and the RPG—was deleted from the ofﬁcial transcript. Finally there was. the board’s ﬁnding which reinstated Mohr. It said, in part: . the Board [was] not favorably impressed by the demeanor of these three witnesses [against Mohr] on the stand. «In several instances, it was the manner of speak? ing and the tone of voice rather than the content of the answers which detracted from the credibility of the Witnesses. . . . » , - In view of the commendable way he was carrying out his undercover assignment and his straightforward and candid testimony, as opposed '“to the many factorsjde- tractingrfrom the credibility of his accusers, we are com- pelled (sic) to ﬁnd [for] the appellant. . . . i https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3313ac274b6d72a1faef9a8efca8be00.tif d049cc6d122802b408aece18d46d39c6 PDF Text Text At that point the university dropped its efforts to remove Mohr from the security force. Commenting on the current situation, McKinley said, “I’ve told President Olds he’s lost control of the police department. There are people up there who have no notion of the First Amendment to the Constitution. They think they’ re going to hold back the Communist tide. Our Constitution’s been abrogated up there and it has to be reasserted. ” Speaking before the CSAC, Fyke said: “The president’ 3 office knew about Ron Mohr many months ago. They knew that he was under. They knew his name I had assistance from the personnel offiCe in seeing that his name was not publicly bandied about. So I’m not taking anybody’ s heat. I don’ t want anybody thinking I was doing f anything underhanded and sourrilous and secretive and, that other members of the administration didnt know anything about it.” . On November 27, 1972, the Ohio Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU national ofﬁce brought suit againSt Kent State University, its top officials and members of its security force in ‘U. S. District Court in Cleveland. The ACLU charged the university with unlawful acts of provo- cation Further, acting on behalf of the VVAW and vari— ous students, the American Civil Liberties Union asked. more than $250, 000 in damages and an injunction against any further undercover political surveillance on the part of the university. On January 5, Ohio state attorneys moved for dis- missal of the case. The state called ﬁrst for sovereign immunity. Since all the defendants were being sued for the performance of their ofﬁcial duties as they under- } stood them, the state attorneys argued, the suit in effect , , wasvreally against the state of Ohio. Therefore the ACLU and the Kent plaintiffs must have the state’s consent to» be sued. Ohio would not consent. Further, the state attorneys said that even the alleged violations of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights “does not, in itself, preclude the operation of sovereign immunity,” because under- . cover police operations, including Mohr’s activities as a provocateur, are part of the state’s “highest , function; namely to react swiftly and decisively to insure the pro- tection of the public security’ The state of Ohio also contended that, since nothing had happened to them, the Kent plaintiffs had no grounds This} article first appeared in NATION No.5 for pressing the case. The state attorneys wrote: “Plain- tiffs would apparently seek a recovery from this Court because they have developed a paranoia and are; plagued with fears that have never been realized. Actions under ' the federal Civil Rights Act must bebased on real and not imagined or speculative” violations of one’s consti~ tutional rights. The state attorneys continued, “The Con- stitution does not guarantee that government officials disclose their identity as such to, any person. The risk of being. .betrayed by an informer. .is the kind of risk we necessarily assume whenever we speak.” Finally, the state attorneys called for a dismissal of the case because the plaintiffs were not really interested in claiming damages. Rather, the plaintiffs were seeking a broad-scale investigation of KSU’s security and intelli- genceagathering activities, to be conducted by themselves as private parties armed with the subpoena power of a federal district court and the power of cross-examination. The state attorneys warned, “courts should not venture into a realm foreign to the judiciary, one in which manage- able standards may not yet have been develOped, to resolve the competing claims as to the appropriateness of technical details of the security system.” What it all comes down to is that the state of Ohio has declared the highest function of government to be the maintenance of: security. To achieve this end the state of Ohio has time and again shown itself willing to permit, even to demand, that its security officers perform acts that, were they committed by a private citizen, ,would be criminal. It is no coincidence that the chief case cited by the state in its move to dismiss the Mohr case was Krause v. Rhodes. Krause is a Pittsburgh electrical com- pany executive who is trying to sue the state of Ohio for the wrongful death of his daughter, Allison. Along with Jeffrey Miller, Sandy Scheuer and Bill SchrOeder, she was killed by the Ohio National Guard on May 4,1970, at Kent State University. The courts held in that case that the Guardsmen who killed the four students and wounded nine others were agents and instrumentalities of the state and, as such, ‘ immune to justice in the US. courts. , E] mu JOY Mr. Joy, a free-lance writer fives in Kent, Ohio, and is com- plating a book on the Ken. Stare 312551119. Volume 216 \The Kent Chapter of Vietnam Veterans Against The War has reprinted and is distributing free of charge this article as a public service.1 If you have any information about police surveillance or F.B. I. aetivities in the Kent area, or have been contacted by agents, p1e ase call either Ted Joy or Alan Morris-—672- 7951 or 678- 3560. VVAW / Room 239 / University Center / KSU / Kent, Ohio 44242. I Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: News Clippings Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1973 Description Two copies of an article titled, 'Quite Legal, Quite Ethical': Espionage at Kent State, published by The Nation on January 29, 1973. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 10 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Copyright Cleared (NHPRC) dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> Publisher Publisher of the original item. The Nation DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Demonstrations Kent State University. Police Kent State University. ROTC May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5b40ac179b96b31da242ce6021855394.tif ceda6560e14675c728fccb76a3f555cc PDF Text Text ‘ “W ‘/ 'qu/ Mmelw ‘_¢~v6/ éMM ’Wtﬁiz/ [wkﬂzém4m7ké m m¢ﬁW M-Wnﬁww ’kSDM/Mw https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6cc850ade77c94a9a748d5c4fe0d1559.tif 817ff6908151c02935bfb45b134c6f8a PDF Text Text WM 4.! MJﬁoM—MW man/Mm WWJMA. IW%« QMJWW ﬂﬂ/MW ‘MWAW/ﬂ/W M 2m; away/u ”\R? 109.4.— //Aw/M Away“? / https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/67646003938e71f47c225532c9d250b5.tif 8561093c4f5bf33e4e3f3586e59bb644 PDF Text Text 54% ... “74»44 Muzzy/,1, " débrg’é/ﬂ/ézuﬂQ/MWZ 2 4/554M — a 6% W, https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/456c2f2182c1e5e46e24a1f5e894d3df.tif 1db1a1463e769f0f765345236152daa9 PDF Text Text 3?;é’. :2 ‘ ééf/j/f ,WJ ' Xé/ J F/ZIM/ £241» @«Z’ J ”/69? 'S%conm2 r766 955/640» «a?! J; me/a: M / W4; _. @wamwr k U ’ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/787ef129e5c8af50f871bb49da859343.tif 6a41164832c43c02a783e5e5ee8555fe PDF Text Text , / I / V ‘ ”A 7 ﬂ?.ggéwm zﬁéf‘wx/é M/‘é‘ﬂj— Z: : 5, ¢ Igwr4ééhe¢£im~d https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d2a595c33b0d4d357357ec31a87c9a6d.tif d3353ffa80306ea64ad9487966f1f38a PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ed12f21d6dddfddb5180e528eb227434.tif d89bd70163761661144d4e6b9b4eb991 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5be504d03c36cbb2a3ec48bcd157137c.tif 2202f92b4e493a77845d96cdf51f0cc6 PDF Text Text My W64— /. jw’ml ' [.2 ”am/f7L-— WW .2 éMz/Méw- “my W54. ,W I ' Séfwé/ W/MM / M mma ﬁWF/mé. 'V ~ 7QWWM5V4-n/4x — ,/, MWM QW’XJJW_ 74 %M, Wm M SMW i%/{MMaW// 74MMW W 5%" 3 % éw‘éc/éfwyyf' /“/z‘ v I [WW/Mm r/M/Zé JWWWM/ ww AM M/quMWI~ W¢W #1.? )4 m M MWPW/ 5% M ~— 0M4“ «QMMKW W»; a»! 4M- W /W ark; Wax/922W https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2f2212208bb7ba814680ac5e77b0b04b.tif 5f64cd9bf6caf86d633e6db1b0e1c3de PDF Text Text .o’ ‘ f“ 1/; amérw'OW/ W / / ’ PJ / .. / 7 74“! ‘‘‘‘‘ 7%“. WWW _M_\ x N... \ \ \\ maxozw ﬁzz: 35W- \ \J W M 11/; ' I V ”A *ﬁ’é‘IW/W / \ V / Wﬁ’“—“’ Wﬂé~ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/eb7570f7f59d5e448e8f6abf5cb5cff9.tif 5ddc99b79c721b107c19f159b0701edb PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/678fa9cab746b48e4e6cfc1bec69b676.tif 78880558efb4f0e6db676a96c380802f https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1917d6bca3727094c83aaec902d90f59.tif 4593d446519528b45b34d228c98a317f PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ed4a554565091384988cd822060a7095.tif 1bbf4b0d42f4b3038152960a37a41991 PDF Text Text 5/: gag. A doc/[M ’ 7 f “ ”74 “~59 /L(0£A)L;AZZ—37 v4 4", 7&- M W https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ba505df914e94c1cd882ddc4391e493f.tif ea3b3055950fed5f4546579d24cf5d9f PDF Text Text @ Woo/47¢ ’ 4%,! 74/5? 74:37:37 . © 4/554 ”E0; [c4 Pko/o :e 974 a’ Set Cat- / ‘ ”'01“, A” 60;: t/er n} @ EﬂI/Mﬂk gala/r P ) (ref/c; Prensa—rt / ‘ Fa 16v r/ar'a rec/yr; @ green/5 ﬁns/['5 ﬁgs/'74 k cecal-06' https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7f99a328fa990a485c94408488674a9c.tif 41e12a5d7ce45234885a3e4db76cca81 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7a5d9ad55372b13629df4413ee26c455.tif 65afbac0137edefe6f8b5c172d0ebd95 PDF Text Text /. Swami. WWMWC/ .2 XL two/Amity»— 3““;04‘? 3 MW5<OJ~ laww KW”? https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ef68cddba4d33ed50cb1d58b1103f3b1.tif 11d8e4c6d84f28197abfe0095c49167a https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9704ab15b380e238330fb48621026930.tif 4a04fb7ded7f2435ae3341d9e54a88ee PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/df87f12ca973596eb629da1574b7a37c.tif 01ddf038c519ce7ee0dd759a9d3613dd PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/eaae5b404b8ed3619de81f9eef340606.tif 5d9bc8936b9d252801e651fa9d777c54 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d2d3c30bbb830f905bae0faa942cfe7d.tif 7d6b44fbc8f061679f3efb3cfbe54e64 PDF Text Text I I https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/79fc7753bc26a342bc9c3858a908f073.tif 3817b204483caab1c0f56bce7ff507ee PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/defd6cbef0252adcbb5ff490ce08f7d5.tif 8ced5bc0621556324a4433f3bc1e3af1 PDF Text Text 7’ r I 24¢» 777,4. r yﬁu— 3330/z% https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3ffe4be0694d386e1a5c3b59163bf09b.tif b4afc13d5a06dc65b930b290ea259a6c PDF Text Text V LM'ZQ‘VZ’K ‘ (;4\ 2/ ' “H . may) _ 5 “5' ( ‘ . .. , f, f Q Ma” (ﬂWQ.,. ¢, LL a3: ,2, (/4: Ma 4e aewfé (@9/ I Wm a W W K Joarg ‘ I a MM’QMW » https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/fc3f0446f5e698d3f78cb08e72d4077d.tif afb583bd82e749e1e899328a6e6c7ac3 PDF Text Text - e ’12,)»; *7 Wigs? 4.422,? /‘7/;M£W I‘d-:7] Weamhw / V ‘A/M Wzﬂb/W’l M ‘1‘!)1’4.“ 11° j “$erer 1" M i 4&7?“ «737‘ d/m’éU/waw/ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/814a602ebd0ecc5cf665d4f52410fa91.tif 03a3460967128be07334ab9c63053608 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d9b324d211958e39515d9029680c53ec.tif 31100168a460803bb83128be3122ec7d PDF Text Text i V aw ”WM/Lu <7 ﬁQMwL/oaéwtg: 4* J https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/fde6cb47d2544047858877678915757c.tif 57f9c0c202ea1f99c7845b2bc8e894d4 PDF Text Text ‘7 1/4 W W_ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5d4d24f4b1ffcb42855d31a8a5353dbf.tif 024dfaa32e5edb30b7aa44516fb623cd PDF Text Text / ééﬂ/éw _MQMJW ac awamwméﬁ Wk 4 ﬁ_ ‘W £25 Wedge 0W¢M {a ,4? M_ 2%; ,4“. %d@§__ 71¢. @444 MW“. %:h_h__wﬁ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4b2f11bf554e92e5931891dc20510f96.tif cafd20f73be302bf05f0f706bed1fe4a PDF Text Text ﬁM anW7 4&- Mam Wma7¢4w “(r/W; WW https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4308040d6e089c969bcfcae656c7c2b3.tif 196a4c9375d62cf91f2a046a3b0c2705 PDF Text Text _,.\__ .. , [WM Jﬁn W (lg/11:; ﬂ $1.; , 16%. mm W mwowa 2%— https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6bc77726eaf6d61e495037e7f4d946a1.tif 88dca0c9ab969abe69e1c713868a37e5 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f4b88de1c6fb478388744aac8e565880.tif 71cd2b83a840bd40d9ce91fe3755ae64 PDF Text Text i A; All; % M4Mn/m M4”; https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f1c4da532d13906c78ae9d4de48dfbd9.tif 7bbe4417361b1987537b55f19f20a541 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5102a79a0ec27673d9849b507d827d84.tif d89a945fe75d4d61695e9ab65a8df11e PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/692ddf68f744c437940f7d5664370cb1.tif 2b320a93b50cfb0da6d393326247c7ff PDF Text Text V J ./ I https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/deb32e9888a1e3e14f21dd37f46e65d8.tif bcc44879dd6fc37e763c149772fa0dc1 PDF Text Text v 1 0 1i W M My I .5 ﬂ 5 " w 52%- ‘ / m f/. let) a ,7 M4 W34] W05 (ﬂf/ ’9 .7 / ,/ . I, K 9%M N / } 7:7?"7/ 7 6/ 5 Q \Ml ﬂy / ,- 2411-25—2? -—'--' 'z-L/éil‘ MW/ﬂézj /,3::,,_ ﬂ/M/ MM / r— j //M:]W W- 7 / M44 W Jaw/,4 /M/@" W W I / % 4, 5a,; Wwée/ WWW WWWZW MMAW /"” https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/65526b184cd1c2191066914adcfe7876.tif 90d4782f1613da8a0cbed9ff6aee9733 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4f4bb202020c4ddfe4a463bf72418436.tif a5b163087b0fe164be101407121517da PDF Text Text fa. - W W ”WA ' 244/: {’5 EAL???" " ‘V(_éwc Z7 ”W174%I ~ A; . Mtg/AME. \Y‘ 0? %( é g WM .944 l/M-QW‘; .I ' ~S;.,..7g“' . W ”MK/4..., W 44 m. , JaﬁWMJI/h/ lﬂ- ”Mot/Z: mad/WW4 «MMré \/////%M W; MM? MX;W&3 MAJ.— M 44;!“ zeta/M. a, M /2._ WW https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a0daa0beb4240dbb05211610f3277788.tif c12edc0de1dbd2cd5dd205313d370753 PDF Text Text W ”MM“ pig/ ”MW“... 74.” WLMWA [/Q. / 7144/4. MMWWMM/é. :MI;’5’ W/ 7., ' / I I 1 . (//%W(W¢I<WW¢WM If" WM xMé/AMM¢A~ MWL WWW .' M 7MAWM¢~4 aw ”4/ng W4 JW/A/i’au/ Z7ﬁaW40/Z/M Wgé MM,A’// kW ' “Amé /éyo&0.% https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0f598a1f5ad6705a61af2a740bb23675.tif 8ef26e7b0f51e772f52e4ab70fa36ff0 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d50f084417ce12f3f82a288c78eaf6b9.tif e5756dfe0958a65f260d7efb699e9dfc https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3bb3a8788e1c44126d140aa6bd83f9d7.tif 08883dc2958ad2d2ca40f538b9b4066a PDF Text Text \ \ MZQMhoézz _ MMMM, MM WW \. W “‘/M M .- ~\ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c1b812ed3c19106dba5d817b367e534d.tif ec5b0a9be94a67f15fac404f65ecfab1 PDF Text Text 777% ,4! 04,4 Mfm. / / https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5ced8749bb7eccd1ede846a4c2a657b8.tif a881b9d0eadc3b3d3679f2f5412f0d10 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/66f61e4c3d7bbaf4239ebbb2d540bbc6.tif 78b488066c775b38591f41f6adfa920f PDF Text Text / - 4 Au lééﬂ-(M/ V/ KerCi? A». .(J 9060 ’f" 20'1/‘75" 7’ . '/ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a9173d04b6c6b167d4be8a15b94f2a96.tif 25eec7f6fdbf4bc6c4e3e8843a8d360e PDF Text Text / ~£MMbLWWﬂ 2/ /\1 ./ 5:0 4?: MMMM 4A gay/M /M/ﬂm jé/ A20“? A14 42% FW# / 7 L, ’éfm/éé/ é Wn/Md/w /,m 2M4 / /W 54 W) / [Jr/L, VXthM 5 MM {ML/2 4% MM /W T 3 MMW/Mz/W/MM / L 39% W 774; MZ/iMMV ﬂ: WARM \ 'aJ/méa M7gmi/2LM 4M , , /5" W \ f M (92%W/W Walk/24 /JJ4WW Wk XMW MJMMMM https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/04afda3819fe18b982db58c8b25e2cc6.tif 905618603629b24b3aacdf3c01215145 PDF Text Text __,L_, L, W 6A1 m0. \' ;,.-\,S,\!\_LLVLL_§ v~u\\msv \>~1¢\\ L__ ([1].— EL‘flL L1 LL 0" LL ([11: 1§1HLL , ,_LLL, T0916} mm mum. @mkﬂamh 99L, 1210919169110 , L1 381 0138,01,, L , 110 92.199, , L, 1.1 a,6939,42:,,,,,,<9‘13,,ch,ss:62g , , , on12/ ﬂﬂO/LY‘JOII L/IQV /1/ 39229422» 41:27,, Ken/‘3‘ 5, , L LLLLL L LLL_L L x: 19 LtEiﬂ/aEMZLQOVLLLLLLLL LL, <41 MW //3 6mm 79 s/5/ LL' ,,_,_ i , QZZ/j //6’ M/wng/O/ 6199 [67127 Q ,. 6W2; MHz/e- 2763.566! 217* L6 72 €146 g a: Emma/11‘1“ GOUE‘EWMBNT m GAGA“ (95 LL GLQENC‘ L 0494 I CQ’ H R QJJQ4keA/1 11 , , , (3- 6727355 31 , «869 519-5, 1 1 1 Mc/ee/ ((4114:; , 626’2 £25347 [4 14 (M077 4/4 9’79 20 LL L ﬂaw, L477— 7/57. , ,C/é ﬁfe/(:1 ﬁfe/ﬂ - 9’31, {Sunny-(7‘ ,_ , ,_ {9144109,- {47246 673-40030” ﬂax/H ZQBETkr/L/ ,,,./4/£HE H (cMEELLL (95?. c6 ,,é7az,:.£.ZZLLLL 1 11 11 1'1 11 27,763? ,éziféeW/eyav/ ,ZezﬂneQA/L L.. $26, 19?,9’1 LLL https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/950468fb4e8fcd40ab4cf32a0e268d6e.tif ee72c4cb3f86f22a01516719a8e117c4 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7b5f6b61876e3d30e02cfcd04ffcbbb0.tif b74edd707029988f52d1e272400f4a5a PDF Text Text M ;/, 2/ :“Z 4% WM”? 3 g/ 5794/“, yaw/a 2i WWW % //" “*4 ”“W/W/P’GVMS- WW L9~//’ éyﬁyz/ ,2 ”1/2 , ﬂaé/W/Aéw / :3/20 6/ y’WW/LL W,W 5/54/44— Q ,/ ,9 ”/4 '34} W7 g.“ ngf / /_.J’?o/,/2. 46”! W 9‘ 9,%/ ._, /0-/J/$/f ’ /W%M« // ~ﬂ//.’€/J / https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1c60f12949a38e8f402e4aecb241136b.tif 15d77376a546a609f9b7b68e8abfddaf PDF Text Text WM JM wﬁu, 5.9/4 /7.: ﬂw 220°? “ - https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/519c178d43817707820ab3945db220af.tif 09f1a5d545e2dde56605052038f02ac9 PDF Text Text WW— 7,71%» V97 VVSV/ W M/Wz 7 7 7/ ‘ ' \/ J” // «e-Jwvﬂww-fryu/Lw 7 s4 4L4 -' ” AMAQW W//\ / Must/aw AA pjba 1/ M M y {71$}W L. magma/m m w‘ﬂﬁaéxvf ,7? 4,644?” ’3' W - ﬂywﬂé/ ‘4‘, z/Ilm ”mfg/WWW QWm/éu ~4a $2) MW vxéL-zﬂ‘w/770 WWW—a/me 77%aagb MIL/0.4756 "" \ . , a W way/7W7M 7”“): M 4W4“; https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0526d53488ee50b82a5b779c65ded87f.tif 0ead1c5814e5fbf859d4a4a9e7a3fb1e PDF Text Text W 4W t1 :Vi EZ‘ 'f/éJM/M :3, ? )2 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/952612a546dd446c5eb993a8f78513e9.tif 47ecd972318251cfee3149e3c2a77029 PDF Text Text lwﬂé @jewm WFMM WMy v W/ / 5MM44WI/wA/g M' ‘ y~/MW https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/80cf30e8bc499595594592b4a66bb054.tif 3c6274807c09dce23e36810492b66f39 PDF Text Text i Q i ; “M/&%’ W; a. W W @032; https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2362e73120b6d7abf3247a99d1a8567c.tif 2610c5edc84c41782568f27057c955c3 PDF Text Text ,: L... MW— /m%/W'2A_~ (L .1 » 2w“, w :54, 744.4%- gm”,— 'i W’ W!“ W/zmlakqé’ </ Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Notes by B. Earle Roberts Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1972 Description Notes made by B. Earle Roberts in the capacity of Chairman of the Campus Security Advisory Committee in 1972. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 56 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 May 4 Author Roberts, B. Earle dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a38b51fa611a5ee55365a5b4c9d03850.tif 00a9f7ec7b9686a1568ec09d080a1acf PDF Text Text Kent State University News Service Phone: 672—2727 (Code 216) The Campus Security Advisory Committee at Kent State University, which has already given President Glenn A. Olds a policy recommendation on surveillance, is now studying the overall scope of security at the University. The committee chairman, Prof. Earle Roberts, who is also chairman of the department of criminal justice studies, said the committee is working on portions of the original charge (to the committee)dealing with policy and procedures, and the need and nature of campus security. He said President Olds has asked the committee to study further several aspects of security. The committee has been asked to: —- Recommend policy concerning the nature, need and scope of campus security; -- Review present policy and practice; —— Provide suggested policy regarding the relation of campus security to the wider local, county, state and federal security and law enforcement agencies, and -- Evaluate present policy, practice and personnel and future need in light of any recommended policy. Prof. Roberts said the president's request for additional study is "an expansion, but natural transition, of our original charge.“ (more) https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c7fe8941df107c882c4c00a2170f9bc3.tif dc4a553798c0193fc1d96a6e4f5d5207 PDF Text Text add one — Advisory Committee Regarding the committee's action in providing a policy recommendation on surveillance first, Prof. Roberts said ”we (committee members) just felt that a policy on surveillance, which was also part of the original charge, was the first to pursue.” He added that the committee wants to gather factual data reflecting the moods of the entire campus community, townspeople, on what people feel about security. ”We only hear from the vocal few; it's important to grasp the moods of everyone so you don't respond only to small, but vocal groups.“ ”We have to establish," Prof. Roberts explained, ”what the nature of security is to be here at Kent; once it was almost just a nightwatchman—type role, now it's that of a police department. We're also interested in how the Security Force can improve its services...the whole overview of security,“ Roberts said. The committee is comprised of five faculty members, three students, a representative of non-academic personnel on campus, a Kent attorney and a Kent resident. Faculty members, in addition to Roberts, are Dr. James D. Dooling, assistant professor of psychology; Dr. George D. Eastman, director of the Center for State and Local Government and professor of political science; Charles L. Green, director of the Center for Human Understanding and assistant professor of sociology and anthropology, and Dr. Allen Rawitch, assistant professor of chemistry, (more) https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/fab47b50317fb6035e7feb10e87c99fb.tif 38ba660aec15f24a21187849067a3b9c PDF Text Text add two - Advisory Committee Student members are Michael White, a graduate student from North Canton, sophomore Fred Smella, of Walhonding and senior Bob Peabody, of Akron. Mrs. Hazel Peoples represents the non-academic personnel, Norman Sandvoss is a local attorney and Albert Peoples represents the city's residents. ### 5/9/72 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/198bf319aa6bfd0f0405e5e0b93dd76b.tif 8fbb6c79161ecf56555a45f4510e7a2f PDF Text Text ROUGH DRAFT Press Release: May 25, 1972 Campus Security Advisory Committee, Kent State University Earle Roberts, chairman The Campus Securtiy Advisory Committee is in the process of doing a . . , .. awv‘ study of the attitudes of the univers1ty and Kent communities towards tie“ icﬁljfﬂfﬁ‘g II/ eevcrn/ ﬁg“ /A¢ ampus police. This survey is eaEi part of an overall information— 14!) pﬂwhaukr‘ p/ ¥5¢ ca~0,”‘e¢' . gathering efiort t‘:. .1 ~ , peiieewpuiivzgf The study will include a questionnaire that is being sent out to w~wﬁkmrmmrnnnmmaa a scientifically—selected sample of KSU students. Students will be asked to give Opinions on a wide range of questions concerning police' practice‘ A similar questionnaire will be administered to faculty, W WWW policemen; add non-academic employees of the University‘K In addition, a briefezfgorm of the questionnaire will be administered by phone to rwfuak Sc/CLI’CJ ' ansample of citizens in the Kent community. dam‘cd Allim embers of the community are urged to respond—~and to respond swiftly—~in order to make the prohject a valid indicator of attitudes a.“ a...“ x , ~ ~ ” ' NW and opinionZ/Jﬁhis surbery is only part of the overall work being “Max, fﬂdone b§”Eﬁé Campus Security Committee. Other sub—committees are 1 working on police operations, record~keeping, and the theoretical model of what a campus police department should be. The committee consist of the fillowing members: 5 faculty: Earle Roberts, chairman D. James Dooling George Eastman \ Allan Rawitch Charles Greene 2‘ i i i i i E. i 3 3 students: Robert Peabody % Frederick Smella 1 Mlchael White ‘% (Two other student positions on the committee have remained; “#MAW-ma‘ .. «N unfilled, due to a lack of applications.) 3 Kent Community: Albert PeOples ,u'"” g V \ Norman Sandvoss \Nenzé9ademic employe95?wwﬁe%e; Resales WmmMWWWWWWWWWWWNJ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/187c75b4052bf6da8220d4dc48420e01.tif f4fddd86c45c41102dfebf3ec1beed63 PDF Text Text PRESS RELEASE: May 25, 1972 Campus Security Advisory Committee Kent State University Earle Roberts, Chairman The Campus Seourity Advisory Committee is in the process of doing a study of the attitudes of the University and Kent com— munities about policing in general and the campus police in particular. This survey is part of an overall information- gathering effort of the committee. The study will include a questionnaire that is being sent out to a scientifically-selected sample of KSU students. Students will be asked to give opinions on a wide range of questions con- cerning police practices. A similar questionnaire will be admin- istered to faculty and non-academic employees of the University (including policemen). In addition, a brief form of the ques— tionnaire will be administered by phone to a randomly selected sample of citizens in the Kent community. All selected members of the community are urged to respond-— and to respond swiftly-~in order to make the project a valid indicator of attitudes and opinion. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/cfc7cd7add4d98234b3f92a8a3e6b323.tif e45646a3a959d86c7d57bc2d1bc7cf72 PDF Text Text Kent State UniVersiterews Service . Phone: 672-2727 (Code 216) A scientifically-selected sample of Kent State University , students and faculty were sent ques laires, Thursday, to gain their opinion on policing in general and campus police in particular. The survey is being conducted by the University's Campus Security Advisery Committee, chaired by professor Earle Roberts, chairman of the criminal justice studies department at Kent. Roberts said, "Students will be asked to give opinions on a wide range of questions concerning police practices. A similar SQuestionnaire will be administered to faculty andnon-academic employees (including policemen).” In addition, a brief form of the questionnaire will be administered by phone to a random selection of Kent residents. The work is being done as part of a charge to the committee by President Glenn A. Olds to recommend policy concerning the nature, need and scope of campus security, as well as review present policy "and practice. Earlier, the committee gave Dr. Olds a policy recommendation on surveillance, which was adOpted. ”All selected members of the community are urged to respond—- land to respond swiftly--in order to make the project a valid indiCator of attitudes and opinions,” Roberts said. ### i 5/25/72 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Press Releases Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1972 Description Press releases by Kent State University News Service regarding the Campus Security Advisory Committee. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 6 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5775675d55ab5c6d362d8c2d794ea5fa.tif 7a58ddcdbcd49be24e61d0c705e4e891 PDF Text Text KENT STATE UNIVERSITY Proposed POLICY STATEMENT Qﬂ_SURVEILLANCE December l5, l97l The University has never requested, nor does it have any policy concerning, the surveillance of members of the University community or . visitors on the campus. The surveillance of any person in the past has been done as a function of the University Security Department in connection with their charge and responsibility to protect persons, safeguard property, prevent loitering and misuse of University facilities, and promote the eneral » w, M Mi? wellrbeing of the campus area, in accordance with the lawf and the regulations of the Board of Trustees. If it should come to the attention of the University Administra- tion that the Security Department is abusive or overzealous in this1 regard, immediate action will be taken to remedy the situation. It should be noted, however, that other official law enforcement agencies also have independent authority to engage in surveillance in accordance with their lawful duty and within the laws of the state and/or federal government. I) Office of the President is December l97l/mr https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/83a141f926e505355bf0eda55b66aa49.tif f790ce7eab136d8dc510078f4cd53a33 PDF Text Text WQFCOMMENOED Pottc q STATEMENT 0N meuatu/«MCE /9c43€éw437 Fundamental to " the respect 4 ﬂ?» e/v/zrcemeyv‘ downffy'nevf 71¢ aua’ of-the citizens it serves, is the agency's unswervingioperation within *Ac Ava), the confines of all—aa4et4ag—etatutory-and-eonstéiutional—lewst This is especially true for a law enforcement agency operating within a university community dedicated to the unfettered pursuit of truth. More importantly, the law enforcement agency in this situation must not only -ﬁ%¢5¢ operate within the letter of t-h-i-Qconstrainti but, in a positive manner, within the spirit of the law; Surveillance policy and—ies—eubsequont ‘ fig/Ice. /: precodural—inplemeneaeien for the Campus Security Department are promul- (,r, gated within this mom/1.9.; .SJw/o/ Imp/emeM-r/fg, pracroérer, [-1 It is recognized and understood that obServation of individua s on the Kent Campus is a necessary part of the functional responsibility of the Campus security officers. For example, uniform officers on general N 'patrol are expected to be alert to the actions of individuals they en- counter in their routine operations. _ ( *wmnwwuﬂwwﬂﬁi Surveillance, here defined as the covert or secret-watching of an individual or individuals on the iEEEZZﬁéue byV6::;us sﬁiéggiy Jﬂepartment will not occur unless there is probable cause to believe, based on reliable information, that a crime is either being committed or planned to be committed by the individual(s) and no other investi— gative technique is available to secure the necessary evidence for pre— sentation to the appropriate authorities. In those rare and exceptional cases'when covert surveillance of an individua11£2ets the above require« ments and is put into effect, the Director of Security will notify, in writing, the President of the University of the circumstances causing https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/db761e61ca4e07a83b90fcf9be03e182.tif c679221462531f32a6dada7bef1f9696 PDF Text Text the surveillance, the method and details of its implementationSand the results obtained. The sensitivity‘zandv-i-mp'ortaneo—AW covert surveillance indicates a need for immediate notification, the details \ and timing of which should be agreed upon between the Eesident and the Ma n1“"f' Win order to amplifrthe recomhnded general : statementx concerning observation—and surveillance) the following recom- ﬁirector of fecurity. .mendations are offered: 1. m students should be employed or used on a voluntary basis . #1:: for investigative or surveillance work nor should(t—h-ey)be paid for information they give to the Department. Full-time officers who attend school are not included in this statement. I14 JJ'V/p’ A: amine/“cf éowevcrjl-K6o/o // LWmembers of the campus community have a responsi— 7’9 Alto ' bility as citizens./iI not only/\obey the law but/\to cooperate with and support the efforts of the eampus sfﬁﬁﬁpart- ment in the protection of - lives and property. a/zee 3. No campus My personnel should be assigned to the surveillance of campus organizations for any purpose. 4. Allﬁsecurity officers must be adequately trained to effect— ively carry out their assignments within the framework of <9VQFK"-’ sting police and procedure. a- uuw«"”‘ A [6r sz‘zsn/eo’aa- fe/ctueq’ 5. No campus security personnel should be employed W 7“ .9 PAuy‘é ﬂgekcr /or an!” W ”Van/’0,“ [OW/m: VI. 0’ 6y mvy fVé/IL WW olations of either the letter ”7"“, iv 1) Mr: JUé/ccf -/'o JvPvel/Aavtb or spirit of this policyW appropriate actionJ'will—be—takena cgfgcﬂy you 5y ’1‘ e‘muil +4: M,yerJI/y Gnu/6‘4: https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/33cd4111e19b9ea50bba014fcb5e296e.tif aa416aa70965e40a95ccfb555974767d PDF Text Text . / a . "I ’4' 4/ 1474/4044 4// cﬁh/o“ /o4//¢¢ o ﬂee-r: Musr‘é /D /r I l ’ fl: Ada/”éy ,4 619er IV}! #l/A *CV’”J’&//'J’ I: 7‘1—19/0’1”, ‘94 Aﬂkdé #4013" o’z/ﬂeo// (Vail/'4‘; https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/fc7de023463b74852172e301f1b04ce9.tif e2756a84f0c40b217be44ffde7b4fd80 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5971056a0c1d453cb0cce81dced20068.tif 7fafa2f5c6f6f14d169ebed298812c58 PDF Text Text S e , 4r; 4_// x‘vﬁraa’ooz (an/“lieu >X'Jaﬂ4/4’4‘zek 0/% /.f94’/C “Miran/Z 5’0 JVAf/ee/ 74 7% ( 1’44; A}: IW/ Cory/r Jksl/t ﬁkyrj’ta/rlﬁ/V/ af/J‘wﬁv N 52.9.“! /J/ag/,/ A: ”a Ié-a/ v‘éa/ o/ékA/Aua GMA/{gHMg—WWC’“ / Jen/4‘14" ’4' X\ gggr IQﬁWt'e ﬁzz/A 714m éW// JWAz/J: :éz/c. 1;)» //r f/L% l4 a Vet when/7‘. I . —.Wm"""" " ” »'zz~vr WNW f https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1f5535de5b8e0a5863822fa8ca0c3551.tif 64a479297722f824146ff2c0e1bb0239 PDF Text Text Fundamental to’//” '"Ving the respect Inw mnlncmnf 6 Ohm; ”than” 40 mv/ of the citizens it serves, is thenagency's unswervingqoperation within 141-. /w. - x the confines of ail_exist ‘ . - This is especially true for a law enforcement agency operating within a university community dedicated to the unfettered pursuit of truth. More importantly, the law enforcement agency in this situation must not only qﬂﬁeseL operate within the letter of ah‘foconstraintfbut, in a positive manner, within the spirit of the law}, Surveillance policy and—iLs—suhaequeat pLacaduaal—implemeneaeéan for the Campus Security Department 9&9 promul- ( r0 ‘ gated within this moodﬁ! J‘é’o V/c’ ’M/éu‘r", ’r"“”‘” ‘1- 0““ — 1/ / , M; ers. i/Fo examp’leE/f/ ‘fong’Ce e ction of ind iduals they en— .ermin thei outine operations. "vx—...._, “Maura“ Surveillance, here deflned as the covert or secret watching of an individual, or individuals on the W byﬂégmpus “/4.“ Llaepartment will not occur unless there is probable cause to believe, based on reliable information, that a crime is either being committed or planned to be cOmmitted by the individual(s) and no other investi— gative technique is available to secure the necessary evidence fof pre- sentation to the appropriate authorities. In those rare and exceptional cases when covert surveillance of an individuayymeets the above require— ments and is put into effect, the Director of Security will notify, in writing, the President of the University of the circumstances causing https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/58be70b62d1529186f2330b80be7851c.tif b9c6fac20b0b528c9a35b19efd82e23c PDF Text Text the surveillance, the method and details of its implementation and the results obtained. The sensitivity and importance of instituting a covert surveillance indicates a need for immediate notification, the details and timing of which should be agreed upon between the 6Qesident and the firector of ecurity. Additionally, in order to amplify the recommended general statementX’concerninglobsarnaiéun'and surveillance the following recom- mendations are offered: 1. ﬁg students should be employed or used on a voluntary basis for investigative or surveillance work nor should they be paid for information they give to the Department. Full—time officers who attend school are not included in this statement. ow W 5. wwau/mg 2.,waever, ymembers of the campus community have a responsi— ¢J¢' ‘¢° . ,; ﬂ,f bility as—eit—L-zeaezﬁq M174 obey the law butAto coop’erate f I with and support the efforts of the éampus 6639;53:94lepart— ment in the protection of xlives and property. // ‘e. 13.;ﬁa campus Agzugity personnel should be assigned to the surveillance of campus organizations for any purpose. 4. éll security of icers must be ad-qquEEr trained to effect— ively car ' ' n the framework of l m” 2’ 5. ﬁg campus security personnel should be employed éy'a private exis or public agency in an investigative capacityéhr {Xi ﬁaaaa‘w It is PYpeofedth9£_mh£naner‘Véglations of either the letter or spirit of this policy is—violatedvappropriate action wélé-be-iekaa. 53¢L—.£%u1?vv/ v4 6H7 ~4€LK6744.44¢4nf3 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/adaeb3b7c2fba687d6d91e7585b17b16.tif 87ce0ad8097eb81cf1655eb3136de516 PDF Text Text It is a1so.noted that other official law enforcement agencies have independent authority to engage in surveillance in accordance with their lawful duty and within the laws of the state and/or federal government. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/451fb482219b3706ba4a65ab6ce58090.tif 6d1294c5f18900ad1ed99b8b7d4510e7 PDF Text Text govern ent. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4a8e64404df0e0d4505f48956c7b21c5.tif 95258aadd442582e392a2c0093588eed PDF Text Text Fundamental to any law enforcement agency receiving the respect of the citizens it serves, is the agency's unswerving Operation within the confines of all existing statutory and constitutional laws. This is especially true for a law enforcement agency operating within a university community dedicated to the unfettered pursuit of truth. More importantly, the law enforcement agency in this situation must not only operate within the letter of this constraint but, in a positive manner, within the spirit of the law. Surveillance policy and its subsequent procedural implementation for the Campus Security Department are promul— gated within this mood. It is recognized and understood that observation of individuals on the Kent Campus is a necessary part of the functional responsibility of the Campus security officers. For example, uniform officers on general patrol are expected to be alert to the actions of individuals they en- counter in their routine operations. Surveillance, here defined as the covert or secret watching of an individual, or individuals on the KSU Campus by Campus security department will not occur unless there is probable cause to believe, based on reliable information, that a crime is either being committed or planned to be committed by the individua1(s) and no other investi— gative technique is available to secure the necessary evidence for pre- sentation to the appropriate authorities.' In those rare and exceptional cases when covert surveillance of an individual meets the above require« ments and is put into effect, the Director of Security will notify, in writing, the President of the University of the circumstances causing https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6625c9e328964c04f8249142dbfefec1.tif 11f65bc1d9d98712dcf126fd6ed67d56 PDF Text Text .the surveillance, the method and details of its implementation and the results obtained. The sensitivity and importance of instituting a covert surveillance indicates a need for immediate notification, the details and timing of which should be agreed upon between the president and the Idirector of security. Additionally, in order to amplify the recommended general statements concerning observation and surveillance the following recom- mendations are offered: 1. §g_students should be employed or used on a voluntary basis for investigative or surveillance work nor should they be paid for information they give to the Department. Full—time officers who attend school are not included in this statement. 2. However, any members of the campus community have a responsi— bility as citizens, to not only obey the law but to cooperate with and support the efforts of the campus security depart- ment in the protection of our lives and property. 3. E9 campus security personnel should be assigned to the surveillance of campus organizations for any purpose. 1 4. All security officers must be adequately trained to effect— ively carry out their assignments within the framework of existing police and procedure. ‘ 5. E2 campus security personnel should be employed in a private or public agency in an investigative capacity. It is expected that whenever violations of either the letter or spirit of this policy is violated appropriate action will be taken. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ea8ef2a2467214b5715f7f1640c171fe.tif 72780105b02508b428e5f9c0b5cdbb8c PDF Text Text It is also.noted that other official law enforcement agencies have independent authority to engage in surveillance in accordance with their lawful duty and within the laws of the state and/or federal government. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1f3a4614ea4bcf83d8ea09197dd4cb83.tif ea26a9674604aee7511f95659518c8e5 PDF Text Text ,t r '5' . re RECOMMENDED POLICY STATEMENT ON SURVEILLANCE Fundamental to achieving the respect of the citizens it serves, is a law enforcement agency's unswerving commitment to and operation within the confines of the law. This is especially true for a law enforcement agency operating within a university community dedicated to the unfettered pursuit of truth. More importantly, the law enforcement agency in this situation must not only operate within the letter of these constraints but, in a positive manner, within the spirit of the laws. Surveillance , policy for the Campus Police Department is promulgated within this mood, as should be implementing procedures. Surveillance, here defined as the covert or secret watching of an individual or individuals on the campus by the Campus Police Department will not occur unless there is probable cause to believe, based on reliable information,\that a crime is either being com- mitted or planned to be committed by the individual(s) and no other investigative technique is available to secure the neces- sary evidence for presentation to the appropriate authorities. In those rare and exceptional cases when covert surveillance of an individual(s) meets the above requirements and is put into effect, the Director of Security will notify, in writing, the President of the University of the circumstances causing the https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b0fcdb580a92244b9ca613d0bdaf114f.tif ea90655dc176167a03ae345ad016f71d PDF Text Text 2 surveillance, the method and details of its implementation, and the results obtained. The sensitivity and implications of covert surveillance indicates a need for such immediate notification, the details and timing of which should be agreed upon between the President and the Director of Security. In order to make specific the above general statement con- cerning surveillance, the following recommendations are offered: 1. No students should be employed or used on a voluntary basis for investigative or surveillance work nor should they be paid for information they give to the Depart- ment. Full-time officers who attend school are not included in this statement. 2. It should be understood, however, that all members of the campus community have a responsibility as citizens not only to obey the law but also to cooperate with and support the efforts of the Campus Police Department in the protection of lives and property. 3. No campus police personnel should be assigned to the surveillance of campus organization for any purpose. u. Although all campus police officers must be properly trained to carry out their general responsibilities, those engaged in sensitive areas must possess special- ized training to handle their difficult duties. 5. No campus security personnel should be employed by, assigned 0r released to, a private agency for any investigative purpose or by any public agency in a surveillance capacity on the University campus. Violations of either the letter or spirit of this policy % are subject to appropriate action by the President. VIt is important that the university community be aware of certain realities regarding police work. First, police officers in the normal course of duty have the responsibility for observ- ing the activity of individuals whom they encounter in their https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e0f6d682fdfbdce34c0a0b86184f6ed5.tif 3ac2adf637bd237a722aed7c21df30ff PDF Text Text 3 routine operations. This observation is not the same as surveil- tlance, previously defined as covert watching of an individual. Second, it should be noted that other official law enforcement agencies also have independent authority to perform law enforce- ment functions on the campus in accordance with their lawful duty and within the laws of the state and/or federal government. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/431d0ba6a6f3a4c8d5b6a6b9f25804d3.tif 8fc6d0b5468bd33c28c8d181c318c63e PDF Text Text To: Dr. Glenn Olds, President 28 April 1972 Kent State University From: B. Earle Roberts, Chairman Campus Security Advisory Committee Subject: Recommended Policy Statement on Surveillance The Campus Security Advisory Committee was charged on March 2, 1972 with and subsequently met to consider certain responsibilities, an important one of which centered on an assessment of the question of surveillance and the information received or gathered, maintained and used by the Campus Police Department. On that date, however, a quorum of members had not been appointed, and the administrative appointee had resigned from the University. At the time of the second meeting, a quorum of members had still not been appointed. By the meeting of April 19, a quorum of members had been appointed and was present. At the meeting of April 26 a quorum was not present. The committee met three times on April 27; at the first two a quorum was not present. At the third meeting of the day, when the attached policy was approved, there was a bare quorum, but with only one student present. It should be further noted that, at present, four vacancies exist on the committee-—one administrative person, one representing non—academic personnel, and two students. During the last meetings of April 27, because of the urgency of developing a recommended policy statement on surveillance, total attention was given to that subject. Because of circumstances https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/cbfe8c3cf54bd71d621569f1cc2aee55.tif 3df2735da5f81426ba1c6c5d15f1d4ea PDF Text Text Page 2 Campus Security Advisory Committee existing on campus, many persons including the Director of Security, were not available to the committee for discussions on surveillance policy. The surveillance policy which the committee has proposed, therefore, is developed without knowledge of current policy and practices and is, thus, totally a product of committee judgment. There will be, however, immediate attention to the recent incident involving the arrest of a campus police officer and, subsequently, to the matter of information services. BER/bh https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e8f75f4ec691f6ec83988eadbafc0a4c.tif a0285da6b66309697a1f5f11fcf0c9b1 PDF Text Text RECOMMENDED POLICY STATEMENT ON SURVEILLANCE Fundamental to achieving the respect of the citizens it serves, is a law enforcement agency's unswerving commitment to and operation within the confines of the law. This is especially true for a law enforcement agency operating within a university community dedicated to the unfettered pursuit of truth. More importantly, the law enforcement agency in this situation must not only operate within the letter of these constraints but, in a positive manner, within the spirit of the laws. Surveillance policy for the Campus Police Department is promulgated within this mood, as should be implementing procedures. Surveillance, here defined as the covert or secret watching of an individual or individuals on the campus by the Campus Police Department will not occur unless there is probable cause to believe, based on reliable information, that a crime is either being com— mitted or planned to be committed by the individual(s) and no other investigative technique is available to secure the neces— sary evidence for presentation to the appropriate authorities. In those rare and exceptional cases when covert surveillance of an individual(s) meets the above requirements and is put into effect, the Director of Security will notify, in writing, the President of the University of the circumstances causing the https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3ce77e2ff2fba8ddd56e45db73a927bb.tif 592070feb4fb4baad3aeb7b8496524ac PDF Text Text 2 surveillance, the method and details of its implementation, and the results obtained. The sensitivity and implications of covert surveillance indicates a need for such immediate notification, the details and timing of which should be agreed upon between the President and the Director of Security. In order to make specific the above general statement con— cerning surveillance, the following recommendations are offered: 1. No students should be employed or used on a voluntary basis for investigative or surveillance work nor should they be paid for information they give to the Depart- ment. Full—time officers who attend school are not included in this statement. 2. It should be understood, however, that all members of the campus community have a responsibility as citizens not only to obey the law but also to cooperate with and support the efforts of the Campus Police Department in the protection of lives and property. 3., No campus police personnel should be assigned to the surveillance of campus organization for any purpose. 4. Although all campus police officers must be properly trained to carry out their general responsibilities, those engaged in sensitive areas must possess special- ized training to handle their difficult duties. 5. No campus security personnel should be employed by, assigned or released to, a private agency for any investigative purpose or by any public agency in a surveillance capacity on the University campus. Violations of either the letter or spirit of this policy are subject to appropriate action by the President. It is important that the university community be aware of certain realities regarding police work. First, police officers in the normal course of duty have the responsibility for observ- ing the activity of individuals whom they encounter in their https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8be9b2ae0e59d0b03f47bda4403c7ac8.tif 3ec4ca549edc9361f5117e637b6623ae PDF Text Text 3 routine operations. This observation is not the same as surveil- lance, previously defined as covert watching of an individual.‘ Second, it should be noted that other official law enforcement agencies also have independent authority to perform law enforce— ment functions on the campus in accordance with their lawful duty and within the laws Of the state and/or federal government. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/712c50ca66c6ae38b5ea1ad3e3ac58ac.tif d3c6b2b0c4b7ba2514a53806084fba34 PDF Text Text Proposal: Types of Informexion +1 be Colleetei In the case of convicted crimin 118,1thaf informmxier 1eeu~1 necese by law to possess (address, age, pro 0133M qofficer, cr1he a; L1ﬁted, etc Files should be kept only 11 the event that: 1) a person files 1 1omplaiht1 criminal charge, or netice of 1 crime committeé1 2) a person has committed a erlm in the jurisi11uion of -15 department. 1 3; there are tr gific offenses 01 mLSgem H0 1111 4 there is aﬁeq te and subttantial evidence 11 1ru1ce e 151 someone is in tne procesw 1f planning 11 eommiising a 11511. Under no c1rcu1111nn1; 11111 the followzng inf.'g1*ion be 131111111 and gathered into 1 file: 1) personal, private 31fe: 11e.y so encounters the;reof: rr n.1rriege or separated1o: “111 1%: 1r 1du extent of “e1151113 ‘1M x @116. ship or nonwworshwp)1 lists of 5r isnd 1:1 11 <1u11n“ polit111119111.11_111 h 1:1fs 1a1/ articles, eeaayeg 11011 Eetgers1 positions 811 3111 “1111 applied List of personal yes: 9“3.vﬂd doses, 3? 11y geographical areas \CT 1:51- ‘ic places} (1 _ lists of spaakigg er" 1111111 o: rallLez ai1;1 credit ratinv iﬂgu.ﬁiu . @131 ' “'~-‘W ,ie e,crds and rsp1;1s ~ “~ial‘v an‘e“*f*h-» r' [dame-um 0.1“ . ~1C)m;1c WWWV bT‘\ Lin-701, i“ .> 1 furs», ;:|.J.J £351: ‘ .1";':1. ‘15.:11133'1 1.1;} “u (VH1: *r-g: «‘ {*4 1" .. , .... . 1 ‘9 V 11.37 30C1a1 1111111 flw1ﬂ&11£lltd£“ ' 9‘ . . 1, .1 :5, w " ,1, . 'l' 13:. ﬁgme?buf 1““ M13335 3 l4.» ,v', ‘ 1 . ' ’ ~' ., . ~ ~ - ‘ “5* a" I“. 1“-3) .. 1- 3 iv 4101:: ‘ ..:. "'- .1‘ , v 4-: 1.; :31ng f '7; a 1" '1 Z 731‘," ,. ; ' "-‘. Ur ‘L‘ " 1 ~ . -‘. v‘-‘-,-~ x * "N -1- , 1.: .. ,1 . j . 1. ‘ ' . ‘_ ”-1 ‘ - ' 1 ,3 14) - 1-, ...V:..: .' 1. 1 ,‘ 9w Elma-1.1 =‘.'. O 9., 5 ._~ xv: v ,1 U . a 7.1) . , l» 1. 2'1”: .. 1&3. .1 ”My? , , .1. 1 ‘ {.1 ‘4 . 2‘ ..v. 0‘ :1 r, x ( , 1 7 1 .~ n.“- gh. , »-— 1. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2dbce128a6a1d4489f783c1c5bdfbd12.tif 1529d0308b4e209407c4abec76226f35 PDF Text Text KENT STATE UNIVERSITY POLICY News Availability and Release Vis—A—Vis Security and University News Service Daily Bulletins and case summary reports shOuld be made available (as soon as completed) for review by any representatives of the news media that physically present themselves at the Security office. Under such conditions the representatives of the news media reviewing and subsequently reporting on any such reports will be held responsible for publicly releasing any items which would prove to be injurious or prejudicial in any future court action with regard to the specific case and/or individuals. Telephone inquiries to the Security Division by representatives of the news media related to "breaking" incidents or cases will be responded to if an appropriate member of the Security Division is on duty. All such inquiries not able to be serviced by the Security Division will be directed to the News Service. Such referral to the News Service will necessitate appropriate operational procedures for immediate notification and/or availability of these reports to the News Service and to carry out such service. NOTE: Responses to telephone inquiries will be handled by reading the information on the Daily Bulletin or case summary reports. Representatives of the news media should have direct access, on an individual appointment basis, to the Director of Security for interviews and special features dealing with the functions and operations of the department. Requests from representatives of the news media for information or details other than those covered above should be referred to the News Service for their handling. Any official news releases which the Security Department would wish to initiate must be handled in conjunction with the News Service. This is a standing university-wide policy and procedure for all offices and departments. 2/14/73 nj Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Proposed and Official Policies Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1971 1972 1973 Description Proposed and official policy statements by the Campus Security Advisory Committee regarding surveillance at Kent State University. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 23 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/402c56ef6dc3f9d5b65bc020b5bf3f34.tif c58f4d896a610bfbadc854d3ea17430c PDF Text Text gsgg May 19,1972 proposeg gestalt. QUESTIONNAIRE 1. 2. Ba 43. 5. a. be 3:: do _e.p 6. ” ,7owwcompared to other campus police forces_with which you are fan a. v.m. yvoree b. worse at about the same d. better e. v.m. better In general, how do you feel toward the Kvnt State Campus Police Deaprtment: Favorable ' be Neutral c. Unfavorable Do you think that the campus police have files on the political activities of students? a.' Xes b. No c. Not sure In the event of a confrontation between: tudents and the university requirin the presence of law enforcement officers, do you think outside aw enforcement agencies should he called in for assistance: Always b. Never co Depends on situation X‘Ihcih of the following most closely represents your view of what the campus police should be: ’ a. a student-staffed. unarmed security force. . f h: an unarmed security force hired Specificall.y for that purpose 4 an armed combination securitybpolice force‘ who could arrest ?‘ for specific crimes, but shoe; main Jcb would be security d; a police force made up mostly of pztrolmen whose job is both . both routine security and enfcrcement of! all laws e, a complete police department that consists not only of ’1 ' patrolman, but alas detectiveg for investigative work ‘ Which of the following most closely repnesents your view of undercover surveillance acti's :1ty on campus: 1 Should not be done on campus under any circumstances Should not be done by campus police. but we cannot prevent other agencies from doing it. Shoul be done by campus police only if the president of the univ authorizes it because of serious threat to life.; Should be done by campus police only if tihe president of the univ authorizes it because of serious threat to life or substantial ' 1 property. Should be done whenever the Director of qecurtiy determines that, in his prefessional judgement,there is a serious threat to life or property.\ § Compared to the Kdnt City Police, what would be your overall rating of the campus polide? a. very much worse b. worse c.abOut the sane d. better e. very _ l SEEEer v» , ~A "m. r.~—w,~.>~.~.~ , . ammw" AM“; how would you rate the campus police? ~ e'ch of t https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a60d8dfda3dec64e6da585591b111412.tif 3a78798f824aac8c9b377ac524064cfd PDF Text Text ”(W and L The following questions pertain to investigative work of a police department. This 2s done miLn. mp LEsirwotxa detectives who work in the open, but could also include undercover infermers in special circumstances. For each of the following situations. indicate who should be the _appr0priate law enforcement agencey that carries on the investigation: no agency "b. K80 campus police c. local agency {Kent Cit Police or )Portage County Sherriff) d. state agency e.g. Big way patrol) e. federal agency (e.g. FBI) 8. There is a ﬁﬁﬁlﬂﬂx series of burglaries onaeampus. 9. The student health center starts to receive a large number of cases of heroin overdose. . 10. A large number of bomb threats are made on Bowman hall. ll. A student goes to the campus police to report that he sap'a two unnhnrxsanthnr students in his dorm‘who were hiding rifles. if cit/’9‘“ ,1 Wt 44/ 19. A political group thathadvocates violent/demonstrations is holding . an organizational meeting. For each of the following statements, indicage the degree to which you agree with the statement. a. be 0. do Go strongly agree agree neutral disagree strongly disagree 13. The KSU campus police are well trained and thoroughly professional. 14. The campus police keep records on the political activity of students and faculty 15. the campus police should be paid high salaries in order to astract keep the best possible personnel 16. The campus police have used drug charges as a pretense for arresting students for their political activity 17. The campus police do an excellent Job of protecting life and property on campus. 18. The campus police are welluequipped to do {go johgthey-eae—sunpgsed ee— 9. Thefcm us police try to maintain good rapport with students and so 20. The campus police force is too large for the job they are required to o 21. most students and faculty support the campus police. 2. T~ ’ tymeheuld have as iselatiaelysemallwpelicerforcg:::gn rel on local police agencies or the state highway patro ger force is needegz;wm 23. The campus policemen are poli.tically'much.more conservative than the as oter’members of the iniversity community https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4db7d7376028d7bfc444acfc8416160b.tif e885846a691d3d6114c15da3c78526aa PDF Text Text w y - > iv.“ ..-Y i 3 21+. Only men and women: who have favorable attitudes toward students should be hired by the campus police. 25 , Campus police have shown good judgment in dealing with campus demonstrations. he s 26. ms the campus police force/hm too many bureaucrats and not enough patrclmen. 27. Campus police should make a major effort to get rid of marijuana ”on campus. 28. c us police should make a major effort to get rid of pushers' of hargmgmgs like heroin. 29. Most cmpus police have favorable attitudes toward students. 30. In so far as police Operations are concerned, a university should be no different than any town or city. 31. The {slice budget is too large for the services they perfonn/ 32. Stutents adn faculty should make a greater effort at getting to know cmegus policemen and how they functicn in their jobs. mm 33. Imicate your position in university: a. undergrad student b. a. student c. aczlty or administration d. corpus police e. no macadamia personell non-acad 34. Students Faculty Police , Personnel . a. freshman . a. Instructor a. patrolman a. age 2-0 and under b. sophomore b. Asst Prof b. detective b. age 21-25 o. Junior c. Assoc Prof o. clerical c. age 26-35 6.. s or d. Professor d. supervisor d. age 36—mve incl" 0 l‘ €~¢WW ‘0 m” 5 .. WWW https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d6b7ac0c86bb2998b7b6af575c8d430f.tif a69055a458db23399599a702a64b2027 PDF Text Text f1,. - ~ I 6510 .Police'Q 2. Q-5 3. 0- 8-12 8. Indicate degree of agreement: ;é 8. Campus police have good rapport with.student body. 9. .Mbst students and faculty have a stereotyped View of campus plice 10. The campus police department is well managed and administered. 1.1. Campus 30qu need more specialized training than t\hey currently rec vs 12. The campus police force is very well disciplined 13. morale is bad in the KSU police force. it. The campus police budget should not be cut, but rather increased 15. There is a great danger of serious violent crime on campus 16. Campus police have an easier job than plies in a municipality 17. Students on campus have a high degree of paranoia when it comes t o gﬁterview Questions: police activity. 1. What are the overall strong points of the KSU police department? 2. What are the overall weak points of the KSU police department? %. Ideally, what should be the natrue and mission of the KSU police orce . A. What can be done to improve the police effectiveness of the dept? 5. what can be done to improve morale in the dept? 6. What are the most serious problems on campus? 7. What led you to choose campus rather than some other police agencey? 8. Do you think that the CSAC is helping or hurting the police dept? 18. Campus police receive good support form the rest of the universitcomm. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/81af07cb7cecb5738debf34b641c985b.tif d02ee626eac254bb2bdc9a59cc3bd256 PDF Text Text M CSAC student Q Int, 9W1 63?! lo 2. 3. l». 5. 6. ”I“ 1. 2. 3. 1h 5. inlet are the main police pr eh3e em: .:. 3 eel-apes? What are the stongs points about: me campus police dept? Under what conditions hsould police carry on surveillance? Would like to see the police ‘i scorn: more professional (c 1933 de 1: rmswecurity, student run, etc, - omp P HOW should campus police react to blccking of bldgs, rock-throwing. etc What are the most serious crime pew-ob]. ems on campus? Telephone Q . Do you think that the K81] cemPus relics do a good Job? Is the police strong enough? major source of crime and trouble on 81329811 rel with other agencies are you connected with Univ? Age“? 50;? https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a6f65b0d33008682181d69b3dd028e83.tif 164c144570e0f0a539f338a810bf316a PDF Text Text l. 2. A. SF 5. In general: how do you feel toward the Kent State Campus Police Department: a.) Favorable b.) Neutral c.) Unfavorable . g In the even of a confrontation between students and the 'university requiring the presence of law enforcement officers, dC‘you think outside law enforcement agencies should be called in for assistance: a.) Always b.) Depends on the situation 0.) Never ‘6 Do you think that the campusfgglice have files on the political activities of students? a.) Yes b.) Not sure c.) No 5 Which o!:{!e following statements most closely represents your view of what the campus police department should be: a.) there should be no campus police department. b.) an unarmed building security department, like .nightwatchmen. c.) an armed combination security—police department, who “could make arrests, but whose main job would be security . d.) a police department made up mostly of armed patrolman whose job is both routine security and enforcement of the law. e.) a complete police department that performs all police functions, including investigative work. The patrolmen in the campus police Department shbuld consist mainly of: 3.; students b. faculty Civil Service employees c. S;F¥Vd. professional police e. 6. SF none of the above. (The Campus Police Department .should be absorbed by and combined With theYKent City Police Department WhiCh of the following most closely represents your view of undercover surveillance activity on campus: a.) Should not be done on campus under any circumstances. b.) Should not be done by campus police, but we cannot prevent other agencies from doing it. 0.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life. d.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it bebause of serious threat to life or substantial property. 6.) Should be done whenever the Director of Security determines that, in his professional judgment, there is a serious threat to life or property. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7c3f0535d0a531db61ba6be9c38849c6.tif ae98275174eadcf52a5cc5b727d410ad PDF Text Text 2. 7. Which of the following most closely represents your feeling 3 toward the campus police: - “ FNa.) They are on my side protecting me and the university. ‘- 5 b. I have mixed feelings. c.) They are working against meIenforcing laws and policies that I don't agree with. ~ Questions 8 — 13 refer to the investigative work of a police department. For each of the following situations indicate who should be the appropriate law enforcement agency to carry on the investigation: a. no police agency b. campus police c. local agency (Kent City Police or Portage Co. Sheriff) d. state agency (e.g., Highway Patrol) e. federal agency (e.g., FBI) E 8. There {%-a series of burglaries on campus. 9. The student hegft/I'Y cent-er receives a large number of cases of heroin overdose. SF/V - 10. A number of bomb threats are made on Bowman Hall. 11. A student reports that two students in his dorm were hiding rifles. 12. The SDS Weathermen hold an organizational meeting. 13. An activist studAXt has recently advocated violence as a means of changing government policy. « 5F N For Questions 14—19 please indicate your rating of how well the campus police are presently doing their job in each of the areas listed below. The alternatives are: a.) excellent b.) good c.) fair d.) poor e.) bad It. Enforcing parking and traffic regulations. F: 15. Protecting university property. {; 16. Dealing with the problggglof drug abuse.- 1?. Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. 5 18. Dealing with burglaries 9L campus. 19. Making the university a safe place to live and to visit. SFNT https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/81608ba1e9ab74615d0dbda945b373b2.tif 735d42c5e75dd9e784eadbfe46866bef PDF Text Text 3,gl/JJ; 20. 'Which of the following areas should be the most important concern of the campus police: a.; Enforcing parking and traffic problems 5FN3 . Protecting university property. 1rc.) Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. d.; Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. 9. Dealing with burglaries on campus. 21. Compared to the Kent Citp Police Department, what would be your overall rating 0 the campus police: a. very much worse b. somewhat worse SFNC . about the same d. somewhat better e. very much better 22. What is your Opinion as to the present size of the campus police department: a.) much too small ' b.) somewhat small _ wa. about right ‘ 9 d. somewhat large T e. much too large ’ 23.During the '71 - '72 academic year did you go to or call the campus police to report a crime or to ask for agpéstagpe" Al a. Yes and I was satisfied with the response. ”~52 “7.23), ,2 b. Yes and I have _I_1_Q_ opinion about the response ,0; ,0; ,03 c. Yes and I was dissatisfied with the response. .AQ ,jov -// jﬁﬂVd.) No 2h. 'Have you ever been stopped by, questioned_by or arrested. by the campus police: 5' E N a.), Yes and the incident was handled inla professional J2 .23 .I7 manner. - b.) Yes and I have_r_1_9 opinion as to the manner in which .01} '02 ’0 the incident was an le . a c.) Yes and the incident was handled in an unprofessional/[5’ '07’ ; manner. 5F/Vd-) No. 25. In what area is there the most need for improvement: a. personnel; better patrolman b. supervision; better leadership in the police department f: c. university policy; better supervision of police by university. d.) coordination; better c00peration with other police agencies. jfrJe.) public relations; better communication with university community. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5b76c7040d504053cdcab126711d0a2a.tif 3bdeee754922685396b3f9183471c40d PDF Text Text '26. 27. 28. h. Qgestions 26- 35 ask you to state the degree to which you agree with the statement that is made. The alternatives are: a.; strongly agree b. agree c. neutral d. disagree e.) strongly disagree A 6 (‘3 D E The KSU campus police are well trained and thoroughly. professional . ﬁFN . The campus police should be paid competitive salaries in order to attract and keep the best possible personnel. The campus policefhgye used drug charges as a pretense for arresting students for their political activity. 29.The campus policemen are politically much more conservative 30. l 31. 32. 33. than the other members of the university community. Campus police have shown good judgment in dealing with campus demonstrations. Most campus police héye favorable attitudes towards ' students. 17 There is a great danger of serious violent crime on campus. Students on campus have a high degr‘geFJy paranoia when it comes to police activity. 3 3h.Campus police shouldﬁzzke a major effort to get rid of pushers of hard drugs like heroin. F: 35.The campus police do an excellent job of protecting life 36. and property on campus. Questions 36—37 sdguld be aggwired from your own knowledge, even if you have to guess. Do not consult any source to help you with your answers. How many police officers are employed by Kent State? a.) less than 25. SFNb-HF26‘50 C 0 51‘75 d. 76-100 e. more than 100 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/91382110b4eeba3184662da4019215fe.tif 8465c256a496931adcc392863b2e16c3 PDF Text Text . 5. 37. What is the annual salary (éXcluding overtime) of a campus patrolman who has three yez.s experience in the department? M6 500 to W 500 87, 500 to 88; 500 d.; 88, 500 to 89 500 e. more than gH9 500 a.§ less than 86, 500 38. Indicate your position in the university: 5 a . undergrad student 45b. grad student ‘ Fr. faculty or administration d. campus police lye. non-academic personnel 39. Indicate your position in the university more precisely: Students , * Grad Student Faculty a. freshman a. M.A. a. Instructor b. SOphomore " b. PhaD.. b. Asst. Prof c. junior c. Specialrr c; Assoc. Prof d. senior d.wnonedegree d.LProfessor e. non-degree ‘ ' ' ' - e. Administrator Police Non—academic Personnel a. Operations a. secretarial—clerical b. staff seﬁvices b. food services c. auxiliary services c. maintenance d. command d. other LO. Sex a.; Male b. Female https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0efa032c43890c6c91661a805b3194ff.tif 15bfccff26e32b937f09c77064647626 PDF Text Text Psychology Department {ent State University Kent, Ohio 44242 May 24, 1972 Dear Faculty Colleague: President Olds has directed the Campus Security Advisory Committee to do a thorough study of the campus police and to make specific recommendations by the end of this quarter. The committee includes 5 faculty members, but we also need to have a wide range 3 faculty opinion. A large faculty responses is essential to the success of this study. Could I ask you to please fill out the attached question- naire? It should only take about 15 minutes of your time. Instructions are given below. Please do it today. Return via Campus Mail to: Dooling/Psychology Sin rely, v D. ames Doo ing Assistant Professor Instructions; Unless otherwise stated, all questions refer to the KSU campus police. Please make all respomses with Specific reference to the campus police not to police in general. For each item choose only one alternative (a, b, c, d, e). Mark in your reSponses on the data processing sheet using a #2 pencil. All responses are (IONFIDENTIAL. Do not put your name on the sheet. We are interested in any additional comments or suggestions you might have. Put them on the back of the data processing sheet. \ Please reSpond within 24 hours. We have a tight deadline and we want your views to be included. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f735f91ceba6ffe163bba773a5ca89f2.tif b0f75e64c3dfa8e3fddfb32a39db5e04 PDF Text Text .. if 60‘ [/[v‘\/ a F ﬂ/Jaa I 5/ 0 Cﬂ/ﬂ/ﬂﬂé Tﬂff—laé" ”A 7.043 C 4.05/5 7/”? a F ”A; 7/7 VOA/lfﬂ 5' 4- 5631/44? 5" Ala/25‘: WI/"’ 444 {Vt-’IWIIV f (foF [ﬁfﬂfn/ 06‘” T’d ( ddé/y'l’ Mﬁ/Jé” ”A: f} ﬂﬂ/IJX .‘ 1. In general: how do you feel toward the Kent State Campus iékgigwwap Police Department: a.) Favorable b.) Neutral c.) Unfawgrable H w 2. In the event of a confrontation between students and the university requiring the presence of law.enforcement officers, dc you think outside law enforcement agencies should be called in for assistance: a.) Always b.) Depends on the situation 0.) Never 0 /?t<;. <9 3. Do you think that the campus police have files on the political activities of students? a.) Yes_’ b.) Not sure 0.) $3 A. Which of the following statements most closely represents your view of what the campus police department should be: ( 1/ (3 a.) there should be no campus police department. CDb') an unarmed building security department, like -nightwatchmen. 7,C-) an armed combination security-police department, who "could make arrests, but whose main job would be Security (Z d.) a police department made up mostly of armed patrolmen whose job is both routine security and enforcement of the law. Lee.) a complete police department that performs all police A" functions, including investigative work. 5. The patrolmen in the campus police Department shbuld consist mainly of: a.) students b. faculty .) Civil Service employees /yd.) professional police (5 ) none of the above. (The Campus Police Department ” should be absorbed by and combined With theVKent City Police Department (D 6. Which of the following most closely represents your view of undercover surveillance activity on campus: 08») Should not be done on campus under any circumstances. / b.) Should not be done by campus police, but we cannot prevent other agencies from doing it. c>c.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life. /2[d.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life or substantial property. ,3/ e.) Should be done whenever the Director of Security V determines that, in his professional judgment, there is a serious threat to life or property. 5/ A44 = M/hTﬂ/M} a; 370%;wa https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/300aed4e629c18b55d6bfc33ce1570c2.tif ebd60df336b2b33a95a6aea59d4af5de PDF Text Text 2. 7. Which of the following most closely represents your feeling toward the campus police: )7 a.) They are on my side protecting me and the university. [3 b.) I have mixed feelings. ) They are working against me,enforcing laws and C) ‘policies that I don't agree with. .Questi0ns 8 — 13 refer to the investigative work of a police department. For each of the following situations indicate who should be the appropriate law enforcement agency to carry on the investigation: .g no police agency . campus police .) local agency (Kent City Police or Portage Co. Sheriff) .) state agency (e.g., Highway Patrol) . federal agency (e.g., FBI) (DD-IOU'SJJ t {[6 L’ (:"O 8. There is a series of burglaries on campus./H9/7 ‘Lé/JO 9. The student health center receives a large number of cases of heroin overdose. A0 57 caogcrg c. . A6 3 :' 10. A number of bomb threats are made on Bowman Hall./“9‘3 505’ 5 0 11. A student reports that two students in his dorm were hiding rifles. /;0 ,3A‘2;o,0|5f( 12. The SDS Weathermen hold an or anizational meeting. 1/3/3/4/4 0130 <32, 13. An activist student has recently advocated violence as a means of changing government policy. a (0 an 60 ’3' " z For Questions 14—19 please indicate your rating of how well the campus police are presently doing their job in each of the areas listed below. The alternatives are: a.) excellent b.) good c.) fair d.) poor e.) bad 14. Enforcing parking and traffic regulations. ,,‘( L56 / 7K37ct/ 15. Protecting university property. ; 0 /// (as/aw 0 H . , LL”... 16. Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. {;C>/MO/WJ/9JA fr, , “aﬁt‘xw(xﬁ‘59 17. Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. xéCJﬂ 3/é~' ~“ ‘ - . . 1-. 0 I ' O / 7 {”3 ice? 1/ 18. Dealing With burglaries on campus. ,.' u- ‘w . 19. Making the university a safe place to live and to visit. , /9C)’g“{£¢54QQ5¥7 6 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8ec3bec4ec6b1ebb71dd125962097b31.tif b2a092866d0f067d53cd6e67cc3bc31b PDF Text Text 3. 20. Which of the following areas should be the most im ort concern of the campus police: C7a.) Enforcing parking and traffic problems ) Protecting university property. 1 0.) Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. ) Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. ) Dealing with burglaries on campus. 21. Compared to the Kent Cit tp Police Department, what would be your overall rating the campus police: 0a. ) very much worse 7b.; somewhat worse ,30. about the same 1,d.g somewhat better c;e. very muph better 22. What is your opinion as to the present size of the campus police department: much too small C/b, ) somewhat small /8c. ) about right 3 d. somewhat large 5>e. much too large 23.During the '71 — '72 academic year did you go to or call the campus police to report a crime or to ask for assistance" 7'a.) Yes and I was satisfied with the reSponse. C)b. ) Yes and I have no 0 inion about the reSponse Yes and I was dissatisfied with the response. c) ao( d.) No 24. Have you ever been stopped by, questioned by or arrested by the campus police: . 77a.) Yes and the incident was handled inia professional manner. 2,b.) Yes and I have no 0 inion as to the manner in which the incident was Handled. / 0.) Yes and the incident was handled in an unprofessional manner. Md.) NO. 25. In what area is there the most need for improvement: C7a.) personnel; better patrolmen Lib.§ supervision; better leadership in the police department /c. university policy; better supervision of police by university. CDd.) coordination; better cooperation with other police agencies. lg)e.) public relations; better communication with university community. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/26891f85ee32a22999aaf5a194872fc6.tif d1efc37aa8ebcddcfdfd799484d51d36 PDF Text Text 26. 27. 28. h. Questions 26— 35 ask you to state the degree to which you agree with the‘statement that is made. The alternatives are: a.§ strongly agree b. agree 0. neutral d. disagree e.) strongly disagree The KSU campus police are well trained and thoroughly professional. ’40 /3 7 C7 01.630 The campus police should be paid competitive salaries in order to attract and keep the best possible personnel. 91:131ch 00 C: 0 The campus police have used drug charg és as a pretense for arresting students for their politicalL lactivity. 54%) f} 50 CH 13/ 29. The campus policemen are politically mughé more conservative 30. 31. 32. 33. than the other members of the university community. ﬂL/L’ ”(C/3 232C~o Campus police have shown good judgment in dealing with cam us demonstrations. p [.90 ,3 7 CL/J ,/3?(:0 Most campus police have favorable attitudes towards students. }-0 [/1 ,568’AJ‘LC 0 There is a great danger of serious violent crime on campus. Ho £2003 0! 6’ Students on campus have a high degree f paranoia when it comes to police activityzyé /2/3 (I {20“ {F a 34. Campus police should make a major effort to get rid of ushers of hard dru 8 like heroin. p g Am/WRKOLwé- 35. The campus police do an excellent job of protecting life 36. and property on campus. /4 C9’/:3 ”‘H‘L'JQ/ Questions 36—37 should be answered from your own knowledge, even if’you have to guess. Do not consult any source to help you with your answers. How many police officers are employed by Kent State? c)a.) less than 25. 26~50 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/18dcc2ae6a9fe499fec016e02044004a.tif d34faae02f2e3013e6a80f2fcdb0a746 PDF Text Text 5. b.) Female 37. What is the annual salary (éXcluding overtime) of a campus patrolman who has three yeazs experience in the department? C)a.) less than $6,500 59b.g $6,500 to $7,500 y/éC- $7,500 to $8§500 ,S’d.g $8,500 to $ ,500 699' more than $9,500 38. Indicate your a.) undergrad tuden b. grad studen 0. faculty or d. campus pol c e. non—acad' 39. Indicate your position\in the university more precisely: Students ’ T Grad Student Faculty a. res an a.» .A. ’ a. Instructor b. sophomore b.=Ph.D.. b. Asst. Prof c. junior c. Specialif c; Assoc. Prof d. senior dixnnnedegree d.LProfessor e. non-degree ' ' ' ‘ e. Administrator Police Non-academig Personnel a. Operations a. secretarial—clerical b. staff seivices b. food services c. auxiliary services c. maintenance d. command ‘ d. other a.) Male https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a9678b3c2a280e0f7d4bf136686fbcd8.tif 39a8d8c783039f1a1da28e76ab0e2118 PDF Text Text See»(9'w"“ ‘ _ W {Ar/7 2. Psychology Department Kent State University . Kent, Ohio AAZAZ May 2A, 1972 Dear Faculty Colleague: President Olds has directed the Campus Security Advisory Committee to do a thorough study of the campus police and to make specific recommendations by the end of this quarter. The committee includes 5 faculty members, but we also need to have a wide range 3 faculty opinion. A large faculty responses is essential to the success of this study. Could I ask you to please fill out the attached question— naire? It should only take about 15 minutes of your time. Instructions are given below. Please do it today. Return via Campus Mail to: Dooling/Psychology Sin rely, ' D. ames Doo ing Assistant Professor Instructions; Unless otherwise stated, all questions refer to the KSU campus police. Please make all respomses with specific reference to the campus police not to police in general. For each item choose only one alternative (a, b, c, d, e). Mark in your reSponses on the data processing sheet using a #2 pencil. All responses are (IONFIDENTIAL. Do not put your name on the sheet. We are interested in any additional comments or suggestions you might have. Put them on the back of the data processing sheet. Please respond within 24 hours. We have a tight deadline and we want your views to be included. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e158aff6a48fe059086e6d0bffc0f638.tif 8954e433b1cbaca3de1c8a9956b2fd19 PDF Text Text A. In general: how do you feel toward the Kent State Campus Police Department: a.) Favorable b.) Neutral C.) Unfavorable §, In the event of a confrontation between students and the university requiring the presence of law.enforcement. officers, dc you think outside law enforcement agenc1es should be called in for assistance: a.) Always b.) Depends on the situation 0.) Never Do you think that the campus police have files on the political activities of students? a.) Yes b.) Not sure 0.) No Which of the following statements most closely represents your view of what the campus police department should be: a.) there should be no campus police department. b.) an unarmed building security department, like .nightwatchmen. c.) an armed combination security—police department, who "could make arrests, but whose main job would be security d.) a police department made up mostly of armed patrolmen whose job is both routine security and enforcement of the law. e.) a complete police department that performs all police functions, including investigative work. The patrolmen in the campus police Department shOuld consist mainly of: a.) students b. faculty Civil Service employees professional police none of the above. (The Campus Police Department should be absorbed-by and combined~With theYKent City Police Department 0 O VVVV (DD-:0 Which of the following most closely represents your view of undercover surveillance activity on campus: a.) Should not be done on campus under any circumstances. b.) Should not be done by campus police, but we cannot prevent other agencies from doing it. 0.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life. d.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life or substantial property. e.) Should be done whenever the Director of Security determines that, in his professional judgment, there is a serious threat to life or prOperty. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0ea0dff435bd9dd86caf055c403bc668.tif 4fc1542b08901749348645c84a664224 PDF Text Text 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 2. Which of the following most closely represents your feeling toward the campus police: a.) They are on my side protecting me and the university. b.) I have mixed feelings. 0.) They are working against melenforcing laws and policies that I don't agree with. Questidns 8 - 13 refer to the investigative work of a police department. For each of the following situations indicate who should be the appropriate law enforcement agency to carry on the investigation: .3 no police agency . campus police . 0.) local agency (Kent City Police or Portage Co. Sheriff) .) state agency (e.g., Highway Patrol) ) federal agency (e.g., FBI) (DD- U'SD There is a series of burglaries on campus. The student health center receives a large number of cases of heroin overdose. A number Of bomb threats are made on Bowman Hall. A student reports that two students in his dorm were hiding rifles. The SDS Weathermen hold an organizational meeting. An activist student has recently advocated violence as a means of changing government policy. For Questions 14—19 please indicate your rating of how well the campus police are presently doing their job in each of the areas listed below. The alternatives are: a.) excellent b.) good c.) fair d.) poor e.) bad Enforcing parking and traffic regulations. Protecting university property. Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. Dealing with burglaries on campus. Making the university a safe place to live and to visit. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e7eccbbe739fe6b8962042f6ac39e059.tif ab36ffe3d93e0772b87c16c7c87c412e PDF Text Text 3. 20. Which of the following areas should be the most important concern of the campus police: a. Enforcing parking and traffic problems b.) Protecting university property. .) Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. .) Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. .) Dealing with burglaries on campus. (DD-a0 21. Compared to the Kent Cit Police Department, what would be your overall rating 0 the campus police: .) very much worse .g somewhat worse about the same .3 somewhat better very much better CDQaOO‘Q-J o 22. What is your opinion as to the present size of the campus police department: a.) much too small b.) somewhat small about right somewhat large much too large (D Q-oO o VVV 23.During the '71 - '72 academic year did you go to or call the campus police to report a crime or to ask for assistance" a.) Yes and I was satisfied with the reSponse. b.) Yes and I have n2 opinion about the response c.) Yes and I was dissatisfied with the response. d.) No 24. Have you ever been stopped by, questioned by or arrested by the campus police: a.) Yes and the incident was handled inia professional manner. b.) Yes and I have_g9 opinion as to the manner in which the incident was an c.) Yes and the incident was handled in an unprofessional manner. d.) No. 25. In what area is there the most need for improvement: a.) personnel; better patrolmen b.3 supervision; better leadership in the police department 0. university policy; better supervision of police by university. d.) coordination; better CQOperation with other police agencies. ) public relations; better communication with university community. e. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/670b88eec022078c39c3202c393f4335.tif 6718f7717e0913651403983c22d127da PDF Text Text 26. 27. 28. 1+. Questions 26— 35 ask you to state the degree to which you agree with the‘Etatement that is made. The alternatives are: a.) strongly agree b.) agree 0.; neutral d. disagree 9.) strongly disagree The KSU campus police are well trained and thoroughly professional. The campus police should be paid competitive salaries in order to attract and keep the best possible personnel. The campus police have used drug charges as a pretense for arresting students for their political activity. 29.The campus policemen are politically much more conservative 30. 31. 320 33. than the other members of the university community. Campus police have shown good judgment in dealing with campus demonstrations. Most campus police have favorable attitudes towards students. There is a great danger of serious violent crime on campus. Students on campus have a high degree of paranoia when it comes to police activity. 34.0ampus police should make a major effort to get rid of pushers of hard drugs like heroin. 35.The campus police do an excellent job of protecting life 36. and property on campus. Questions 36—37 should be answered from your own knowledge, even if you have to guess. Do not consult any source to help you with your answers. How many police officers are employed by Kent State? a.) less than 25. b ) 26—50 d.) 76-100 e.) more than 100 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3e338bacc299c3a46765dce75354a5f1.tif 0c683794936029b8903c1203fa75c25b PDF Text Text 5. 37. What is the annual salary (éXCluding overtime) of a campus patrolman who has three yea 5 experience in the department? a.) less than $6,500 b.§ $6,500 to $7.500 Co $7,500 to $85500 d'} $8,500 to $9.500 e. more than $9,500 38. Indicate your position in the university: a.) undergrad student b. grad student 0. faculty or administration d. campus police e. non—academic personnel 39. Indicate your position in the university more precisely: Students ’ T Grad Student Faculty a. ?resﬁman a. M.A. a. Instructor b. SOphomore ‘ b.:Ph.-D.w b. Asst. Prof c. junior c. Specialif c; Assoc. Prof d. senior d.gnonedegree d.1Professor e. non-degree ’ ' ' ' - e. Administrator Police Non-academic Personnel a. operations a. secretarial—clerical b. staff seﬁvices b. food services c. auxiliary services c. maintenance d. command d. other 40. Sex a.) Male b.) Female https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/59c9e5cc051477b2e83db69116662ed6.tif 851ce7af3fa4bdc50c0e220043e2e617 PDF Text Text GSRQ ' “Spring '72 Police Interview I am interviewing you as part of the informationagathering efforts of the Campus Security Advisory Committee. As you may know, we have been surveying students, faculty, university employees and townspeOple during the past week. we need nOW'tO have first hand information from the campus policemen. I have here a series of questions, but each should be considered open-ended. Any additional points you went to make are welcome. All of your responses will be strictly confidential. 1. What do you feel are the typical student/faculty/nonracademio employee attitudes toward the campus police? 2. What are the main problems that exist between the campus police and the student body? https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/954316a05c21257f3d4f497e667ad211.tif f6a927dc4eeea2f64a7fd9044067e39c PDF Text Text \r ' " 20 . \ '3. What are the most serious crime problems on campus? A. Under what conditions should the campus police carry on undercover surveillance activity? 5. Ideally, what should be the nature and mission of the Campus Police Department? https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ddfe5b06528c4cb6a9529a56ec61d286.tif eb29a30cdfba3cdfe15be9a3fbaf1333 PDF Text Text ‘-“‘ - 33 A "'6. 'How does the role 0f a campus policeman differ from that of a municipal police officer? 7. Wbuld you say that your training is aﬂequate for the specific job you perfbnm? 8. How would you characterize the morale in the camyus police department? https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b1ed5a9d1a03844e5a011e19ebc9e1eb.tif 135f9287db7fb2ad77a012f18dada76c PDF Text Text Miaﬁtb f ﬁhi ant Stat‘ax'fm” Rica a flﬁ quai310ns? I“? : dent _ - 1‘ V , ' r . :-I . .> «,4 ’v' 1 ‘ u~ o>_», '« 2.! -~u 9~5 , "w;;.= . , ‘ If. ‘ ‘32:}, . -= ~ .. ; ‘ .. .V (i . , 1 :11!» _ 2-} . Jr. , l} , : V” a _ A .1 . a H. t. " $1: I V I U . 1" £1? . ‘3 I V” l I H.221 I .2. $13.1 : ~ A .("»: '.. - Quesgéons 1:§ )*- ‘ *a-}; ,3 ~u W., , *»‘ {ﬂ ,_? How 535a a job do the campus police do *n eﬁdh it tho tollouing areas. a)excellent b)gopd‘ ' mm “poof a 1. Enforcing panting and tfatfid regulaﬁfig:". g 2. protecting un1var y property. .f _.7§115@ 3. healing witqurug abuse. A.dealing with disruptive demonstrations. 5. dealin~ with burglaries on campus. 6. making the university campus a safe place to live and viSit. ; ,7. “-1; *1/21?!” If I.“ ‘ , . ' : Which if .heee areas should be ,“v1glunnw o cern of bee campus sza pa 1ce.1 p,_ - l)enforcing parking and traffic “egoI: ions 2)protecting university property 3)dealing with the problems of drug abuse .1 Vi A)dealing wioh dosruptive demonstrations 1111 5}dealing with-burglaries on campus%’ .no/ 3' Compared with the E Kent City Police, what would to your 'aﬁwa overall rating of the campus police? \o a)very much worsé b) worse c)about the same d) better e) very much benf ',9. What is your opinion as to the present 3130 of the calpus polioo‘ department? ” ) ., agmuoh too elali b) 5omewhat small a) about right d)aomewhat I? a much too large 5 10' Are you comma "“1“ “1° .mvﬂuw? In M “I? use? a , ii? I, f , s f H“ .;%:t ’ ['5‘ V ‘ ““3" § Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Questionnaire Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1972 Description Proposals, drafts, and documents related to a questionnaire used by the Campus Security Advisory Committee to conduct a study of the campus police. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 26 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f5c3c4f130241ea434ca6969d799b8ae.tif 448f14727c9ba5e1644bc3d3e5dce332 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/17b563568204afdb5dd26b1020f65dc6.tif f165eef953889582599ddd01b53e7e01 PDF Text Text Page Two relations through an Experimental Course on the Campus Police. I believe that such a course can be developed fairly simply and quickly to meet this need. One concept for such a course follows. This course would be based on nine or ten meetings, once a week, for two to three hours at a time. It would probably be scheduled in the evening so as not to conflict with the regular work days of the members of the Police Department who would be participating in the course. The course would attempt to aquaint the student with the basic organization of the Police Department as well as dealing with the issues which are of importance to class members. There would be numerous guests from the Police Department to discuss different aspects of campus law enforce- ment with the class. One portion of the quarter would include a program similar to last year's Student-Police Rider Program. Each class member would spend a few hours riding with different police officers who are on routine patrol to learn more about this operation and to talk with patrol- men on a one-to-one basis. Here is a tenative week-by-week plan for the courses The first meeting would be a basic organization session. A course syllabus and the organization chart of the Police Department would be distributed and discussed. Each class https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/40b96c44c75597af14be9e7f05a320fc.tif 4071a631dde24a4af2b0af19a8191fec PDF Text Text Page Three member would fill out a questionaire which would assess attitudes and perceptions of the Department. A similar questionaire would be administered at the end of the quarter and the two could be used in determining the usefulness of the course as well as changes in attitude that have taken place. The second meeting would feature the Director of Security. He would discuss the organization, aims. operation and philosophy of the Department in general. Other dis- cussion would center on general topics in relation to the Department without getting into detailed aspects. The Commander of the Patrol Division would highlight the third meeting. His area of responsibility would be dis- cussed.and any specific concerns about this area could be explored. In the fourth meeting, some of the hot issues of surveillance. intelligence and drugs would be discussed. The Commander of the Special Investigations Division would be the guest. He would discuss these issues and offer clar- ification on many points which cause great concern among many students. The fifth meeting would be used in the discussion of the areas already covered. It would be possible to have a representitive of the Police Department at this meeting to help in the discussion, if the class wished. This would give the class a chance to "regroup" and develop their https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/cd03130f9a2a755b47f98b16dd251037.tif 083d88aa57bedfaf4866dd7e0c937524 PDF Text Text Page Four thoughts and opinions. To highlight another major force acting upon the Police, the Chairman of the Campus Security Advisory Committee would be asked to attend the sixth session. He could explain and discuss the effects of his Committee on the Department. The seventh meeting would be cancelled to give class mem- bers time to participate in the Rider Program) as was men- tioned earlier. The eighth meeting would again feature the Director of Security. This would give the class a chance to discuss items with the Director in light of their newly gained knowledge of the Department. The ninth and final meeting would be a general class discussion of the Campus Police and a wrap-up session for the course. The second set of questionaires and any other outstanding business would be completed. In a quarter where ten meetings are possible, there could be an extra week used in general discussion or devoted to the Rider Program. The best time for this meeting might be after the discussion with the Chairman of the Campus Security Advisory Committee. A short paper about an aspect of the Police Department might be a useful tool. This would provide each class member with a chance to delve more deeply into one area of concern and could be used in future classes as supportive information. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5d312ade8e111de8fd3b46b3282e0612.tif d755703c2e81b0e777c7f1b088154624 PDF Text Text Page Five The requirement. length and scope of the paper should be decided upon in the first Class meeting. I In such a course,.attendence could be an essential part to a meaningful learning experience. so some consideration to this matter should be given. Again, this problem should be discussed and decided upon at the first meetingb For this course, the selection of a teacher-guide presents unique problems. I feel that it should be someone who has a good knowledge of the Police Department and yet be someone who is not directly related to it. Some possible. sources of persons might be the Campus Security Advisory Committee, the Department of Criminal Justice Studies or the Bureau of Government Research and Serticea I believe that a course of this type could be very beneficial in fostering improved understanding between the Campus Police and the rest of the University Community. I hope that something can come of this in the near future. Bob Peabody Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Report: “Campus Police - An Experimental Course” Description Undated report titled "Campus Police - An Experimental Course," by Campus Security Advisory Committee member Bob Peabody. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 5 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 May 4 Author Peabody, Robert dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2f26857a17b1ed115135c87d9f8700fe.tif 7e9ec25bcefce3d3749296281fca94fe https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f56f455fda9c7fef97551e29b1d51ba5.tif b74d10dcff26522f0a9c8ceaf2bba201 PDF Text Text Acknowledgements A study of this scope could not have been performed in so short a time without the assistance of a great many people. I am grateful to Earle Roberts and to the members of the Campus Security Advisory Committee for their advice and assistance at all stages of this project. Sylvia Beal of Vice President Roskens' office helped in numerous ways to set up the mechanics of the study. I am grateful to Donald Halter and Roger Benefield for their valuable assistance in helping us randomly sample from the students and non—academic employees, respectively. The following were very helpful in giving me advice on items for the general questionnaire: Denzel Benson, Clyde Hendrick, R. J. Planisek. Time pressures forced me in several _ cases to ignore their advice, so they should not be held accountable for any errors or misjudgments in the question- naire itself. I am grateful as well to R. J. Planisek and Byron Dressler for their help with the data analysis. Sharon Horowitz and Mary Ann Schwenk, my graduate assistants, made many substantial contributions to the project. D. James Dooling August 15, 1972 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b14dbf236631fb298d581baf96b1a4e5.tif 29374dc5c11c11f0e21728f7b792fd18 PDF Text Text The Campus Police at Kent State A Survey of Opinion D. James Dooling Kent State University The Campus Security Advisory Committee was formed on March 2, 1972 and was charged with the following respon— sibilities: 1. To provide suggestions, guidance and advice to the Director of Security on means to achieve optimal cooperation between the University Security force, the academic community and the greater community at large. 2. To review operational policies and procedures and, accordingly, offer recommendations to the Director of Security and the President of the University on ways by which the department might improve its services. The Committee shall have access to all information and materials relevant to the policy or procedure under study. 3. To reflect the concerns of the University Community on sensitive issues related to Security. In this context, an immediate responsibility of the Committee shall be an assessment of the question of surveillance and the accessibility of Security records. The Committee shall regard as its proper purpose the nature and kinds of infor— mation gathered, rather than upon whom such information is gathered, and the confidentiality of information made available to them shall be ' perserved. The Committee is, in this instance, specifically charged to formulate a policy recom- mendation on this sensitive subject. “It is expected that all facets of the matter including legal and ethical constraints will be weighed. 4. To submit periodic reports regarding University Security operations to the President and other appropriate parties, including the Chairman of the Facult y Senate and the President of the Student Body. During the Spring Quarter of 1972, a number of events led to adverse publicity toward the campus police. The policies and practices of the campus police became issues of great concern within the university community. As a https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ba62f6f9699359e4c7ca894a76d0f832.tif 2bd5f87ffd16bd03e74b0a21c22d2f9f PDF Text Text -2- result, President Olds gave the committee a new charge on May 5, 1972. In the view of the committee, this charge had the effect of altering the nature of the Campus Security Advisory Committee. The new charge directed the committee to address the following: 1. Policy concerning the nature, need, and scope of campus security, 2. Review of present policy and practice, 3. Policy and review of the relation of campus security to the wider local, county, state and federal security and law enforcement agencies, 4. Evaluation of present policy, practice and personnel and future need in the light of any recommended policy. The charge was put in a 30-day "time frame" with the President committing himself to act on recommendations within 7 days of the committee's report. To facilitate the fulfillment of this charge, the committee was divided into four sub-committees. The _ present report reflects the findings of the sub-committee concerned with assessing university opinion toward the campus police. The charge, as given by committee chairman Earle Roberts on May 8, 1972, read as follows: In order to assist the Committee in determin— ing the nature, need and scope of present and future campus security, a survey of campus community attitudes should be undertaken. At a minimum, the attitudes of students, faculty and noneacademic employees, including campus police, should be included. An assessment of how accurately the campus police personnel per- ceive campus community attitudes would be helpful as would their self-perceptions. The information obtained will form the basis for subsequent evaluation and recommendations. The charge was later clarified verbally to include an assessment of attitudes from the Kent Community The General Climate. - As previously stated, the charge to the CSAC was given under pressure because of trouble on campus. A number of students and faculty were very much https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9185e03b0c12fff639b793b2fbe4e62c.tif 42ca8079307f494ba3bea0f172330307 PDF Text Text -3- upset with police practices. Consider the background for the time in which the study was conducted: Two years after the fatal shootings at Kent State there was once again a series of political events that threatened to cause great turmoil in the university. The May 4 memorial services for those killed at KSU in 1970 will be a tense time for many years to come. A number of other events closely coincided with the May 4th date. In April President Nixon announced an increased bombing in Vietnam, a move that sparked some protest from the nearly dormant anti-war movement. It was approximately at this time that Rheinhold Mohr, an under- cover agent for the campus police, was discovered. It was charged that he had tried to entrap students and was himself a provocateur.1 The Campus Police were accused of infiltrating political groups (in this case the Vietnam Veterans Against the War). On top of this it was charged that Mohr was highly paid for spying. This particularly enflamed some students who were protesting a recent an- nouncement of fee increases. At one point, 129 students were arrested for sitting in at the ROTC building. On top of the Mohr incident a further escalation of the Vietnam war (in this case the mining 6f Haiphong Harbor) Brou ht on a a number of student demonstrationsg A few days ater a number of demonstrators sat in the street and were pushed back to campus by combined police forces from Kent, sur- rounding communities and campus police. And still later, a small number of students were arrested for disrupting the ROTC awards ceremonies. The present survey began with a mailing to students on Wed., May 24 and the bulk of the responses were received by June 7th. During these 2 weeks there were a number of rallies against the campus police. A number of posters were in evidence on campus proclaiming "No Mohr Fyke". Another series of posters featured a large and very men- acing picture of Mr. Fyke with the caption: "Enemy of the 'People". At the same time, bumper stickers were in evidence: "KSU's been Fyked". At one point, a number of students camped out on the lawn of the police department demanding. to see Mr. Fyke, and he received a good deal of criticism for not meeting with them. It was on this same day that the ACLU subpoened Mr. Fyke in connection with a false arrest suit that was unrelated to the events described above. All of the various anit—Fyke and anti-police protests were given prominent and sympathetic coverage in the campus newspaper--and most were covered by the Kent, Akron and Cleveland newspapers as well. ' In short, the present survey could hardly have been 1At this writing, the facts in the Mohr incident remain un- clear. What is being stressed here is the type of charges that were given wide publicity in the university community. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3421d3aeb13b6b3f3823b0a6aa80ae62.tif 570f5f2d787c6bd6e601316e3384e913 PDF Text Text -4— taken at a time when more hostility toward the campus police was being expressed. All results must be interpreted within this general context. Students Sampling It was not possible to send questionnaires to all 19,000 students who were enrolled during the Spring Quarter of 1972. There were severe limitations of time and re- sources that prevented any kind of exhaustive survey. It is possible, however, to closely approximate the responses of the entire population of students with a sample of a few hundred if appropriate sampling techniques are used. In order to get a sample that was representative of the population a quasi-random sampling technique was employed. The students were selected from the Registrar's listing of currently enrolled students. A random starting point was determined among the first 36 names. Thereafter, every .36th name was assigned to the sample and mailed a question- naire. The total number of possible respondents therefore, was 520. This sample of 520 would give an extremely ac- curate estimate of student opinion. Although some may object to using a sample of so few to draw general con- clusions, it should be pointed out that the most important thing is to have a sample that is representative of the population. Adding on students from easily available sources (e.g., psychology classes), while increasing the number of respondents, would probably distort the pattern of results. Having sent out the 520 questionnaires, the problem remained of getting most of the respondents to return -them. While campus interest in the police was generally high during that week, the survey had the difficulty of being conducted within two weeks of final exams. The random sampling technique would only be successful in representing the population if there was no selection factor determining who would return the questionnaires. For example, we would expect that those with strong feelings about the police (pro or con) would be more likely to re- spond than those who were more apathetic. The bias due to selective response would be minimized if most students responded. In an attempt to ensure this, a team of students called the students in the sample three or four days after the questionnaire was mailed out. They urged the students to return the questionnaire and received a verbal commitment from most of the students that they reached. Unfortunately, https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c40ec5ed6f8cce8a29113e3e454ca8e2.tif 41976e04f39e163fda06429807a7121f PDF Text Text however, only about half of the students in the sample were phoned. Response Two hundred and forty-seven students (48%) returned the questionnaire. The response, though expected, was disappointing. Because more than half of the students who had been randomly selected did not return the questionnaire, an effort was made to detect any bias in the sample. The 520 randomly selected students were classified according to nine characteristics that were available from the Registrar's listing. Table 1 shows a comparison of Respondents with Non—respondents on the nine character- istics. The two groups are closely comparable with respect to College, Class, State Residency, Marital Status, Religion, and Age. The two groups differed significantly only with respect to Grade Point Average. Students with higher grade points were more likely to return the ques- tionnaire. The sample of respondents, therefore, is slightly biased toward the opinions of those with higher grades. There was also a slight (but not statistically significant) tendency for dormitory residents to be overrepresented in the sample. The comparison of respondents with non-reSpondents did not yield any great differences that would signal a bias in the sample. It is likely, therefore, that the sample of 247 students is fairly representative of the population. It is possible, of course, that the respondents differ on some crucial characteristic that was not detected by the method that was used. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c51e7ab96d3ed1cabafee921e3b0e325.tif 514c19768276c2e37eab78923475340b PDF Text Text Table 1 Comparison of Respondents (N=247) with Non-respondents (N=273) on Nine Characteristics (Percent Within Each Category) ..-—---_--——-—--.——.—.-——-~-.-—--——_-—..-——--—-—-.-‘.-—.———.--.- ** Statistically significant difference at 1 College: Arts & Business Education Honors, Graduate Sciences Nursing Library College School Fine Arts science Respondents 40 16 ' 28 2 14 Non-reSpondents 43 11 25 4 17 2 Class: Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate ReSpondents 16 19 26 25 l4 Non-respondents 17 21 17 27 17" 3 Residencezln State Out of State Respondents 89 11 Non-respondents 9O 10 4 Marital Status: Single Married Respondents 81 19 Non-respondents _ 80 20 5 Religion: Affiliation Stated No Affiliation Stated Respondents 57 43 ' Non-respondents 58 42 6 Date of ’1940 & 1941 — 1944 - 1947 - 1950 & Birth: below :1943 1946 1949 above Respondents 7 4 8 19 61 Non-respondents 10 5 8 22 55 **7 Grade Point Average: 1.99 & 2.0-2.49 2.5-2.99 3.0 - 3.5 & below 3.49 above Respondents 7 20 24 28 22 Non-respondents 11 28 28 17 15 8 Location: On Campus Off Campus At Home ReSpondents 39 40 21 Non-reSpondents 28 48 24 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1f4df228ad5824ce3f17d8ce8a26c3f8.tif 6baa6b4ce5031207e749d80b1c35e8e6 PDF Text Text -7- Results The percentage of students choosing each alternative for the forty items in the questionnaire is shown in Appendix B. These responses are summarized and discussed below under several different headings. Attitude change: 1970—1972.-—The first three items in the questionnaire were taken from two previous studies of student opinion and allow us to make some rough comparisons . as to the direction of opinion change. The Stimel (1970) survey took place prior to the killings on May 4. Details as to sampling method and sample size are not known at this time. The McCoy (1971) survey included 203 reSpondents. The sample is characterized by an overrepresentation of males, juniors, undergraduates, arts and science majors and majors in Criminal Justice Studies. The proportion of reSponses to the various alternatives are shown in Table 2. On the question of general attitude toward the campus police, there is a remarkable degree of similarity among the three studies. Most students are neutral with those favorable and unfavorable about equally balanced. When it comes to calling in off- campus police forces, most students prefer to let it depend on the situation. But the significant thing on this question is the relatively high number of students picking the "never" alternative in both this survey and that of McCoy. In both, cases, a sharp difference exists when compared to the Stimel data that were collected prior to May 4, 1970. On the question of keeping files on political activities of students, there is a rise in the "yes" category over the past year. In the present survey, 60% of the students seem reasonably confident that the police are keeping files. on their political activity. Table 2 Comparison of Student Responses over a Three Year Period V Stime1(l970) McCoy(l971) Dooling(1972) 1 Attitude toward Police Favorable .21 .22 .27 Neutral .60 .60 .50 Unfavorable .19 ‘ .18 .22 (Omit) = .01 2 Should Off Campus Police be called in? Always .04 .02 .02 Depends .91 .82 .79 Never .05 .16 .19 (Omit) .00 3 Police have files on Students Yes -— .49 - .58 Not Sure —- .33 ~ .30 No ‘ —~ .18 .12 (Omit) . . .00 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/180d070f39ee11cc87514ac14688f966.tif 5996a767d5ab714184c962e18b0eee92 PDF Text Text *8- Feelings toward the police.——The student body seems to be fairly evenly divided in their general attitude toward the police. The dominant response appears to be '‘neutral" (Q-l) or "mixed emotions" (Q-7) and there is very little evidence of the kind of strong negative feelings toward the police that were expressed at rallies and in the campus newspaper. For example, only 11% were willing to say that the campus police "are working against me" (0—7). In addition, 43% agree with the statement that "Most campus police have favorable attitudes towards students", while only 23% disagree (Q31). While 43% see the police as "much more conservative" than the university community (Q-29), we might have expected a higher proportion from a hostile student body. It should also be noted that students do not overestimate the size of the department (0—36), nor the salaries paid to patrolman (Q-37). In short, while there are a significant number of students who are hostile toward the police, a slightly greater number support the campus police with the same degree of conviction. The dominant reaponse, however, is one of neutrality--most students do not take sides. Effectiveness and competence.--Students are fairly neutral and non-committal in evaluating how well the campus police perform their duties. There is a slight tendency to doubt how well—trained and professional they are (Q-26) and nearly an even split, with 39% neutral as to whether they do an "excellent job" (0-35). Students who have gone to the police for help are about evenly divided as to how satisfied they were (9—23) and students who have been stopped by the police are also divided in their evaluation of police professionalism (Q—24). When comparing the campus police to the Kent Police, the dominant reSponse is "about the same", but there is a tendency toward the view that the campus police are better (9—21). Approximately half of the students think that the campus police do a good or excellent job in making the campus a "safe place" (0-19). When it comes to more specific functions, they are seen as good to excellent in "enforcing parking and traffic regulations" (Q—l4) and good to fair in "protecting university property" (Q—lS). Students are fairly evenly divided on the handling of "disruptive demonstrations" with 32% expressing approval, 34% disapproval, and 34% somewhat neutral (0-17).2 The problem areas seem to be drugs, and where there is substantial negative evaluation (about 3 to l disapproving) 2In another question relating to the handling of demonstra— tions (Q-30) we have the only real example of polarization that occurs in the survey. The statement that "campus police have shown good judgment" with demonstrations gets 38% agree— -ment and 40% disagreement. Only 21% remain neutral on this question. i - https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/433d4550c649eb129ee506e12825bbdc.tif b84327e1fb84d0367facbad87c713656 PDF Text Text -9- (0-16), and burglaries, where disapproving responses out— number the approving one by nearly 2 to l (Q-18). It should be pointed out that these more specific items can only be interpreted as expressing some very general opinions as to the effectiveness. Students may approve or disapprove of police actions for different motives and from different perspectives. Once again, however, there does not appear to be a predominance of negative responses. When the stu- dents were asked where the most improvement was needed (Q—25) only 18% chose “better leadership", the alternative that would most closely reflect the anti-FYke opinions on campus. . An astonishing 49%»picked "public relations" as the major prdblem area. Nature and Mission.--The students seem to want a police department on campus. Only 7% would want to see campus policing turned over to the City of Kent (Q—S). Only 17% feel that there should be no campus police department, while 19% would limit their duties to security matters (Q-4). The preferred role appears to be a combination security- police operation that would emphasize security matters.(Q—4). Only 21%.would want a complete police department that would include investigators (Q-4). The feelings about investiga— tions are probably due to the fact that students do not want campus police to investigate drug problems (Q—9) or political activism (Q-12, 13). Students are quite willing to have the campus police force investigate burglaries (Q-B), bomb threats (Q-lO) and possible firearm violations (Q-ll). When forced to rate the relative importance of several police functions. they overWhelmingly see protecting property and dealing with burglaries as being more important than drugs and demonstrations (Q-ZO). Students see the size of the campus police department as being "about right" (Q—22) and are fairly accurate at assessing the present size (Q—36). There is very little support for the idea that students or faculty should perform police functions (Q-5). The dominant view is that officers should be professional , _police (0—5) who are paid a competitive salary (Q-27). Undercover surveillance.--Only one third of the student respondents would rule out undercover surveillance as an activity for the campus police (Q—6). Of those who would allow surveillance, the great majority want to see the pre— sident of the university involved in the decision. In fact, the most frequent single response (34%) was for the alter— native that most closely represented the policy recommended https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/228ab67ceffa57b16fbf0826db7f82e6.tif 005da71795edd9f2cc4d4d4b13ab9cf2 PDF Text Text -10- by CSAC on May 1, 1972. Only 19% would leave undercover sur- veillance entirely in the hands of the Director of Security (Q-6).' In assessing the necessity of undercover work, it should be noted that most students do not see the campus as a very dangerous place (9-32). And since much undercover work is concerned with drugs, a clarification of student opinion on this subject is needed. While students are quite willing to see the campus police go after pushers of heroin (Q—34), they also do not see the campus police as the ap- propriate agency for investigating when students have a heroin problem (Q-9). When this is combined with the gener— ally negative opinion as to how drug problems are currently handled (0—16), a confusing picture emerges. Presumably, heroin would represent an extreme for the students; we would expect different opinions with soft drugs like marijuana. Student opinion on drug policy is not clear from the ques- tionnaire; it may not, in fact, be clear in the minds of the students. Related to the question of surveillance is the finding that 71% of the students agree that they "have a high degree of paranoia when it comes to police activity" (Q-33). But they are not willing to accuse the campus police of using drug charges as a way of controlling poli- tical activities (0-28). As stated previously, 58% feel that the campus police have files on their political acti— vity (Q-3). _ Item analysis.——A number of items in the questionnaire were cross—tabulated for the student sample. Because grade point average was the only characteristic that distinguished the respondents from non-respondents, an analysis was carried out to see if GPA was related to the responses for certain key items. As it turns out, GPA is not significantly related to the overall feeling toward the campus police (Q—l); nor to the surveillance question (0—6): nor to the area where the department needs improvement (Q-25). Among the items compared, the only place where GPA makes a signi- ficant difference is in the response to question #47. There is a slight tendency for students with higher GPA's to disagree with the statement that the police have used drug charges as a pretense for controlling political acti— vity. If the sample had not been over—represented with students having higher GPA's, we would have expected less agreement with the statement in question 47. The difference, however, is small and probably does not matter very much. The striking finding with respect to GPA is that it does https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9d2d04864b2dd60ab3eff6dbd213cfa3.tif 911f583c827b1369097c0875e7985785 PDF Text Text -11- not appear to affect the pattern of responding on most items. This argues for the representativeness of the student sample. A similar conclusion can be drawn from a comparison of key items with the place of residence of the students. There was a tendency, though not statistically significant, for dorm residents to be over-represented in the sample. But dorm residents do not give significantly different opin- ions in terms of feelings toward the police (9-1) or sur- veillance policy (Q—6). Even the question of parking (Q-l4) does not yield a significantly different pattern of responses as a function of location of residence. It is unlikely, therefore, that the sample was biased by the inclusion of a slightly disproportinateinUmber of dorm residents. An attempt was made to see what issue (e.g., surveil* lance, parking, etc.) was most related to the students' feelings toward the police. It turns out, however, that question 1 responses are significantly related to the res— ponses to a number of other questions. The significant relationship between the responses to questions 1 (feelings) and 6 (surveillance) does not mean very much in that ques- tions 14 through 20 are also significantly related to the overall evaluation of the police department. Everything from parking to drugs to protecting property is significantly related to the overall favorableness rating that is given to the police. What emerges from this analysis is the im— portance of the overall evaluation that was measured in items like questions 1 and 7. A favorable versus unfavorable rating of the police seems to color the evaluation of the various police functions. Many of the specific questions in the survey are probably influenced to a great degree by the overall positive or negative feelings of the respondents. Faculty Sampling The questionnaire was sent to 799 faculty members on the Main Campus. Computer generated address labels were available for faculty mailing from the President's Office, so the decision was made to send the questionnaire to all faculty members. The labels, however, were a year old, so first year faculty members were omitted from the mailing. The decision to send the questionnaire to virtually all https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/dc66e5006d7105b57014636b842b2d5f.tif cb6e8634a8cc344d92980486b90db4bf PDF Text Text -12- faculty was also based on the fact that the mailing could be done by campus mail and would not involve postage. (With the student questionnaire, postage was a consideration since approximately 2/3 of the students live off—campus.) In order to encourage returns, a letter was sent to all depart— mental chairmen, urging them to ask their faculty members to return the questionnaire. It was expected that this pro- cedure would be less effective than the personal phone call made to the students. Unlike the student sample. there is a bias that has not been accounted for or analyzed. The exclusion of first—year faculty may have had systematic effects on the results. It Should be clear, therefore, that while the faculty sample is proportionately much larger than the student sample, it is not necessarily more repre- sentative. Response Three hundred sixty-three faculty (45%) returned the questionnaire. The response was slightly less than that for the students. The faculty sample was about 80%|male and distributed across rank as follows: Instructor 5%: Assistant Professor 29%: Associate Professor 27%; Professor 29%;.Administrator 6%. No further analyses were done on the make—up of the faculty sample. Results The percent of faculty choosing the alternatives on the various items of the questionnaire is given in Appendix B. The discussion of the results below will emphasize the major areas of agreement and disagreement between students and faculty. Feelings toward the police.-—The faculty are more posi— tive than the students in their attitudes towards the cam- pus police. A majority express their feelings as favorable (Q-l) and consider the police to be "on my side" (Q-7). There are substantial numbers Who are neutral (Q—l) or Who have "mixed feelings" (9-7) and less who are negative. Effectiveness and competence.—-Faculty are slightly more inclined than the students to agree that the campus police are "well trained and thoroughly professional", but the modal response is still "neutral" (9—26). Similar results https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b17e5dba3848d069bac5c0dddd60d20e.tif 8f63880d6d6ea75336bfed5157046176 PDF Text Text -13- were obtained when faculty were asked to agree that the police do an "excellent job" (Q—35). When a faculty mem- ber goes to the police for help, he is usually satisfied (Q-23). And when a faculty member is stopped by the police, he tends to feel that the police officer acted in a profes— sional manner (Q—24). It may be that faculty go to the police with simpler problems (e.g. to unlock an office), or are stopped for less serious offenses (e.g. traffic of- fense); but it may also be true that the police give special treatment to faculty over students. The faculty see the campus police as either "about the same" as the city police (44%) or "better" (40%: Q—21)-—a result similar to that for the students. They also agree that the campus police do a good job in making the campus a "safe place" (Q-l9). When it comes to more specific job functions, the faculty give a poorer rating (fair-to—good) on the question of parking and traffic (Q—l4). It is surprising that students would be more satisfied with the way parking violations are handled. Unlike the students, the faculty give the police a "good" rating on dealing with demonstrations (0-17). Faculty tend to agree with the students that the police do a fairly good job in protecting university pro— perty (9-15), but a fair-to-poor job when it comes to drugs (Q—l6) or burglaries (Q-18). While a substantial number of faculty (29%) agree with the students that public relations is the area where most improvement is needed, the predominant faculty response (31%) is for "better control of the police by the university" (Q-ZS). Nature and mission.--Like the students, the faculty clearly want a campus police force. Only 1%.respond that there should be no police department (9-4) and only 6% think that the campus police should be absorbed by the city police (Q—5). The faculty seem to favor a combination se— curity—police department that would emphasize security, but show a much stronger preference than the students for a complete police department (Q-4). Like the students, the faculty do not see the campus police doing investigations in the fields of drugs (Q-9) and political activism (Q-12, 13). The faculty do see the campus police as investigating burglaries (Q-8), bomb threats (9—10), and possible firearm violations (Q~ll). The faculty see protecting university property as being the most important function from the al- ternatives given in 0-20. They agree with the students in down-playing drugs and demonstrations, but put less emphasis https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/841ab75fda179476372183756e2fc083.tif 78a246516812b566cb6c5e3141f2507d PDF Text Text -14- on burglaries (9—20). Faculty tend to see the campus police department as at about the right size (Q-22) and are fairly accurate at estimating the current size (Q—36). The faculty provide scant support for the idea that students should be the campus policemen (4%) and zero support for faculty in— volvement (9-5). Unlike the students; there is no ambivalence gas to whether the campus should have professional policemen; 68% chose that alternative in 9-5. A whopping 88% of the faculty agree that campus police should be paid a competi- tive salary (9—27). Undercover surveillance.-~Only 23% of the faculty would prohibit the campus police from doing undercover surveil- lance—-8% less than the student response (Q—6). While 29% would leave it to the judgment of the Director of Security, the dominant response calls for involvement by the presi- dent of the university (Q-6). The faculty do feel that students have a high degree of paranoia about police (Q-33). (It is unfortunate that this question is subject to two different meanings that bear on the interpretation of the results: To some, "paranoia" may mean a well—founded mis- trust: to others, it may mean an unrealistic delusion.) Like the students, the faculty do not see the university as a particularly dangerous place (Q-32). Nor would they accuse the police of using drug charges to harrass students for their political activity (Q—28). As in the student response it is difficult to tell from the questions asked where the faculty stand on the relationship between drugs and campus police activity. On the one hand, they do not see the campus police as the appropriate agency for inves— tigating heroin overdose (Q-9); but they do think that the campus police should make a "major effort" to get rid of pushers of heroin (Q-34). Part of the problem of interpre— tation may be due to the fact that faculty make a major distinction between user and pusher: but we cannot really say from the data collected. Non—Academic Employees Sample The sample consisted of every eighth name in the list of non-academic employees of the university. This procedure Was very similar to that used for the students. Approximate- ly 200 questionnaires were sent by campus mail to the people https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1cde7d102740451eb388d7afc3558042.tif 003419de67ab0e4c52fe7ee248ec79cd PDF Text Text -15- selected. Because of time and manpower limitations, no special efforts were made to ensure a high return rate. Response Oneehundred and twenty-two (61%) people responded to the questionnaire-—a much better rate of return than for students or faculty. A few campus policemen were sent questionnaires as part of this sample, but their data are included in the regular police sample to be discussed be- low. The non—academic employees in the sample of returned questionnaires is about 70%.female, with secretarial— clerical workers forming the largest single group (34%). Results The results for non-academic employees are also summar- ized in Appendix B. The discussion below summarizes their major points of agreement, while emphasizing differences with students and faculty. Feelings toward the police.-—The non-academic employees are mostly favorable toward the police-~more so than the faculty, and much more so than the students. While 28% remain neutral (Q-l) and 34% indicate "mixed feelings" (Q-7). very few indicate negative feelings toward the police. The non-academic employees may identify more closely with the police than do the students or faculty. They are less willing to agree that the police are "much more conservative than other members of the university community" (Q-29). Effectiveness and competence.—-Like the faculty, univer- sity employees are apt to regard the campus police as "well- trained and thoroughly professional" (Q—26). Forty-six percent agree that the police do an "excellent job", while only 13% disagree (Q-35). Like the faculty (and unlike the students) When a non—academic employee goes to the police for help he is usually satisfied (Q-23): if stopped by the police, he sees the officer as acting in a professional manner (9—24). Non-academic employees do not see the cam- pus police as any better or worse than the city police (Q—Zl). Non-academic employees respond about the same as students and faculty in giving the police a good-to-fair overall rating in making the campus a safe place (Q-l9). 0n the questions requiring a rating of performance in different https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a124f8340e5e0049da85b558b514fa91.tif f8225a6a0c5cda61aa3afedb44bf173f PDF Text Text —l6— areas (Q-14 — 18), non—academic employees give a fairly high number of "no opinion" responses. The police do a "good" job when it comes to parking and traffic (Q-14) and pro— tecting university property (Q—lS). Dealing with demonstra- tions is good to fair, the same as the faculty rating (Q~17). On a similar question (Q-30), 49% agree that the police have shown good judgment in this area, while 25% disagree. Non-academic employees agree with the faculty that in "bur— glaries", performance is only fair (9-18). The student rating was slightly lower. The non—academic employees also see drugs as an area where police effectiveness is fair-to- poor. In this case, they agree quite closely with both students and faculty—~but perhaps for different reasons ‘(Q-l6). As to the area where the most improvement is needed: non—academic employees respond with the greatest frequency with "public relations" (Q—ZS). A substantial number (25%) _also chose "better leadership in the police department". Nature and mission.—-None of the people in this sample wants to do away with the campus police department (Q—4), though there is some support (14%) for the idea of turning over police functions to the city of Kent (9-5). The non- academic employees are more favorable than the faculty (41 versus 33%) and much more favorable than the students (41 versus 21%) to the idea of having a complete police depart- ment on campus (Q—4). There is some support,however, for the alternative that seemed to be favored by students and faculty: 25% see the campus police as being a combination police—security department that would emphasize security. The campus police should be the ones to investigate bur- glaries (Q-8), bomb threats (Q~10), firearms (9-11) and political activism (Q—12,l3). Problems with heroin overdose should be investigated by a federal agency (Q-9). The major difference in the pattern of responding is that stu— dents and faculty want no police agency involved in polit- ical activism, but non-academic employees want either the campus police or a federal agency to investigate (Q-12,13). All three groups make a distinction between a radical group holding a meeting (9-12) and an activist who advocates violence (9-13). Like the students and faculty, non- academic employees see protecting university property as a more important function than drugs or demonstrations (Q-ZO). Non-academic employees characterize the size of the campus police department as “about right" to "somewhat small" (Q-22) and are fairly good at estimating the current size (0-36). Most want "professional police" 0—5) who are paid a competitive salary (Q~27). https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5300c0846ccd9d8afe21bcccc07e6c71.tif 508ace9eb6f60b36e961688f2b6d503a PDF Text Text _l7_ Undercover surveillance.--Only 16% of the non-academic employees would bar the campus police from undercover work (9-6). The predominant feeling (44%) is to leave it in the hands of the Director of Security. There are 38% who want to see the president of the university involved, compared to 48% for faculty and 47% for students. Only 22% of the non-academic employees agree that there is a "great danger of serious violent crime on campus" (Q—32). As for drugs, campus police should go after pushers of heroin (9-34), but more specific opinions on drugs remain obscure because of a lack of pertinent questions. Telephone Survey: Townspeople Sample.--The main sample consists of 72 people from the Kent area who are not connected with the university. One person was haphazardly chosen from each page of the Kent phone book. The survey was limited to numbers begin— ning with 673- or 678~, which meant that Kent city proper and Brimfield were included in the survey. The numbers . were selected without reference to name or address3 . If an uncooperative person or someone associated with the university was reached, the caller stayed on that page of the phone book until a genuine townsperson was included in the survey. Two callers did the odd vs even pages of the phonebook, respectively. Calls were made on the weekend to get both male and female respondents. Response.--Only 31 of the 136 people contacted refused to partic1pate. Most gave ignorance of university affairs as the reason. Of the 105 people who answered the questions, 72 had no connection with the university and 33 did. Connection with the university was defined in terms of being student, faculty, employee or the spouse of one. People who had a daughter at KSU, for example, were counted as townspeople. It should be pointed out, however, that it is difficult to randomly reach someone in the city of Kent who has absolutely no connection with the university. Many of the townspeople in the survey, for example, were graduates of KSU. Some of the characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 3. 3One caller omitted calling to any Allerton addresses, married student housing. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b0f9d598935ad22a4186a21876833afe.tif 804e26b74842686e7990613cd1145fa2 PDF Text Text -13- Table 3 Re5pondents to the Telephone Survey (Percent of Total) TownSpeople University N=72 N=33 Sex: Male .42 .52 Female .58 .48 Age: 00-20 .11 .27 21—30 .29 .52 31-40 .19 .12 41-50 .21 .06 51-99 .19 .03 Occupation: Blue collar .21 undergrad .61 White collar .38 grad .27 Housewife .33 faculty .09 Student/Service .08 police .00 non-academic .03 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/befc86037e61f8e4dc421397d01f0ac8.tif ba3c8a1598eed6f7213c8a17d2f13376 PDF Text Text _19- As is surely the case in the population of Kent, those not associated with the university are older. Results The results are presented only for the townspeople. The sample of university people reached by phone is too small for meaningful analysis and it merely duplicates information already presented. The telephone survey included only questions 14-22 of the general questionnaire and the reSponses for townspeople are presented in Appendix B. The results show a high proportion of omissions. A great number of the respondents were reluctant to state an Opinion about the campus police. Many of those who responded, did so as a result of coaxing by the callers. A majority seemed to feel that they did not have enough information about the operations of the campus police to make a meaningful response. In evaluating performance in specific areas, the modal response was to not state an opinion in the areas of parking (Q-l4), drugs (9—16), and burglaries (9-18). The townspeople were much more willing to state an opinion about demonstrations. They give the police a good to fair rating, with only 21% not responding (Q'17). Police per- formance is also rated as "good" when it comes to portecting university property (0-15). There seems to be a general feeling that the police do a good job of making the uni- versity a safe place (Q—l9). The campus police received their lowest rating from the townspeople in their handling of drug problems (9-16). It should be pointed out, however, that a number of people who gave the police poor ratings on this and other items Spontaneously commented that they did not blame the police and thought that they were doing their best in a difficult situation. Evidently, questions 14-19 were not clear—cut police evaluations as they were interpreted by the respondents. Many may have rated the problem itself rather than how the police were handling it. When forced to pick the most important area of concern, 39% chose drugs and 24% chose demonstrations (0-20). This is in marked contrast to the response of students, faculty and non-academic employees on the same question. Campus police are seen as about the same as the city police, no better or worse. (9-21) The size of the Campus Police Department is viewed as too small by most of the people who responded, but 39% had no Opinion (Q—22). In terms of unsolicited comments, there was a large number of people who thought that the prime function of the campus police is to protect the students "who want to get https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0dc63c8718bba07255c565366872e4b5.tif 083bbba5ba62253c1ff358e88be3b338 PDF Text Text -20- an education". About 15 peOple expressed strong law and order views and 3 suggested that we get rid of the university. Two people thought that drugs were the cause of all the other trouble on campus. A number of people spontaneously commented that the police did a good job with the recent demonstrations on campus. Campus Police Sample A few of the campus policemen were included in the random sample of non-academic personnel who received the questionnaire. In addition, 19 members of the department were interviewed with eight open-ended questions. The interviews were conducted during all three shifts on May 31 into June 1. An effort was made to select a represen— tative sample from among those available. The sample included 2 commanders, 2 at intermediate levels of super- vision, 6 office staff, and 9 patrolman. Each of these was given the 40-item questionnaire to be filled out and mailed in. In addition, a number of questionnaires were left with the Director of Security so that other members of the department could take part in the study if they wished. Sampling therefore was done in three ways for the 48-man department, none of which was entirely satisfactory. In evaluating the responses of the police to both the questionnaire and interviews the possible unrepresentativeness of the sample must be kept in mind. Response Seventeen (35%) campus policemen responded to the questionnaire. The percentage is based on the entire 48—man department and probably underestimates the true rate of responding. A number of the members of the depart- ment did not have an opportunity to receive and take the questionnaire. As for the interviews, 19 members of the department participated. These two groups overlap, but the degree of overlapping is not known. With the inter- views, cooperation was excellent. Results The results for the questionnaire data are presented first. The responses for the campus policemen are compared to those for other groups in Appendix B. In the section that follows, a summary of the interview responses is presented. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1ce72f8871adddc37e082d0d890cccc4.tif c03c48cba353ceb0e7fe73f064d1f381 PDF Text Text -21- Questionnaire Feelings toward Police and Students.--Not surprisingly, the campus police have favorable attitudes toward their department (Q-l). They also express strong agreement with the statement that campus policemen have favorable attitudes towards students (9—31). On this question, they are stronger in their agreement than is any other group. Nature and Mission.—-There is strong support for a complete police department on campus (9-4) that is staffed by professional police (0-5). For the various problem areas described in questions 8 through 13, the campus police see themselves as the appropriate agency for investigating. Protecting university property is seen as the most important function from those described in question 20. Opinions as to the present size of the department range from "about right" (47%) to "too small" (36%; 9—22). Effectiveness and Competence.-~The police give them- selves a good to fair rating on the general question of making the university a safe place (9—19) and see their department as better than the city police force (Q—Zl). As to more Specific problem areas, they rate their per- formance with parking (0-14) and burglaries (9—18) as only fair. Campus policemen seem most disappointed with their performance in the area of drugs, giving a fair to poor rating (9-16). But they give themselves a good rating when it comes to the handling of demonstrations (9-17; 'Q—30). When asked to single out the area where improvement is needed most (9-25), 65% chose "supervision-~better leadership in the police department". Undercover surveillance.--Most campus policemen would leave decisions on undercover surveillance to the judgment of the Director of Security (0-6), but there is some support (35%) for the idea of having the president of the university involved in the decision. The campus police are the only group who is unsure as to whether or not records are kept on the political activity of students (Q-3). More so than other groups in the survey, the campus police see the campus as a dangerous place (Q—32). https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/53eaaf49680f5afd669e1141285f59b4.tif 8f8b1be4ed8bc184f63f339a359e71a8 PDF Text Text -22.... Interviews The interview«responses described below come from the eight questions presented in Table 4. Table 4 Interview Questions Given to Nineteen Campus Policemen 1. What do you feel are the typical student/faculty/non— academic employee attitudes toward the campus police? 2. What are the main problems that exist between the campus police and the student body? 3. What are the most serious crime problems on campus? 4. Under what conditions should the campus police carry on undercover surveillance activity? 5. Ideally, what should be the nature and mission of the Campus Police Department? (Q: what differences with municipal pd?) 6. How does the role of a campus policeman differ from that of a municipal police officer? 7. Would you say that your training is adequate for the specific job you perform? Q: How evaluate training? Suggestions? 8. How would you characterize the morale in the campus police department? The campus police have a fairly accurate idea as to how they are perceived in the university. They know that faculty and staff give them a high degree of support; and they are aware that a minority of students have unfavorable attitudes toward the police. They do, however, under- estimate the large body of students who are mostly neutral. But it is clear that the police do not believe what they read in the papers; they hardly see themselves as working in a largely hostile community. The police seem to agree with the students that more public relations efforts are needed. But the patrolmen stress how well they understand student problems, and see the need for communication to educate the students in police practices. The campus police see parking as a major source of student-police friction. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8a842c78daffdf7149e390d1908d175e.tif 217321d51d886926d00028d44f212f16 PDF Text Text -23- Campus police officers see thefts as the most serious crime problem on campus, mainly from the high frequency of such crimes. They see the need for educational efforts to get students and faculty to practice better security. Drugs are also viewed as a serious problem. Certain other serious crimes are described as "up and coming“: assaults against persons, burglaries (break-ins), armed robbery. It would help if students were made aware of the crime on campus through the campus newspaper, according to a number of po— lice officers. The police would leave decisions on undercover work to Ithe professional judgment of the director. Such surveil- lance is needed to protect life and property in the univer- sity. It is the only way to do anything about drug prob- lems, in the opinion of many. The officers point out how _ important it is that the police know what is going on on the campus. The campus police officers seem to view themselves as police officers first, and university employees second. Most do not see any essential difference between a campus police department and a municipal police department. All can point to many differences in job function, however. Campus police deal with a younger, more educated, more aware community and provide many more services than would be required of a muni— cipal police department. ' The men seem to feel that their training was good, but could stand improvement. More training that is specific to university problems and community relations is needed.' A special school for campus policemen is seen as needed by a number of policemen. The Highway Patrol Academy 400- hour training course is generally viewed as good basic training for those without police experience. It does, however. put too much emphasis on traffic and not enough on crime and community relations. There appears to be a very serious morale problem within _ the campus police department. Many see the problem as main- ly limited to a few disgruntled officers who should be fired. On the other side of this iSSue, there are men Who do not feel they are treated fairly When it comes to promotions and job assignments. There is wide agreement that the re- cent budget cuts and lay—offs have seriously hurt morale in the department. There is serious anxiety about future https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3bd899b3b210ff81bee8df0659617f26.tif c702a4e19eda37e9785a0e2116d52426 PDF Text Text -24- budget cuts. The patrolmen have strong feelings that the office staff is too large and that the patrolmen are under- manned. They claim that about 25 work in the office and only about 15 on the road. There is some agreement that Mr. Fyke does a poor job of communicating with the lower echelon of the department. A majority, however, give him strong support and feel he is ahead of his time in the way he runs the department. On the other hand, a significant minority ladk faith in the leadership in the department and feel that the office work is too big for the depart- ment. In short, the department is split and quite unhappy with the present situation. ' Inter-item Correlations As a check on the internal consistency of the question— naire,responses to each item were intercorrelated with each other. The data were combined for the total number of res— pondents who took the entire questionnaire (N=753). The alternatives for each item were given values of 1 through 5 so that each respondent could be given a numerical score on each question. This analysis assumes that the alterna— tives for each question can be reasonably reduced to an ordinal scale and most items meet this requirement. A few, however, (e.g. Q—24, Q—25) are inappropriate for this analy- sis. Each item was correlated with every other item by a Pearson Product moment correlation coefficient. The check on internal reliability consisted of evalu- ating the consistency of questions that were very similar. For example, questions 1 and 7 were designed to tap essen- tially the same information, general feelings toward the police. If the questionnaire is reliable, these two items should be highly correlated and they are (R=.64). The same can be said of the two items that asked respondents to eval- uate how well campus police handled demonstrations. Ques- tions 17 and 30 are also highly correlated (R=.73). These correlations do not establish the validity of the question- naire, but do show that it is not unreliable in any major way. A second purpose of the correlational analysis was to see what the interrelationship of responses to various items could tell us about the pattern of responding on the ques- tionnaire. The present analysis is based only on a few of https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3bc45a24025899056f3344bcfc516385.tif 631e8f3bd30e7a9103ad7046480cf7f1 PDF Text Text -25- the higher correlations obtained. A more complete analy— sis would have to include a factor analysis. As pointed out above, the first question was highly correlated with question 7. Both measured the general feelings of favorable- ness toward the police. It is also interesting to observe that each of these questions is highly correlated with the handling of demonstrations (e.g., Q—l versus Q—30, R=.60). opinion on surveillance (e.g., Q—l versus Q-6, R=-.52), and the belief that campus police have favorable attitudes to— ward students (Q-l versus Q—Bl, R=.58). It seems as though when a general opinion is expressed about the campus police, the opinion is related in a major way to these three issues. People who give the campus police favorable ratings tend to believe that they have done well with demonstrations and that they have favorable attitudes towards students. Such people tend to be more willing to allow surveillance on campus. These general feelings as tapped by questions 1 and 7 are not, on the other hand, very strongly related to the handling of parking (e.g., Q—l versus Q—14, R=.l7). This is contrary to the opinions expressed by a number of policemen in the interviews. They felt that parking was a major source of negative feelings toward the police. There is a high correlation (R=-.50) between general feelings (Q-l) and the type of police department that is preferred (Q—4). People who have unfavorable attitudes toward the campus police would be more willing to abolish the department or seriously limit its functions. It appears as though respondents to the questionnaire do not make a sharp distinction between their current feelings toward the campus police and their own abstract idea of what kind of police dppartment we should have on campus. In addition, three other questions are strongly related to both questions 1 and 4 and seem to dominate the responses given throughout the questionnaire: the handling of demonstrations (0—17, 30), surveillance policy (Q-6), and the belief that the cam— pus police have favorable attitudes toward students (Q-3l). Improvement in these three areas would seem to have the most potential for improving the university Community's attitude toward the campus police. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ad7a0dd2380d5bc19145e26f1a99679f.tif 292b894332ea3ebe09dca8dc53f75609 PDF Text Text -25- Summary and Conclusions The general picture that emerges from this study of the campus police is that they have good support from the faculty and non-academic employees and do not attract great negative opinions from the students. The dominant student response is one of neutrality. Part of this may be due to student apathy or lack of contact with the police. It may also be true that students are in fact neutral and evaluate police performance according to indiVidual situa- tions. While there are a number of students who are nega- tive toward the police,.it is clear that the negative feelings that are given most of the publicity do not accurately re- present student opinion. There is strong support from all segments of the uni- versity for maintaining a campus police force. There is wide agreement that campus policemen should be well-paid professionals. There is little support for a student—staffed police force. When it comes to the nature of the campus police department the dominant opinion is to stress the security functions of the department, while de-emphasizing investigatory work. The reluctance to have the department involved in investigations centers on the areas of drugs and political activism. Students and faculty do not see the campus police involved in these areas. On the other hand non—academic employees, townspeople, and the police themselves are more willing to see the campus police inves— tigate in these sensitive areas. The question of surveillance policy is an important one, given the climate in which the survey was conducted. There appears to have been an increase in the opinion that' the campus police are keeping files on the political activity of students. The correlational analysis also showed that the surveillance question was significantly related to the general feelings tamnﬁithe campus police department. In short, it appears to be a central issue—-at least during the period in which the survey was conducted. On this point it is encouraging to learn that there is widespread support for the surveillance policy that was recommended by the Campus Security Advisory Committee. The predominant opinion of faculty and students is to allow surveillance if the president of the university is involved in the deci— sion. While non-academic employees and the campus police https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/06e46ef4b7f133030c2df6ffafbfc1fa.tif 4b7386e5c93a10ad5b146c070161a7d1 PDF Text Text -27- themselves would prefer to leave the matter to the judgment of the Director of Security, a substantial minority in both groups would also like to see the president of the univer- sity involved. Within the campus police department there appears to be a serious morale problem. Apprehension about job secur- ity, given recent budget cuts, and a communication problem between the director and the men seem to be the main causes of the trouble. Lack of support from the university commun— -ity does not appear to be a major source of poor morale. In general, this survey revealed positive attitudes toward the campus police on the part of the university community. Negative evaluations and hostile feelings do not predominate. While having positive feelings, the university community tends to rate police performance as only fair in most areas. It is difficult to assess this evalu- ation in isolation. The best way to evaluate the performance of the KSU campus police would be to repeat this same sur- vey at a number of other university campuses. References McCoy, C. G. A comparison of attitudes towards the campus police: Spring 1970 - Fall 1971. Unpublished manu- script, Department of Criminal JUstice Studies, Kent State University, 1971. Stimel, S. D. Role perception within the KSU community: Students and police. Unpublished manuscript, Depart— ment of Criminal Justice Studies, Kent State University, 1970. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/594bd51d2673fc2a178447b31f2edadd.tif 0cd86e3992e478a8cbd1ca81389add40 PDF Text Text APPENDIX A; The Questionnaire with Cover Letters Psychology Department Kent State University Kent, Ohio h42h2 May 24, 1972 Dear KSU student: You have been Specially selected by a random process to give us a sample of student opinion regarding the campus police department. President Olds had directed the Campus Security Advisory Committee to do a thorough study of the campus police and to make Specific recommendations by the end of this quarter. The committee has three student members, but we also need to have a large sample of student opinion. May I ask you to please fill out the attached questionnaire? Student input is essential to the success of this study. Instructions are given below. The questionnaire should only take about 15 minutes of your time. Please do it today! es Dooling istant Professor Si Instructions: Unless otherwise stated, all questions refer to the KSU campus police. Please make all responses with specific reference to the campus police, not to police in general. For each item choose only one alternative )a, b, c, d, e). Mark in your response on the data processing sheet using a .11. ' V2 penc1l. All responses are CONFIDENTIAL. Do not put your name or student number on the sheet. Return only the data processing sheet, using the enclosed: envelope. Fold it twice, as you would a letter. The question- naire itself can be kept or discarded. We are interested in any additional comments or suggestions you might have. Put them on the back of the data processing sheet. Please respond within 2h hours. We have a tight deadline and we want your views to be included. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/abefe0587353135644084130d4e93f0f.tif e844e4e55eb322bf7f3e77da549c3406 PDF Text Text Psychology Department (ent State University Kent, Ohio 44242 May 24, 1972 Dear Faculty Colleague: President Olds has directed the Campus Security Advisory Committee to do a thorough study of the campus police and to make specific recommendations by the end of this quarter. The committee includes 5 faculty members, but we also need to have a wide range f faculty opinion. A large faculty responses is essential to the success of this study. Could I ask you to please fill out the attached question- naire? It should only take about 15 minutes of your time. Instructions are given below. Please do it today. Return via Campus Mail to: Dooling/Psychology Sin rely, y D.’ ames Doo ing Assistant Professor Instructions; Unless otherwise stated, all questions refer to the KSU campus police. Please make all respomses with specific reference to the campus police not to police in general. For each item choose only one alternative (a, b, c, d, e). Mark in your responses on the data processing sheet using a #2 pencil. All reSponses are (IONFIDENTIAL. Do not put your name on the sheet. We are interested in any additional comments or suggestions you might have. Put them on the back of the data processing sheet. Please respond within 24 hours. We have a tight deadline and we want ynur views to be included. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b1f91f654189319dd2f5c5bce7a817d0.tif b08d3bc5e4d8a6fb2bdf5940eb1ec259 PDF Text Text Psychology Department Kent State University Kent, Ohio 44242 May 25, 1972 Dear KSU Employee: President Olds has directed the Campus Security Advisory Committee to do a thorough study of the campus police and to make Specific recommendations by the end of this quarter. Could I ask you to please fill out the attached question- aire? It should only take about 15 minutes of your time. Instructions are given below. Please do it today. Return viaCampushbil to: Dooling/Psychology. Sincerely;ﬂ , r’ \ ’3“er Lb «..I’ 1;" ﬂ,- »" v" “‘4’“ D /James Dooling Assistant Professor Instructions: Unless otherwise stated, all questions refer to the KSU campus pgligew. Plese make all responses with specific reference to the campus paling, not to police in general. For each item choose only one alternative (a, b, c, d, e). Mark in your response on the data processing sheet using a #2 pencil. ' Ail responses are CONFIDENTIAL. Do not put your name on the s eet. We are interested in any additional comments or suggestions you 7 might have. Put them on the back of the data processing sheet. Please respond within 24 hours. We have a tight deadline and we want your views to be included. YOU HAVE BEEN RANDOMLY SELECTED TO GIVE US A SAMPLE OF OPINION FROM NON_ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES. Your reSponse is important! https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e1ce308e29cc52604f25e76716b7d42e.tif 5a6caa7bae745edaa850e6d0bb137cc8 PDF Text Text h. In general: how do you feel toward the Kent State Campus Police Department: ,* a.) Favorable b.) Neutral 0.) Unfavorable in” /’ y» ,/ In the event of a confrontation between students and the university requiring the presence of law.enfopcement officers, dc you think outside law enforcement agencies should be called in for assistance:, ’ _.J .c a.) Always b.) Depends on the situation 0.) Never Do you think that the campus police have files on the political activities of students? a.) Yes b.) Not sure 0.) No Which of the following statements most closely represents your view of what the campus police department should be: a.g there shéuld be no campus police department.. b. an uxermed building security department, like -nightwatchmen. c.) an armed combination security—police department, who "could make arrests, but whose main job would be security d.) a police department made up mostly of armed patrolman whose job is both routine security and enforcement of the law. - e.) a complete police department that performs all police functions, including investigative work. The patrolmen in the campus police Department shOuld consist mainly of: a.g students b. faculty c. Civil Service employees d. professional police e. none of the above. (The Campus Police Department should be absorbed-by and combined With theVKent City Police Department . Which of the following most closely represents your view of undercover surveillance activity on campus: a.) Should not be done on campus under any circumstances. b.) Should not be done by campus police, but we cannot prevent other agencies from doing it. 0.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life. d.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life or substantial preperty. e.) Should be done whenever the Director of Security determines that, in his professional judgment, there is a serious threat to life or property. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0a61350c73daccaa4e16ea883014c55d.tif ac2e9e6304e0b6f77efb820fab48c383 PDF Text Text 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. l7. 18. 19. 2. Which of the following most closely represents your feeling toward the campus police: a.) They are on my side protecting me and the university. b.) I have mixed feelings. 0.) They are working against me enforcing laws and policies that I don't agree with. Questions 8 — 13 refer to the investigative work of a police department. For each of the following situations indicate who should be the appropriate law enforcement agency to carry on the investigation: a. no police agency b. campus police 4 0. local agency (Kent City Police or Portage Co. Sheriff) d. state agency (e.g., Highway Patrol) e. federal agency (e.g., FBI) There is a series of burglaries on campus. The student health center receives a large number of cases of heroin overdose. A number of bomb threats are made on Bowman Hall. A student reports that two students in his dorm were hiding rifles. The SDS Weathermen hold an organizational meeting. An activist student has recently advocated violence as a means of changing government policy. For Questions 14:}? please indicate your rating of how well the campus police are presently doing their job in each of the areas listed below. The alternatives are: a.) excellent b.) good c.) fair d.) poor e.) bad Enforcing parking and traffic regulations. Protecting university property. Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. Dealing with burglaries on campus. Making the university a safe place to live and to visit. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/17e4ae88384ed2d5b4198e43c6bb5976.tif 832be29b37331004abeb7bd822a645b5 PDF Text Text 3. 20. Which of the following areas should be the most important concern of the campus police: a.; Enforcing parking and traffic problems b. Protecting university prOperty. 0.) Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. d.) Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. e.) Dealing with burglaries on campus. 21. Compared to the Kent Cit Police Department, what would be your overall rating 0 the campus police: b. somewhat worse 0. about the same d.; somewhat better e. very much better a.§ very much worse 22. What is your opinion as to the present size of the campus police department: a.) much too small ) somewhat small .; about right ) '0 somewhat large much too large (1)0400” 23-During the '71 — '72 academic year did you go to or call the gampus police to report a crime or to ask for assistance" a.) Yes and I was satisfied with the response. b.) Yes and I have pg 0 inion about the response c.) Yes and I was dissatisfied with the response. d.) No 2h. Have you ever been stopped by, questioned by or arrested by the campus police: a.) Yes and the incident was handled inia professional manner. b.) Yes and I have no Opinion as to the manner in which the incident was handled. c.) Yes and the incident was handled in an unprofessional manner. d.) No. 25. In what area is there the most need for improvement: a.) personnel; better patrolmen b.g supervision; better leadership in the police department c. university policy; better supervision of police by university. coordination; better cooperation with other police agencies. ) e.) public relations; better communication with university community. d. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b18c6ca987dceafa197cc78aef4bcc24.tif 037d39e740df0aab3410fda75e315df3 PDF Text Text 26. 27. 28. h. Qpestions 26— 35 ask you to state the degree to which you agree with the statement that is made. The alternatives are: a.) strongly agree b.) agree .3 neutral disagree ) strongly disagree (DD-W) The KSU campus police are well trained and thoroughly professional. The campus police should be paid competitive salaries in order to attract and keep the best possible personnel. The campus police have used drug charges as a pretense for arresting students for their political activ1ty. 29.The campus policemen are politically much more conservative 30- 3.10 32. 33. than the other members of the university community. Campus police have shown good judgment in dealing with campus demonstrations. Most campus police have favorable attitudes towards students. There is a great danger of serious violent crime on campus. Students on campus have a high degree of paranoia when it comes to police activity. 34.0ampus police should make a major effort to get rid of pushers of hard drugs like heroin. 35.The campus police do an excellent job of protecting life 36. and property on campus. Questions 36—37 should be answered from your own knowledge, even if you have to guess. Do not consult any source to help you with your answers. How many police officers are employed by Kent State? a.) less than 25. .) 26—”0 ) 51*75 ) ) 76-100 b c. d. e. more than 100 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/09fd079953501b26f36388045ea52aa1.tif c306ae82ed74a000c5af017ed01acc8f PDF Text Text 5. 37. What is the annual salary (éxCluding overtime) of a campus patrolman who has three yea 5 experience in the department? a.) less than $6,500 .. w . _' b.g $6,500 to 07,500 r-- ~-m «Inimim, 0. $7,500 to 08,500 “h.; d.; $8,500 to $9,500 K‘ e. more than $9,500 38. Indicate your position in the university: a.) undergrad student b. grad student . ‘ 0. faculty or administration d. campus police e. non—academic personnel 39. Indicate your position in the university more precisely: Students ’ ’ Grad Student Faculty a. freshman a. M.K. a. Instructor b. SOphomore ” b. Ph.D.. b. Asst. Prof c. junior c. specialv= c; Assoc. Prof d. senior d.xnon~degree d.LProfessor e. non—degree ‘ ' ' ' e. Administrator Police Non-academic Personnel a. operations a. secretarial-clerical b. staff segvices b. food services c. auxiliary services c. maintenance d. command d. other 40. Sex a.; Male b. Female https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/80e97489be961165b3775873d590a345.tif 8238a0f11b88b1b31d8140c0a93fc547 PDF Text Text Appendix B ’ Responses to the Questionnaire by Students, Faculty, Non—Academic Employees, Campus Police and Kent Townspeople (Percent choosing each alternative) auwﬂm 1. Feelings 4 Favorable 27 52 6O 76 "uﬂwm PiNeutral SO 29 28 18 “‘7 Unfavorable 22 19 11 6 omit 1 1 2 O 2. Outside agencies ,Always 2 4 9 6 Depends 79 92 88 94 Never 19 4 2 O omit O 1 1 0 3. Files on students» H Yes ' 58 '4 47 29 Not Sure 30 43 42 53 NO ' 12 12 8 18 omit O l 3 O 4. Nature of police None 1 l O 0 Security 19 15 6 O Security—Police 41 38 25. 18 . Mostly Police 18 12 27 24 Complete Dept° 21 33 41 59 omit O 1 2 O 5. Patrolmen ' Students 16 4 2 6 Faculty 7 1 O O 0 Civil Service '29 20 24 O Professionals 47 68 57 94 None 7 6 14 O omit 1 3 2 O 6. Undercover surveillance None 22 14 7 O Other Agencies 11 4 9 9 6 Pres.: Life 13 11 9 6 Pres.: Life—Prop. 34 37 29 29 Dir° of Security 19 29 44 59 omit 1 1 2 O 7. Campus police Oh My Side 33 56 63 76 Mixed Feelings 55 39 34 18 Against me 11 4 2 6 omit O 1 1 O https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8dcccb2bd230cacc75acdf606815b5c6.tif 766d83e6096fd18795fba1edda704e5a PDF Text Text 10° 11. 12¢ 13. 14. Burglaries No police agency Campus police Local agency State agency Federal agency omit Heroin Overdose No police agency Campus police Local police State agency Federal agency omit Bomb Threats No police agency Campus police Local agency State agency Federal agency omit Rifles in Dorm No police agency Campus police Local agency State agency Federal agency omit SDS Weathermen Meeting No police agency Campus police Local police State agency Federal agency omit Advocate violence No police agency Campus police _ Local police State agency ' Federal agency omit Parking & Traffic Excellent Good Fair Poor Bad omit NW (\3 0 QUAD l-J O\\n HO OCROQv'hl—‘O‘ HUN») N OQ'Q O‘IDQ \n HH CAH O\O\\HI‘ ll 35 30 15 4 H00 ‘11 OOONOQO Lg W N C\-P' O\O\\O O th C\OO\Z\JO\O 09 O\O\O\OI\)O U1 N 11 22 14 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/593ebea022ac3a966e8c8e8190f2d4f0.tif ebd251456a50207c13c5883ffbfca2fd PDF Text Text 15; 16. 17- 1& 19. 20. 21. University Property Excellent ~~Good Fair Poor Bad» ’“’ omit Drug'Abuse Excellent Good ' Fair Poor Bad omit Demonstrations Excellent Good Fair Poor Bad omit Burglaries Excellent Good ' Fair Poor Bad omit Sage University Excellent Good Fair Poor Bad omit Most Important Concern Parking & traffic University property Drug abuse Demonstrations Burglaries omit Campus vs Kent police Very much worse Somewhat worse Same Somewhat better Very much better omit uxe Hmombm U1 N wN\O\n0\\n D B 24 FAC B 40 21 16 mg POL wi FHA FJF' »a mum ; NioO‘x'PJ-‘P ‘E [.4 she 47 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/340eb09ae81f4ca8412a2cf53566eb69.tif 2826aec2c4bf7134fbafccb72ba35cc0 PDF Text Text 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. .8211. Size Much too small 6 Somewhat small 19 Right 43 Somewhat large 19 Much too large 12 omit 2 Asked for Assistance Yes & satisfied 14 Yes & no Opinion A Yes & dissatisfied 10 No 70 omit 2 StOpped by Police Yes & professional 13 Yes & no Opinion A Yes & unprofessional 13 No 69 omit 2 Improvement needed Personnel 8 Supervision 18 'University supervisionlS Coordination 9 Public relations 49 omit 2 Trained & Professional Strongly agree 2 Agree 22 Neutral 37 Disagree 28 Strongly disagree 10 omit 1 Competitive Salaries Strongly agree 22 Agree #5 _Neutral 17 'Disagree 10 :*Strongly disagree 6 omit 0 Drugs as a Pretense Strongly agree 10 Agree 15 Neutral 49 Disagree 16 Strongly disagree 9 omit 1 mg. 36 11.- C) 41‘“ (DAD (“‘3’ (\J O\ tweqimxu NAC POL 0\ NW N OGVJ 0 0‘4" (\D O?” O\O\\n 0 WO\ 0000mm TWN ll 25 39 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/96058ca2ee52679d140b4d8d24271619.tif 0109875f3f059b41f9ace0477afbbba7 PDF Text Text 'ég. 30. 31. 32. B. 34. 3i Police Conservative Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree “”Strongly disagree omit Demonstrations well— Handled Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree omit Favorable to Students Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree omit Campus dangerous Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree omit Student Paranoia Strongly agree Agree _ Neutral ' Disagree “ Strongly disagree omit Heroin Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree omit Protection Excellent Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree omit wa HQO‘HPU“ 00- FAC 11 w 42 10 2 HHPH mmqmmm 40 27 14 12 20 M U 8 U NAC uLt Q‘IJ‘P‘ GM? 0\ POL ' TWN O 29 #7 12 12 “ O 35 2A https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/02dd2006d18e6711f17352350a5bfceb.tif a62d4e5fe98d1a803c26974df7d840ee PDF Text Text 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. How Many Less than 25 26—50 51-75 76-100 100+ omit Salary Less than 6,500 6,500 to 7,500 7,500 to 8,500 8,500 to 9,500 9,500+; omit Your position Undergraduate Graduate Student Faculty or Adminisu Campus Police NAC Personnel omit 16 STU Freshman 10 SOphomore 19 Junior 26 Senior 25 Graduate 14 omit 0 Sec'y—clerical Food serv, Maintenance Other omit Sex Male Female omit STU FAQ 12 16 46 53 28 22 13 5 2 l 0 2 A 1 25 10 3c; 32 28 44 6 10 l A 82 O 17 0 O 99 C 0 0 0 1 1 FAG Instructor 5 Ass't Prof 29 Assoc Prof 27 Full Prof 29 Administrator 6 omit 5 4 Operations Staff servo Auxiliary 0 Command 8 omit STU FAG 49 77 47 17 4 6 NAG 52 29 11 19 34 30 \O l—‘J—‘NOOO POL 24 18 6 29 24 NAG 24 67 9 POL TWN \nN OOWO-PO\O\ OOOOOO POL 88 12 O M u https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a26150857fab3963ea61f9df97b150ca.tif a46b38603650541836c1c331c23537a6 PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: ~Not to be cited. The Campus Police at Kent State: A Survey of Opinion Subcommittee report prepared for the Campus Security Advisory Committee, June 1972. D. James Dooling 797 Kent State University NOTE: The conclusion drawn in this report are that of only one member of the Campus Security Advisory Committee. This report does not necessarily represent the considered judgment of the Campus S-ecurity Advisory Committee. DRAFT COPY: Not to be cited. . A NOTE: In its present form, this document cannot be considered a reliable or valid representation of opinion for the following reasons: 1.} It is based on imcomplete returns. Questionnaires were still being received daily as this first draft was being written. 2. Appropriate inferential statistics have not been performed on the data. Some differences that look significant, may not be. Some differences that do not look significant, may be. 3. Appnpriate internal checks on the validity and reliability of individual items have not been carried out. For example, some items may have been ambiguous and not given the interpretation intended by the author. Such items have yet to be discovered or eliminated. 4. Deadline pressures have not allowed for a thoughtful and careful interpretation of the results. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1c5026e718658159aaf5d6271d58300d.tif 87530bff2c8a4ab56e9f265f0338fc90 PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: not 39 pg cited. Abstract As part of a general study of the Kent State University Police Department, a survey of Opinion was concucted. Students, Faculty, and Non~academic employees re8ponded to a hO—item questionnaire. Twonspeople were surveyed by telephone. Campus policemen took the 40~item questionnaire and were interviewed as well. The survey was done at a time of great adverse publicity toward the campus police. ALL RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE TENTATIVE UNTIL MORE EXTENSIVE ANALYSES ARE CARRIED OUT ON THE DATA. The major findigns are: (a) Students are neither positive nor negative toward the campus police, the largest number are neutral.(b(Faculty and staff generally support the campus police. (c) The university community wants a police department, but sees it as making security its primary function. (d) Undercover surveillance is permissable if the president of the university is involved in the decision. (e) The question of dru s is very confusing and potentially very EIXIXKNIKXKKK troublesome. %f) Students and faculty don't want the campus police involved in political activity, but staff, townspeople and police see it as necessary. (g) the campus police department needs to be more effective in its public relations. (hO There is a serious morale problem in the campus police department. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ef8749a4aa26b84b12fecc3b6a0d0583.tif 27ee9c7fd89f3afadfd7a3ce6594638e PDF Text Text Acknowledgements A study of this scope could not have been performed in so shhrt a time without the assistance of a great many peOple. I am grateful to Earle Roberts and to the members of the Campus Security Advisory Committee for their advice and assistance at all stages of this project. Sylvia Beal of Vice President Roskens office helped in numerous ways to at up the mechanics of the study. I am grateful to Donald Halter and Roger Benefield for their valuable assistance in helping us randomly sample from the students and non—academic employees, respectively. The following were very helpful in giving me advice on items for the general questionnaire: Denzel Benson, CLyde Hendrick, R.J. Planisek. Time pressures forced me in several cases to ignore their advice, so they should not be held account~ able for any errors or misjudgments in the questionnaire itself. I am grateful as weal to R.J. Planisek and Byron Dressler for their help with the data analysis. Sharon G. Horowits, my graduate assistant,made substantial c ntributionsat every stage of the project. JhﬂhﬂlLElaine Hyla for typ the document. D. James Dooling June 3, 1972 iii https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5f5c2946c51357e4b17ac49ef59b0939.tif fc8631c222ee1cb6beb4657c2d2c08a7 PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: Not to be cited. The Campus Police at Kent State: A Survey of Opinion D. James Dooling Kent State University The Campus Security Advisory Committee was formed on March 2,2972 and was charged with the following responsibilities: 1. To provide suggestions, guidance and advice to the Director of Security on means to achieve optimal coopera» tion between the University Security force, the academic community and the greater community at large. 2. To review operational policies and procedures and, accordingly, offer recommendations to the Director of Security and the President of the University on ways by which the department might improve its services. The Committee hhall have access to all information and materials relevant to the policy or procedure under study. 3. To reflect the concerns of the Univeristy Community on sensitive issues related to Security. In this context, an immediate responsibility of the Committee shall be an assessment of the question of surveillance and the accessibility of Security records. The Committee shall regard as its proper purpose the nature and kinds of information gathered, rather than upon whom such information is gathered, and the confidentiality of information made available to them shall be peaserved. The Committee is, in this instance, speciﬁhally charged to formulate a policy recommendation on this sensitive subject. It is expected that all facets of the matter including legal and ethical constraints will be weighed. 2+. To submit periodic reports regarding University Security operations to the President and other appropriate parties, including the Chairman of the Faculty Senate and the President of the Student Body. During the Spring Quarter, however, a number of events involving the campus police led to adverse publicity and pressure from some members of the university community to do something about the campus police. As a result, President Olds gave the committee a new charge- one that actually altered the original nature of the group. The May 5 charge was: https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3d0af7aa0b78f40c3cbf960de0de8013.tif c0878bbba2a8a599a958c8446b079134 PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: Not to be cited In the interest of comprehensive review and recommendation of University policy and practice concerning campus security, the President is requesting the Committee on Campus Security to address the following: 1.. Policy concerning the nature, need, and scope of campus security, 2. Review of present policy and practice, 3. Policy and review of the relation of campus security to the wider local, county, state and federal security and law enforcement agencies, a. Evaluation of present policy, practice and personnel and future need in the light of any recommended policy. AM" . The charge was put in a 30~day "timeagefmﬁ with the President committing himself to act on recommendations with 7 days of the committee's report. To facilitate the fulfillment of this charge, the committee was divided into four sub—committees. The present report reflects the findings of the sub-committee concerned with assessing university opinion toward campus police. ‘The charge, as given by committee chairmaanarle Roberts)on may 8, 1972, read as follows: In order to assist the Committee in determining the nature, need and scope of present and future campus security, a survey of campus community attitudes should be undertaken. At a minimum, the attitudes of students, faculty and non academic employees, including campus police, should be included. An assessment of how accurately the campus police personnel perceive campus community attitudes would be helpful as would their self—perceptions. The information obtained will form the basis for subsequent evaluation and recommendations. The charge was later clarified verbally to include an assessment of attitudes from the Kent Community. The General Climate.- The charge of the CSAC was given under pressure because of trouble on campus. A number of students and laculty were very much upset with police practices. Consider the background for the time in which the study was conducted: Two years after the fatal shootings at Kent State there was once again a series of political events that threatened to cause great turmoil in the university. The May a memorial services for those killed at KSU in 1970 will be a tense time for many years to come. A number of other events closely coincided with the May e date. In April President Nixon announced an increased bombing in Vietnam, a move that Sparked some protest from the nearly dormant anti~war move- ment. It was approximately at this time that Rheinhold Mohr, an https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e4ecf9da3d8ccdcdf1eed81b12d7e0c1.tif b2f29a89cd3409dec25919de4693de8e PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: Not to be Cited 3. undercover agent for the campus police, was discovered. It was charged thatlhe had tried to entrap students and was himself a provocateur. The Campus Police were accused of infiltrating political groups (in this case the Vietnam Veterans Against the War). On tOp of this it was charged that Mohr was highly paid for spying. This particularly enflamed some studentes who were protesting a recent announcement of fee increases. On top of the Mohr incident a further escalation of the Vietnam War (in this case the mining of Haiphong Harbor) brought on a number of student demonstrations. At one point, 129 students were arrested for sitting in at the ROTC building. A few days later a number of demonstrators sat in the street and were pushed back to campus by combined police forces from Kent, surrounding communities and campus police. And still later, a small number of students were arrested for disrupting the ROTC awards ceremonies. The present survey began with a mailing to students on Wed, May 2A and ended with the final scoring of all responses received as of Thurs., June 1. During these 8 days there were a number of rallies against the campus police. A number of posters were in evidence on campus proclaiming "No Mohr Fyke". Another series of posters featured a large and very menacing picture of Mr. Fyke with the caption: "Enemy of the Peeple". At the same time, bumper stickers were in evidence; "KSU's been Fyked". On Friday, of the week in question a number of students camped out on the lawn of the police department demanding to see Mr. Fyke, and he received a good deal of criticism for not meeting them. It was on this same day that the ACLU subpoened mr. Fyke in connection with a false arrest suit that was unrelated to the events described above. All of the various anti-Fyke and anti-police protests were given prominent and sympathetic coverage in the campus newspaper~~and moit were covered by the Kent, Akron and Cleveland newspapers as we 1. In short, the present survey sould hardly have been taken at a time when mone hostility toward the campus police was being eXpressed. All results must be interpreted within this general context. General method.— A questionnaire was develOped to assess attitudes and Opinions on a number of important questions regarding campus security. The questionnaire was mailed to students, faculty, and non—academic personnel. Campus police were interviewed and given the questionnaire as well. Also a number of items from the questionnaire were administered by phone to a sample of citizens in the Kent Community The specific methodology and results from the various con— stituencies will be described individually in the following order: Students, Faculty, Non—Academic Personnel, Townspeople, Campus Police. 1 At this writing, the facts in the nohr incident remain unclear. What is being stressed here is the type of charges that were given wide publicity in the university community. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/038b658ce9309b32ac2a4767cfd27a72.tif 9b5f57b176d626f598bfdf7e6a1ee6ee PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: Not to be cited. Students Sampling.— The questionnaire with cover letter is shown in Appendix A. 18 was sent to a sample of 520 students. The students were selected from the Registrar's print-out for the Spring Quarter of 1972. A random starting position was determined and from that point every 36th name was slected. The list included all students both undergraduate and graduate, whether working for a degree or part-time, whether living on or off campus. Students from the regional campuses, however, were excluded because they are not served by the campus police department. Between two and five days after the mailing, many of the students in the sample were telephoned and urged to return the questionnaire. The sample of N = 520 was sufficiently large to give a very precise estimate of student opinion—~if most students returned the questionnaire. It was hoped that the telephoned reminders would get the return rate substantially above 50% and allow us to draw conslusions regarding the general student population with only a small degree of error. Repomse.— Because of the June 4 deadline for a final committee report, only the reSponses received by June 1 at 2. p.m. were included in the sample. Table 1 shows the prOportion of returned questionnaires The student response was disappointing. Table 1 Student Response to the Questionnaire Number Preportion *returned 212 .41 not returned 303 .59 (returned by Post 5 Office) total 525 The size of the sample may be large enough to allow some legitmate generalizations to the student body. But first, a com- parison of the students who returned the questionnaire with those who did not is necessary to determine the direction of sampling bias, if any. Until this is done, all results must be interpreted with great caution. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7cd4e2c7c0a9bf698790c666f8d02e59.tif 66aa0f4edeb8408ed52e8b2b9cdd6a21 PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: Not to be cited. 5. Results.~ The only results available to date are the prOportion of students choosing each alternative for the 40 items in the questionnaire. These are shown completely in Appendix A. Only results that appear to be significant are presented in this section. Attitude change: 1970—1972—~ The first three items in the questionnaire were taken from two previous studies of student opinion and allow us to make some rough com arisons as to the direction of opinion change. The Stimel (1970 survey took place prior to the killings on May 4. Details as to sampling method and sample size are not known at this time. The McCoy (1971) survey included 203 respondents. The sample is characterized by an overrepresentation of males, juniors, undergraduates, arts and science majors and majors in P Criminal Justice Studies. The characteristics of the present samle are not yet known. The prOportion of responses to the various alternatives are shown in Table 2. 0n the question of general attitude toward the campus police, there is a remarkable degree of similarity among the three studies. Most students are neutral with those favorable and unfavorable about equally balanced. When it comes to calling in off—campus police forces, most students prefer to let it depend on the situation. But the significant thing on this question is the relatively high number of students picking the "never" alternative in both this survey and that of McCoy. In both cases, a sharp differnce exists when compared to the Stimel data that were collected prior to May 4, 1970. On the question of keeping files on political activities of students, there appears to be a rise in the "yes" category over the past year. In the present survey, 60% of the students seem reasonabiy confident that the police are keeping files on their political activity. Table 2 Comparison of Student Responses over a Three Year Period 1. ,*w ~ *”*ﬂ Stimel(l970) McCoy(l97l) Doolingl972 1. Attitude toward Police: Favorable .21 .22 .25 Neutral .60 .6g .49 orable .19 .1 .24 2. Should Off Campus Police be called in? Always .04 .02 .02 Depends .01 .82 .78 Never .05 .16 .19 (Omit) (.01) 3. Police have files on Students Yes ""'"' 014.9 060 Not Sure —- .33 .28 N’O "" 018 ell (Omit) ).01) https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a2a01f965c012a55802abf98289a5bf8.tif b16206c1576e5ed22039123de2c118ca PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: not to be cited. 6. Feelings toward the police.~ The student body seems to be fairly enenly divided in their general attitude toward the police. The dominant response appears to be "neutral" (Q—l) or'mixed emotions"(Q—7) and there is very little evidence of the kind of strong negative feelings toward the police that were expressed at rallies and in the campus news~ paper. For example, only 11% were willing to say that the campus police "are working against me" (Q—7). In addition, 41% agree with the Kiﬁﬁﬁﬁi statement that "Most campus police have favorable attitudes towards students", while only 24% disagree (Q—Bl). While 43% see the police as "much more conservative" than the university community (Q—29), we might have expected a higher prOportion from a hostile student body. It should also be noted that students do not overestimate the size of the department (Q—36), nor the salaries paid to patrolmen (Q—37). In short, while there are "significant number of students who are hostile toward the police, there ave an equal number who appear to support the campus police with the same degree of conviction. The dominant response, however, is one of neutrality-~most students.do not take sides. Effectiveness and competence— Students are fairly neutral and non-committed in this evaluation of how well the campus police perform their duties. There is a sli ht tendency to doubt how well—trained and professional they are (Q—Zé? and an even split, with 39% neutral as to whether they do an "excellent job" (Q-35). Students who have gone to the olice for help are about evenly divided as to how satisfied they were Q—23) and students who have been stOpped by the police are also divided in their evaluation of police professionalism (Q—Zg). ‘When comparing the campus police to the Kent Police, the dominant response is "about the same", but there is a tendency toward the view that the campus police are better (Q—Zl). Approximately half of the students think that the campus police do a good or excellent job in making the campus a "safe place" (Q-l9). When it comes to more specific police functions, they are seen as good to excellent in "enforcing parking and traffic re ulations" (Q~14) and good to fair in "protecting university prOperty" Q—15). Students are fairly evenly divided on the handling of "disruptive demonstrations"with 30% expressing iéﬁéwar. éééii? ':u' '2': approval, 35% disapproval, and 33% somewhat neutral (Q—l7). The problem areas seem to be drugs, where there is substabtial negative evaluation (about 3 to l disapproving) (Q—lé), and burglaries, where disapproving responses outnumber the approving; one by nearly 2 to l (Q—lS). It should be pointed out that these more ‘ specific items can only be interpreted as expressing some very general opinions as to the effectiveness. Students may approve or disapprove of police actions for El different motives and from different perspectives. Once again, however, there does not appear to be a predominance of negative responses. When the students were asked where the most improvement was needed (Q—25) only 17% chose "better leadership", the alternative ‘ that wpuld most closely reflect the anti—Fyke opinions on campus. An l astounshing 50% picked "public relations" as the major problem area. ‘ 2 In another question relating to the handling of demonstrations (Q—BO), we have the only real example of polarization that occurs in the survey. WEEK The statement that "campus police have shoyn good judgments" with demonstrations gets 37% agreement and 43p disagreement. Only 19% remain neutral on this question. a https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8b305190c72991c824e0c3e08374e760.tif 1af635774f60a3d54452a871a8b7ea5b PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: Not 2g e cited. 7. Nature and Mission.— The students seem to want a police department on campus. Only 8% would want to see campus policing turned over to the City of Kent (Q—S). Only ~l% feel that there should be no campus police department, while 21% would limit their duties to security matters (Q—h). The preferred role appears to be a combination security-police operation that would emphasize security matters.(Q—h). Only 19% would want a complete police department that would include investigators (Q—h).. The feelings about investigations are probably due to the fact that students do not want campus police to investigate drug problems (Q—9) or political activism (Q—lZ, 13). Students are quite willing to have the campus police force investigate burglaries (Q~8), bomb threats (Q—lO) and possible firearm violations (Q-ll). When forced to rate the relative importance of several police functions, they overwhelmingly see protecting prOperty and dealin with burglaries as being more important than drugs and demon — strations Q—ZO). Students see the size of the campus police department as being "about ri ht" (q—22) and are fairly accurate at assessing the present size (Q2365. There is very little support for the idea that students or faculty should perform police functions (Q-5). The dominant view is that officers should be professional police (Q—E) who KKKEXEKK are paid a competitive salary (Q~27). There does appear to be a substantial number who feel that campus police need not be fully trained police officers. (Q~5). Undercover surveillance.— Only one third of the student respondents would rues out undercover surveillance as an activty for the campus police (Q—é). Of those who would allow surveillance, the great majority want to see the president of the univeristy involved in the decision. In fact, the most frequent single response (35%0 was for the alternative that most closely represented the policy recommended by CSAC on May 1, 1972. Ole 17% would leave undercover surveillance entirely in the hands of the Director of Security (Q—o). In assessing the necessity of undercover work, it should be noted that most students do not see the campus as a very dangerous place (Q—32). And since much undercover work is concerned with drugs, a clarification of student opinion on this subject is needed. While students are quite willing to see the campus police go after pushers of heroin (Q—Bh), they also do not see the campus police as the appropriate a»ency for investigating when students have a heroin problem (Q—9). Whedgﬁhis is combined with the enerally negative opinion as to how drug pro lems are curBently handledg(Q~16), a confusing picture emerges. Presumably, heroin would represent an extreme for the students; we would eXpect different opinions with soft drugs like marijuana. Student opinionh\on drug policy is not clear from the questionnaire; it may not, in fact, be clear in the minds of the studentst Related to the question of surveillance KKKXKKXXisthe finding that 72% of the students agree that they "have a high degree of paranoia when it comes to police activity" (Q—BBL But they are not willing to accuse the campus police of using drug charges as a way of controlling political activities. As 396 stated previously, 60% feel that the campus police have files on their political activity (Q~3). https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8928efc3e0e3f472936550557e2d514d.tif 3263bdd2b85abd4757fae0674e8f18ef PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: lot to be cited. 0?» I Faculty Sam lin .- The same questionnaires, but with a differnt cover letter Zsee Appendix B) was sent to 799 faculty members\on the Main Campus. Computer generated address labels were available for faculty mailing from the President's Office, so the decison was made to send the questionnaires to all faculty members. The labels, however, were a year old, lst year faculty members were omitted from the mailing. The decision to send the questionnaire to virtually all faculty was also based on the fact that the whole mailing could be done by campus mail and would not involve postage. With the student questionnaire, postage was a consideration since approximately 2/3 of the students live off—campus.) In order to encourage returns, a letter was sent to all departmental chairmen, urging them to ask their faculty members to return the questionnaire. It was expected that this procedure would be less effective than the personal phone call made to the students. Response.— By the deadline for analysis 337 faculty had returned the questionnaires (42%) The return rate, therefore, is very close to that for the students. The faculty sample was about 80% male and can be broken down by rank in the following order: Instructor 4%, Assistant grofessor 29%, Associate Professor 27%, Professor 30%, Administrator %- Results.- The proportion of faculty choosing each alternative to the 45 questions is shown in Appendix B. Feelings toward the police.~ The faculty are more positive than the students in their attitudes towards the campus police. A majority empress their feelings as favorable (Q—l) and consider the police to be "on my side" (Q~7). There are substantial numbers who are neutral (Q—l) or who have "mixed feelings" (Q—7), but relatively few who are negative. Effectiveness and competence.~ Faculty are slightly more inclined than the students to agree that the campus police are"well trained and thoroughly professional", but the modal response is still "neutral" (Q—26). Similar results were obtained when faculty were asked to agree that the police do an "excellent job" (Q~35). When a faculty member goes to the police for help, he is usually satisfied (Q—23). And when a faculty member is stopped by the police, he tends to feel that the police officer acted in a professional manner(024). It may be that faculty go to the police with simpler problems (e.g. to unlock an office), or are stOpped for less serious offenses (e.g. traffic offense); but it may also be true that the police give special treatment to faculty. The faculty see the campus police as eitherr "about the same" as the city police (44%) or"better" (39%; Q—21)——a result very similare to that for the students. They also agree that the campus police to a good job in making the campus a"safe place" (Q~l9). When it comes to more specific job functions, the faculty give a poorer rating (fair-to-goog) on the question of parking and traffic (14). It is surprising that students would be more satisfied with the way parking violations are handled. Unlike the students, the faculty give the police a "good" ratin on ﬁﬁﬁgXﬁXﬁﬁEﬁﬁiXKﬂKIﬁlKﬁﬁﬁ dealing with demonstrations (Q—l? . F and to agree with the students that the police do a fairly good job in protecting present; university property (Q—l5), https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9adf7bc640e69e41d063c92c74650f3f.tif ea4dc393f2d50d3cab839ce0a78d9ac0 PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: not t e cited. 9. but a fairAQQ—to—poor job when it comes to drugs ( ~16) or burglaries (Q~18). Whi e a substantial number of faculty (29%) agree with the students that public relations is the area where most improvement is needed, the predominant faculty response (30%) is for "better control of the police by the university" (Q—25). Nature and mission.~ Like the students, the faculty clearly want a campus police force. Only 1% respond that there should be no police department (Q—h) and only 5% think that the campus police should be absorbed by the city police (Q-S). The faculty sxem to favor a combination security—police department that would emphasize security, but unaidx show a much stronger preference than the students for a complete police department (Q—h). Like the students, the faculty do not see the campus police doing investigations in the fields of drugs (Q—9) and political activism (Q—lZ, 13). The faculty do see the campus police as investigating burglaries (Q~8), bomb threats (Q-lO), and possible firearm violations (Q—ll). The faculty see protecting university prOperty as being the most important function from the alternatives given in Q—ZO. They agree with the students in dowmplaying drugs and demonstrations, but put less emphasis on burglaries (Q—ZO). Faculty tend to see the campus police department at about the right size (Q—22) and are fairly accurate at estimating the current size (Q—36). The faculty provide scant support for the idea that students should be the campus policemen (4%) and zero support for any faculty involvement (Q—h). Unlike the students, there is no ambivalence as to whether the campus should have professional policemen; 68% chose that alternative in Q—S. A whopping 89% of the faculty agree that campus police should be paid a competitive salary (Q—27). Undercover surveillance.~ Only 23% of the faculty would prohibit the campus police from doing undercover surveillance-~10% less than the student response (Q—é). While 28% would leave it to the judgment of the Director of Security, the dominant response calls for involvement by the president of the university (Q—é). The faculty do feel that students have a gigh degree of paranoia about police (Q—33). (It is unfortunate that this question is subject to two different meanings that bear on the interpretation of the results: To some, "paranoia" may mean a well~founded ﬁﬁﬁ mistrust; to others, it may mean an unrealistic delusion.) Like the students, the faculty do not see the university as a particularly dangerous place (Q—BZ). Nor would they accuse the police of using drug charges to harrass students for their political activity (Q—28). As in the student reSponse, it is difficulty to tell from the questions asked where the faculty stand an the relationship between drugs and campus police surveillance. On the one hand, they do not see the campus olice as the appropriate agency for investigating heroin overdose Q—9); but they do think that the campus police should make a "major effort" to get rid of pushers of heroin (Q-Bh). Part of the problem of interpretation may be due to the fact that faculty make a big distinction between user and pusher; but we can not really say from the data collected. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f2f879bda0670db123df1d95f10fd407.tif 6870817512f803aa414f9c60b848fa97 PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: Not 32 b Cited. lO. Non—Academic Employees Sample.— The same questionnaire, with a different cover letter, was sent to a randomly selected sample of 200 non—academic employees (Appendix C). This represents about 1/8 of the population in question. Because of time and manpower limitations, no special efforts were made to ensure a high return rate. Response.- Even though the non-academic employee questionnaires were sent out one or two days later than the others, a higher prOportion of these questionnaires were returned before the June 1 deadline. A total of 107 questionnaires were returned (54%0. This group is about 70% female, with secretarial—clerical workers forming the largest single group (37%). Results e response to each question is summarized in Appendix C. Feelings toward the police.p~ The non-academic employees are mostly favorable toward the police—~moreso than the faculty, and much moreso than the students. While 28% remain neutral (0—1) and 34% indicate "mixed feelings" (0—7), very few indicate negative feelings toward the police. The non—academic employees may identify more closely with the police than the students or faculty. They are the only group who do not see the police as "much more conservative than other members of the university community" (0—29). Effectiveness and competence.~ University employees are more apt to regard the campus police as "well-trained and thoroughly professional" (0-26). Forty—five percent agree that the police do an"excellent job", while only 11% disagree )Q~35). Like the faculty (and unlike the students) when a non-academic employee goes to the police for help he is usually satisfied (0—23); if stOp ed b the police, he sees the officer as acting in,a professional manner €0~24 . Non-academic employees do not see the the campus police as any better or worse than the city police (0—21). Non—academic employees reSpond about the same as students and faculty in giving the police a good—to—fair overall rating in making the campus a safe place (0-19). On the questions requiring a rating of performance in different areas (Q:lh~l8), non~academic employees give a higher rate of "no Opinion" responses. The police do a "good" job when it comes to arking and traffic (0—14) and protecting university property (0—15). ' Dea ing with demonstrations is good to fair the same as the faculty rating (Q—l7). On a similar question (0—303, 50% agree that the police haae shown good judgment in this area, while 26% disagree. Non—academic employees agree with the faculty that in "burglaries", performance is only fair (0—18). The student rating was somewhat lower. The non—academic employees also see drugs as an area where police effectiveness is fair~to—poor. In this case, they agree quite closely with both students and faculty~~but perhaps for different reasons. (0-16). As to the area where the most improvement is needed: non—academic employees respond with the greatest frequency with "public relations".(Q—25). Unlike students and faculty, a substantial number (26%) chose "better leadership in the police department". https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0fe003a9b5699c3be0403943a8d97e75.tif 11e5bbdb28674f0aae03798ef1ef92c2 PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: not 0 e cited. w“ 11. Nature and mission.~ None of the peeple in this sample wants to do away with the campus police department (Q—4), though there is some sup ort for the idea of turning over police funtions to the city of Kent E13%,Q~5). The non~academic employees are more favorable than the faculty (41 vs 33%) and much more favorable than the students (41 vs 19%) to the idea of have a complete police department on campus (Q—4). There is some support, however, for the alternative that seemed to be favored by students and ‘ faculty: 25% see the campus police as being a combination police-security department that would emphasize securit . The campus police should be the ones to investigate burglaries (Q~8§, bomb threats (Q—lO), firearms (Q~ll) and political activism (Q~12,13). Problems with heroin overdose should be investigated by a federal agency (Q—9). The major difference in the_pattern of responding is that students and faculty want no police agency involved in political activism, but non-academic em loyees want either the campus police or a federal agency to investigate Q~12,13). All three groups make a distinction (but not an overwhelming one) between a radical grou holding a meeting (Q—l2) and an activist who advocates violence (Q—lB . Like the students and faculty, non~academic employees see protecting university pro erty as a more important function than drugs or demonstrations (Q—ZO . Non~academic employees characterize the size of the campus police departement as "about right" to "somewhat small"(Q~22) and are fairly good at estimating the current size (Q—36). Most want "professional police” (Q-S) who are paid a competitive salary (Cl-27) . Undercover surveillance.—A mere 15% of the non~academic employees would bar the campus police from undercover work (Q—é). The predominant feeling (48%) is to leave it in the hands of the Director of Security. There are 35% who want to see the president of the university involved, compared to 48% for faculty and 49% for students. This greater willingness to have undercover work and to put it in the hands of the police entirely cannot be completely explained by an opinion that the campus is a very dangerous place. Only 22% agree that there is a ”great danger of serious violent crime on campus" (Q—32). Most non~academic employees disagree with that statement. As for drugs, campus police should go after pushers KQX of heroin (Q—34), but the specific Opinions on drugs remains obscure because of a lack of pertinent questions. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3c977517421e012ae622f8cd6b6a3109.tif a1b49eb2122fb65c31bc928ba0204373 PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: not 33 be cited. 12. Telephone Survey: Townspeople vs University People Sample.— The main sample consists of 72 peOple from the Kent area who are not connected with the university. One persons was haphazardly chosen from each page of the Kent phone book. The survey was limited to numbers beginning with 673— or 678—, which meant that Kent city prOper and Brimfield were included in the survey. The numbers were selected without reference to name or address. If an uncooperative person or someone associated with the university was reached, the caller stayed on that page of the phone book until a genuine townsperson was included in the survey. Two callers did the odd vs even pages of the phonebook, res ec ively. Calls were made on the weekend to get both male and female res on ents. Res onse.— Only 31 of the 136 peOple contacted refused to participate. Most gave ignorance of university affairs as the reason. Of the 105 people who answered the questions, 72 had no connection with the university and 33 did. Connection with the university was defined in terms of being student, faculty, employee or the spouse of one. PeOple who had a daughter at KSU, for example, were counted as townspeople. It should be pointed out, however, that it is difficulty to randomly reach someone in the city of Kent who has absolutely no connection with the university. Many of the townSpeOple in the survey, for example, were graduates of KSU. Some of the characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 3. Table 3 ReSpondents to theTelephone Survey TownSpeople University N=72 N=33 Sex: Male .42 .52 Female .58 .48 Age: 00—20 .ll .27 21—30 .29 .52 3l-u0 .19 .12 41-50 .21 .06 51~99 .19 .03 Occupation: Blue collar .21 undergrd .61 White collar .38 grad .27 Housewife .33 faculty .09 Student/Service .08 police .00 non~acad .03 As is surely the case in the population of Kent, those not associated with hhe university are older. The university people are mostly students, so their responses should be compared with the student response to the written questionnaire. 3One caller omitted calling to any Allerton addresses, student housing. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/be087c63aa36f337401f18aa5b4c0bc3.tif 8fb114707ab3de0aabae1d77ed6fba66 PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: 5193 t “g cited. . 13. Results: rTownspeOple 'The reSponses to questions 14—22 of the general questionnaire are summarized in Appendix E for Townspeople and Appendix E for university people.’ (Only hhese nine questions were asked in the phone survey.) In evaluating performance of the campus police, there was a great reluctance to make any judgment because of the lack of contact or reliable information/when a townsperson was responding. For example, 65% would not evaluate burglaries and 49% had nothing to say about parking and traffic. This tendency was not the same when it came to demonstrations, onl 21% would not comment. A substantial majority of townspeople (61% feel that the campus police do a "good—to—excellent" job at making the university a Bsafe place" (Q—ED. Only A% gave a truly negative response to this item. Police performance with demonstrations (Q—l7) and protecting property (Q—lE) is rated good to fair. The item on drugs (Q—16) led to a wide variety of responses. While A7% had no opinion, the police received their poorest rating in this category. It should be pointed out, however, that a number of peOple who gave the police poor ratings on the various items mentioned that they did not blame the police department. Many said that the students should behave better, and some indicated that the police were not given strong enough backing by the university. When forced to pith the most impnntant area of concern, 39% chose drugs and 24% chose demonstrations (Q-ZO). This is in marked contrast to the response of students, faculty and non~academic employees on the same question. Campus police are seen as about the same as the city police, no better or worse. (Q~21) The size of the Campus Police Department is viewed as too small by most of the people who respond, but 39% had no opinion (Q~22). In terms of unsolicited comments, there was a large number of peOple who thought that the prime function of the campus police is to protect the students "who want to get an education". About 15 people expressed strong law and order views and 3 suggested that we get rid of the university. Two people thoug t that drugs were hﬁhiﬁ the cause of all the other trouble on campus. A number of people Spontaneously commented that the police did a good job with the recent demonstrations on campus. Results: university peOple These results are based on a very small sample size (N=33) and must be interpretted with caution. Compared with the student questionnaire response, this group is rates the police as better in handling demonstrations (Q—l?) and gives a great deal more weight to drugs and demonstrations as areas of concern for the police (Q-20). Klﬁhﬁﬁgh There is a tendency to see the campus police as better than the city police (Q~21). The major differences with non~university townspeople are that the latter put more improtance on drugs (Q—ZO) and feel that the campus police force is too small. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7aad14fd5c7973168d43267552cf2c4f.tif 55f2f2b1a8b721c9fc9e413f64f9f8bc PDF Text Text DRAFT copy: not t e cited. Wm” Campus Police 1p. Method A few of the campus policemen (5 or 6) were included in the random sample non-academic employees who received the questionnaire. In addition, 19 members of the campus police department were interviewed with 8 open—ended questions. Each of these was also given the questionnaire and asked to return it via campus mail. In addition, a supply of cOpies of the questionnaire was left with M . Fyke so that any officers who wanted to take it could do so. Since the interviews with police took place on May 30 and June 1, there were only a few questionnaires returned in time to be scored with the other data. The interviews were conducted with as many peOple as possible during the three shifts on May 30 into June 1. An effort was made to select a representative sample from the department. The sample included 19 of the 48 people on the roster. were commanders, tﬁt were at intermediate levels of supervision, were office employees, and cieéeﬂen were patrolment Only one person declined to be interviewed, though it is possible that others avoideda the situation. In general, cooperation was excellent. Questionnaire Since only 10 officers reSponded to the questionnaire in time to be scored, the results do not mean very much. The responses are summarized in Appendix F. The responses are somewhat more negative toward the campus police than might be expected from the police themselves. This may mean that KﬁIﬁX it was mostly disgruntled officers who responded quickly. This idea cannot be evaluatedj until more of the questionnaires are returned. Interviews A summary of the respOnses to.the interview questions is presented in Table G o The campus police have a fairly accurate idea as to how they are perceived in the university. They know that faculty and staff give them a high degree of support; and they are aware that a minority of students have unfavorable attitudes toward the police. They do, however, underestimate the large body of students who are mostly neutral. But it is clear that the campus police do not believe what they read in the papers; they hardly see themselves as working in a largely hostile community. The police seem to agree with the students that more public relations efforts are needed. But the patrolmen stress how well they understand student problems, and see the need for communication mostly to educate the students in police practices. The campus police see parking as a major souce of stadent~police friction. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c9fb91e664e5f30fb44676a9b60a5880.tif 026a9dfbcd21af6ab9e3ab5ce692e20c PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: 3.12.13. 32.2 9.2 9.1.53.4. 15. Campus police officers see thefts as the most serious crime problem on campus, mainly from the high frequency of such crimes. They see the need for educational efforts to get students and facuity to practice better security. Drugs are also viewed as a serious problem. Certain other serious crimes are described as "up and coming": assaults against persons, burglaries (break—ins), armed robbery. It would help if students _were made aware of the crime on campus through the campus newspaper, according to a number of police officers. ,The police would leave diecisions on undercover work to the professional judgment of the director. Such surveillance is needed to protect life and property in the university. It is the only way to do anything about drug problems, in the opinion of many. The officers point out how important it is that the police know what is going on on the campus. The campus police officers seem to view themselves as police officers first, and university employees second. Most do not see any essential difference between a campus police department and a municipal police department. All can point to many differences in jo function, hluwmwer. Campus police deal with a younger, more educate , more aware community and provide many more services that would be required of a municipal police department. ' The men seem to feel that their training was good, but could stand improvement. More training that is Specific to university problems and community relations is needed. A special school for campus policemen is seen as needed by a number of policemen. The Highway Patrol Academy ADO—hr training course is generally viewed as good basic traingng for those without police experience. It does, however, put too much empasis on traffic and not enough on crime and community relations. There appears to be a very serious morale problem within the campus police department. Many see the problem as mainly limited to a few disgruntled officers who should be fired. On the other side of this issue, there are men who do not feel they are treated fairly when it comes to promotions and job assignments. There is wide agreement that the recent budget cuts and lay—offs have seriously hurt morale in the department. There is serious anxiety about future budget cuts. The patrolmen have strong feelings that the office staff is too large and the patrolmen are undermanned. They claim that about 25 work in the office and only about 15 on the road. There is some agreement that Mr. Fyke does a poor job of communicating with the lower echelon of the department. A majority, however, give him strong support and feel he is ahead of his time in the way he runs the department. On the other hand, a significant minority lack faith in the leadership in the department and feel that the office work is too big for the department. In short, the department is split and quite unhappy with the present situation. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e84bfc0368b21268fa1cb32d180f22d0.tif f5384757546ab7ad1bf9936840059767 PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: not t e cited. 16. Summary and Conclusions All conclusions_drawn at the present time must be interpretted with great caution due to the reasons previously given. The general picture that emerges is that the campus police have good support from the faculty and non—academic employees, while the student body is either divided or neutral. The large number of students who are neutral towards the police may reflect apathy or lack of contact-~ or it may mean that students judge police according to individual situations. It is nevertheless clear that students are not overwhelmingly negative toward our campus police department. While the events of this spring have not had véry much effect on the overall feelings toward the police, there are two possible changes in attitude that may have occurred: (a) While the average rating remains about the same, there may be a slight tendency towards more polarization at the present time. From 1971 to 1972, both positive and negative evaluations increased slightly. (b) There may be a good deal more student concern about surveillance and record~keeping. All segments of the university provide strong support for having a campus police force that is staffed by professional police who are well-paid. The tendency, however, is to stress security and to de-emphasize investigatory work. The problem with investigations centers on political activity and drugs. The role of the campus police in both of these areas needs sharper definition so that they engage in activities that have the support of the people on campus. This must, of course, be balanced against the pressures from townspeOple who are greatly concerned about drugs and who do not want student demonstrations impinging on the town. The surveillance policy adopted by CSAC seems to closely reflect the opinions of the university community. There is a serious morale problem in the campus police department. It is not clear as to what is the most important aSpect, but several of the following actions seem to be called for: (a)Increased communication between the Director of Security and his»men. (b) Granting the director power to discipline men without going through the personnel office.(c) a study of office vs patrol needs should be conducted. (d) A clear procedure for promotion should be instituted to ensure fairness. (e) The men must be given reasonable job security-—the campus community agrees that we hhould pay good salaries to attract good people. Likewise, the university administration should provide present patrolmen with reasonable job security. While the campus police get more favorable than unfavorable ratings, it is also clear that overall performance tends to be rated as only fair. This may mean that there is a real need for improvement. Or—-it may be the normal kind of rating that police departments can typically eXpect to get. A control study, using other college campuses would give us some information on this question. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c5d1ea6172d6900829b9138a9b4226da.tif 7b485405f4c3cb51b69578b69498154a PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: not go e cited. 17. References McCoy, C.G. A comparison of attitudes towards the campus police: Spring 1970 ~ Fall 1971. Unpublished manuscript, Department of C Criminal Justice Studies, Kent State University, 1971. Stimel, S.D. Role perception within the KSU community: Students and police. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Criminal Justice Studies, Kent State University, 1970. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/11334439759f536e747f73d09ed063d7.tif 3c3017185935ddd448f16c2e81497f9c PDF Text Text mama. Psychology Department ~ ‘ Kent State Univer51ty Kent, Ohio 4h242 Dear KSU student: You have been specially selected by a random process to give us a sample of student opinion regarding the campus police department. President Olds had directed the Campus Security Advisory Committee to do a thorough study of the campus police and to make Specific recommendations by the end of this quarter. The committee has three student members, but we also need to have a large sample of student opinion. May I ask you to please fill out the attached questionnaire? Student input is essential to the success of this study. Instructions are given below. The questionnaire should only take about 15 minutes of your time. Please do it today! Si erely D es Dooling A istant Professor Instructions: Unless otherwise stated, all questions refer to the KSU campus police. Please make all responses with specific reference to the campus police, not to police in general. For each item choose only one alternative )a, b, c, d, e). Mark in your response on the data processing sheet using a #2 pencil. All responses are CONFIDENTIAL. Do not put your name or student number on the sheet. Return only the data processing sheet, using the enclosed‘ envelope. Fold it twice, as you would a letter. The question— naire itself can be kept or discarded. We are interested in any additional comments or suggestions you might have. Put them on the back of the data processing sheet. , Please respond within 2A hours. We have a tight deadline and we want your views to be included. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9113634a115fefb51e463fb4fa9e46f3.tif 3a46971b9d73d0a5defc8f0d039acf2d PDF Text Text 1.“ In general: how do you feel toward the Kent State Campus Police Department: a.) Favorable b.) Neﬁgral c.) Unfavorable .' / ‘ I I . r O 2. In the event of a confrontatézg between students 4nd the university requiring the presence of lawenfor'dment officers, dc you think outside law enforcechU agencies should be called in for assistance: 3-) Alwayéi 13.) Depends on the situation 0-) Never ’69 , . 3. Do you think that the cmpu‘%olice have files on the 7 political activities of students? a.) Yes b.) Not sure c-) NO , 0/ ,0/ 0 1». Which Egghe followjng statements’n/iost closely represents your view of what the campus police department should be: rC9/a.) there should be no campus police department.‘ “1/ b.) an unarmed building security department, like .nightwatchmen. ,5Q7c.) an armed combination security—police department, who "could make arrests, but whose main job would be security 1/3ci.) a police department made up mostly of armed patrolmen whose job is both routine security and enforcement of the law. .I9Eh) a complete police department that performs all police functions, including investigative work. ., 0/ 5. The patrolman in the campus police Department shbuld consist mainly of: J7 51.; students .Olb. faculty . c. Civil Service employees ,q5d.) professional police ’oge.) none of the above. (Ehe Campus Police Department (3, should be absorbed by and combined With theVKent ' City Police Department 6. Which of-the following most closely represents your view of undercover surveillance activity on campus: , a.) Should not be done on campus under any circumstances. I b.) Should not be done by campus police, but we cannot prevent other agencies from doing it. ' ,ﬂyc.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life. ’356.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life or substantial prOperty. 'I7e..) Should be done whenever the Director of Security .0/ determines that, in his professional judgment, there is a serious threat to life or property. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f3aadbae374e7626018c4bee85cd954f.tif 7753f33a8891387ef49f80a764cd5d45 PDF Text Text ‘1 7. 2- /T Which of the following most closely represents your feeling toward the campus police: ..33 a.; They are on my side protecting me and the university. ’55-b. .I/ c.) They are working against melenforcing laws and '(9/ 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. I have mixed feelings. policies that I don't agree with. Questions 8 — 13 refer to the investigative work of a police department. For each of the ﬂollowing situations indicate who should be the appropriate law enforcement agency to carry on the investigation: a. no police agency b. campus police . c. local agency EKent City Police or Portage Co. Sheriff) d. stgte agency eig., Highway Patrol) e. fe eral a ency e.g., FBﬁ; i c: 5= There is a series of burglaries gn campus. a I I ’0 ’0’ The student health cen er receives a large number of cases of heroin overdose. - , 45 .10 ’0? .37 A number of bomb threats are made on Bowman Hall. I .50 ’23 ’ 0 .’/q- A student reports that two stu ents in his dorm were hiding rifles. .(9/ ,0/ -oo .03 #7 II? J51 »/0 .00 The SDS Weathermen hold an organizational meeting. I. a! ’07 ’03 [OZ . An activist student has recently advocat d Violence as a means of changing government policy. ,0/ .1713 .ng .07 .053 :ll ’0/ For Questions 14—19 please indicate your rating of how well the campus police are presently doing their job in each of the areas listed below. The alternatives are: a.) excellent b.) good c.) fair d.) poor e.) bad Enforcixﬁgarking and‘téeglf 1C regulftéf/nS' , 0 7 ' 07 Protecting_university pro erty. #0 .w/ '02 I I Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. .5? .24 ./4 67 . Dealing With disruptive demonstrations. , .0, g .33 .1; J? Dealing W1 h burglaries on campus. 43 '33 ’aZisit. ’l/ Making the university a safe place to live and t .00 .49- .9? .06 ’06 .190 .0/ .0/ .03 . oz https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/60dbdc82a7daf153b602545a5a7f4cce.tif 0c9a8e68d9aba8b735b6c8306b65698f PDF Text Text n.“ £1213; 3. 20. Which of the following areas should be the most important concern of the campus police: [06$a. A§7b.; ,030.) ’0? (1‘; 12’8“ Enforcing parking and traffic problems Protecting university property. Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. . 05’ Dealing with burglaries on campus. 21. Compared to the Kent Cit Police Department, what would 0% be your overall rating 22. What the campus police: 'very much worse somewhat worse about the same ‘ somewhat better . 03 very much better is your opinion as to the present size of the campus police department: ,6’58'.) 110b, I? . .I d. Jae.) much too small somewhat small about right somewhat large . 01 much too large 23.During the '71 — '72 academic year did you go to or call the campus police to report a crime or to ask for assistance" .12 a. ,Cﬁfb. 1,00,. .70d-) Yes and I was satisfied with the reSponse. Yes and I have no 0 inion about the reSponse Yes and I was dissatisfied with the response. ’ 03 No 2h. Have you ever been stopped by, questioned by or arrested ‘by.the campus police: .IQ a.) ,oyb.) zl’ylc.) 467d.) Yes and the incident was handled inia professional manner. h Yes and I have no 0 inion as to the manner in whic the incident was Handled. Yes and the incident was handled in an unprofessional manner. 67/ No. ’ 25. In what area is there the most need for improvement: .0951.) .[7b.§ ,mgc. ‘Iodo) 15030) personnel; better patrolmen supervision; better leadership in the police department university policy; better supervision of police by university. coordination; better cooperation with other police agencies. . . 0, public relations; better communication with univerSity ' community. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/89242f3e68cc89f0d70e9388bfe7d144.tif 3e312ee916a8c333529f8c4552029e2d PDF Text Text 157/“ 4. Questions 26- 15 ask you to state the degree to which you agree With thetstatement that is made. The alternatives are: a.§ strongly agree b. agree c. neutral d. disagree e.) strongly disagree /+ (3 C D E 26. The KSU campus police are well trained and thoroughly / professional. ,(7 .031 .2/ '34 '1? v// 27. The campus police should be paid competitive salaries in order to attract and keep the best possible personnel. (5/ 28. The campus police have used drug’charges as a pretense ' for arresting students for their political activity. CJ/ 0 I ' 'l I 5 29.The campus policem n are pg itically much more conservative ‘ than th other members of the university community. . 13/ :3 [/7 03 .0/ 30. Campus] police have shown»good judgment in dealing with campus d monstrat ons. I a? 47 ’1’7’ 47 .9, 31. Most campus polio have favorable/attitudes'towards students. ,08 ’33 ’33 ’7 '07 '0/ 32. There is a great danger of serious violent crime on campus. ’03 {/4 [lg lg; 1&0 10/ 33. Students on campus have a high degree of paranoia when it comes to Police’ aCtivity. /é ’03 . 0/ 34. .Campu: police should make a major effort to get rid of pus ers of hard drugs like heroin. [6'0 ,3/ ,14 .07 .05 ,0/ 35. The gampus police do an excellent job of protecting life an proper y on cam us. 0% 4‘} .227 .12 ’03” '0/ Questions 36-37 should be answered from our own knowledge, even if you have to guess. Do not cons t any source to help you with your answers. 36. How many police officers are employed by Kent State? a.) less than 25. ,5!be 26—50 ,gyco 51-75 ’0, ’13 3d. ) 76-100 ‘Cve. .) more than 100 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/bb4915fd6dcf357373c277d094d7897a.tif 772f4e48ec6dab8cdad0156cf3bff12c PDF Text Text ., .. 5. gatr‘ 37. What is the annual salary (excluding overtime) of a campus patrolman who has three yea 5 experience in the department? .0461.) less than $36,500 .15 b. $36,500 to $7.500 ,gl/c. 337,500 to $38,500 49d. $8,500 to 539.500 / ,oge. more than (339,500 ' 0 .. 3 38. Indicate your position in the university: , 33a. undergrad student ,[yb. grad student . ' ,olc. faculty or administration ,ood. campus police ,008.) non-academic personnel r 0/ 39. Indicate your position in the university more precisely: ' Students ’ ' Grad Student Faculty (20 a. i‘resﬁnan a.-»M.A. a. Instructor ,[ b. 50phomore " b.-Ph.-D.~ b. Asst. Prof ,1 c. junior c. Special - c2 Assoc. Prof ’ﬁ, d. senior d.xnon-degree d.LProfessor C7€L ’CO)e' non—degree ‘ ’ ' ' e. Administrator ' Police Non-academic Personnel a. operations a. secretarialLClerical b. staff segvices b. food services c. auxiliary services c. maintenance d. command d. other 40. Sex $551.; Male 4 ,5‘Ob. Female c 04 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/da5ea3e943b4494b65cd5ad15b8b08ca.tif dae7a4965d43a0e78c4d009c2d901cfe PDF Text Text ﬂ/ﬂEﬂJ/X ﬁ,’ FMaAfy Psychology Department Kent State University Kent, Ohio 44242 May 24, 1972 Dear Faculty Colleague: President Olds has directed the Campus Security Advisory Committee to do a thorough study of the campus police and to make specific recommendations by the end of this quarter. The committee includes 5 faculty members, but we also need to have a wide range 3 faculty opinion. A large faculty reaponses is essential to the success of this study. Could I ask you to please fill out the attached question- naire? It should only take about 15 minutes of your time. Instructions are given below. Please do it today. Return via Campus Mail to: Dooling/Psychology Sin rely, v D. ames Doo ing Assistant Professor Instructions; Unless otherwise stated, all questions refer to the KSU campus police. Please make all respomses with Specific reference to the campus police not to police in general. For each item choose only one alternative (a, b, c, d, e). Mark in your responses on the data processing sheet using a #2 pencil. All reSponses are (IONFIDENTIAL. Do not put your name on the sheet. We are interested in any additional comments or suggestions you might have. Put them on the back of the data processing sheet. Please reSpond within 24 hours. We have a tight deadline and we want ycur views to be included. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ce5ee70db26a16d2c9d8cfbef7969f60.tif 76adfdb9b8864d9452c3eaa56281a250 PDF Text Text 4. 0H” In general: how do you feel toward the Kent State Campus Police Department: a.) Favorable b.) Neuzfal c.) Unfavorable .“ 67/ In the event of a confrontation between studen s“nd the university requiring the presence of law.enfor”dment officers, dc you think outside law enforcemcit agencies should be called in for assistance: , . a.) Always b.) Depends o the situatlon c.) Neve (9C7 o f ' o ,0 I” O . Do you thiéi that the campus ééce have files on the political activities of StUdentS? a.) Yes b.) Not sure c.) No 00 Which'of the followjng statements most closely represents your view of what the campus police department should be: ,C9I a.) there should be no campus police department. ’Igfda.) an UJEImed building security department, like -nightwatchmen. ,380.) an armed combination security—police department, who ”could make arrests, but whose main job would be security alﬁLd.) a police department made up mostly of armed patrolmen whose job is both routine security and enforcement of the law. ’Eﬁge.) a complete police department that performs all police 67/ 5. functions, including investigative work. The patrolmen in the campus police Department shOuld consist mainly of: , 04a . students 6. .000. faculty .ﬂOC. Civil Service employees ,Lﬁd. professional police ,059. none of the above. (The Campus Police Department , 03 should be absorbed by and combined with theYKent City Police Department Which of the following most closely represents your View of undercover surveillance activity on campus: ['3 8..) Should not be done on campus under any circumstances. ,lOtn) Should not be done by campus police, but we cannot. ' prevent other agenCies from doing it. I’Ic.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life. ’37d.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life or substantial property. ’28 e.) Should be done whenever the Director of Security determines that, in his professional judgment, there is a serious threat to life or property. I C7] https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/85bd7f9eca06295c845fdfafa3be2b63.tif a518e419f59e3be0d340d59bff522752 PDF Text Text 7. .523“; They are on my side protecting me and the university. I371). .dwb.) They are working against me,enforcing laws and 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. WW7 M 2. ‘ Which of the following most closely represents your feeling toward the campus police: I have mixed feelings. policies that I don't agree with. ,0/ Questions 8 — l3 refer to the investigative work of I a police department. ‘ For each of the following situations indicate who should _ be the appropriate law enforcement agency to carry on \ the investigation: a.) no police agency b. campus police . c.) local agency EKent City Police or Portage Co. Sheriff) d.) state agency e.g., Highway Patrol) e. fe era a enc e.7. F The e is a series of burglaries on campus. ‘,c9 .05 .70 .21 .05 . 0/ The student health center receives a large number of cases of heroin overdose. .03 48’ .13 .13 .35 .0/ A number of bomb threats are made on Bowman Hall. '02, .[3 '0 '/2 113, .0/ A student reports tha two students in his dorm were hiding rifle. , 7 fl; .1; .08 .05 .00 The SDS Weathermen hold an organizational meeting. I ,, '3’ ’05 .~.0£ 9/, . vO/ An actiVist student has reCently advocated Violence as a means of chjgging government policy. ’03 .03 45' .03 For Questions 14-19 please indicate your rating of how well the campus pdlice are presently doing their job in each of the areas listed below. ’ I The alternatives are: a.) excellent b.) good c.) fair d.) poor e.) bad Enforcingcparking and traffic regulatizps. r I ,14 .08 .02 .37 ,// .04 ’03 Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. «0/ .Ia .37 . cm .07 ./7 Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. .27 .II .07 ’05 .q/ .541 «03 I” ‘0 a Making the university a safe place to live and to visit. 07 :07 .42 .97 raé Protectingérniversity pro erty. O 0 I Dealing wi h burglaries on campus. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/719d5f53b416e190b0b5aa764e498306.tif 0a7ecdc646e8a40f050f7b8969cb7332 PDF Text Text 20. Which of the following areas should be the most impo man; concern of the campus police: 3. _£2ﬁiﬂilr I0a..) Enforcing parking and traffic problems Lgyt>.) Protecting university property. .03 c. ) Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. .1251. ) Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. [5/ ,07e. .) Dealing with burglaries on campus. ' 21. Compared to the Kent Cit Police Department, what would be your overall rating the campus police: somewhat worse , ye. about the same ‘ g I somewhat better ,tﬁ? very much better ’0] a.€ very much worse 22. What is your Opinion as to the present size of the campus police department: much too small 2%0‘3 b, somewhat small 38c.) about right . 20d. somewhat large [I e. much too large .6257 23- During the '71 - '72 academic year did you go to or call the campus police to report a crime or to ask for assistance" :QZa.g Yes and I was satisfied with the reSponse. cwgt: Yes and I have no opinion about the reSponse ,IO 0.) Yes and I was dissatis 1ed with the response. -o$d) No . 09 2h. Have you ever been stopped by, questioned by or arrested by the campus police: 423a.) Yes and the incident was handled ix'x'ia professional manner. ’C%Zb.) Yes and I have no opinion as to the manner in which the incident was HandI ed: A5470.) Yes and the incident was handled in an unprofessional '05] manner c I42d.) No. 25. In what area is there the most need for improvement: ’06 a.) personnel; better patrolmen o] b.; supervision; better leadership in the police department ,30c. university policy; better supervision of police by university. ‘Iodu) coordination; better cooperation with other police agencies. . _ 0? IéKIe.) public relations; better communication with un1vers1ty ' community. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f78fed8bacfd469f56352e9173dc2a0a.tif 299e61a15e4f56b59d8f0389428f7373 PDF Text Text ‘3; . faycubrf a. Uﬂlf / Questions 26-<}5 ask you to state the degree to which you agree with theﬁstatement that is made. The alternatives are: a.; strongly agree b. agree c. neutral d. disagree e.) strongly disagree ﬂ 6 6 D E 26. The KSU campus police are well trained and thoroughly professio a1. «01? '32 ,4, [/7 «as! . . '02 27. The campus police should be paid competitive salaries 1n order to attract and keep the best possible personnel. 1‘ ,0 10/ 3’02 28. The campus police 2Le used rug chgrges as a pretense for arresting students for their political activity. C257 ,04 ,10 171. .C/ , r 29.The campus policemen are politically muc more nservative ' than the other members of the university community. Cyjiv .1 c9 30. Campus police have éaown good judgme to in dealing with campus deﬁonstratioai ’ l8 , [3 x 07 , 02 31. Most campus police ave favorable attitudes towards students]/ a? 18. [/4 (717/ I 0# 32. There is a reat danger of serious violent crime on campus. 420 1/5’ IF ' 03 6’ 33. Students on campus have a high degree of paran01a when it comes to police activity. a ,II/ [7. .04“ v04 3h. Campus police should make a major effort to get rid of pushers of hard drugs like heroin. , .617 .09 ,0'7’ 35. The campus police do an excellent job of protecting life and property on campus '0 I a 1/37 0/7 ’0y I 407 Questions 3 ~37 shou d be answered from our own knowledge, even if you have to guess. Do not consu t any source to help you with your answers. 36. How many police officers are employed by Kent State? ,IJraa) less than 25. . b.) 26— 50 ngC.) 51-75 05d.) 76—100 :Ole') more than 100 ’ 02 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/29014c2c8b49ac2db486aae90b00c088.tif 91f9367d801d3f436ea762e7f0742d89 PDF Text Text ‘ ( , O \J" 5. 0/VIT 37. What is the annual salary (éXcluding overtime) of a campus patrolman who has three yea 5 experience in the department? ,Ola.) less than £36,500 40mg $36,500 to $7500 ’9 c. £37,500 to £38,500 03 d.; $8,500 to $9,500 , more than $9,500 " 0 we I 38. Indicate your position in the university: .40 a . undergrad student .00b. grad student . ,970. faculty or administration ,00d. campus police . 0 0 ,OOe.) non-academic personnel 39. Indicate your position in the university more precisely: Students , ’ Grad Student Faculty a. freshman a. M;K. ,cﬁfa. Instructor b. SOphomore " b.-Ph.-D.~ «1 b. Asst. Prof c. junior 0. Special - ,2 c2 Assoc. Prof d . senior d. -.;n'on-degree 30d .1 Professor 061 e. non—degree - ' ‘ ' ,o7e. Administrator ‘ Police Non-academic Personnel a. operations a. secretarialeclerical b. staff segvices b. food services c. auxiliary services c. maintenance d. command d. other #0. Sex , 6’. M l 39%.; Fzmzle I 05' https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7a556fa2b5d6befd17d915f1ec9cc7d1.tif e552c4234ad5425b59f13847c2ae0a90 PDF Text Text ~ eoﬁémbw c Psychology Department Kent State University Kent, Ohio 44242 Dear KSU Employee: President Olds has directed the Campus Security Advisory Committee to do a thorough study of the campus police and to make Specific recommendations by the end of this quarter. Could I ask you to please fill out the attached question— aire? It should only take about 15 minutes of your time. Instructions are given below. Please do it today. Return via Campus Mail to: Dooling/Psychology. Sincerely,ﬁ : r’” \ \ 3 x W Df James Dooling Assistant Professor Instructions: Unless otherwise stated, all questions refer to the KSU campus police . Plese make all responses with specific reference to the campus police, not to police in general. For each item choose only one alternative (a, b, c, d, e). Mark in your response on the data processing sheet using a #2 pencil. g ' All responses are CONFIDENTIAL. Do not put your name on the sheet. “"‘ We are interested in any additional comments or suggestions you : might have. Put them on the back of the data processing sheet. Please respond within 24 hours. We have a tight deadline and we want your views to be included. YOU HAVE BEEN RANDOMLY SELECTED TO GIVE US A SAMPLE OF OPINION FROM NON_ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES. Your response is important! https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8f96e0f8febf145f80c33b6ebd62524f.tif 2322cb02a4fe85bc83b07a526d0542f0 PDF Text Text 0/7] T 1. In general, how do you feel toward the Kent State Campus Police Department: a.) Favorable b.) Neutral c.) Unfavorable -692 I l " , 2. In the event of a confrontation between students and the university requiring the presence of law.enforcement officers, dc you think outside law enforcement agencies should be called in for assistance: a.) Always b.) Depends on the situation c.) Never . 0% , 7/ . , 0/ - 00 3. Do you think that the campus police have files on the political activities of students? a.) Yes b.) Not sure c.) No , . 4147 v / ’0 ’i ’ 01/ 4. Which of he follow1 g statements m st closely represents your view of what the campus police department should be: ,Cﬂ9a.) there should be no campus police department. ‘,0gtu) an unarmed building security department, like _ .nightwatchmen. ,erc.) an armed combination security—police department, who "could make arrests, but whose main job would be Security 'léd.) a police department made up mostly of armed patrolmen whose job is both routine security and enforcement of the law. :9” e.) a complete police department that performs all police functions, including investigative work. ' Caz 5. The patrolmen in the campus police Department Shbuld consist mainly of: / 03 a. 3 students .00b. faculty 'QQC.; Civil Service employees , d. professional police 439') none of the above. (The Campus Police Department . 03 should be absorbed by and combined~With theYKent City Police Department 6. Which of the following most closely represents your view of undercover surveillance activity on campus: .4?7am) Should not be done on campus under any circumstances. ,08b.) Should not be done by campus police, but we cannot prevent other agencies from doing it. .07b.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life. tiﬁh.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life or substantial property. Jigs.) Should be done whenever the Director of Security determines that, in his professional judgment, ,(le there is a serious threat to life or property. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1a16ae11dc2d5c2a6876606f0d991ea5.tif e173cde7863bb86b06ae08531b806259 PDF Text Text 7. . ‘1‘." Which of the following most closely represents your feeling toward the campus police: 4461- ) They are on my side protecting me and the university, ,39b) I have mixed feelings (CXLQ') They are working against me enforcing laws and a8. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. l7. l8. l9. policies that I don't agree with. 0/ Questions 8 - 1} refer to the investigative work of a police department. For each of the following situations indicate who should be the appropriate law enforcement agency to carry on the investigation: .g no police agency . campus police .) local agency (Kent City Police or Portage Co. Sheriff) .g state agency (e. g., Highway Patrol) . federal agency (e. g., FBI) (DQHOO‘SD There/gs a series of burglaries on campus. '0 l ’0 00 ’02 The stuQEnt hea 3h centg; recei es a laége number of cases of heroin overdose. #05 5’9 4/7 '05 '50 Oé A number of bomb threats are made on Bowman Hall. ’ I véo ’l/ '01 'III/z OOé A studen reports that two students in is dorm were hiding rifles. , ,0] 53 :20 10 07 ,a7 The SDS Weathermen hold an organizational meeting. 70; v/Q ' .07 An activ st etude t has recently advocated Violence as a means of changing government policy. Q1 34 .&$ 07 1‘°7 For Questions 14~19 please indicate your rating of how well the campus police are presently doing their job in each of the areas listed below. The alternatives are: a.) excellent b.) good c.) fair d.) poor e.) bad ,0; ,01/ Enforcing parking and traffic regulations. P t tv/p‘ ’t '34! t '28 '17 ro ec 1ng un1vers1 y proper y. ’06 '9/ ,3? ‘0? ’00 ’04 Dealing with the )roblems of drug abuse. .0} «l6 (/5 ,20 ’07 “/0 Dealin witi disru tive demonstrations. b p ’ 9’7, 432 ’07 ’04 'IC Dealing W1th burglaries on campus. . .09 g1 175! ,ll/ '09 '13 Making the university a safe place to live and to visit. .05 .43 35’ .07 *0/ '03 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9aad6b1f7209228d3318aad05208ecb8.tif 0aa4e14e7745f86667a9f21e93acc48e PDF Text Text 3. M f, 20. Which of the following areas should be the most important concern of the campus police: ,07a.) Enforcing parking and traffic problems .“Zb.) Protecting university property. ’0 0.) Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. ,1 d.) Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. , / «I09') Dealing with burglaries on campus. I ’ / 21. Compared to the Kent Cit Police Department, what would be your overall rating 0 the campus police: ,O’a.) very much worse ,0 b.; somewhat worse , 0. about the same Lgﬂag somewhat better - :aye. very much better .‘ 05' 22. What is your opinion as to the present size of the campus police department: . 09 a.) much too small . $23b,) somewhat small ,gurt.) about right , [a d. somewhat large 40 e. much too large . 0‘ 23.During the '71 - '72 academic year did you go to or call the campus police to report a crime or to ask for assistance" IQEVa.) Yes and I was satisfied with the response. ,ng.; Yes and I have 32 opinion about the response .I/c. Yes and I was dissatisfied with the response. .57d.) NO ’00 24. Have you ever been stopped by, questioned by or arrested by the campus police: .I7 a.) Yes and the incident was handled inia professional 1/ ) manner . o6? b. Yes and I have no 0 inion as to the manner in which the incident tat Handl d: .6770.) Yes and the incident was handled in an unprofessional .717! d. ) Nrganner. , 05L 25. In what area 'is there the most need for improvement: .Cﬂla.) personnel; better patrolmen .ﬂéb.g supervision; better leadership in the police department ’chh. university policy;. better supervision of police by university. .OCdJ) coordination; better COOperation with other police agencies. ’ 0? zgééh) public relations; better communication with university community. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f2915ee84023e5729172f50ab3091030.tif b2f416ef943f86b850528daa10e08c99 PDF Text Text 4. '27’ 211/ Questions 26— 35 ask you to state the degree to which you agree with the‘statement that is made. The alternatives are: a.g strongly agree b. agree 0. neutral d. disagree e.) strongly disagree 5 <1 I? E 26. The KSU campus police are well trained and thoroughly professional. . 0 1 as .31 '33 ’22 ’03 27. The campus police should be paid competitive salaries in order to attract and keep the best ossible personnel. 675. ,4 .49 ./ ,0} oz 28. The campus police have us d drug 0 arges as a pretense for arresting students for their political activity. ’67é. .05” of' 70 .37 .l . 29. The campus policemen are politically much more conservative g than the other members of the university community. ()7 07 {LO v67 2/ 1015’. ‘ 30. Campus police have shown good judgment in dea 1ng with campus demonstrati ns. -0; 4’ 4/ .20 '06 31. Most campus police have favorable attitudes towards students. a/a 14$ I?5 ’03 ’03 '06 32. There isra great danger of serious violent crime on campus. 05) 46/ I)?! 4! 0. . 33. Students on campus have a 1gh degr e of paran 1a when 1t comes to police activity. 4] 45/0 I4 ’1? ’0/ ’07 .06 34. Campus p0 ice should make a major effort to get rid of pushers of hard dru 5 like heroin. ’ 0 , . , 5 «0 ’04 '07 . C 35.The campu police do an excel ent job of protecting life and pro erty on cam us. 67 ’3 3% .34 I0 4/ ' 7 Questions 36—37 should be answered from your own knowledge, even if'you have to guess. Do not consult any source to help you with your answers. 36. How many police officers are employed by Kent State? ,06a. ) less than 25. , 5211:) . 3 26—30 . c. 51- 5 3% . ) 76-100 , 0’/ ,be.) more than 100 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ebee16716dce42c7c10927d22b774c84.tif 291ca14a9f3fdacec4b817e4bc7df444 PDF Text Text r/ 37. What is the annual salary (€Xcluding overtime) of a campus patrolman who has three yea s eXperience in the department? .Oﬂa.) less than is ,500 .Mb.) £156,500 to 337:500 x330.) $7,500 to $89500 375% 338,500 to 239,500 ’07e. more than $9,500 -C75' 38. Indicate your position in the university: ,0! a.) undergrad student ,c?lbo grad student 0. faculty or administration v03d4 campus police ,gﬁfe.) non-academic personnel 07 39. Indicate your position in the university more precisely: Students ’ ’ Grad Student Faculty a. freshman a. M.A. a. Instructor b. SOphomore ‘ b.-Ph.D.. b. Asst. Prof c. junior c. Special'ﬁ c; Assoc. Prof d. senior d.rnonrdegree d.LProfessor e. non—degree — ' e. Administrator Police ~ Non~academic Personnel a. Operations {9 . secretarial-clerical b. staff seivices r! b. food services c. auxiliary services . maintenance /51 d. command 1333. other ’ #0. Sex , 7.3 a. ) Male ,égth) Female https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a5057b60130a4e4ebeb6579b669efb5b.tif 7683feb94952cb056e490bba9b350b81 PDF Text Text if 11.. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 5\<rvi;\9l¢ "‘ N / .Oéa- Hello I'm calling from the university for the 6.?» Security Advisory committee. the Kent community ( ' operations of the lent State Campus Police Department. 7 ask you a few questions? .'dantial. 2.“).3i-‘d‘9. ”when 991%me «- 0', TO wus Fart—E We are trying to get inform. lion from that will htlp us to evaluate the May we Your resronses will be strictly confi— / . For ggﬁstions 15-1; please indicate your ziting of how well 3 campus po ice are presently doing their job in each of the areas listed below. The alternatives are: a. excellent b.) good c.) “air .) poor e.) bad Enforcing ‘rking and traffic regula*ions. , ,f? r29— , I4 9 "i “0/ Protecting university property. . .0 . ‘ .¢/"/ .mﬁl ,ch Dealing with the problems of drug abusc. ' (7/ . <03 . . ,G7 .’/5' '//; “' Dealing With disruptive emonstrations. I ’93 a a4 " '12 ’6") Dealing with burglaries on campus. v '- 1/22 M0 07/ .00. Making the university a safe place to live and to visit. ’I0 .57 //£;/ ’0/ ’03 concern of the campus police: . forcing parking and traffic problems (2&5 1......— [6’7 20. Which of the following areas should be the most important ’53?(/7‘w 7 ’1 b.; rotecting university property. gaéc. Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. 63 2 d.; Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. ' ’0‘ 8. Dealing with burglaries on campus. 21. Compared to the Kent Cit Police Department, what would i; be your overall rating 0 the campus police: ’00 a. . very much worse ,167b- somewhat worse ,aoc. about the same ,ogd. somewhat better .. l? ‘03 e. very much better ‘ C? 22. What is your Opinion as to the present size of the campus police department: .I/ a.) much too small .1er, somewhat small , 5’ c. about right ,ogd. somewhat large .019- much too large https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/03a5ac5d865201a6690ad93b4040fd0b.tif 91f163f5ffa79b97ef85a24f2066026d PDF Text Text 9-? r - --—u-—-u-.u- mu / UNN ERSVW PEG {PU—5 Trﬁwéﬁﬁgiio Irm calling from the university for the tongue Security 4 Advisory committee. We are trying to get. inform; 11011 from ‘ I ﬂthe Kent community ( I _ _ g. . _ , that will htlp us to evaluate the p _ ~ operations of the Kent State Campus Police Department.- May We wet ”as": Y“ 3‘ f9“ Questims? Y0.” We“ emf .Conf . ‘ - xi ;”.,_,A;;»_V“,V ,, ‘13; 1653 w ~- av; .- e ‘ "‘3': f1" ” 1' ; 2-1—5.» ~i The alternatives are: ~a.) excellent b.) good c.) ‘ fair d.) poor ye.) bad \" 5 \ le. Enforcin» parking and traffic regulations. ’03 [5‘ ,1, , . ,94 '2/ vii 15. Protectinl univer81ty property. . , r .13 .07 ’03 '07 ’0 C 16. Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. .00 ,OZ ,/ '33 .07 .30 1?. Dealing with disruptive de onstrations. 37 4‘? J? -07 '53 18. Dealing with burglaries bn campus. 30 . 0g ,2 ., 00 .34 I00 ’ 19. making the university a safe place to live and to v sit. ,:a .55 ,13 .07 '00 ’0‘“ 9s7§bs$9 ‘3\ 3. a/W 7 ;7 20. Which of the following areas should be the most importanﬁ ’ concern of the campus police: ,CHBa,; Enforcing parking and traffic problems .JZ/b. Protecting university prOperty. ”'zl/c.) Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. , :27d.) Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. ’ a}; “2] e.) Dealing with burglaries on campus. / c3: 21. Compared to the Kent Cit¥ Police Department, what would be your overall rating 0 the campus police: ”O‘Da. very much worse .061» somewhat worse ’ about the same I5 ' I‘ ,Qfd.; somewhat better I$2/ very much better ,9! 22. What is your opinion as to the present size of the campus police department: ..00a.) much too small .30b,) somewhat small ,3éc. about right a ,[ d. somewhat large , (.57 , is. much too large https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ed7533a6c70ac726f9997651b86d438c.tif 66d9bf5753ffd462d647a5ff00d70b66 PDF Text Text New w .4: ‘ZPO m e Psychology Department Kent State University Kent, Ohio 44242 Dear KSU Employee: President Olds has directed the Campus Security Advisory Committee to do a thorough study of the campus police and to make Specific recommendations by the end of this quarter. Could I ask you to please fill out the attached question— aire? It should only take about 15 minutes of your time. Instructions are given below. Please do it today. Return via Campus Mail to: Dooling/Psychology. Dp/James‘Dooling Assistant Professor Instructions: Unless otherwise stated, all questions refer to the KSU campus pblice . Plese make all responses with specific reference to the campus police, not to police in general. For each item choose only one alternative (a, b, c, d, e). Mark in your reSponse on the data processing sheet using a #2 pencil. g All reSponses are CONFIDENTIAL. Do not put your name on the sheet. We are interested in any additional comments or suggestions you : might have. Put them on the back of the data processing sheet. Please respond within 24 hours. We have a tight deadline and we want your views to be included. YOU HAVE BEEN RANDOMLY SELECTED TO GIVE US A SAMPLE OF OPINION FROM NON_ACADEMIC EMPLOYEES. Your reaponse is important! https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/626f4210459de1fba56d75904ee6674a.tif 1267921b72d7e61ecefbde24955979e1 PDF Text Text .10 In general: how do you feel toward the Kent State Campus Police Department: a.) Favorable b.) Neutral c.) Unfavorable l “i - t In the event of a confrontation between students ind the university requiring the presence of law.enfor"°‘ment officers, dc you think outside law enforcemr“D agencies should be called in for assistance: . a.) Always 'b.) Depends on the sifuatlon 0.) Never . (i _ Do you think that the ééipus police have files on the political activities of stUdentS? 61.) Y5”. b.) Not sure c-) N0 . (J . . Which of the folléléig statements most closely represents your view of what che campus police department should be: a.) there should be no campus police department., b.) an urarmed building security department, like .nightwatchmen. c.) an armed combination security—police department, who "could make arrests, but whose main job would be security d.) a police department made up mostly of armed patrolmen whose job is both routine security and enforcement of the law. e.) a complete police department that performs all police functions, including investigative work. The patrolmen in the campus policejDepartment shOuld consist mainly of: a.) students b ) faculty Civil Service employees 0.) a?!) (1.; professional police 8. 6. none of the above. (The Campus Police Department should be absorbed-by and combined With theYKent City Police Department Which of the following most closely represents your view of undercover surveillance activity on campus: ) Should not be done on campus under any circumstances. a. .10 b.) Should not be done by campus police, but we cannot prevent other agencies from doing it. AB C.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life. d.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life or substantial property. .330 e.) Should be done whenever the Director of Security determines that, in his professional judgment, there is a serious threat to life or property. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/af84586cdfa42c7d337949d80fe7b8ba.tif 7a7f7e5c72ab93b4b7fd9184575d5e1f PDF Text Text 2. 7. Which of the following most closely represents your feeling toward the campus police: (Dang They are on my side protecting me and the university. ,QﬂDb. I have mi: zed feelings 0.) They are working against me. enforcing laws and policies that 1 don't agree with. QuestiOns 8 — 13 refer to the investigative work of a police department. For each of the following situations indicate who should be the appropriate law enforcement agency to carry on the investigation: a.) no police agency b. campus police 0. local agency éKent City Police or Portage Co. Sheriff) d. state agency e g., Highway Patrol) e. federal agency (e.g., FBI) 8. There is a series of b glar'es on campus. 0 81-6) * ' I 9. he student health center receives a large number of cases of heroin overdos . (59%-5 £91.”) 0.20 5 at) OMW-‘JO 10. A num er of bomb threats are made on Bowman Hall. .9() -—O.'7 Cato D \o 11. A student reports that two students in his dorm were hidi g rifles. g. 39 5’10 JO 12. The oDS Weathermen hold an organizational meeting. :50 (ﬂy—H0 30 JD 13. An activist student has recently advoca d violence as a means of changing government policy. :H) Q— to D—Io €40 {'0 For_g_estions 14—19 please indicate your rating of how well the campus police are presently doing their job in each of the areas listed below. The alternatives are: a.) excellent b.) good c.) fair d.) poor 9.) bad GM” 14. Enforcing parking and traff'c regulations. ~ tsp-1.0 can 1c c~to macs 15. Protecting uhiversity prope ty. 1" O 0 to E g 16. lealiﬁg‘gith the problems 0 drug abuse. . 53» O) 15 )0 ._ an O 1 .40 E-Jo 17. ealing with disruptive dem ns rations. 6 Q) E ‘ 130.»- .90 40 c -— .ao D 1. .00 18. ealing with bugglaries on ampus. 2 n— \ a 0 '90 0‘ '30 5‘” 19. 1a ing the uhiversity safe place to live and to visit. s-aO Ibmﬂo l 0’30 0—190 f:— https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0638f345e174b0c1352d15ec6c8793b8.tif 5f884d8dbc081701f496c1a40caf5b23 PDF Text Text 3. 20. Which of the following areas should be the most important concern of the campus police: a.) Enforcing parking and traffic problems .bC3b.) Protecting university property. .ac>c.) Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. .DC>d.; Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. e. Dealing with burglaries on campus. 21. Compared to the Kent Cit Police Department, what would be your overall rating 0 the campus police: ‘10 a. very much worse .& b. somewhat worse .90 c. about the same .50 d.; somewhat better .tO e. very much better 22. What is your opinion as to the present size of the campus ._ police department: «3 0 a.) much too small .90 b.) somewhat small {80c.; about right .3od4 somewhat large e.) much too large 23.During the '71 - '72 academic year did you go to or call ‘ the campus police to report a crime or to ask for assistance" ,(C) 090 a.; Yes and I was satisfied with the reaponse. .\(3b. Yes and I have no o~inion about the response c.) Yes and I was dissatisfied with the reSponse. ,bod.) No 2h. Have you ever been stopped by, questioned by or arrested by the campus police: {C7 ,ak3a.) Yes and the incident was handled inia professional ' manner. v‘kjb.) Yes and I have_p9 Opinion as to the manner in which the incident was an e . c.) Yes and the incident was handled in an unprofessional manner. tlgbd.) No. 25. In what area is there the most need for improvement: a.) personnel; better patrolmen fﬂjb.g supervision; better leadership in the police department 0. university policy; better supervision of police by university. d.) coordination; better c00peration with other police agencies. .%()e.) public relations; better communication with university ‘ community. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/269966547ced3b7c6d91c0ce9bc499d8.tif 798171deef15715e644222c59ba5dde3 PDF Text Text h. Qgestions 26-A%£ ask you to state the degree to which you agree with the statement that is made. The alternatives are: a. strongly agree b. agree c. neutral d. disagree e.) strongly disagree C, D ; OM17 26. The KSU campus police are well trained and thoroughly rofessional. . . 9J0 .40 ab .30 27. The campus police should be paid competitive salaries in order to attract and keep the lhast possible personnel. .a0 28. The campus police have used drug charges as a pretense for arresting stuisnts for their political activity. .I .90 . 29.The campus policemen are politically much more conservative than the other members of the university community. .40 .‘0 Q0 30. Campus police have shown good judgment in dealing with campus demonstrations. (3 .90 )b m l 31. Most campus police have favorable attitudes towards students. .5b 3c l0 '0 32. There is a great danger of serigpé)violentm crime on 0 us. C) 33. Studegis on campus have a high degree of paranoia when it comes to police activity. .30 .30 .io 40 34. Campus police should make a major effort to get rid of pushers of hard drugs like heroin. £100 90 .90 35.The gampus police do an excellent job of protecting life an r0 ert on cam us. Questions 36-37 should be answered from {pur own knowledge, even if you have to guess. Do not consu t any source to help you with your answers. 36. How many police officers are employed by Kent State? 20 a.) less than 25. b.) 26- SO 10 C .) 51-75 '10 e. more than 100 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d4657630984141ae1592d7c49d46fa7f.tif b141fc848eb99b2d1643617e74a3a421 PDF Text Text 5. 37. What is the annual salary (excluding overtime) of a campus patrolman who has three yea 3 experience in the department? 10 a.) less than $6,500 $010.; $56,500 to $7.500 ‘QOC. $37,500 to $8,500 mom; 538.500 to $9.500 e. more than $9,500 38. Indicate your position in the university: a. undergrad student b. grad student . ' 0. faculty or administration [00 d. campus police & e. non-academic personnel 39. Indicate your position in the university more precisely: Students ’ ’ Grad Student Faculty a. freshman a. M.K. a. Instructor b. SOphomore ‘ b. Ph.D.. b. Asst. Prof O‘NWLAT c. junior c.:special*' c; Assoc. Prof d. senior ,denon-degree d.LProfessor (C) e. non—degree ‘ ' ' ‘ e. Administrator Police Non-academic Personnel ' a. operations a. secretarialLCIerical uﬂc7b. staff segvices b. food services .\t)c. auxiliary services c. maintenance J10d. command d. other LO. Sex .8051. 3 Male dan' Female https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/695f18f46617c4c362f5d05d7ebc772e.tif 707fdefc670f34d45f977d8fd99e1c57 PDF Text Text , . W: NoauL KsépoA/ss 712:4 Eﬁclr 64w .. , 9: era/£7517" F 5’- FﬂooLT)’ N: Novvktmsﬂw Ely/10rd; ‘ 19:- Cay/us ﬁzzcg '7“: 77w”? ﬂea/1,5 In general, how do you feel toward the Kent State Campus Police Department: a.) Favorable b.) Neutral 0.) Unfavorable ‘. In the event of a confrontation between students and the university requiring the presence of law.enforcement. officers, dc you think outside law enforcement agenc1es should be called in for assistance: a.) Always b.) Depends on the situation c.) Never ’7 P 3. Do you think that the campusfgglice have files on the political activities of students? a.) Yes b.) Not ure c.) No S 4. Which o!:!Xe following statements most closely represents your view of what the campus police department should be: a.) there should be no campus police department. b.) an unarmed building security department, like -nightwatchmen. 5;F3 c.) an armed combination security—police department, who ”could make arrests, but whose main job would be security d.) a police department made up mostly of armed patrolmen fp<<’ whose job is both routine security and enforcement of the law. [V e.) a complete police department that performs all police functions, including investigative work. U1 0 The patrolmen in the campus policejDepartment shOuld consist mainly of: a.) students b. faculty Civil Service employees §;F%0§. professional police e. none of the above. (The Campus Police Department should be absorbed by and combined With theYKent City Police Department VVVV 6. Which of the following most closely represents your view of undercover surveillance activity on campus: a.) Should not be done on campus under any circumstances. b.) Should not be done by campus police, but we cannot prevent other agencies from doing it. c.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life. SF- d.) Should be done by campus police only if the president of the university authorizes it because of serious threat to life or substantial property. NPe.) Should be done whenever the Director of Security determines that, in his professional judgment, there is a serious threat to life or property. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1ec1b99480ef1aa6baab721492a7aa34.tif 37e24fd6ba3aa8f40fff40ee99511e14 PDF Text Text 7. 2. Which of the following most closely represents your feeling toward the campus police: ‘ FNP.) They are on my side protecting me and the university. ‘ 5 b.) I have mixed feelings. 10. 11. 12. 13. 11.. 15. 16. 17. 18. '19. 0.) They are working against me,enforcing laws and policies that I don't agree with. QuestiORS 8 — 13 refer to the investigative work of a police department. For each of the following situations indicate who should be the appropriate law enforcement agency to carry on the investigation: .g no police agency campus police ) local agency (Kent City Police or Portage Co. Sheriff) ) state agency (e.g., Highway Patrol) ) federal agency (e.g., FBI) (DD-aOC‘SD There {s a series of burglaries on campus. The student hegft/I’Yaenter receives a large number of cases of heroin overdose. SFN A number of bomb threats are made on Bowman Hall. A student reports that two students in his dorm were hiding rifles. SFNF The SDS Weathermen hold an organizational meeting. An activist studéXt has recently advocated violence as a means of changing government policy. 5F NIP For ggestions 14~19 please indicate your rating of how well the campus police are presently doing their job in each of the areas listed below. The alternatives are: a.) excellent b.) good c.) fair d.) poor e.) bad Enforcing parking and traffic regulations. FP Dealing with the problégglof drug abuse. SFN P Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. 5! Protecting university property. Dealing with burglaries 9L campus. Making the university a safe place to live and to visit. SFNTP https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4b58841d069b5ceb4b8e79969500e18e.tif 71e8034083d84bff0e44f4fc22f64c91 PDF Text Text 20. a. 5FNOP§ Protecting university prOperty. c 21. Sl’gC 22. 23.During the '71 — ‘72 academic year did you go to or call 0 ) mid?) No 2h. ' b ﬁfﬂépg about right 1M— Which of the following areas should be the most importagt concern of the campus police: Enforcing parking and traffic problems . Dealing with the problems of drug abuse. d.) Dealing with disruptive demonstrations. e.) Dealing with burglaries on campus. Compared to the Kent Cit Police Department, what would be your overall rating 0 the campus police: .) very much worse somewhat worse }T about the same ; somewhat better very much better a. b. d: e. What is your opinion as to the present size of the campus police department: a.) much too small ) somewhat small somewhat large ‘T' e. much too large p ' ‘. sk for assistance" the cam us police to report a crime or to a a a F? Al a.; Yes and I was satisfied with the reSponse. J? "729 42y b. Yes and I have n2 opinion about the response ,0; ,0; -03 Yes and I was dissatisfied with the response. .10 do -// Have you ever been stopped by, questioned by or arrested by the campus police: 5? 413_ Al a.) Yes and the incident was handled inia professional ',2 .23 “V; manner. b.) Yes and I have_1_}_<_3 opinion as to the manner in which .01, -02 ’0‘! the incident was an e . a c.) Yes and the incident was handled in an unprofessionalaJQP'CW"9 manner. 5F/le?) No. 25. P F In what area is there the most need for improvement: ) personnel; better patrolmen g supervision; better leadership in the police department university policy; better supervision of police by university. ) coordination; better cooPeration with other police agencies. ) public relations; better communication with university community. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ff18ab4494f37c674864a26791d0fec5.tif 19a4489edf9068076026cd61ce1ba074 PDF Text Text h. Questions 26- 15 ask you to state the degree to which you agree with the‘statement that is made. The alternatives are: a.) strongly agree b.) agree ‘ .g neutral disagree ) strongly disagree A 3 C D E 26. The KSU campus police are well trained and thoroughly professional. ’9 §FN 27. The campus police should be paid competitive salaries in order to attract and keep the best possible personnel. (0an 28. The campus police éiave used drug charges as a pretense for arresting students for their political activity. 29.The campus policemen are politically much morgpconservative than the other members of the university community. SFN . 30. Campus police have shown good ghdgment in dealing With campus demonstrations. 31. Most campus policg have favorable attitudes towards students. I; 32. There is a great danger of serious violent crime on campus. 33. Studenfs on campus have a high degr‘geFJy paranoia when it comes to police activity. . SF/V . . 34.0ampus police should make a magor effort to get rid of pushers of hard drugs like heroin. FN 35.The campus po ice do an excellent job of protecting life and pro erty on campus. Questions 36—37 sdguld be answered from your own knowledge, even if’you have to guess. Do not consult any source to help you with your answers. 36. How many police officers are employed by Kent State? ”1%.;9klgss than 25. 5F 0 2 “50 c.) 51-75 do) 76-100 e.) more than 100 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/be168c055f8c8fcff6dbd738d18bb161.tif e9f561f24b5923f658f7dd8888d154ef PDF Text Text 5. 37. What is the annual salary (éXCluding overtime) of a campus patrolman who has three yea 5 experience in the department? a.) less than $6,500 b.) $65500 to $75500 Sale.) $37,500 to $85500 F mg $8,500 to 5395500 e. more than 3 ,500 38. Indicate your position in the university: 5 a . ) undergrad student .§b. grad student . faculty or administration d. campus police lye. non—academic personnel 39. Indicate your position in the university more precisely: Students ’ * Grad Student Faculty a. ?reshman a. M.A. a. Instructor b. SOphomore " b. PhaD.. b. Asst. Prof c. junior c. specialrr c. Assoc. Prof d. senior d.wnon-degree d.LProfessor e. non—degree * ' ' ' e. Administrator Police Non—academig Eersonnel a. Operations a. secretarial-clerical b. staff segvices b. food services c. auxiliary services c. maintenance d. command d. other 40. Sex a.) Male b.) Female https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a823da42433db189d872a5f45add0bbf.tif 3858667ddd8d51a4ae7eeeaf0d0bd112 PDF Text Text . time \ 1 MWﬁLVW/ % 6- Spring 9 2? May 30, 1972 ' Police Interview N=l9 I.amiinterviewing you as part of the informationugathering efforts of the Campus Security Advisory Committee. As you may know, we have been surveying students, faculty, university employees and townspeoPle during the past week. We need now to have first hand information from the campus policemen. I have here a series of questions, but each should be considered Open-ended. Any additional points you want to make are welcome. All of your responses will be strictly confidential. EEKEEKKKEXXXMEEKXﬁiﬂﬂﬁﬁﬂﬁXhﬂﬁﬁﬁﬁﬁXﬁﬁxXXXﬁXKﬂKXIKXﬂEXﬁEEX 1. What do you feel are the typical student/faculty/non~academic employee attitudes toward the campus police? Consensus Most students support us; a minority do not. Most faculty support us; a greater proportion than of students. Non~academic employees give us the most support. There is no one vieWpoint that would characterize the university Minorit (Shared by 2 or more respondents.) ttitudes are mixed; change with the situation. The university is negative about the director, not the patrolmen. A large number of students are apathetic; don't care about police. Faculty are negative about police. ens respondent Students are favorable, but won't admit it; come to us when trouble arises. Opinion now is adverse, but it's usually good Students misunderstand what the police are trying to do. Some of the criticism was brought on by the officers themselves.- 2. What are the main problems that exist between the campus pOlice and the student body? Consensus ac 0 communication; public relations needed. 3 Students don't understand police as well as we understand them. i Most patrolmen either were or are college students. { Parking; police are not responsible for bad student parking on campus. f minority: The Kent Stater and other media present a biased negative View of ﬁﬁIX us., We have to live with the negative stereotype of police; bad image. 1 Police have a bad image; aggressive, militaristic. ‘ Students don't realize the many servides we perform. Ridership program has done a lot of good. Students are worried that we're spying on them. Students see us under only adverse conditions. Some police don't understand the students. One respondent Students need discipline; can't have complete freedom. Riot duty hurts our image; not police work; not why I joined the police. Our workload is now too high for us to be effective. We need better public relations at the desk.- Police leadership has overreacted in certain situations. Police should come from the student body. Poor security in dorms leads to thefts; we get bad image. Students are afraid we‘ll arrest them for drugs. Because of conformity pressures, students don't cooperate in solving crimes We're the establishment. 7 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a5357d42f69f5cd7cd5c45eeb776b39f.tif 6dadca5872f7df531d1161dd1c0a2ed7 PDF Text Text I} (.0 2‘ I! 3. What are the most serious crime problems on campus? Consensus: efts; mostly from dorms; some offices; some auto thefts; some break-in. Others mentioned: (no. of res ondents, in parentheses) " rugs ; Assaults (4 ; Armed robbery (l); Vandalism (10 Most frequent comment: Security is too lax in dorms and offices; students & faculty don't 0 h lock up; anyone can get in dorms; KSU is easy touch for thieves. t ers: About $22,000. per month last in thefts. Most crime comes from outsiders and a few students who shouldn't be here. Some of the thefts may be related to drugs; not much done about drugs. Detectives don't solve many crimes; big backlog. Most crime on campus is small stuff; not much serious crime. ,Can't get news about crime on campus into the Kent Stater. A. Under what conditions should the campus police carry on undercover surveillance activity? Consensus: V en Director of Security, in consultation with his staff,determines that it is necessary to protect life and property on coampss. Drug cases—~the only way to solve drug cases. Minority (2~6 zmxpx respondents) Subversive activity; attempts to destroy university. Police have to know what's going on; general intelligence. Undercover work must be carefully controlled; Olds involved; If students cooperated more, reported crime and testified, surveillance hardly needed. Individuals: Better to be on safe side and check out potential trouble; KSU police prevented serious trouble (e.g. bombings) in fall of '70. Criminals operate "undercover”; so must police to be effective. Surveillance hurts student—police relations. Drugs; needed to name get big man in county; no good just to bust dorms. Many crimes are committed under the influence of drugs. Olds should not be involved; Director of Security is a pro in his field. 5. Ideally, what should be the nature and mission of the Campus Police Department? (Q: what differences with municipal pd?) Consensus: " 0 protect life and property." "To serve and protect." Not essentially different from a municipal police department. Minorit : (2 to 5) %o suppress and investigate crime. Campus police deal with different people; younger, better educated. More knowledge, tact needed. Police are watched more closely. Campus police provide more services than Muni police;more security; babysitting function; emergency servide. Campus police have an educational mission. Nauture & Mission defined in current manual; the way we are now. Individuals: Stu ents don't realize how we protect them from crime from outsiders. Traffic is part of the mission. Campus police have to El ignorenuch of the minor stuff. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c53dca3022e0247437dd92fb7eba42c7.tif 0805d259381433435648c7afb9df36fb PDF Text Text - 3o 6. How does the role of a campus policeman differ from that of a municipal police officer? Eﬁlxﬁﬁﬁﬁﬁi One predominant View: Doesn't differ that much. Other predomiant view: ' nlver81ty IS a 1 ferent type of community; younger, more educated. Comments by 2 or more officers: Here there is more emphasis on security and services (e.g., ambulance) Campus police have a more educational function; educate students about law University has a better class of people that Ki a city. enforcement. Campus police have a harder job. Individuals: ampus po ice shouldn't put down riots; must be part of univ community. Minicipal police have more prestige; not looked on as security guards. Q: Why did you choose campus, rather than minicipal police work? Wide variety of responses: Campus police a better department; more money; , Like university; work with young people; educational benefits. Bad question: - Prefer a municipal dept.; more job security; less pressure; PO Univ.admin. 7. Would you say that your training is adequate for the specif c . job you perform? Q: How evaluate training? Suggestions? Consensus: Training is excellent; second to none. Minoyity view: Poor, worthless, fair. Need more training in community relations. Training was excellent, but stopped. Highway patrol academy: Very good; especially for new men; good for discipline. Too much emphasis on traffic; need more criminal training. Minority: disappointing; worthless; militaristic; Other View with 2 or 3 responses: Need a special school for campus police; Bowman Hall would be good; Individuals: ee more narcotics trainging. Earle Roberts' l20-hr school was great. . Should send more men to special training schools instead of wasting money on useless equipment. Need more money to continue training at desired levels. 8. HOW’WOuld you characterize the morale in the campus police department? "low"; "sort of low"; "pretty low"; "very low"; "not very good"; "not good"; "could be better"; "down"; "not what it should be"; "lousy"; "terrible"; "bad"; "about zero"; "stinks"; "poor"; "bad Split in dept."; "good in some divisions-~others not so good": Q: Cause: (in descending order of frequency) small number of men are undisciplined, old—guard and constantly complain. Can't be fired or disciplined because of no cooperation from Personnel Off. Budget cuts have created great anxiety about job security; don't trust Olds. Patrolmen are undermanned; relatively too many work inside. Poor communication between Fyke & other "higher-ups" and patrolmen. Men don't trust or have faith in their supervisor3¢ Promotions policy is not fair; favoritism. Representative quotes: Fyke is ahead of his time; I have great respect for him. More men are needed on the road, where the action is. Police take it from the public, and expect to, but shouldn't have to take it within the police department. Fyke too busy to communicate well with the men. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/46eaa2cfbea5352e21b76787382440b9.tif f9ff81be0fcafe886eb4153a55883cbd PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: .Not to be cited. The Campus Police at Kent State: A Survey of Opinion Subcommittee report prepared for the Campus Security Advisory Committee, June 1972. D. James Dooling Kent State University NOTE: The conclusion drawn in this report are that of only one member of the Campus Security Advisory Cornmittee. This report does not necessarily represent the considered judgment of the Campus Security Advisory Committee. DRAFT COPY: Not te be cited. NOTE: In its present form, this document cannot be considered a reliable or valid representation of Opinion for the following reasons: 1. It is based on imcomplete returns. Questionnaires were still being received daily as this first draft was being written. 2. ApprOpriate inferential statistics have not been performed on the data. Some differences that look significant, may not be. Some differences that do not look significant, may be. 3. Appnpriate internal checks on the validity and reliability of individual items have not been carried out. For example, some items may have been ambiguous and not given the interpretation intended by the author. Such items have yet to be discovered or eliminated. 4. Deadline pressures have not allowed for a thoughtful and careful interpretation of the results. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c802ac93e0c2306f492cf1332e3a3f52.tif 2064183b9ec3caadcf3a3f6c126d11c4 PDF Text Text DRAFT‘COPY: not :93 pg cited. . Abstract As part of a general study of the Kent State University Police Department, a survey of Opinion was concucted. Students, Faculty, and Non-academic employees responded to a AO-item questionnaire. TwonspeOple were surveyed by telephone. Campus policemen took the AO—item questionnaire" and were interviewed as well. The survey was done at a time of great adverse publicity toward the campus police. ALL RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE TENTATIVE UNTIL MORE EXTENSIVE ANALYSES ARE CARRIED OUT ON THE DATA. The major findigns are: (a) Students are. neither positive nor negative toward the campus police, the largest number are neutral.(b(Faculty and staff generally support the campus' police. (c) The university community wants a police department, but sees it as making security its primary function. (d) Undercover surveillance is permissable if the president of the university is . . involved in the decision. (e) The question of drugs is very confusing and potentially very ﬁiiiiﬁﬁlﬁiﬂﬁﬁ trOublesome. if) Students and . faculty don't want the campus police involved in political activity, but staff, townspeOple and police see it as necessary. (g) the campus police department needs to be more effective in its public relations. (hO There is a serious morale problem in the campus police department. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/13a60adf5e7e26826934b5d6bfe70752.tif e130372caeb10c4d655b398a8088644c PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: hnot to cited. (1) 1'6. Summary and Conclusions All conclusions drawn at the present time must be interpretted with great caution due to the reasons previously given. ' - -" The general picture that emerges is that the campus police have good support from the faculty and non—academic employees, while the - student body is-either divided or neutral. The large number of students who are neutral towards the police may reflect apathy or lack of contact--‘ or it may mean that students judge police according to individual situations. It is nevertheless clear that students are not overwhelmingly negative toward our campus police department. ' While the events of this spring have not had vary much effect on the overall feelings toward the police, there are two possible changes in attitude that may have occurred: (a) While the average rating remains about the same, there may be a slight tendency towards more polarization at the present time. FrOm 1971 to 1972, both positive and negative evaluations increased slightly. (b) There may be a good deal more student concern about surveillance and record~keepin~. All segments of the university provide strong suppoft for having a campus police force that is staffed by professional police who are well-paid. The tendency, however, is to stress security and to de—emphasize investigatory work. The problem with investigations centers on political activity and drugs. The role of the campus police in both of these areas needs sharper definition so that they engage in activities that have the support of the people on campus. This must, of course, be balanced against the pressures from townspeOple who are greatly concerned about drugs and who do not want student demonstrations impinging on the town. ’ ‘ The surveillance policy adOpEed by CSAC seems to closely reflect the opinions of the university community. There is a serious morale problem in the campus police department. It is not clear as to what is the most important aspect, but several of the following actions seem to be called for: (a)Increased communication between the Director of Security and his men. (b) Granting the director power to discipline men without going through the personnel office.(c) a study of office vs patrol needs should be conducted. (d) A clear procedure for promotion should be instituted to ensure fairness. (e) The men must be given reasonable job security——the campus community agrees that we hhould pay good salaries to attract good people. Likewise, the university administration should provide present patrolmen with reasonable job security. While the campus police get more favorable than unfavorable ratings, it is also clear that overall performance tends to be rated as only fair. This may mean that there is a real need for improvement. Or——it may be the normal kind of.rating that police departments can typically expect to get. A control study, sing other college campuses would give us some information on this question. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Report: “The Campus Police at Kent State: A Survey of Opinion” Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1972-08 Description Report titled "The Campus Police at Kent State: A survey of Opinion," prepared for the Campus Security Advisory Committee in August 1972 by D. James Dooling. Includes a copy of a draft with handwritten annotations. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 100 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 May 4 Author Dooling, D. James dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0ba920868af8ff32722febaf60bcbc6d.tif 5a937c2f8476ab09196faa477f5f219c PDF Text Text Report Submitted Friday, November 17, 1972 E2; CAMPUS SECURITY POLICIES AND OPERATIONS https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e13231aa5ac58ca0cd87fcb3644a7a89.tif a4e3db379e68798a2c88af4b73227a68 PDF Text Text PREFACE Whereas in the course of human events it oft becomes necessary to confront frustration and failing within a group; Whereas this committee has not fulfilled its charge nor accurately represented all of its findings; Whereas data gathered indicates severe morale problems within the police depart— ment and the University community; Whereas sundry incidents demonstrate Mr. Fyke's operational procedures to be questionable; Whereas seVeral members of this committee have displayed dissatisfaction with the original committee report of June 12, 1972; Whereas the communication and exchange of information between the committee and Dr. Olds has been incomplete; Whereas this issue is a very important and immediate one for our community; We, Thomas Anderson, Tobie Fixler, Allan Morris, and Michael White, hereby submit this report. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b2dfd5c5a62dd035bc7f960c8bfe6fc6.tif d26001e6d1cb4a91ecdac5f0c88c447e PDF Text Text FAILURE 9E CAMPUS SECURITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CSAC) 3g VIEW RAW DATA .111. INTELLIGENCE Eggs In an interudepartmental correspondence dated March 2, 1972, Dr. Ronald W. Roskens, Executive Vice President, wrote that the charge of the Campus Security Advisory Board included the following responsibility: “To reflect the concerns of the University Community on sensitive issues related to Security. In this context, an immediate responsibility of the Committee shall be an assessment of the question of surveillance and the accessibility of Security records. The Committee shall regard as its proper purpose the nature and kinds of information gathered, rather than upon whom such information is gathered, and the confidentiality of information made available to them shall be preserved. The Committee is, in this instance, specifically charged to formulate a policy recommendation on this sensitive subject. It is expected that all facets of the matter including legal and ethical constraints will be wreighed.‘7 The implication of this correspondence is that CSAC shall have access to the raw data of the intelligence files so that it might determine "the nature and kinds of information gathered.“ Having such an understanding is essential if CSAC is to weigh “all facets of the matter including legal and ethical constraints.” In the May 30, 1972, minutes of CSAC it was reported that: "The (Green) subn I committee has begun a process of seeing the files and evaluating the record keeping operations.“ However, one learns from the Green report that “the subcommittee agreed to view only the index cards.“ In doing this, the subcommittee became incapable of adequately fulfilling its charge of determining what information is gathered. As a matter of fact, viewing only the index cards and thus learning the names of some who are included in this datamgathering and data—filing system, was contrary to the directives given the committee by R. Roskens on March 2, 1972. It is not the position of this paper, however, that one could avoid or ought to avoid knowledge of who is included in the files. In the case of faculty, students, ministers, and others, perhaps listed in the files, knowing their names is a key to understanding https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d85f0983ff684e879bc715711787b855.tif 8393fe615e76cbf6243d6e3c0719889f PDF Text Text 3. the nature of these intelligence files and the policy for including certain names. At the CSAC meeting of July 31, 1972, ”Smells (and Anderson, Dooling, Greene, White, et. a1.) expressed dissatisfaction in not being able to actually see the files that are kept.“ At the August 3, 1972, meeting “It was agreed that we would clear up the matter (of intelligence files by the end of August and begin work on other issues by about Oct. 1." To this date, this matter has not been cleared; nor has the committee met from August 18 to November 13, two and one half months. Conclusion: There is a need for the CSAC to have full and complete access to the intelligence files in order to make more adequate determination of the data included in the files. The Greene subcommittee had intended to build an atmosphere of trust with Mr. Fyke, so that it might gain access to the intelligence files and be privy to the kinds of data collected. However, that subcommittee gained access only to the index cards of the intelligence files-~not the files themselves. As Roberts wrote euphemistically and with generous consideration to Mr. Fyke (memo dated August 7, 1972): "Our discussion (with you) revealed that the Committee (including the Greene subcommittee of which I was a member) is still not satisfied with their knowledge andmlipunderstanding of these files nor can they reconcile their present understanding with the views.you have expressed about these same files." Discussion in the Committee meeting of August 3 (after Fyke had left) was even more pointed and heated. Those members present knew full well that MT- Fyke had contradicted earlier statements he made regarding: l) consolidation of files with city police; 2) the method for inclusion in the files; and 3) the system of arrang» ing and filing (e.g., manner of listing of ministers). https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5a6c9017cb718bb8c16915b8e1c22465.tif 3f6296c08e290047aba3a69d8a836634 PDF Text Text DISCREPANCY BETWEEN "SURVEILLANCE AND FILES REPORT" 91: 9533.; AS COMPARED TO THE REPORT OF CSAC'S GREEN SUBCOMMITTEE “Wﬂp—MWW On June 12, 1972, the CSAC Report on Campus Security was presented to Dr. Olds. On page nine of the report, it says: "The majority of student respondents (to the Dooling survey) also believe that the campus police keep files on the political activities of students. The Committee did not find the last statement to be true, although in a few individual cases, information of a non~criminal nature was collected on individuals apparently not known for any criminal activities." Throughout the CSAC meetings, it was apparent to the committee and determined by it that campus police do in_fact keep files on the political activities of students (see Greene subcommittee report, p. 2) and in some cases follow them wherever they might go. How, then, could the CSAC Report conclude that "the Com- mittee did not find the last statement to be true"? As Mr. Fyke's statements indicate, and as the Greene report concludes, "The range of campus folk included as both student and faculty (and not to mention off—campus and ministers), appeared to be rather broad and the maintenance of the system appeared rather poor, e.g. many of the records were without offense identifying codes." Furthermore, "criterion for inclusion in the files follows: a. An arrestee or suspect with possible arrest imminent ~ for the following reasons : l. narcotics 2. violent activity (revolutionary) 3. gambling 4r . prostitution b. Names submitted by other departments c. Person who is a continuing source of information d. Victim e. Sex related crimes f. Pornography https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e9b62d530917b1b8d48137788c9c77b9.tif dec5b82cfd548ba2ddd020d193fe092a PDF Text Text 5. In view of some of the names (and groups) included, criterion is not closely adhered to." Such names and groups include: Professor Jerry Lewis, advisor to Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and to Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), Ken Johnson, former president of VVAW, Kent Gay Liberation Front, and apparently (based on information from the Greene subucommittee) an extensive file on members of Black United Students. Thus, the Green report would seem to contradict the CSAC's comment that only “in a §§E_individual cases, infbrmation of a non-criminal nature was collected on individuals apparently not known for any criminal activities." (p. 9) There was no mention in the SCAC Report that files are also kept on faculty members~nsome for no more serious a "crime" than that of being advisor to a certain organization (i.e., SDS, VVAW, Gay Liberation). No mention was made in the CSAC Report to Dr. Olds regarding the fact that "any law enforcement agency has access to this (largely unverified) information" (Greene subcommittee report, p. 2). Nor was “it mentioned that Chief Fyke believes any employer has a right to know all he can about a prospective employee, regardless whether it is information of a non~criminal or personal nature" (memo from M. White to E. Roberts, dated July 26, 1972). It should also be noted that Mr. Fyke said that the campus police conduct all background investigations for the university civil service employment. Complaints have been heard from several workers on campus that their nonwacademic personnel files contain unverified information and false charges from university administra- tors regarding their Job integrity and fulfillment of Job responsibility. We must ask, what role do the police play in the promulgation of such falsehoods or in their verification process? What is the relationship between the personnel and the police departments, especially in terms of filewkeeping and file sharing? The Personnel Department's role in secretly paying undercover agents raises suspicions in these other areas of concern as well. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/850ae438ee4aba0112dac2535074ac20.tif 40783c47541f5f667c67fb9a81b95f6b PDF Text Text 6. Conclusion: Important discoveries made during the spring were not included in the CSAC Report and consequently not passed on to Dr. Olds. In several cases, the CSAC Report was misleading and inaccurate. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ee84a82b0fb0ce0b1005b6136ddd51de.tif fa81d9312bd567f3853096c413cb573b PDF Text Text .INCLUSION QE_KENT CITIZENS IE_INTELLIGENCE FILES Mr. Fyke said at a meeting in spring quarter with CSAC that the ministers of the toWn are included in the intelligence files. The names of ministers are filed by name and not according to the organization or church to which they belong or to which they serve as advisor. Mr. Fyke attempted to explain this away by saying this is simply an information file (much like the master index file with the dispatcher), used for phone, address, etc. information. The point is, if Mr. Fyke needs to contact a local minister for one reason or another, why does he not list them under a professional or organizational category (such as “Local Ministers') rather than the minister's name? This makes it impossible to locate ministers of certain faiths unless Mr. Fyke knows them all personally. More simply, why doesn't Mr. Fyke use a telephone book for the clergy listing? Statements to the CSAC would indicate the possibility that clergy are included in this file because of their activities in the community. At a meeting of CSAC, Mr. Fyke later claimed (when again questioned about the presence of clergy in campus police intelligence files) that clergy names are listed according to their profession, and not according to alphabetical listing of their names. Such inclusion of clergy in the files is for informational purposes, according to Mr. Fyke. Purportedly, the listing enables him to reach clergy by phone or by letter. Conclusion: Mr. Fyke's rationale has been both contradictory and confusing. Serious questions must be asked regarding the procedure for inclusion of clergy in intelligence files. What other citizens are included in these files? https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/815de03a2f295d3682e5dd4e7c204791.tif 2ec9cee1660d59dbeb7b0e9e29656774 PDF Text Text CONSOIQAEIQI 9;: CAMPUS AND CITY POLICE DEPARTMENTS' INTELLIGENCE FILES The minutes of the meeting of CSAC on April 19, 1972, read: "(Chairman) Roberts read number three of the charge to the committee, stating that security records should be our first order of business. The pr§§e23.plan to combine the records of City and Campus Police was discussed. Roberts suggested that Mr. Fyke and Chief Myers be invited to come in and explain the plan.... Roberts suggested that we first gather information on current plans for record sharing with the city." And again in a memo to Dr. Glenn Olds from Earle Roberts dated August 3, 1972,‘ one finds that: "The Committee is very concerned over the proposed consolidation of records as it pertains to the campus security intelligence files. The Committee strongly recommends that the intelligence files not be physically moved nor consoliw dated with the Kent police files for a minimum of two weeks to allow the Committee to study the impact of such a move." These minutes and memo indicate that during the spring and even late summer, the committee was led to believe that no consolidation of records and files had yet occurred- The following will clearly show that consolidation of intelligence files (raw data as well as index cards) had occurred a year earlier than the committee was originally led to believe by Mr. Fyke. In further explication, let it be noted that the index card file might refer the reader to names (such as aCQuaintances, business partners, roommates, etc.) other than that of the person whose index card it is. At a meeting of the CSAC held on August 18, 1972, Mr. Fyke said that the index card file began about May, 1971, and consolidation of such index cards with the Ohio State Patrol and Kent City Police occurred shortly thereafter. There is an exchange of copies of any such index cards or additions to such index cards. However, Mr. Fyke had told the Greene subcommittee in the spring that none of the file folders (i.e.,raw data and in- formation contained in the intelligence files) were exchanged and consolidated with other police agencies. Yet on August 18, 1972, Mr. Fyke totally reversed his previous statements. First, he said that folders too were sometimes consolidated. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d686b169181ed9859a69318c94f45dbc.tif 518b86b745246ad1d5e53510641c96dd PDF Text Text 9. Then, later he said that at least 90% of this intelligence data had been consoli— dated. With regard to the cooperation of the two Kent police departments in drug investigations and campus "disruptions", most cases are Joint cases. "To leave the impression that most of the information is unavailable would be wrong," stated Fyke. Information had been exchanged on a weekly or bi-weekly basis at Joint departmental meetings of local police departments, National Guard and others. The first records that were consolidated between city and campus police were the intelligence files (including data, not just index cards). "They were of first priority," said Fyke. Conclusion: 1) Debate over whether or not city and campus police should consolidate their intelligence files is moot, for this consolidation (hotly debated in Kent City Council and amongst elements of the Kent State University faculty and student bodies) has already occurred. 2) Mr. Fyke purposely misled the Greene subcommittee and the CSAC (and apparent— ly the Kent City Council) to believe that intelligence files and the infor~ mation contained therein had not been consolidated. However, we find that this consolidation has already occurredu-that it is not a plan for the future, but is instead a fact of the past. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a906727e07a0382bcb14990c2c583494.tif d0739deae2a03be7e1eb927205dc0474 PDF Text Text 10. PURGING QE_KENT STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE INTELLIGENCE FILES In a memo from Mr. Roberts to Dr. Olds, dated August 3, 1972, it was written: "Although it has not been formally adopted, in all probability, a recommen- dation will be made that the present intelligence files and their supporting index cards be purged of all names and incidents connected with non—criminal activity. Several supporting recommendations will be made regarding what type of information should not be kept in these files and how to effectively monitor adherence to the previously recommended and adopted policy on informationngathering and retention." In fact, CSAC minutes show that on July 31, it was "recommended that President Olds order Mr. Fyke to purge the intelligence records." This task force unanimously concurs that most of the intelligence files under the control of the campus police ought to be purged. We are distressed that CSAC has not cleared up the matter of surveillance and intelligence files "by the end of August" as it had promised. However, we urge that such clearing (in the form of purging) be done immediately. We also concur with the minutes of CSAC (August 18) which report: "Smella suggested that monitoring procedures are needed to see that our policy recommenda~ tions are implemented." Not only must procedures be designed for the monitoring of policies at the point at which they are to occur, but continuing monitoring is necessary to see that the policies are adhered to in the future. Conclusion: Intelligence files must be purged under the direction and super— vision of a committee of workers, students, faculty, and the President of the University. To this date, no such purging has occurred. } https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/29758ae79d3679bb83c0a0acd5dd78e0.tif b8ecbf416d26849207c5d0f4b319e954 PDF Text Text ll. REGARDING THE PURGING QE_CAMPUS POLICE FILES .————-——.———.—.~_—- At the August 18 meeting of CSAC, Mr. Fyke made the following points: » (It would be) ”hypocrisy to have the Kent State University Police Department destroy records and turn over intelligence to the Kent Police Department; files merely stored in a different place. - (Fyke favors) increased consolidation with the Kent Police Department; duplication of departments is professionally indefensible." The fact of the matter is that for over one and a half years city and campus police have had consolidated intelligence files and have worked together in surveillance and intelligence matters. So, a purging of the campus files would not eliminate the duplicates which exist in the city files (as well as in the files of other agencies). However, it will put an end to Kent State University's possession of such files, though possibly not an end to their use by Kent State University police through an informal cooperative agreement with city police. Furthermore, reduction of surveillance and data—gathering by campus police will reduce, to some extent, the total amount of surveillance done on this campus by all police and investigative agencies. Such reduction will also provide a greater opportunity for the proper and more beneficial use of the hard-earned monies paid out in taxes by the working people of the State of Ohio. They are helping to pay for the education of their children and their neighbors' children, not for the establishment of a net- work of informers and provacateurs. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d65d5786fa7841aa1d8544118944716e.tif eec60bef80789825709c3b46a25c67db PDF Text Text 12. HISTORY QE.UNDERCOVER AGENTS AND COVERT SURVEILLANCE §E_KENT STATE UNIVERSITY The furor caused this past spring by the exposure 0f Reinhold Mbhr may have been unusual in terms of the news COVerage it received and the concern demonstrated by the campus community. What is not unusual, however, is the use of students (and others) to infiltrate organizations; to become friendly with so~called activists. Mohr is but the tip of an iceberg in terms of the extensive network of paid police (and other governmental agencies). Some of the following examples of the use of undercover agents are from the period in which Donald Schwartzmiller was chief of campus security. Several examples are from the period in which James Fyke has been chief. The point to be recognized is not under which police chief more undercover agents have been exposed— but how the policy of undercover infiltration has been carried through and incor~ porated by both security chiefs and used to discredit and destroy the views and activities of certain political groups and persons. The school year of 1968ul969 saw several major activities at Kent State University: the sit-in by B.U.S. and SDS at the Oakland Police recruiting center in the fall of 1968, and the Music and Speech incident in the spring of 1969. In hearings before the Committee on Internal Security of the House of Represent~ atives on June 2h and 25, 1969, Margaret Ann Murvay revealed herself as a Kent State University police agent. Murvay was working for the police as early as the Oakland sit~in in NOVember of 1968. Holding the position of news director for the campus radio station, WKSU, Mhrvay "associated with man" of the one students at Kent... (and) talked to them, interviewed them in (her) capacity as a member of the radio station personnel." (p. 527) Murvay would make tapes for the radio station in interviews with activists and others, and then turn copies of the tapes over to the police. In some cases, she was guilty of breaching the confidentiality of her https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ec9926a0270d59e0f81214624ba5513d.tif c2385bb68bf4d0aacfb463dfda513bac PDF Text Text 13. sources of information. Her misuse of campus radio equipment and monies is deplorablem—not to mention her total disregard for any ethical integrity that should have accompanied her acceptance of the position as news director with WKSU. During the Music and Speech incident, several hundred students were trapped inside the building. A professor was able to help many escape by way of an elevator. Howevers fifty-nine persons were arresteduuamong the charges they were accused of were trespassing and attempted takeover of the building. The Rudrum Report of the American AsSociation of University Professors indicates that police may have in fact trapped students in the building. In the spring of 1971, the truth was PubliShed in The Daily §§n3_Stater. Chief Schwartzmiller admitted that SDS and others were led from Kent Hall (where they thought conduct hearings were to be held for several of their friends) to the Music and Speech building by undercover agents who had infiltrated their group and associated with them. Schwartzmiller said, “It was a trap." Police unlocked and unchained the doors, while undercover agents led students into the building. Thereaftera the doors were locked and SDS and supporters were not permitted to leave. About five hours later, the Ohio State Patrol arrived and the arrests were made. Charges against all but a few of the fifty—nine were subsequently dropped (those few being the supposed core of radical leadership). In its investigation of this incident and that of Margaret Murvay, this task force sought the aid of Mr. Roger Benefield in the Personnel Department of the University. Mr. Benefield and his staff were unable to discover any listing of Margaret Ann Murvay on the police payroll. Under oath she testified before a committee of Congress that she worked ”on the campus in the police department." How is it she is not listed in police payroll records? By what method was she paid? These are but a preliminary to the list of questions that ought to be answered by the police and university administration. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c6f6efdff876093eb8f8f266f74135b3.tif 3620fe7d8124cedb3ea1305cefba3aeb PDF Text Text 1h In her testimony Murvay mentions a William: Armstrong who wrote an editorial for the Daily Kent Stater during the crisis period on campus in the spring of 1969. Armstrong as an editor for the campus paper attempted to link members of the steering committee of Concerned Citizens of KSH Community (CCC) in affiliation with SDS. CCC had been formed to protest the mass arrests at Music and Speech, to call for the dropping of charges, and to protest ”the immediate suspension of the laws of the Student Conduct Code.“ (p. 520) It was shortly thereafter proven that the charges that CCC was controlled by SDS members and sympathizers were false. As a result of that inaccurate and fallacious editorial written by William Armstrong, 000 was destroyed, and support for CCC and SDS was eliminated, thus making it impossible for a swift determination of the facts of the matter. William Armstrong was on the payroll of the university police. Here again, in the area of news service, we find a conflict of interest. Another undercover agent exposed by activists was Denny Durand, a principal officer in the university Veterans Association. He was finally uncovered by a trick or procedure that has been used in the past. A small group of people, who were conscious of the fact that their phones were probably tapped, communicated by phone to one another that there was going to be a meeting at a certain time and certain place. Of course, no meeting was planned but Durand showed up anyway. The only way he could haVe possibly gotten the information was through the phone tap. When he ShOWed up at the meeting, that had Just been called for the purpose of exposing him, it was obvious to those involved that Durand was a police agent. Financial records obtained by this task force document that Durand was indeed listed as Policeman I, receiving at least $3.55 per hour, hired as a regular policeman for at least seven months we and apparently was hired before that period as a member of the “mod sguad,“ a group of “hip" looking persons https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/caa3f0d5c3ca5018391ca1028d4a02b9.tif c1a839515cc54121a0ec8dd6ce9af061 PDF Text Text 15. who as Mr. Fyke has confessed to the CSAC, ”marched in marches and attended meetings and rallies.“ Another incident of misuse of Civil Service Classifications and Jobs, is the case reported in a recent issue of LThe Union News,” the news bulletin of Local 153 of the Association of Federal9 State, County and Municipal Employees. That story follows: KSU POLICE SCAI'IDAL sxrossn t a LabormManagement meeting held at the Eastwood Motel on May 9th between AFSCME and University officials, Hr. Herschel Sigall, Executive Director of Council No. 21 and attorney for Local 1533 confronted the University with documented evidence that Commander Bionard Savelle, a top aide to Director James Fyke in the YSU Security Department, committed a deliberate breach of ethics and an extreme lack of candor when he recom- mended a former Civil Service employee to the University“s Personnel Office for employment at Kent State. Savelle stated in a letter to Edgar Muth3 Assistant Director of Non: Academic Personnel, that "Mr. [Edward] Sanford is the type that any company would look upon as the model employee, not only in his ability to learn but also his willingness to be a ’company man.’ He is well« liked by others that work with him and worked with him in the past.: Savelle went on to say that he had known Sanford 'exceptionally well“ for the last 15 years.V These statements are extremely interesting in view of information which has subsequently come to light on Sanfordg During this same 15 year period, Sanford had been in and out of state and federal prisons. He has been charged with crimes ranging from traffic and littering violations to rape9 car theft, hit and run, transporting for immoral purposesa parole violation; armed robbery, presenting a false money order, extortion, and public drunkenness. .In a statement made to campus police officers a KSU coeda charged Sanford with rape. Sanford had been apparently either posing or functioning as an undercover agent for the campus police and may have been using to gain information on campus activities. However? shortly after tne rape charge came to the attention of Commander savelle and his superiors, was offered a position with the KSU Campus Police in their radio room and her charges against Sanford were withdrawn. tbanwhile, through the efforts of Mr. Donald Zimmerman5 KSU’s Director of Employee Relations, Sanford was asked to resign from the University and the matter was temporarily hushed up. After being confronted with this evidence the University negotiators, include ing Mr. Zimmerman) wouldamake no statements regarding what disciplinary actions if any, are being considered. It is most important to remember that the Campus Police conduct all background investigations of university civil service employees. A poor job was done here. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c40768323eb4c18e62621b8ad172df3b.tif 190cf925ad771ec3bdd2778506668ef9 PDF Text Text 16. For what reason, for what purpose? Further investigation shows Edward Sanford was hired as a civil service employee, Equipment Operator II in the University Supply Center. Since this job was a front for him to carry out undercover activities, his superiors did not take much notice of his absence from his job. In checking financil records, this task force was unable to locate on the university police payroll. However, it was determined that she was a private first class in the Army, on a srholarship from Walter Reed Army Institute of Hursing3 and a coed cadet of ROTC. It has been suggested by our sources that she fulfilled a similar role of studeniwagent while she h ., worked ior t1 3 e police. I- The case of Terry Norman5 a student who worked as an agent and photographer for the campus police (and he once claimed for the FBI also) is more frighteningo Norman is the studentuagent who ”as carrying a lung drew it , pointed it, and pistolmwhipped another student with it within moments of the killing of four students on the campus by the Ohio Rational Guard. The debate still rages as to whether or not he fired his gun um and just what he was doing with a gun in the first place. Horman has since left Kent and gone to work for the Washington9 D,C. police and most recently for the Liami, Florida, poli-e department. ' This past school year of l9Ylw72 brought the names of Gary Hickerson, Charles J; Frankhouser and Reinhold Mohr to the attention of this task force; The Hickerson case was ekpt quiet by Mr. Sivulich and Mr. Fyke » and ajudicated in a closed hearing of the Student Conduct or Judicial Affairs Office. More is known about Frankhouser. He was listed as an aeninistrative specialist in the fiscal performance unit of the campus police department. He was in possession of an expired Cleveland Press pass. Operating under the guise of a newspaper reporter and photographer, Frankhouser would supply university police and administrators with photographs of students participating https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b2e7730985376c28a1d92990436cb564.tif c6832e4958ac5f9be3ce1e1168c0f68f PDF Text Text 17. in peaceful demonstrations. His cover was being blown by two separate groups working simultaucuusly but without each others' knowledge, Stater reporters and local activists. He was finally exposed last spring in The Daily Kent Stater. The Reinhold Mohr case will be dealt with separately in this report, as this case has several crucial facets which must be explored in depth. The attempt here has been made to inform the public about the extended policy 53? the use of undercover agents which has been used at least up until this past year (and quite possibly as time may reveal, this year too ) by the campus police. The danger which this policy poses to us all is quite evident. Activists may fear for their- very lives, or suspect traps are being prepared so that they might be Jailed. The press ought to fear for the unethical abuse, 'our local news services have suffered. There is great concern over the apparent manipulation of news stories broadcast or published by these services. With such infiltration of the news services by police agents we are fearful that not only the truth is distorted or withheld from us; but that the most basic facts, necessary to make‘any assessment of what the truth actually is, are also distorted an withheld. At the August 18, 1972 meeting of CSAC J. Fyke contended that there was no photographic or cOVert surveillance of the commemoration services of May, h 1972. He commented that the gathering was a memorial service and not a political rally or meeting. However, others asserted that officer William Maxwell was present that day, taking pictures of the speakers and of the crowd. Fyke then claimed that for a very specific reason Maxwell was removed from the scene and not present taking pictures. Interviews that members of this task force have had with persons attending the memorial services on the commons contradict Fyke's assertions that Maxwell was not present and that photographic surveillance was not conducted. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c311f20944001e03ed8bb8ade74625f1.tif 9a99fbd5844ad0589d9c5b28940bf875 PDF Text Text 18. Several persons recognized Maxwell, and one even saw him adjust the microphone moments befbre one of the speakers began to address the crowd. These persons saw him taking photographs. One person even reported a conversation with a local reporter who was stunned to learn that Maxwell was with the police department. That reporter said Maxwell had introduced himself to him as a photographer-reporter from the news service of a major television broadcasting company (again that old strategy). In spite of these reports, Fyke has continued to deny the presence of Maxwell and photographic surveillance on May h, 1972. This task force is convinced, however, that these other witnesses reports are the accurate ones. Evidence has been gathered (among the sources, testimony at a trial in Portage County) that certain administrators furnished some students (and not responsible "leaders from Student Government, etc.") with walkie~talkies so that they could keep the administration and police aware of the activities and whereabouts of "student activists." We find this appalling and disgraceful, not unlike the neighborhood spy systems of Nazi Germany and Orwell's lg§g, Further investigation also shows that Robert Winkler and others have solicited students to be informants and undercover agents, even after the adoption of a surveillance policy last spring. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0e80e1a4762808d04caa3a0e7914f44b.tif 0e6ad550d8520e306ca5787c83449a92 PDF Text Text l9. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES - CONFLICTING VIEWS OE POLICE ADMINISTRATION AND QE_THE PRESIDENT AND HIS APPOINTED REPRESENTATIVES At a meeting on May 5, President Olds told the CSAC in the presence of Assistant Attorney General Eric Gilbertson that the president of the university has authority by law over campus police records. Committee members, he went on to say, could be given access to those records. The next day, May 6, Chief Fyke "expressed reservations about the committee having access to records. (He claimed) It would be unethical and illegal. It is university policy to maintain confidentiality of individual records." (CSAC minutes.) Perhaps the minutes of June 7 describe the situation and what ought to be done: "President Olds and Director Fyke should work out an agreement on the basic philosophy of the campus police department." There is an obvious discrepancy between what Olds says and claims ought to be done and will be done, and between what Hr. Fyke says and claims has been done and what he continues to do. For instance, during the ROTC sit-in in Rockwell Hall last April, reliable sources tell us that Olds ordered Nr.wake‘to have the police go in unarmed. Instead, Mr. Fyke sent his men into Rockwell with sidearms. Olds was outraged at the disregard of his orders and fearful that this kind of military display could lead to more tension and escalation of an already critical situation. In the absence of a policy and procedure, tasks of security functions "will be performed in a manner consistent with related policy and procedures and within the overall philosophy and goals they are intended to serve.... Tactical operations are clearly the responsibility of the Director of Security and they should conform to agreed upon policies and procedures, and, im— portantly, with the philosophical role of campus policing on the Kent State University Campus." (CSAC June 12 Report, p. 10.) It seems, however, to this task force that the operations of the security forces are in conflict with the policy and procedures and the philosophy of campus https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/88b720313a98c00deafc8f28f744dc4b.tif c64a989c0451fc83fc998b5b351e885b PDF Text Text 20. policing at this university. Fyke's objections to the surveillance policy adopted by the president are a classical example. On April 29, having inspected the surveillance policy proposed by CSAC and adopted by Olds, ryke maintained that covert activity (i.e., surveillance) was necessary for the purpose of protecting life and property at K.S.U. "Covert surveillance is routine and necessary; without it, the university would close.... The proposed policy on surveillance would handicap campus police" (CSAC minutes, 1). 1, April 29). Fyke also went on to say that "President Olds can't be privy to criminal matters; should not be included in operational details of surveillance activity" (Ibid.). Notifying the President alone would be "impractical and legally questionable" (Ibid. p. 2). Fyke's resistance to policies suggested by CSAC and accepted by Olds would indicate an incompatibility on the part of the Director of Security with the Kent State University community. His reluctance to make privy to information his immediate superior, President Olds, and any appointed and authorized authority of the President such as CSAC makes cooperation difficult and monitoring of policies and procedures by representatives of the community impossible. The questions to be answered are: WHO DOES THE K.S.U. POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVE AND TO WHOM IS IT RESPONSIBLE? Fyke also said that he "is sensitive to deployment of resources in (his depart— ment; (he) took many men off intelligence" (CSAC minutes, August 18, 1972). "'Secret watching' on campus has been reduced 80% since Fyke took over," the chief stated (CSAC minutes, April 29). How Fyke arrived at the figure 80% was never explained to CSAC. And it has been difficult to determine whether or not he has indeed taken many men off intelligence gathering, and Just how many are presently working at it. The evidence would indicate, however, that since Fyke became Director of Security at K.S.U., data— gathering for intelligence files has in fact rapidly increased. "The system (the intelligence index card file) has been in Operation fer slightly less than one year https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1919d42577a60c98cadec38a05417bc0.tif 0ba1e5001fd5662d837f8fe31dad2421 PDF Text Text 21. and already has approximately 3,000 cards (some date back almost five years)." (Greene report, pp. 1—2, June 2, 1972). Investigations show that most of those 3,000 cards (though some do date back five years) are of recent origin. The older cards were fewer in number and poorly organized. The newer cards have greatly increased the size of the intelligence files. The organization might at best be said to be slightly better ("the main- tenance of the system appeared rather poor,"- Greene report, p. 2, June 2). https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/32b92f1f43f3f315f58dd27079525f0d.tif 9a5ae3a6439d5d93ad847b0e5f9c94f4 PDF Text Text FYKE'S CHARGES AGAINST A_CSAC MEMBER On August 18, 1972, Mr. Fyke accused CSAC member, Michael White, of releasing confidential information (about and from the police department) to the public. Fyke claimed that this information was used in a leaflet distributed on campus. Fyke amended his charge that White had procured the information from within the police department to the charge that White had obtained the information at two meetings of the CSAC. The one meeting was with Fyke himself on April 29, and the other meeting was with Fyke and President Olds on May 6. So Fyke asserted that White had broken the confidentiality of closed meetings of CSAC. Though he could not explain to CSAC what the information was that White had allegedly released, he promised he could produce the leaflet and prove that White was involved in the release of the data and in its publication. Furthermore, he would show that this information was of a confidential and sensitive nature. The CSAC directed Fyke to proceed and to send CSAC more details regarding this charge. This charge was to be dealt with immediately at the next CSAC meeting. White responded in writing to Fyke's charges in a memo addressed to Chairman Roberts, dated August 21, 1972. "I am still amazed and dumbfounded at the suddenness, the lack of clarity, and the lack of substantiation of the allegations (that I have made public secret and confidential information and data damaging to the committee, its investigations and concerns, or the appearance of Mr. Fyke and the police "force") made against me by James Fyke. Such an attack in my mind was unwarranted and unverifiable. This aggressiveness raises these questions in my mind: 1) Why did James Fyke name me as the person who had released such data?-- especially if he does not have me under watchful eyes and in his files? Why name me instead of another member of the committee, be he student or faculty? What, then, could possibly have made me a target for his allegations? Simply the fact that I appear to be concerned, inquisitive in the matters charged to our committee, and carefully critical? https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3f4fb5c2f3017b084fa888ff85c5f4e7.tif ec723d227fbd897cf6d09017581d4783 PDF Text Text 23. 2) Assuming, let us say for argument, that I had at least taken several persons close to me (and seemingly trustworthy) into my confidence-- how is it that Fyke would know, unless perhaps he has a wiretap or an infbrmer~spy very close to me? 3) What are Fyke's specific charges? What information have I released and how does he document such charges? h) Fyke's original charge was in connection with a meeting he had with the committee--and as I clearly stated to you at the time the charge was made, neither was I present at said committee meeting, nOr have I heard the tape recordings of the session. His reference to a meeting with President Olds brings to my mind the memory of only one meeting of the committee with Glenn Olds at which I was present. That meeting was one at which he gave us our new and burdensome charges to consume our energies. Ron Mohr, to my recollection was barely mentioned if at all-~and I am sure that such mention, if made, was of no great, secret or confidential consequence. The date of that meeting was, I believe, May-5--subsequent to the exposure of Ron Mohr as a police agent. How then, where then, have I received such secret and confidential data which I have allegedly revealed for public consideration? Interestingly enough, Fyke never charged with me with any distortion of the information or data which I am supposed to have released. Assuming, then, that any such release carries with it the value of truth, in my mind there is no cause for complaint that the public (our constituency) knows the truth. However, at this point, I consider Fyke’s accusations to be far—fetched, undocumented, and slanderous. I hereby demand that his allegations be placed on the agenda of the next committee meeting and that he be compelled to document his charges--or else apologize to me in writing and in person. ' In discussing his allegations, be he advised that I believe he is under obligation to answer the corollary questions which I have raised above regarding his fallacious charges. I await his response." Fyke did not respond to CSAC or to White with proof. Instead in a telephone conversation with Roberts (overheard and reported by another CSAC faculty member), Fyke denied ever having made the charges against White. However, those members of the CSAC who were present stand together in their affirmation that Fyke did in fact allege that White had made public information that should be secret. The CSAC and White still await Fyke's response. This incident is not to be seen in isolation, however. One night late in the spring quarter, White and a friend drove downtown to visit the home of some other friends. Also at the house was a lawyer. Five minutes after his arrival, White https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4b7be514675da0cd2cc3672b22a0957e.tif c054e75818f9db4c728faafd8320abca PDF Text Text 2h. looked out the front window and saw one unmarked police car across the street with two policemen inside,one marked car with two more policemen inside, and in his friend's driveway another unmarkgd car with four policemen inside. Inside that third car: sat Mr. Fyke of the K.S.U. police department. White and the lawyer went outside. The lawyer asked what the police were doing. They replied they were checking out the license plate number of a car pulled in the driveway. (This car was the lawyer's, and it was pulled at least thirty feet in from the street, enveloped in the dark shadows of the house.) It was apparent that White had been followed to the house by three carloads of police. Mr. Fyke seemed to be directing this activity (he answered all the lawyer's questions)--all of which took place 9§f_campu . This kind of surveillance of anyone, let alone CSAC members, constitutes harass— ment and attempts at intimidation. Fyke's subsequent allegations regarding White at the August 18 meeting of CSAC can Only be seen as an attempt to further intimidate him and to discredit him before the other members of CSAC. The only reason which can be given as to why this has occurred is that White has been a vociferous critic of the policies and procedures of Fyke's administration in the K.S.U. police department. we, therefore, condemn this activity and demand that it cease. Mr. Fyke has demonstrated his lack of respect for the student members of the CSAC when he would not admit White to the press conference held at the City Building the day after Reinhold MOhr was arrested for possession of illegal weapons. When White spoke to Fyke, reminding Fyke of the fact that White was a member of CSAC, Fyke told White that he would need the permission of Earle Roberts, chairman of CSAC, in order to be admitted to the press conference. And since White did not have RObertS' expressed written or'phoneipermission, Fyke refused to let White into the press conference—~a press conference about a very serious issue in terms of the university community and police. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3d9b44f981129e1992b51c2528e61684.tif 5879ec1b5a8f36b61dced849dd378027 PDF Text Text 25. This refusal is tantamount to treating student committee members as children, requiring that some administrator or faculty member act in 2L<_3_<_:_9_ parentis on behalf of a student who supposedly has been given an investigative power and authority in a charge received from Fyke's immediate superior. Such tactics are obstructions to the process of determining truth, and are offensive to any concerned citizen, be he student , faculty, mrker or what! https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9ad96ee31135f57a9151ebfc709918e0.tif 2270195552221be3aeef7a43da36fd30 PDF Text Text 26. FAILURE TQ_SUPPLY WORKING DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS QE_MDNETARY GRANTS, FINANCIAL BUDGETS, Q§_CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS WITH OTHER AGENCIES. The CSAC and members of it have repeatedly asked for a complete roster of personnel along with complete budgetary information (see April 26 minutes of CSAC). They have received no lists of eQuipment, no complete budgetary breakldown, and no copies of grants from state and federal governmental programs of assistance. Neither has the committee received "copies of all contracts and letters or memo- randa of understanding regarding the records and communication consolidation between the K.S.U. and Kent police to assist in understanding the impact of this move." (Roberts' memo to Olds, August 3, 1972). In the earlier period of student activism and concern in the 1960's, university administrators (and others) told students that their concern was admirable but unmeasured and unchecked because the students lacked the data with which to make a full and complete assessment. Now at a time when students have the desire and patience to submerge themselves in intensive study and evaluation of all possible data, that data is withheld-—consequently the void created by silence and a refusal to supply the CSAC and its members with the data and material necessary and promised in order to carry out CSAC's charge, indicates a fear and hesitancy on the part of some to make all the facts available. In any community, the failure to have facts made available creates ineffectual frustration, apathy, withdrawl, and resentment. Periodic revelations like this report (like the Pentagon Papers or the Anderson Papers) merely expose the tip of an informational iceberg, which remains hidden from the public eye. The role of this task force, and of the Campus Security Advisory Committee, and of the press as an investigative counter-force is limited. After all, who in our society has the money and power to gather large amounts of information, subpoena witnesses, and compel testimony? th this task force, not https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/de57bf5fdd91bb8adcd172c59347f6b1.tif 01d9632f56897b34f1ca419f26fe49df PDF Text Text 27. CSAC, not the press. Nobody, in fact, except the police and government. Most of what is actually in those intelligence files and what is talked about at so many meetings remains unknown. we can speculate, but those we would expose are secure in their ability to dismiss our speculation as lacking in "documentation"——samething only they themselves could supply. And this they seem reluctant to do. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7b1cbbadeb7ec41bc59ad4745047736e.tif 3788cfca43ffad6f5c50575171e8bb7e PDF Text Text 28. OVERTIME, MANPOWER, ETC. This part of the report regarding overtime wages, manpower, and equipment was perhaps the most difficult to compile. The difficulty stemmed from the inacces- sibility of financial records. In the January 21, 1969, issue of The Kent Stater, Chet Williams, Director of Safety and Public Services, indicated the reason for increasing the number of policemen was to cut overtime hours and to avoid overworking departmental personnel. Yet in the past year there has been so much overtime paid, to the extent that some men were making as much as $500 per month-~to the extent that Th§_§tgt§§_reported that overtime expenses of police have been $200 to $300 per employee per month. There seems, then, to have been no improvement in reducing overtime in spite of the increased size of the force. 0 In the October 15, 1971, issue of Thgustater "Fy added that not one of the campus patrolmen work less than 257 hours in December because of bomb threats, and excessive man hours needed to cover basketball games and various other over- ‘ time activities." This amounts to at least 75 hours overtime for the month of December—-a_month in which the student body is present only half the time; a month in which the number of boMb scares was drastically reduced; a month in which there are much less overtime activities (such as hockey matches, meetings, concerts, special events, etc.) than when school is in regular session such as January through June. (Furthermore, there were only a select and small group of police- men, capably trained, on the bomb squad.) One must wonder how there can be so much overtime during a month which does not constitute a complete session of classes. Another method of reducing OVertimeamanpower shortage was bringing greater mechanization "to aid the manpower on campus," (Stater, January 28, 1970.) https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b5d44b3be2571d0b2a9b9a09805d3777.tif 80b80cdcd072702da718ba808892d9de PDF Text Text 29. In spite of this increase in mechanization little was done to decrease overtime payments or to level off the number of personnel employed by K.S.U.P.D. Lt. Crawford had said (Stater, April 7, 1971): "The increase in the number of cars has been necessitated by the expansion and reorganization of the department." The reasoning here is circular and has a mushrooming effect: (1) Too much cycre time, not enough men; (2) increase mechanization to cut overtime and stabilize the number of personnel; (3) now too much manpower; (h) again increase mechanization; (5) then, (10/13/70): "Enlargement of the force helped to emphasize the insuf— ficiency of police quarters...(and the) need for more space...." Also by this time Chet Williams had said, "We have increased the force more than we originally planned," (Stater, OctOber 13, 1970.) Twelve additional men had brought the total number of campus police to forty-eight. Williams said that the Jobs performed on campus by the new men were "routine." So, the impli- cation made is that overtime is no longer so great as to necessitate any more of an increase in police. Yet, within one year of this statement the force had more than doubled in size--and became a further excuse for increasing mechanization, which had formerly been an argument for cutting overtime and stabilizing the number of personnel employed. Almost one year to the day (October 1%, 1971) Fyke reported that, "forty per- V cent of the force is typically inoperative.’ How does this statement do anything but contradict the claims for increasing manpower and cutting overtime hours of officers and expenses of the police department. Still Fyke was claiming "that approximately eighty-six percent of the (police) budget is fOr personnel costs." (October 26, 1971) This was fOr a proposed budget of $977,000. Though this budget was cut by President Olds by twenty—five percent it still was over a forty percent increase with respect to the "normal" and "routine" budget of $521,893 in https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c301fe77de0f64d1686702527d663415.tif 0e3fc43dcb31ab4467bfdd55006b3c9d PDF Text Text 30. 1968-1969. (Even police officials agree that the $1.2 million spent by security forces in 1969-1970 was of a highly unusual nature due to the incidents of May, 1970-) In January, 1972, the only members of the department authorized to receive overtime payment were a "clique" of commanders and administrative assistants. For instance, the Record Courier (January 19, 1972) reported that Crawford received approximately $7,000 in overtime for an extra 822 hours in 1971 (at $8.66 per overtime per hour). Crawford's base salary was reported at $12,0h3. Tom Fisher received 966 hours overtime at $6.07 per\hour. Richard Savelle had 719 hours over— time at $6.91 per hour, increasing his annual income from $9,589 to $1h,557. As one disenchanted patrolman said, "I would be lucky if I could collect 20 hours (overtime) in one year." The whole method of payments for overtime, how overtime is authorized, and for whom, etc. is suspect. Chief Fyke seems to have unfairly discriminated in this procedure. As CSAC recommended June 12, 1972, there is an urgent "need for a careful analysis of overtime practices, controls, and costs." (p. 5) To date such practices are questionable. CSAC also reported that: "The current review of police operations, in itself, disclosed personnel practices seemingly inimical to the best interests of the University in hiring, assigning, promoting, disciplining, and otherwise processing non- academic personnel. The Committee sensed that personnel practices which are detrimental to the campus police operation are common throughout the University...." (CSAC Report, June 12, p. 13.) The cases of Elmer Leeper, Larry Yaws, and others (settled by union grievance procedures) substantiate this point. The "Summary of October 26, 1971, Meeting Between Kent State University and Representatives of Local 153: subject 'Recognition of the Police Chapter and Complaints Concerning the Operation of the Kent State Police Department'" showed: "A number of Mr. Fyke's directives or departmental rules were shown to be not only ridiculous but clear violations of civil service law.” It was also charged https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/178bdfe28b95ea69e55572d81f834be2.tif 171018e86caed5fb4131d116870190f3 PDF Text Text 31. (Record Courier, January 19, 1972) that the chief "kept several men who had not completed their year—long probation and put out of Jobs others who have ended the trial period." Furthermore, Fyke disregarded standard procedures for promotion, as in the case of Tom Fisher. CSAC found that: "Promotions, in the ranks of non—academic personnel, lead quickly and without qualification to tenure. In view of obviously inadequate pros motion practices, poor appointments may be made and, with current non— use of probation as a screening device, a poor appointment may result in career—long handicaps to the well being of the University." (p. lb) More importantly we must recognize the poor distribution of manpower. In the Record Courier, April 3, 1972, one policeman wrote: "that of the h7 persons in the police department only 1h men patrol the campus; the rest push pencils. When you divide those 1h men into three shifts, it doesn't take much imagination to determine the kind of pro- tection the police department is able to provide a campus as large as Kent State University.... I must add here that the department is presently SHORTER ON ROAD-UNIT MANPOWER than it was in April, 1970." This poor distribution of manpower'has had its effect on the crime rate. "The number of property crimes on campus for the first six months of this year was up forty-four percent compared to the last six months of 1971," said Dave Steffens, Community Services Officer for the K.S.U. poliCe department (quoted in The Stater, October h, 1972). This committee recognizes the difficulty in investigating a case and arresting and convicting persons, particularly in a university community. However, compared to national averages on rates of conviction, the K.S.U. police department rate of conviction is exceptionally low. We find the distribution of manpower and the misplaced emphasis on surveillance to be influencing factors regarding conviction rates. Even rank-and—file police "perceive the most serious problem requiring police attention as the larcenies and burglaries that occur on campus property." (CSAC Report, p. 9) https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8800e0be156381b6a9116e22f6eab17c.tif c0685f7d9e1bed0dc8f49dfeac4d77e4 PDF Text Text APPENDIX GREEN SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT EQ_C C, JUNE g9 19 2 This very brief report will deal with the following: I. Intelligence files maintained by Campus Security Department A. Criteria for inclusion in files B. collection of data C. Content D. Transmittal E. Purging II. Campus Security Department's relationship to other law enforcement agencies A. City of Kent B. Ravenna C. County D. Highway Patrol E. Federal departments III. Recommendations The subcommittee was charged with the task of reviewing the records and record systems of the Campus Police; however, this report will make note of only the "Intelligence Files." Attention will be focused here because of the general campus paranoia centered around the files and because of the standard and routine nature of the regular records. It must be especially noted that intelligence files are not part of the department standard master index file system but are part of the Chief's Administrative File System (initially referred to as his Personal Internal files). Other parts of the administrative file system includes personal correspondence, complaints against personnel, commendations, personnel files, and anything not kept in the master index. The chief has an index card which corresponds with each intelligence file. Each card has a name along with other data and a code which identify the nature of the offense. Because of the sensitive nature and the raw data in the files, the subcommittee agreed to view only the index cards. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b75a99cc6189a5e06460f702c3a1e896.tif 902ef4ba9ccd76aa3376a927d9e804ba PDF Text Text " Appendix 2. The system has been in operation for slightly less than one year and already has approximately 3,000 cards (some date back almost five years). The range of campus folk included, both student and faculty, appeared to be rather broad and the maintenance of the system appeared rather poor, e.g., many of the records were without ofﬂinse identifying codes. Criterion for inclusion in the files follows: a. An arrestee or suspect with possible arrest imminent-—for the following offenses: l. narcotics 2. violent activity (revolutionary) 3. gambling h. prostitution b Names submitted by other departments c. Person who is a continuing source of information d. Victin e Sex related crimes f. Pornography In view of some of the names included criterion is not closely adhered to. The files appeared to consist of principally raw data, e.g., newspaper clippings, pictures, data from surveillance at rallies, etc., etc. However, the names of these individuals are on file, as a matter of practice and policy, with the highway patrol and the Kent City Police Department. Any law enforcement agency has access to this (largely unverified)information. The Chief was not clear as to whether or not he had power to periodically purge these files. Campus Security Department's relationship with other law enforcement agencies varies-from formal to very informal. The Kent Police Department is KSU's Chief back—up unit and as a matter of policy keep duplicate intelligence card files. They are, of course, near a merger of their records and communications systems. Their evolving relationship is being watched very closely by other local enforce- ment agencies. Ravenna's Chief, for one, is concerned about the close relationship between the City of Kent and the campus security. He opposes movement towards a county-wide communications system and any other Joint effort because of concern about losing his autonomy. In that Ravenna has a mutual aid pact with the City of https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/626b33fbda4467b7d7401217607fbff4.tif 96f7e02b9ff7a594651c220d47bad770 PDF Text Text Appendix. 3. Kent, disruptions on campus put a great deal of stress on his small department. The chief suggested that campus security get out of the police business and permit the City of Kent to assume this function. Sheriff Hedgedus firmly recommended that campus security retain its police functions because to change would place other agencies under a great deal of pressure, plus the culture of the university is such that it needs to police its own. The Sheriff has felt the need to increase its campus surveillance since the reduction of campus security's efforts in this area. Several federal agencies Operate on this campus from time to time, often without the knowledge of campus security. They range from the Secret Service, when threatening language has been used toward the President, to internal revenue when bogus money is circulated. The most active are the FBI and the Treasury Department (drug traffic). Army Intelligence investigate when there is an ROTC problem. I strOngly recommend that campus security take the following actions regarding its intelligence files: 1. Greatly delimit man hours devoted to the present form of intelligence work. 2. Review and sharpen the criterion for inclusion in the intelligence files. 3. Review the policy of transmittal, both formal and informal, to Other law enforcement agencies. h. Campus security initiate steps to purge the files of those who have not committed a crime nor are likely to commit one (only 15 of the 3,000 files are active). I will support a recommendation to contract with the City of Kent for police services. The Kent City Chief has indicated a willingness and capacity to assume the functions with the understanding that he will need additional resources. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Report: “Campus Security Policies and Operations” Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1972-11-17 Description Report titled "Campus Security Policies and Operations," submitted on November 17, 1972, by Campus Security Advisory Committee members Thomas Anderson, Tobie Fixler, Allan Morris, and Michael White. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 35 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 May 4 Author Anderson, Thomas Fixler, Tobie Morris, Allan White, Michael dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police Kent State University. Black United Students SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4cbd4231cf7813c8726c17b358cdc641.tif 72b2dff43c5db09ce53695b0c372edfe https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/91735b1ab10b48ec30e6db4f46c01cd5.tif a0c389d3385f63470ebff99921ea3219 PDF Text Text .Non-Academic Personnel frequently does not act at all on the recommendation or he will take weeks, or in some cases months, to act upon the recommended disciplinary action. Obviously, other problems then / arise. ; 1 I .‘ There is no confidentiality of information related I l to much personnel activity and action taken by this Department, since a former employee's wife works for the Non-Academic Personnel Office and information passing across her desk frequently appears in local papers or the hands of certain persons at labor negotiating or grievance meetings. SOme employees -of the Department appear to be working in concert :with her to undermine the effectiveness of command ‘ and supervisoryipersonnel. I . - I I ’,There has been no recognition of the special personnel problems and needs of an operating police agency as distinguished from a clerical, custodial, food service, maintenance, or other University service operation. 'Such matters as 24 hour scheduling,- relationship onsupervisors to unions, ethical and \ . moral obligations of policemen, and many others are unrecognizediorﬁignored. 'For example, there is no clearly defined rule specifically affecting Policé Department members requiring such members.to report a https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ea4b6f55805a59a9a798f1f3097385d5.tif 4f66b522a5dff3365c87f268207ebeda PDF Text Text ‘for work when called upon during emergency situations. Jl‘ _' I l In severe disciplinary cases where removal is recommended by!the Director of Security, no action or minimal action has been taken by the Office of Non-Academic Personnel.‘ Apparently this occurs because the Director of Non—Academic Personnel has 'no knowledge of what the law says, or has no ability to interpret what the law means. Frequent consultation with Columbus seems to indicate reluctance or fear to act independently. 9 There is-a’continuing inconsistency in the NoneAcademic Personnel Office's handling of like disciplinary cases. One.officer was "removed pending a hearing Jbefore the State Personnel Board of Review", which means fired, though the case never went beyond the a .h'.” ,- accusation stage. Several depositions were presented, the officer asked for comment (he denied the accusations), and he was then dismissed about two hours later. All 'news releases said the man was suspended, but no one had the courage to correct the errors. The officer is still unemployed and is considered as undesirable' for employment in other Civil Service posts because he was fired.for misconduct. Another was caught , stealing books in the Bookstore, but was not even; \ suspended, much less dismissed by the Personnel Office. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3c00efcae4bcbb91e3839daf9191e9a1.tif 46396937017d42fe18b70dc24fca0b72 PDF Text Text iI. What‘are the effects of the problems that exist? A. Flexibility in the administration of the Department is extremely limited in areas of: l. Duty assignments. 2. Assignment of command duties and responsibilities. 3. Unusual operations, including suCh things as disturbances, special events, and natural disasters. dB. . Obedience to policy and to direct orders of assigned superiors is a function of personal choice, not ‘ enforceable policy.~ Should an employee choose not to obey, there is little action which can be expected from the official personnel agency of the University. In short, most adverse situations are bluffed through by field supervisors since they feel they won't be 'backed up by the Personnel Office. Most officers know that firstiand second level supervision and departmental administrators have no real control over disciplinary actions of members of the Department. C. Officers pride in their own work is affected by resulting inability to recognize or reward meritoifous service except at the departmental level. ‘ D. The command staff is not given apprOpriate authority 3 . I. 'I -| l https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e0991c9ec21181b1521664c331a0d23d.tif 2342ba273adaf399fdd03dbbe4870e6f PDF Text Text \ and security needed to carry out command ' V a "in!" responsibilities: il.‘ Division Commanders cannot be properly paid or" promoted; many do not hold the same rank or earn the same compensation as other Division COmmanders. 2. Watch Commanders cannot be promoted to or assigned the same or comparable ranks in spite of ability, background, or performance. The Director of Security is not free to schedule, distribute and deploy personnel as needed in various assignments because of the lack of authority, and the Director cannot enforce his own policy and the 'University's rules and regulations due to the ambiguity and lack of-fortitude.to the authOrized staff reSponsible for personnel matters. The massive layoffs of January 1, 1972 destroyed all progress previously achieved in the area of professional personnel recruitment practices, and drove departmental morale to an a11¥time low, and set the stage for other morale-oriented problems which Opened the door for outsiders to actively interfere in the processing of \ personnel matters and the handling of sensitive criminal cases relating to other KSU employees. a https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/29831942fa68b0d50184eb28607aa3ab.tif 7100a1067f0d6f6a25a1c352b4d3a1ca PDF Text Text III. What should be done to eliminate the problems and the ' effects? A. Consideration should be given to modernizing and streamlining the existing Non—Academic Personnel Office, employing someone who not only knows the Civil Service rules and regulations, but is willing to enforce themfas the appointing authority of the I . University, andEestablishing published, consistent, 1 fair, and enforceable personnel policies which apply to all employees of KSU. B. Delegate considerable disciplinary authority to respective department heads. This is especially necessary for the Police Department, which has unique '~w§~ personnel problems caused by the very nature of its work.' For example, the University could delegate the authority to order up to five day suspensions in those disciplinary cases which warrant such action, to the Department head. Police Department disciplinary diseiplinary—action could be appealable at.some specified point of severity to the Personnel Office. C. y The Universitv should seek change of certain specific existing Civil Service laws or State personnel regulations to allow suspension with and without pay,. pending investigation of serious criminal charges;tto permit leaves of absence from’Civil Service status to 1 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c304f30eb4e6226d6a0dca541be8970b.tif c38ecace4f1c819adb93e80c124eda11 PDF Text Text accept contractufal’appointments in administrative or executive posts with the same or a related agencv [upon approval of the department head; to authorize “additional promotional levels of lieutenant and captain, with local authority to budget positions needed, to permit interagency assignments from campus to campus or local agencv to campus and vice versa; and to extend full peace officer status to university police personnel. The above is not eXhaustive, but is included for illustratory purposes only. V Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Report: Operations Subcommittee Description Undated report of the Operations Subcommittee of the Campus Security Advisory Committee. The document is titled "Personnel problems of the Kent State University Police Department, effects and solutions." Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 7 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/745b2953d0cc2defd455bcf056c4cab7.tif a135620595f33e217eff280ad24b0edb https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/acb25b3e63b2294454e1db08e5997d89.tif 79b01154ac489729a9fb3e7cfa5ab49d PDF Text Text PRELIMINARY DRAFT 0}? A REPORT TO THE } SELECT COMMITTEE T0 INVESTIGATE CAMPUS DISTURBANCES From Rdbert 1. White President Kent State University January 21, 1971 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/50c5c0b3566cb82448fa3513ab688208.tif b41b3dad0ceda2d3ddb263a99a7131c2 PDF Text Text IV. Campus Security and Law Enforcement Recommendation 1: The committee recommends legislation designed, to provide a high level of competence in campus security forces, by establishing minimum training and other requirements. The Ohio State Highway Patrol Academy has opened its expanded basic reoruit academy to campus officers. The University Police Department has participated in this program throughout the past summer and fall by scheduling officers and staff into one or more of its training programs for new policemen (the basic course), instructors, supervisors, and police managerial personnel. One staff member has been assigned responsibility for developing and conducting internal training sessions, and coordinating. 'all external training programs. Present officers will be sent to these and other professional schools throughout the nation as they can be scheduled and freed from duty on the campus and, in addition, all new officers will be required to graduate from a specialized 'campus police—training program before seeing general duty. In cooperation with the Office of the Ohio Attorney General and the Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission, under funding from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration of the U.S. Department of Justice, through the Ohio_Department of Urban Affairs, the University's Center for State and Local Govern ent has developed, and initiated on January 4, 1970, a unique Student Poiice Training Program for future campus security officers. Students must.be regularly enrolled in a college or university I 30 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/63140e8dbbbf7d00a5fda6dd8e2240f7.tif abd3f41cbc9ecf3e7fdfda3e9c668f73 PDF Text Text and. on completion of the 539—hour course, will be certificated provisionally as having met Ohio peace officer training requirements; certification is made permanent on appointment to a municipal or county law enforcement agency, or a campus security force. In addition to meeting basic State requirements, the program is adapted especially to campus policing needs. It is the first of its kind in the nation. and should be a prototype for others. A new program will be developed for campus-security managerial personnel as soon as possible. ' ,w It is understood that campus security officers have the same_obligation and authority to arrest offenders as other law enforcement officers and that legitimate enforcement actions should have no_interference. Establishing consonant policy should not ,require additional legislation. ' Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that all universities . immediately evaluate their campus security program, with a view to increasing the number and competence of security forces to an effective level. We-have worked for more than a year to expand the University Police Department. Active recruiting steps were initiated in the summer of 1969 and the University has since added about twenty men to the police security staff, though some are part-time employees. It is our intention to expand the staff to a total of about seventy—five as recruiting circumstances permit.- We will continue to use part—time people to fill our needs only until they Ican be phased out with the addition of full-time personnel. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8ee68454d8bb9583c554de125f52c8f1.tif 570e4fb77033f1aa00de5216bc7d4885 PDF Text Text 32 ﬁntil this fall, inability to pay competitive salaries hampered recruiting efforts. This problem has been solved tO'a great extent as the result of pay-rate in ‘wases recently approved ‘by the State Compensation Board following revision and upgrading of the personnel specifications for campus police officers. This past fall the Police hepartment was moved to larger quarters, though an overall University space shortage has prohibited providing it with the floor space needed to accommodate the addi- tional staff and improved internal-service programs.‘ The move has had a good effect on morale as well as improving aspects of the Department's daily operations. yA new and improved radio system has been installed in the Department. It provides for direct coordination with the systems used by the Kent City Police, the Portage County Sheriff's Department, and the State Highway Patrol. Additionally, an administrative radio and paging network, utilizing two pair of y, ultrahigh frequency radio channels, is now operational, allowing the President and his staff, student conduct personnel, fire inspectors, residence hall supervisors, and others a high level of intra—University communications. The system is unique and should serve as a prototype for other universities. There are two other significant actions to report to the committee. First, the Board of Trustees has created the’ position of Special Assistant to the President for Crisis Operations. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/dcefab4e692976db9eb6766d7718ec9b.tif 34c0b02d8e7372ac4356d650512c4e4c PDF Text Text ’33 It is his responsibility to coordinate development of a master contingency plan for University operations during a crisis or disaster whether natural or man made. During a crisis he will coordinate the decisions of the President with the various agencies involved and has responsibility for identifying persons responsible for various tasks and assignments. Second, a person with both an educational and expirential background was named Director of Security on January 1 and has already initiated actions to improve campus security operations. He reports to the General Executive Assistant to the President and thus has ready access to the President on all sensitive security .1 matters. Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that the strength of the State Highway Patrol immediately be expanded. Again, this recommendation is a legislative matter. Recommendation 4: The committee recommends legislation clarifying the duties and authority of the various law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction on state university campuses. The University Police-Department, Kent City Police Department, the Portage County Sheriff's Department, and the Ohio Highway Patrol all presently have concurrent jurisdiction. At this. time the question of command is probably best answered by agreement among the agencies involved; legislation, at this time, may be in- .9 appropriate. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a9883869f7c2192103a1d144f629ecb0.tif 153342f081b6c72d265629bf8d16f86b PDF Text Text 34 It is suggested, nevertheless, that campus police officers meeting State requirements be empowered by legislation to act as peace officers throughout the county in which their university _is located. This would simplify matters of'inter-jurisdiction coordination and cooperation, Many law-enforcement multi-agency meetings were held during the past summer and fall. These well-attended meetings have resulted in revision of certain police emergency plans. Several command posts, staging areas, and booking stations have been established in the community and on campus to be used jointly by all law enforcement agencies. Detailed plans have been made by the agencies, which will have full access to the new communications, system, for the operational aspects of these facilities. A system of police observers has been developed whereby Other agencies will immediately send an observer or liaison man to jurisdiCtions in which trodble may start.' Each agency will stand ready to send help to the other in whatever manner is deemed necessary for the existing circumstance. Recommendation 5: The committee recommends legislation providing for the establishment and efficient operation of an intelligence network within and among all law enforcement agencies in Ohio, and providing for the collection, collation, evaluation, and dissemin- ation of information on criminal activity in this state. ' \ Because of the obvious need to coordinate intelligence, the Kent City Police, the Portage County Sheriff, and the University Police have agreed to have regular meetings.of intelligence https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/93c84e4cb90643fee69d74c83b11c67b.tif bcd34af024107ded76f9e1a2812e073f PDF Text Text 35 officers. They are held once each week in joint session with Ohio Highway Patrol and other intelligence officers, as well. There usually is daily telephonic contact among these personnel. The ,important thing is that all agencies have agreed to share intelligence information and are doing so on a regular basis. Recommendation 6: The committee recommends that law enforcement agencies, including campus security forces, maintain photographers on call for service during disorders, to aid in the subsequent identification of offenders. ' ’ Each agency having jurisdiction on campus is prepared to provide such service. Recommendation 7: The committee recommends legislation to control trespass upon university property, for use as a law enforcement tool in denying access to campuses to persons having no legitimate business there. ' This is a matter for legislative consideration. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e9b9331fc063c2c2ddb6efeb9c5b892a.tif 2ab9056f363422327fe86b32857f1f9b PDF Text Text V. Organized Efforts to DiSrupt Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that further, intensive, immediate study_be given to determine_whether and to what extent the recent campus disorders were planned or managed, to what extent, if any, such efforts.are part of a.statewide or nation- wide conspiracy. Though universities throughout the State would be expected to cooperate in such a venture, it is clearly an effort which can only be mounted at the State level. 36 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Report: “Preliminary Draft of a Report to the Select Committee to Investigate Campus Disturbances” Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1971-01-21 Description Partial copy of a report submitted by Kent State University President Robert I. White to the U.S. Senate, titled "Preliminary Draft of a Report to the Select Committee to Investigate Campus Disturbances," dated January 21, 1971 . Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 9 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 May 4 Author White, Robert I. dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/103fdbbb0d5e192f3f07ad15d65a6b81.tif b94ba5c5441803ee32db5e375864807c https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/99216c7107f1f819a26f07965494651c.tif 13f1f5c532516206bcf8d21fa93aa44d PDF Text Text MODEL A CAMPUS Well trained, security officers, unarmed but fully equipt with a communications system (radio transceivers). Responsibilities 1. Building Security 2. Traffic Control 3. Parking enforcement (issuance of parking tickets) 4. Emergency Transportation 5. ‘ General Patrol of campus (observing and reporting role only) These security officers should receive side arm and non lethal weapons training and be available in an emergency situation for deputization and function as armed police officers. They should be willing however to carry out their normal service and patrol functions without firearms. MUNICIPAL POLICE Well trained police officers with special training and indoctrination concerning the nature and scope of the special problems of the campus community. Responsibilities l. Full police powers (armed officers) a. normal service functions (traffic control, accident assistance, etc) https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2bd83af28ea419ba1e992816a21e254c.tif cfc96befca5daa80f4cc3d731a370646 PDF Text Text b. protection of life and property both on and off the university. c. enforcement of state and local law as appropriate td'the situation and as appropriate to b. above. All criminal investigations would be within the responsibility of the municipal police. d. crime intelligence, as necessary, would be carried out by this municipal police body. Direct communication and exchange of ideas and in- formation with the president of the university and appropriate student and faculty representatives. This should include operational input during emergency situations which involve the campus community. Full advantage should be taken of the campus security operation in minimizing the police presence or at least apparent presence as an armed body on the campus. This should be possible due to the reconnaissance role of the security officers. Advantages l. Unarmed security officers would be likely to find easier acceptance as service personnel, than armed police, since their role would clearly be public ser- vice and observation only and not law enforcement per se. The direct cost of such a service is likely to be considerably less than a police operation or some combination of police and security operation. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7ae1376f6439e57693a12f26d3f7e06a.tif b205d3d4fb06c6682be636ad18738b7f PDF Text Text Public service functions may be increased and better exicuted if security personnel are relieved of police responsibilities. If the municipal police are regularly on the campus their understanding of and communication with the campus community would improve as would the students understanding of the city police. The university community would clearly be divorced from the question of a police operation and could thus maintain an academic atmosphere free from the negative aspects of a police operation. Such questions as the role and function of undercover agents and surveil- lance activities would not be matters of direct responsibility to the university. Disadvantages l. A non-university controlled police agency would be likely to be less sensitive to the problems and special needs of the campus community. The increased responsibility for the campus would require a significantly increased municipal police force. Related to this would be an increased cost to the city of Kent. ' In a crisis situation involving significant numbers of students, coordination with the university faculty and administration may be difficult. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9b4f523e051e4d13ce6be6da007fdc97.tif d9cd23e5977ed3c955ce0410216fab24 PDF Text Text It would be difficult for the university to require the additional training now required of campus police- men if,the officers were members of the minicipal police department. It is likely that even an increased Kent city police force would provide less patrol and service to the campus than our own dedicated police department. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9b10d70937bb0e4eeeca2e9b480eceb3.tif 9dcc64a35acb854864d922e78f0ef704 PDF Text Text MODEL B CAMPUS A full'police operation employing well trained officers and employing the normal police equipment (sidearms). A separate security force would be responsible for building security only and would consist of unarmed officers. Responsibilities 1. Full police powers on the campus grounds (armed officers) a. normal service functions (traffic control, accident assistance, etc) b. protection of life and property on the campus c. enforcement of state, local and university law and regulations as appropriate to b. above. d. criminal investigations and crime intelligence, as. appropriate and necessary Careful coordination with municipal, county and state law enforcement agencies in order to facilitate minimum overlap and duplication of services and efforts on the campus. This relationship is most important in times of crisis. .The police operation within the campus community should be not only a well run efficient one but an innovative, progressive department which may set a legitimate good example for other law enforcement agencys. Adequate and indeed fluent communication between the campus https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1d14ac72416899bd154fa03a8c7cfa1e.tif 5014eaeba62e5e4befd53a8ccc2283d8 PDF Text Text police operation and the members of the university community would be essential to the success of such a program. Municipal police In order to avoid outright duplication of services and labor, the primary police role under ordinary circumstances would be clearly taken by the campus police. In emergency circumstances the municipal police might well be expected to exercise their jurisdiction on the campus and in co- ordination with the campus police department, carry out their duty in enforcing the law and protecting life and property. This same circumstance may be true of other state and county law enforcement agencys which have jurisdiction on the campus and are involved in such coordinated efforts. Advantages 1. Better coverage of the campus in terms of both patrol and service functions by a "dedicated" department The possibility for a very close working relationship with the faculty and administration. The possibility for a special appreciation of the problems unique to a campus community and a sensitivity to them. University control over selection procedures for of- ' ficers and training requirements; Direct University operational input in times of crisis or disruption. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/04dc9d49f85f0ede88569b631ca7de2b.tif d657278448a4946d3cd0a40de80aa38d PDF Text Text 6. The possibility for review and change of existing policies when significant university community concern is evident in a given area of police Operations. 7. By a simple process of displacement, removal, under normal circumstances, of other law enforcement agencies which may be less suited to university police function. Disadvantages 1. High cost 2. The "university" must answer for police policy and operation to both the university community and the out- side community including other law enforcement agencies. 3. The problem of rationalizing the police department and its necessary function in the area of crime intelligence within a campus community which is sensitive to the question of surveillance of_any sort. 4. Recruiting and retaining "high quality", well educated young men to serve on the police department. 5. The delicate problem of maintaining liason with other law enforcement agencys who may also have jurisdiction on the campus, while not antagonizing them. 6. Facing charges of a "campus sanctuary" for violations of the law (i.e. special treatment for students). https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d58f1775fa7b5dcf703288029d5e337e.tif c6afd7f50b9d65ed29f9ac4ff3a3efaa PDF Text Text MODEL C This model system is impossible to specify in detail since their may be many possible combinations of models A and B from above. Basically this model would require a single department of security and police operations, which' would carry out some of the responsibilities outlined in A and B above. The role of the municipal police department in such a system would depend on the areas of overlap in services described by the particular system. This system would require at least some officers with sidearms. ° The advantages and disadvantages of Model C would, of course, be a function of what areas of responsibility fell within the assignment of the campus and municipal security agencies. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7bb612ee3eda353a3f54feb0ade3a925.tif f64e1797a930cfeeb3fded50cec9d36f PDF Text Text In considering all of the facts relating to both our present security operation, the size and nature of the surrounding law enforcement agencies and the attitude of a majority of the members of the campus community, it is the recommendation of this subcommittee that the university maintain its own full police department. It is apparent that closer coordination between various area police de- partments and in fact consolidation of certain functions (i.e. communications and records) is coming in the near future. Our best guarantee of the kind of input we deSire ointo law enforcement and police operation on the campus and in surrounding areas, is therefore the maintainance of our own police department and the careful control of its function and policy by the president of the university. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1558519e8c5d72fb2dba2d288581edc4.tif a9fe19e708c615fb93ea76ea09c3d305 PDF Text Text Report of the Campus Security Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Ideal Models :or Campus Security Prepared by: A. Rawitch In considering an ideal situation for the handling of police and security responsibilities on the campus, several basic systems are possible and are designated as Models A, B and C below. It should be noted that the general trend in universities across the country in the past 10 years has been toward systems of the type described in Model B. It is most nearly within this model that we find Kent State University at the present time. The current Kent State University police department is a full police operation including a criminal investigation staff, some crime intel- ligence gathering personnel and the other normal divisions of a modern police department. Building security is a minor function of the present department with this responsibility being assigned to only a small number of individuals. Our 'current department is well equipt in terms of communications, vehicles, etc. and is, in fact, both better equipt and more fully manned than the majority of surrounding'municipal police forces. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3ff956a4eb102391fc3e88f0e6b4f8c5.tif 3dc24e46f5cf3bf37f3fd4ccab92658c PDF Text Text MODEL A CAMPUS Well trained, security officers, unarmed but fully equipt with a communications system (radio transceivers). Responsibilities 1. Building Security 2. Traffic Control 3. Parking enforcement (issuance of parking tickets) 4. Emergency Transportation 5. General Patrol of campus (observing and reporting role only) These security officers should receive side arm and non lethal weapons training and be available in an emergency situation for deputization and function as armed police officers. They should be willing however to carry out their normal service and patrol functions without firearms. MUNICIPAL POLICE Well trained police officers with special training and indoctrination concerning the nature and scope of the special problems of the campus community. Responsibilities l. Full police powers (armed officers) a. normal service functions (traffic control, accident assistance, etc) https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/dde514c08ec24306fd160e25d51581ed.tif 2dacee8840655ce8243472e643a14d93 PDF Text Text b. protection of life and property both on and off the university. c. enforcement of state and local law as appropriate to the situation and as appropriate to b. above. All criminal investigations would be within the responsibility of the municipal police. d. crime intelligence, as necessary, would be carried out by this municipal police body. Direct communication and exchange of ideas and in- formation with the president of the university and appropriate student and faculty representatives. This should include operational input during emergency situations which involve the campus community. Full advantage should be taken of the campus security operation in minimizing the police presence or at least apparent presence as an armed body on the campus. This should be possible due to the reconnaissance role of the security officers. Advantages l; Unarmed security officers would be likely to find easier acceptance as service personnel, than armed police, since their role would clearly be public ser- vice and observation only and not law enforcement per se. The direct cost of such a service is likely to be considerably less than a police operation or some combination of police and security operation. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d3ddc3262a07f4ce7b8766fa60ffa984.tif 2f2ea6e92c09280113e9b2df2eeae6cf PDF Text Text Public service functions may be increased and better exicuted if security personnel are relieved of police responsibilities. If the municipal police are regularly on the campus their understanding of and communication with the campus community would improve as would the students understanding of the city police. The university community would clearly be divorced from the question of a police operation and could thus maintain an academic atmosphere free from the negative aspects of a police operation. Such questions as the role and function of undercover agents and surveil- lance activities would not be matters of direct responsibility to the university. Disadvantages 1. A non-university controlled police agency would be likely to be less sensitive to the problems and special needs of the campus community. The increased responsibility for the campus would require a significantly increased municipal police force. Related to this would be an increased cost to the city of Kent. ' In a crisis situation involving significant numbers of students, coordination with the university faculty and administration may be difficult. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0a545be2d080cdfaeb539c50e9e8d2b2.tif eddd55008b2b6d2e76ac4bc243564aca PDF Text Text It would be difficult for the university to require the additional training now required of campus police? men if,the officers were members of the minicipal police department. It is likely that even an increased Kent city police force would provide less patrol and service to the campus than our own dedicated police department. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c1b585da40111021108c46a7e4a6b0b3.tif 1a24105014428a3bf69509dbfb5df701 PDF Text Text MODEL B CAMPUS A full'police operation employing well trained officers and employing the normal police equipment (sidearms). A separate security force would be respOnsible for building security only and would consist of unarmed officers. Responsibilities 1. Full police powers on the campus grounds (armed officers) a. normal service functions (traffic control, accident assistance, etc) b. protection of life and property on the campus c. enforcement of state, local and university law and regulations as appropriate to b. above. d. criminal investigations and crime intelligence, as. appropriate and necessary Careful coordination with municipal, county and state law enforcement agencies in order to facilitate minimum overlap and duplication of services and efforts on the campus. This relationship is most important in times of crisis. The police operation within the campus community should be not only a well run efficient one but an innovative, progressive department which may set a legitimate good example for other law enforcement agencys. Adequate and indeed fluent communication between the campus https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/95c7968e2cd0aa750816525a6825ba26.tif 1804408e29c95f2d13267d81c9c7975d PDF Text Text police operation and the members of the university community would be essential to the success of such 0 a program. Municipal police In order to avoid outright duplication of services and labor, the primary police role under ordinary circumstances would be clearly taken by the campus police. In emergency circumstances the municipal police might well be expected to exercise their jurisdiction on the campus and in co- .ordination with the campus police department, carry out their duty in enforcing the law and protecting life and property. This same circumstance may be true of other state and county law enforcement agencys which have jurisdiction on the campus and are involved in such coordinated efforts. Advantages 1. Better coverage of the campus in terms of both patrol and service functions by a "dedicated" department 2.. The possibility for a very close working relationship with the faculty and administration. 3. The possibility for a special appreciation of the problems unique to a campus community and a sensitivity to them. 4. University control over selection procedures for of- ficers and training requirements. 5. Direct University operational input in times of crisis or disruption. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/03bf77d9e37129cdf8d3b4f936b02f75.tif 5b6077a6b2566ceb0efaeb244c705a06 PDF Text Text 6. The possibility for review and change of existing policies when significant university community concern is evident in a given area of police operations. 7. By a simple process of displacement, removal, under normal circumstances, of other law enforcement agencies which may be less suited to university police function. Disadvantages 1. High cost 2. The "university" must answer for police policy and operation to both the university community and the out- side community including other law enforcement agencies. The problem of rationalizing the police department and its necessary function in the area of crime intelligence within a campus community which is sensitive to the question of surveillance of any sort. Recruiting and retaining "high quality", well educated young men to serve on the police department. The delicate problem of maintaining liason with other law enforcement agencys who may also have jurisdiction on the campus, while not antagonizing them. Facing charges of a "campus sanctuary" for violations of the law (i.e. special treatment for students). https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e4c6af92c2ca68bd76956d78bbe13a6b.tif eaaca789c89ce8a9b20459dfbfe6591b PDF Text Text MODEL C This model system is impossible to specify in detail since their’may be many possible combinations of models A and B from above. Basically this model would require a single department of security and police operations, which' would carry out some of the responsibilities outlined in A and B above. The role of the municipal police department in such a system would depend on the areas of overlap in services described by the particular system. This system would require at least some officers with sidearms. ’ The advantages and disadvantages of Model C would, of course, be a function of what areas of responsibility fell within the assignment of the campus and municipal security agencies. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8c12358846058c66d4e60257a087014b.tif a720152345fed8ea3941252c75dc63c5 PDF Text Text In considering all of the facts relating to both our present security Operation, the size and nature of the surrounding law enforcement agencies and the attitude of a majority of the members of the campus community, it is the recommendation of this subcommittee that the university maintain its own full police department. It is apparent that closer coordination between various area police de- partments and in fact consolidation of certain functions (i.e. communications and records) is coming in the near future. Our best guarantee of the kind of input we desire .into law enforcement and police operation on the campus and in surrounding areas, is therefore the maintainance of our own police department and the careful control of its function and policy by the president of the university. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Report: “Report of the Campus Security Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Ideal Models for Campus Security” Description Undated report submitted by CSAC member Allen Rawitch titled "Report of the Campus Security Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Ideal Models for Campus Security." Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 20 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 May 4 Author Rawitch, Allen dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/fdfc7496f00f6b05f01acd35b2f1d16a.tif e69e4e77bd2e3932c6d5888207099fda PDF Text Text RON MOHR INCIDENT ‘On April 2#, 1972, Reinhold "Ron" Mohr was arrested for possession of illegal weapons. The next day it was revealed that Mohr was in the employ of the KSU police depart— ment: he worked as an undercover agent for the Special In- vestigative Division. On May 8, 1972, Mohr was ordered re- moved from the force because notarized affadavits presented to university and state attorney generals' officials by stu— dents, indicated that Mohr had suggested using the weapons (and other destructive materials) for criminal activity. A related charge was that Mohr attempted to sell weapons to students. On October 12, 1972 the State Personnel Board of Review ordered that Mohr be reinstated to the campus police force. These authors do not believe that this case regarding Mohr is or ought to be closed. As a matter of fact we would urge that further investigation be pursued through any and all channels available. The following outlines a part of the story of the case-- it is this part (one of contradictions, deceit, and poor in- vestigative and judicial procedures) which demands that the case be reopened. Upon review of statements and transcriptions made by university, state, and police officials and students involved in the case and its adjudication, we submit the following synopsis, analysis and recommendations. 1. Agents of the U.S. Treasury Department came to Kent, inspected the weapons and "confiscated the weapons," (Record https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/24beaa077bd67c8224670b5ea604531e.tif e8e0ebdaca22e248aa4e2d638df444cb PDF Text Text qurigr, May 8,1972,p.1). No charges were pressed against Mohr, and he was released from jail. The illusion created here is that Mohr was released without being charged because the wea- pons were ruled inoperable by federal authorities and were 'thus supposedly made legal. These authors checked with three different offices (Cin- cinatti, Columbus, and Dayton) of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Fire- arms Division of the U.S. Treasury Department. All three offices furnished the same information, which was identical to that fur- nished by the Youngstown office of ATF to attorney Bruce Miller prior to the arrest of Reinhold Mohr. WERE THE WEAPONS POSSESSED EX MOHR ILLEGAL? YES! Under the National Firearms Act an AK-47 is an illegal weapon whether it is operable or not. The Gun Control Act de— clares that even if a gun (such as the automatic AK-47 weapon) is not a complete gun-unit, and only consists of a machine gun- type frame or receiver, the weapon is still illegal. According to the pamphlet "Firearms Identification for Law Enforcement Officers" printed by the Department of the Treasury; Internal Revenue Service; Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire- arms Division, Publication 674 (Rev. 8-70): "Such weapons, regardless of an operating condi- tion termed serviceable (operable) or unserviceable (welded, parts missing, etc.) must be registered with the Director, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Division, Washington, D.C., ig grggg 39 pg lawfully possessed." "Unregistered firearms or destructive devices, re- gardless of serviceability, are contraband and are sub- ject to seizure..." (p.1) Under the same laws, the rocket propelled grenade launcher por ssessed by Mohr is classified as a "destructive device." Sim- ilar to an American bazooka, the RPG launcher is illegal. Even Kent City Police Chief Joseph Myers said, the weapons being out of order did not make them entirely legal. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8a873e28b7f0db785cf82b347c39c7ec.tif fd6a59559223390f42b1770ce5d48854 PDF Text Text ﬂg§ TEE AK—47 INOPERABLE? mg. According to Mr. Van Cott, special agent at the Columbus office of ATF, an AK—47 with a hole drilled in its gas cham— ber would still fire at least one shot. The drilled hole would not prevent a gas-driven automatic AK-47 from being used as a semi-automatic or non-automatic weapon. According to Mr. Gib— son. special agent of ATP in Dayton, Ohio, a "spot weld" could easily be performed and make the weapon fully operable as an automatic weapon. Again according to Publication 650 (Rev.4-71) of the Department of the Treasury: "A firearm which was originally designed as a machine gun and which has been modified to fire semi- automatic (is) still classified as a machine gun." (p.29 The RPG launcher was found to be inoperable on the grounds that there was no ammunition present for its immediate use. Such a conclusion is tantamount in absurdity to saying a functional 12 gauge shotgun is not operable because there are no shells loaded in its chambers. Again Myers said that the weapons could easily be made fully operable as automatic weapons and it seems as nonauto- matic weapons simply by loading them with the proper ammunition. MOHR'S RELEASE 9E TEE guys Tg ATE El SIGNING A WAIVER DEMON- §T§ATES THE WEAPONS' ILLEGALITY Mohr was allowed to sign a waiver giving up the AK-47 and RPG and thereby avoid prosecution. his whole procedure is legally questionable. Under the Gun Control Act, possession of these weapons is illegal mnless a person registered the weapons during November, 1968, amnesty period. Mohr testified he did not have the weapons at that time. One could surrender the weapons without being subject to https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3a15c9ecdb706f83d55c08e9a24539e8.tif a5fe9d8b0aff7ce6f52dbe092b50c3ec PDF Text Text prosecution if and only if one voluntarily approached the ATF proclaiming one's intention to release custody of the wea— pon's to the federal government, One would then sign an "Ab- andonment of Property" release. Mohr made no attempt to seek out ATF officials--- a deal was simply made between local po- lice and ATF officials not to press charges against Mohr be- cause he was himself an undercover police agent. The process by which he signed over his weapons to ATF officials was not within the letter or the spirit of the law. The only purpose in Mohr‘s signing such a release waiver was that ATF might confiscate his illegal weapons in accordance with "Title 26-—Internal Revenue—- Chapter 1, Subchapter E- Al- cohol, Tobacco and other Excise Taxes, Part 178-— Commerce in Firearms and Ammunition, Publication 629 (1-69)": "Any firearm or ammunition involved in, or used or intended to be used in, any violation of the pro- visions of the Act or of this part, or in violation of any other criminal law of the United States, shall .be subject to seizure and forfeiture, and all provis- ions of the Internal Revenue Service Code of 1954 re- lating to the seizure forfeiture, and disposition of firearms, as defined in section 58h5 (a) of that Code, shall so far as applicable, extend to seizures and forfeitures under the provisions of the Act." (Section 178.166) At a CSAC meeting on April 29, mr. Fyke claimed that "Mohr was illegally and unlawfully set up for arrest." Neither did he substantiate this claim, nor did he institute criminal proceedings against those persons involved in setting up Mohr for his arrest. Too often, Mr. Fyke resorts to hyper— bole to make his point-~but in this case his point is solely hyperbole, for it is certainly not the lawr On Tuesday, April 25, Mr. Fyke said, "If the weapons are https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e95c6513dd2682b4cbb44eb29e297ba0.tif 7e5625756fd44dd46618978ec411c45a PDF Text Text illegal then there is nothing about being a policeman that will will help him (Mohr). It is definitely against police regula— tions." Yet, on August 18, at a CSAC meeting Mr, Fyke stated that because Mohr was a policeman he would have had immunity from prosecution for the possession of illegal weapons. Again one sees Mr. Fyke contradicting his foregoing positions. For what purposes he contradicts himself we do not know. But his latest claim that Mohr had immunity is Mr. Fyke's latest attempt to place himself and his agents outside the bounds of accounta- bility to the law. It was on August 18, that Mr. Fyke said that the academic community wants "selective enforcement of laws." However, it is in fact Mr. Fyke who engages in selective enforcement. We are convinced that had the officers of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War been in possession of the AK-47 and RPG the police would have pressed charges against them. REGARDING MOHR'S SALARY: CONTRADICTION AFTER CONTRADICTION On April 29, Mr. Fyke told CSAC that "Mohr's salary is a civil service minimum." At the Personnel Hearing Mr. Fyke (and Donald Schwartzmiller. former KSU police chief, and Paul Mosher, director of non-academic personnel and Ron Mohr) testified that Mohr's "reSponsibilities, as far as working hours, were restric- ted to forty (40) hours a week" (Hearing Transcript, p. 10.) Mr. Earl Allison, hearing officer, stated that "Regardless of how many hours he worked, (Mohr) was paid for 40 hours a week.." This and other sworn testimony "document" that the claim was made 3. . '4' J https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/134ee830122087a37f8be64184f03ca3.tif 8db9772f03a05116dadbf3e7e9b8143f PDF Text Text that Mohr received no overtime payments. (Agents "were paid on a standard 40 hour week as a Patrolman I Classification, no overtime involved...", p. 60.) However, other documents procured by these authors would indicate otherwise. First, consider civil service minimum salary. Listed on a fiscal report of the KSU police department we find: . 1971-72 1972-73 Regular Salary Departmental Recommendation Reinhold Mohr $7,696 $8,008 Mr. Fyke at a CSAC meeting said Mohr received about a8400 in annual salary. Perhaps a more accurate figure of $8,486 was reported in the Record Courier of April 26, 1972. These figures are not only $478 greater than Mohr's proposed salary for 1972-73, they are $790 more than the regular salary listing for 1971-72, the first fiscal year in which Mohr was arrested. Averaged on a 12 month basis the Regular Salary for 1971—72 is $641.33; on a 9 month basis $855.11. Averaged on a 12 month basis the 1972~73 Departmental Recommendation for salary is $667.33; on a 9 month basis $889.77. Yet, information obtained from the Ohio State Department of Finance listed Mohr's average monthly salary at $918.40-- compare this to any of the averages figured above and one sees that Mohr was receiving a substantial amount of overtime pay- ment. At the very least, he seems to have been getting about $63.00 in overtime, if one calculates his salary on a 9 month https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b9c95752c4960c36225991e18117cf40.tif 3de1aa0114f339dfc48d8b3d953f761b PDF Text Text basis. Calculated on the more accurate 12 month basis, Mohr seems to have been collecting an extra $277.00 per month, or about $3324 per year. Based on a 12 month period at the average monthly rate of $918.40, Mohr‘s salary would be a whopping $11,020.80-— based on a 9 month period it would be $8265.60, still almost $570 above the budget listing of the university. There is also a question of Mohr's receipt of monetary remuneration during the summer of 1971. It is alleged that Mohr received his wages while travelling in Europe. These authors have not yet documented this allegation but it certainly demands further inquiry. But not only are the department wage listings for Mohr fallacious, the testimony made by university personnel and gone uncorrected by them (Mr. Fyke included), might well be perjurous. INVESTIGATIONS MOHR WAS ALLEGEDLY ASSIGNED 29 Mr. Fyke said that Mohr was operating legally and with his approval; "he was on the verge of solving several cases. The (arrest) incident was related to these investigations." (CSAC minutes, April 29, 1972) In fact Fyke's exact words at the CSAC meeting of April 29, 1972, were: "When his identity as a policeman became known, he (Mohr) was close to the breaking of a specific series of crimes which involved potential personal injury and, actually death." https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a752d8997102a225588aa0d1f76b1abc.tif f215fb5e7d5c60fe8b6b2240e2c30bf5 PDF Text Text However, Egg Stater records (on April 29, 1972): "Prior to the recent publicity, Fyke said Mohr was working on nar- cotics and stolen property cases. No other campus law en- forcement official will continue investigation on those par- ticular cases, Fyke said." Furthermore, Mohr testified in the following manner: "Q. Did you hear anybody talk about it (i.e., blowing up Rockwell Hall)? A. Yes sir. Q. But you did not participate in it? A. No sir. I did not at all times participate...."(p.99) Several persons who testified against Mohr said that he was the one who initiated the discussion about blowing up ROTC offices. Here Mohr denies it, "at all times," yet he claims others discussed plans for bombing Rockwell Hall. If 'this were so, why were no charges filed for a bombing conspiracy? Could it be because this discussion actually was initiated by Mohr and because those other persons vociferously rejected (as they swore they did) any attempts at terrorist violence? Now, if in fact Mohr was investigating a criminal case and not involved in political surveillanCe, why is it that Mr. Fyke will not continue such investigation? If Mohr was close to solving these cases, why not pursue them? Why not bring Charges against persons if they are indeed involved in criminal activities; especially acts of death? As we see it, the answer to "why not", is that none of the hypothetical "ifs" are true. Mr. Fyke has no criminal case, nor did he ever have one. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/179140f00c3ab3dc9abe30c837ce9935.tif e4400b20175ddb7cc8202a2d26899a65 PDF Text Text These allegations are sheer exageration. As Mr. Schwartzmiller testified and as Mr. Winkler all but agreed: "Q. Do you know whether your force made any arrests pursuant to any assets that you got from Mr. Mohr? A. I cannot think of any assets as Director." (p.65) PURPOSE QE FYKE'S AND WINKLER'S ASSIGNMENT gg mgﬁﬁ $9 SURVEILLANCE Fyke testified that Mohr was "given instructions as to which group or which persons he was to survey." (p. 73) Yet, such assignment seems to be based on still hazy criteria, dubious in nature and nebulous in definition and description. "Q. Was he assigned to specific people or Specific agents? A. His assignment was any person." In general Mohr was told to keep the police "informed of any persons that may pose a threat to the security of the University." (p. 59) Just what constitutes a threat to the University seems never to have been clearly defined. Police officials claim Mohr provided valuable information concerning criminal activities——--yet Mohr does not seem to have figured in on any arrests, prosecutions or convictions. Fyke claimed. differently each time he spoke, that the cases Mohr was investigating ranged from stolen property and nar- cotics to personal injury, property damage, and even death. And yet Fyke did not pursue these investigations, nor did he make any arrests. He made only outlandish accusations. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3a27dfd1819362623863eab93fcf598c.tif c854a4349818eb64beccf05bbf747bed PDF Text Text 10 Perhaps one of the real reasons for surveillance is rev- ealed in this part of the Hearing Board's transcript: "Q. Were you surveying the Vietnam Veterans Against the War? ' A. (by Mohr) Mr. Johnson, in regard to Some of his activities. Q. This was not one of the groups that Mr. Fyke and Mr. Winkler testified were giving them trouble? A. (by Mohr) When I attended meetings whiCh were against him (Mr. Fyke), I would just kind of confirm Fyke was receiving information df meetings in which he and the operating procedures of his police department were discussed. Perhaps he has been too concerned of criticisms of himself and his policy, to the extent that much of the police surveillance conducted is done with his critics in mind, in sight, or at least in hearing distance. ORDERS REGARDING SURVEILLANCE QIVEE 1g,mgﬁ3 EX FYKE AND WINKLER At the Personnel Hearing, when asked if Mohr was "given instructions as to which group or which persons he was to survey", Fyke answered: "Yes, this was one of the functions of his duties... (infiltration of groups) may have been a method . ; . whichhhe mathaVe used to fix the friendship (to activists)." (p. 73) However, Fyke denied that Mohr was "entitled to be an active participant in such groups." https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5367e5fef8c8d64f143c1ad945f42314.tif 951f5489e6ded63427bccce993627dd7 PDF Text Text HQ. . A. Again, 11 He was supposed to be a member? No. " (p-73) however, agent Mohr contradicts his superiors, Fyke and Winkler. "Q. In connection with your duties, as they were given to you, did you become associated with people that belonged to certain groups? Yes, I did. Did you go to meetings? Yes, I did.. Did you participate in demonstrations? Yes, I did. While you were at those demonstrations, would the police be there? Yes. at times they were there, the open demonstrations. Did you feel it was part of your function to let the police know that there was going to be a demonstration? Yes, it was. Did you join any organizations at the univer— sity? Yes, I did. What were those? Vietnam “eterans Against the War. Did you join the SDS? No, sir. Did you go to their meetings? Yes, I did." (p. 88) https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/aa78b555c93f155c359e4326c016eaaf.tif 5806029e3cd8f26fc2cf852165349e15 PDF Text Text 12 Winkler testified that it would not be uncommon to see Mohr at demonstrations or sit—ins, that in fact " this (participation) was permitted under his instructions.” (p. 80) mohr continues to explain his involvement: "Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. Q. A. "Q. A. Would you go to their place or would they come to yours? I would go to their place. Some of them came to your place? Yes, they did. Did you attend meetings that they were at? Yes, I did. What type of meetings? Original meetings, informal meetings, demon- strations. They considered you a friend of theirs? Yes, they did.. Did you report these meetings to Mr. Winkler? Yes, I did." (p. 91) You participated fully? Yes, I did." (p. 98) This contradiction indicates one of two things: Either (1) a fundamental confusion on the part of Mohr and his superiors, Fyke and Winkler, as to what his assign- ment actually was, or (2) a purposeful, planned deceit with the intention of obscuring Mohr's real activities and the reasons for them. Not only was Mohr an active participant, but he was https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7f183ce0518da599e06702603eea8fc5.tif a14cfbab19c8365d0efd9694622794e3 PDF Text Text 13 also a "friend" of those in key leadership positions in several antiéwar, anti—imperialist organizations. Mr. Fyke's attempts to deny any infiltration on the part of Mohr into these groups, or his attempts to clain that Mohr did not surveill these "organizations, as such, but several indi— viduals who may have been members of one or more groups" (CSAC minutes. April 29, 1972) amounts to little more than semantic gymnastics. Though surveillance is not conducted for every member of VVAW, Joe Hill, and other groups, co- vert surveillance has been done with great intensity in the lives of leading members of these organizations. If one is close to key figures of leadership, it follows that one will know what activities the larger membership is planning or participating in. The role Mohr was to play was one of active partici- pation, but not overt leadership. He was to influence lead- ership, influence it covertly toward a direction and stance that apparently was to be illegal. What ought to be remem— bered here is that dissent, protest, and redress of grie— vances are not crimes -— and those who engage in them are not criminals. Therefore, surveillance of organizations, individuals, and political activities ought to be stopped. At Kent State University, this surveillance has been done to a great degree. Mr. Winkler, Commander of Special Services. and Mohr's "supervisor” (Hearing, p. 69) ex- plained at the Personnel Hearing that KSU police used in-- https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/230da9ee7d31c2023ca9faa81a4f6b99.tif 3acd9309e8aa51e30421e7729d2ff8d9 PDF Text Text 1H formers to gain information. "Q. Were there many in that capacity? A. Yes, there were." (Hearing, p. 76) ii After Mohr was arrested, Fyke said at a press conference on April 25, 1972 that there were at any time five to eight t ”_______’_,,____s undercover agents working on campus. In the Spring officers h /-\_____‘ of the police department approached at least two persons (that these authors are aware of ) to ask them to serve as informers. So, in spite of a policy designed to regulate surveillance (which, as presently written, is weak and ineffective), the police continue their surveillance essen- tially unchecked. Orders Given by Fyke and Winkler Regarding the Use 9: Weapons by Mohr and His Subsequent Employment of Them Winkler and Fyke both knew of Mohr's possession of the weapons. Winkler said: "We knew he had the weapons and felt there was nothing wrong because they were inoperable. Q. Did you discuss that these weapons were in support of his activities? A. Yes, because they were not illegal to possess, he could use them to enhance his position with his contacts and serve an assignment he was on." (p.79) Fyke said: "It was reported that they (the weapons) were inoperative, and legal to possess." (p.71) Mohr said that he "paid for them (the weapons) out of (his) own pocket to use in the scope of (his) own employment (with the KSU police)." (p.96) https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/500325e480033efabcaba3bf5f0d5e18.tif ffe6c21ad899dfe6a481f6487225711e PDF Text Text 15 Note that previously Fyke had claimed the weapons were only Z"souveneirs“ (Akron Beacon Journal, April 25, 1972, p. 2) or “trophy items or mantle pieces'i (ﬁggggg_Courier, April 25). Since then, the truth has been revealed that the weapons were bought for Mohr‘s undercover assignment and,.in fact, Fyke and Winkler ordered the use of these weapons for such assignment. ' Never were they really considered mantle pieces. Winkler said, “We (Fyke and Winkler) knew he had the weapons.... We weren't going to worry about it.’ Winkler added that ”we advised him that he could use them to enhance his position with his contacts." (Excerpt from an article by Robert J. Drumheller.) Mohr's attorney, Perry Dickinson, a former FBI agent and special prosecutor in the Kent 25 indictments, stated that his client fdid what he was paid for. He got set up and was arrested.” We need not recount the statements of treasury agents and quotations from the Gun Control Act to see that either Fyke and Winkler were ignorant of the laws they are to enforce (and which they claim they are investigating in regard to anti-war activists) or else they are in concert lying to prevent people from understanding the nature of their activities. We need only to read further the transcript of the Personnel Board of Review Hearing: ‘‘They (the weapons) were no violation and it was their (agents of ATF) advice that he (Mohr) sign a waiver and then be released.“ (p.71) If the weapons were legally possessed, there would have been no need for Mohr to sign a waiver of release of his weapons. The fact that he did sign such a waiver indicates a violation Of federal firearms regula- tions. It further indicates that because Mohr was a police agent in possession of illegal weapons it was felt embarassingly necessary to avoid prosecution of Mohru-so Kent City Police; agents of Alcohol, Tdbacco, and https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5a60de7d8dc6a5bba28e17229144141e.tif 27f5944b25316e144792d40a25f1b8b5 PDF Text Text 16 Firearms, and KSU Police illegally and unlawfully seem to have released him from prosecution and confiscated his illegal weapons. Also, Fyke said that Mohr Vwas neither authorized or permitted...at all in the scope of his employ to have or carry a weapon.” (p. 7h) And yet his superiors also admit he was instructed to have and use the AKth and RFC to enhance his position. As a matter of fact, later in the transcript we read: "Q. In the scope of his employ, was this part of what you spoke to him about? A. (by Fyke) Yes, I would think this would be a part of role playing technique that would be used." So, the weapons were possessed and put to use by Mohr in concordance with the orders given him by his superiors, Fyke and Winkler. Mbhr attempted to pass the weapons (with or without payment of money) and thereby make a legal transaction and thus entrap certain activists. He further attempted to sell other weapons to activists. When asked if he considered ‘it proper to sell weapons to students,“ Winkler replied “Well. on duty.‘ (p. 82) Is it ethical for police agents to sell weapons to any students on duty or off? VQ. Would you consider it proper to sell weapons to a subject of your surveillance? A. (by Winkler) Well, I think that the question could not be answered unless I knew all the facts." (p.82) Is it ethical for police agents to sell weapons to any subject of their surveillance? Winkler‘s equivocation is tantamount to an admission that Mohr was ordered to provoke and entrap activists so they might be prosecuted and so their activism might be halted. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/539aec50f5631318193eec297a3ab58a.tif be8526bb1c9eb8161b74cde36483da83 PDF Text Text 17 If Mohr was not authorized to have or carry a weapon, according to Fyke5 and yet Fyke also said that Mohr could use these weapons in role— playingw-how are we to understand Just what Mohr was supposed to do? But more to the point, Fyke and Winkler and Mohr all admit his use of these weapons was more than roleuplaying techniques and was certainly covert in nature. Mohr admits attending meetings at persons' homes. On several occasions he took his weapons to these homes-—he did “have" and "carry" these weapons, contrary to what Fyke stated. "Q. Did you ever show that gun to Mr. Beutler? A. (by Mohr) Yes, I did. Q. Was this at your residence? A. (by Mohr) No, sir, it was at his. Q. Where did he see it? A. (by Mohr) In my hand." And yet only sentences later Mohr again tries to change his story: "Q. During the course of your employment when you were attending these various meetings, did you carry a weapon? A. (by Mohr) No,.sir, I did not. Q. At any time? A. (by Mohr) No, sir, I was told not to." (Ppo99ulOO) Contradictory stories offered by Fyke, Winkler and Mohr make these authors believe that the police officers and their agents are engaged in a conspiracy to arrest antiswar, antimimperialist activists and to prevent the public from knowing about their deceitful entrapments and repressive tactics. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b8c1b0ed688af37e6c3e6f1e1467fbfd.tif a50ab3840fcdcfe142d5aabff9929c22 PDF Text Text l8 E§5 THE STATE PERSONNEL BOARD QE_REVIEW HEARING FOR THE APPEAL QE_MDHR FOR REINSTATEMENT On October 12, 1972, the State Personnel Board of Review ordered that Reinhold Mohr be reinstated in his position with Kent State University's Police Department. Upon review of the hearing procedure and decision, we have found fault with the handling of the case in the following instances: A. Eric Gilbertson, Assistant Attorney General for the State of Ohio: 1. failed to object to unproved accusations regarding the planning and occurrence of violence at Kent State University made against the witnesses and others; failed to research the federal gun control acts in order to determine whether the weapons were in fact legal and/or inoperable; made no effort to have Alan Morris and others present to give their testimony because their "testimony repeated itself;" failed to appeal a blatantly unfair and prejudicial decision made by the Personnel Board, Personnel Board failed to subpoena Alan Morris, the key witness in the whole affair! sent the subpoenas of several other witnesses to incorrect addresses; erred in determining the origin of the gun, AKnhT; admitted no evidence but only hearsay on the part of Fyke, Winkler and Mohr that the gun was "inoperable and illegal;" seems not to have reviewed the transcript of the hearing and its many contradictions before issuing its decision; https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/024ecb469a1fe4456a7d35838e207575.tif fe854410abbc6418072173131bd69a96 PDF Text Text 19 6. asked several offwthe—record questions and made several editorialized comments regarding witnesses or their attitudes; 7. was obviously biased for and protective of Reinhold Mohr. Note the following: Board members pointed out that the charges "are so serious that they would Justify instant dismissal from his position." But they continued, the evidence rebutting the charges "is such that many persons must surely wonder why these charges were ever filed in the first place." The Board claimed that because the three witnesses found out that Mohr had them under surveillance, "there was no doubt the basis for bias and prejudice in their testimony was present." The Board also discounted the testimony of the witnesses because "it was the manner of speaking and the tone of voice rather than the content of the answer which detracted from the credibility of the witnesses." The Board's claim that "there was evidence that the AK-h7 was not operable (and) was not an unlawful weapon" is totally inaccurate. Oper- ability has nothing to do in this case with legality, though the AK-h? does seem to have been operable in a non~ or semi-automatic condition. But more to the point regarding evidence: the Board heard only the testimony of Fyke, Winkler, and Mohr. No documents were admitted as evidence; no treasury agents appeared to testify. Only hearsay was offered to substantiate the Board’s incorrect conclusion. The Board editorialized and made judgments totally removed from the scope of its concern: "There was testimony here that the witness Hawthorne's father either owned or ran a coal mine in southern Ohio.... There was further testimony that Hawthorne himself was going to leaVe school to go 'organize the workers' in his father's mine. This is https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/50a8af646b2d9b69d80dc3048abe3147.tif d2134807ea26ada37ebfbb2d7d6ea014 PDF Text Text 2O surely a classic example of 'biting the hand that feeds you.'" This, too, is indicative of the kinds of biases and decisions made from such biases which are repressive in form and content. Organizing people, oppressed or disadvantaged, is deemed by the Board to be unethical and traiterous in nature. The Board also found the removal of Mohr to be "an attempt to appease certain elements of the campus community and lower their vociferous protestations." The Board further advised Mohr, who was being asked a question by his own attorney, to not offer any extra information or any information voluntarily. He was told to just answer those explicit points of reference in the questions asked-~and to not offer any additional data. All this was done by the Board in response to a question asked of Mohr by his own legal counsel, a question certainly rehearsed and covered by himself and his counsel several times before the hearing. 8. The two sitting members of the board were (a) a former Franklin County prosecutor who admitted in the course of the hearing that he was in charge of directing the activities of undercover agents, and (b) a former state highway patrolman. Both supported the use ' One went so of undercover agents and "rolewplaying techniques.“ far as to ask: "Mr. Gilbertson, it really has nothing to do with this case, but do you consider the Federal Bureau of Investigation entrapment into activities of organized crime?" (p.103) Such concerns demonstrate a prying of the Board into the attitudes of counsel and the witnesses and a failure to deal impartially with the facts. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/64cffb782911a1fb4827e8b97e325455.tif df44bedac9292ce66da5c2e878a3bfc3 PDF Text Text 21 Kent State University Police and Personnel — Reliable sources tell us that Reinhold Mohr received training this summer during the period in which he was removed from the KSU police force. This training (either in service or at the Ohio State Patrol Academy) was allegedly subsidized by the university. Though we consider our sources reliable and trustworthy, we do believe it is necessary to conduct a full and complete investigation into this charge. Armstrong and Oakey, contracted to stenograph and transcribe the testimony in the Hearing - There are at least eight to ten instances in which statements made by Fyke, Winkler, or Mohr have been doctored and edited by deletion or amendation within the transcript. Such deletions include the name of the person from whom Mohr purchased the weapons. This name (Jim Rucker) was mentioned at least twice within the hearing, but is not mentioned once within the transcript. The tearmgas and peppermgas assault on the home of Ken Johnson, former President of Kent Vietnam Veterans Against the War, occurred several nights after Mbhr was arrested. we believe that this was an attempt on the part of someone to intimidate and retaliate against those persons involved in the blowing of Mohr's cover. We condemn this act and demand a full investigation. As P. Dickinson, Mohr's attorney, himself stated: "The fact of the matter is that for a period of two years Mr. Mbhr did conduct himself at their (Fyke and Winkler's) direction." Remembering that MOhr's superiors also used other policemen-to surveill the activities of Elmer K. Leeper, Jr., another policeman who https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d48546aafa9d58d9eb5a586e941ab115.tif e2277db9d57b34ac9e204ad180d1ce0e PDF Text Text 22 was held in disfavor by his superiors, we can only conclude that the command of the police department is running wildly out of control. It a, ( ﬁmust be stopped. ‘53 REPORT gﬂ_§§§X HICKERSON At 5:00 a.m. on October 17, 1971, Gary Hickerson was arrested for trespassing in the Kent University police station. Prior to that, he had gotten himself well inebriated, and had been with some friends who were smoking grass and attempting to convince him.to smoke. Following this encounter he went to the police station, about 1:00 a.m., and began to give ”drug information". There he followed the dispatcher into the communications room, in an attempt to give information, and was then taken to a back room to "wait". The dispatcher then called Chief Fyke at home and not the Sergeant on duty, who would normally have taken charge. But this case involved drug information and that, along with information concerning other specific crimes, is, by policy, given directly to the Chief of Security and kept in his personal file. During this phone call Hickerson apparently changed his mind about supplying information, snuck out of the station, and went home to bed. Later that morning, about 5:00 a.m., Wayne Fisher, the director of Hickerson's dormitory, received a phone call from Marty Williams, the officer on duty, informing him that Gary was to be arrested. Policy at that time was to get in touch with the Resident Director, or other staff members, of police were going to enter a residence hall. Two patrolmen then arrested Gary and he was booked at the Kent City Station for trespassing in the communications room of the Campus Police Station. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8a0ed7b9cfca1c1c1524c5ffb7373be0.tif da3fb95f1ab4226cbd9bc48e03c4e7f8 PDF Text Text 23 , At this same time, Hickerson acquired a new friend, Joe Krak (later discovered to be the plain clothes officer who made drug busts on Bruce Whrstle and Ron Worth in Moulton Hall). A week later Hickerson began to smoke grass with his old friends for the first time. He rapidly progressed to everything in the drug culture-«downers, speed, acid, mescaline, even heroine and opium, i.e. he progressed to the point where he, with his new friend Joe Krak tagging along, attempted to buy all of these from Hickerson's acquaintances in and out of Moulton Hall. This was a rather suspicious turn, considering that previously Hickerson was into nothing, in fact he was quite opposed to any drug use other than alcohol, and then suddenly into everything. On December 13th, Gary Hickerson applied for a release from his housing contract. At 11:30 a.m. on the 16th he moved out of the dorm without saying goodbye to any of the people he'd lived with for three years and without telling any of them that he was leaving. At 12 noon, two Mbulton residents were arrested on drug counts, with Hickerson's friend, Joe Krak, being the plain clothes officer who made the bust. It was later discovered that Hickerson had been moved by the police department to another dorm, for his protection, since his part in the arrests had become obviously apparent. This was done without the knowledge of the residence halls staff involved. several questions erupt from this situation, the first concerning police ethics. Gary Hickerson's physical and mental well being were put in jeopardy for what appears to be expediency reasons on the part of the https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/48b12add9247c41d3b960dbd1946b169.tif 7cec11cb75ad03926d85926c8330c7e9 PDF Text Text 2h Police Department. Joe Krak was on his last Job as a police agent, he was layed off the next day for what are assumed to be budgetary reasons. _ The case could have been closEd without Hickerson's direct involvement 9 i but his extensive help enabled the department to close the case quickly, with the unfortunate side effect being the position that Hickerson, a now known informer, was put in. Without more priviledged information, it is impossible to determine the facts arOund Hickerson's involvement. But there are only two possibilities, neither of which should be acceptable to the University Community. He could have been a pawn, after originally offering worth“ while information, and was thus carelessly used by the police department in a capacity that placed him in physical danger after his invomvement in police activities was realized. If his identity as an informer had been kept confidential, which would have meant more time on the case, he wouldn't have been put in Jeopardy and the move to another dorm would have been unnecessary. For some reason, the Chief of Security felt this was a worthwhile trade—off. The second possibility is that Hickerson was aware of his involvement-- that he was arrested for trespassing in a police department when he refused to give any further help and that the possibilities of a minimum sentence were offered if the charges were dropped, and they were, in return for Hickerson's future help on several drug cases. In light of the odd nature of the original arrest, "trespassing in a police station", and the fact that Hickerson acquired a friend (who turned out to be a plain clothes officer) that accompanied him into a search for drugs that had previously been anathmic to his nature, and his relatively light sentencing by a hearing officer, leads this committee to believe that the latter is the https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ad4dbe4bd47460aafe2f1f6cf68fbb76.tif c4f438c385f3729c73ee490c53630eb4 PDF Text Text 2'5 more probable of the two possibilities. It is virtually impossible to determine the extent of any "deal‘ which was made or the tactics which appear to have been employedéin actually making the deal. These questions have been raised before (letter of Chief Fyke, January 8, 1972, from the Director of Mbulton Hall, Wayne Fisher) and have not been answered. The hesitancy on the part of the Police Department, and more specifically its Director, to answer any honest inquiries in this matter, to illuminate other possibilities, or to Justify its actions leads this committee to believe that the Special Investigations Division was fully cognizant of its actions and their potential ramifications. This type of tactic and apparent lack of ethics employed in the use of student informers, whether knowledgeable by choice or force, is deplorable and should be stopped immediately. Furthermore, those responsible for such policy should be held accountable. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Report: “Ron Mohr Incident” Description Undated report titled "Ron Mohr Incident." See also the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/kent-state-university-police-records#litigation">Kent State University Police records, Litigation Series</a> for detailed information on the Reinhold Mohr case. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 25 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ef70e208374f336311ff8964345e0375.tif f487b0d40537d6bba10e65b5925dd4ba https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/fee2747b2eceb2fdd1ae4f81b878a0be.tif 80061468b074e5e772d616fc22c6c550 PDF Text Text -2- Nature, Need and Scope of Campus Security. 1. The University has an obligation to satisfy the need for security, policing and service functions upon University property. Within reasonable limits, the present service, security and policing operation should be continued to meet this need. However, emphasis should be upon the first two functions. ‘ 2. The present size of the Campus Police Department should be maintained until additional study of work requirements is completed- This requires replacement of personnel who leave during the interim period. At the present time a major contributor to . low morale in the patrolman ranks is job insecurity as related to. possible further size reduction of the Department. :Therefore,i as soon as possible, administration assurances relating to job security should be given. Specifically, apprehension should be removed that required overtime of significant amount, e. g. spring demonstration duty, will not adversely affect department, size in the next fiscal year. i. q a —- ‘,a g'Vgifdf_i:jféfl . A ‘- ."'.‘x.\A' 3. Parking enforcement including time and restricted areas and the related towing and impounding operation should be removed from the police department and housed in the Office of Parkinoi and Traffic. This organizational change permits an add1tvonal mployment opportunity for students. It is further recommended ‘- that the parking enforcement personnel be clothed in a manner,“ ‘ completely different from the campus police. 4. Reaffirmation is given to the surveillance policy already recommended and adopted with special emphasis on the need to discontinue the gathering and filing of information of only https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ec6d2630bdf3a25c2237f68298fceef4.tif 2bebe4ff50973354c30d06f9b8e3c591 PDF Text Text -3- non-criminal significance. . 5. 'Additional crime prevention efforts in all areas, particularly burglaries and larcenies, should be a major priority. The police should provide significant campus wide leadership to this effort. Educational efforts as well as more aggressive security patrolling indicate the range of- activities anticipated. 6. The principle that the President of Kent State Univer- sity should maintain control over the police should be understood, accepted and maintained while, at the same time, . integrity of the police in their law enforcement function is assured. Policy and Review of the Relation of Campus Security to the Wider Local, County, State and Federal Security ,and Law Enfbrcement Agencies. 7. .Cooperation is encouraged between the Campus police and other law enforcement agencies in police activities not specifically exempted by policy. However, except for the possibility of county wide basic recruit and in-service training, and the present agreement to combine records.and communications between the Kent and Kent State University Departments, no consolidation of services is advocated. Committee acceptance of the proposed records and communications consolidation does not indicate either support or opposition to the merger. Additional study is recommended. 8. Although consolidated training efforts are recommended, additional training in the unique aspects of Kent State. University service, security and policing functions should be expanded and intensified. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b87c1582f97888a911a3f156d56611fc.tif 65ca15ffc2923f26fb5324b2c9aaf343 PDF Text Text -4- Evaluation of Present Policy, Practice and Personnel and Future Need’in the Light of Any Recommended Policy. Due to the crucial importance of good personnel and its management to the success of any service activity, and time restrictions disallowing examination in other areas, recommend—' ations are confined to t he general topic of personnel and its 1 management; ' V V . .w 9. A new task force or. committee, not associated with the Campus Security Advisory Committee, should be appointed composed iof members competent in areas of personnel management, with .I:ne or more skilled in civil service operations, to inquire ully into Kent State University' '5 non-academic personnel .practices and policies, as well as controlling legislation and regulations, and to make appropriate recommendations to _improve services in this area of functional responsibility, I 10. 1 Original appointments to positions in the police department should be made by the Director of Security from _registers established on the basis of testing examinations appropriate to selecting personnel meeting the rigorous »i£;:? requirements of campus police officers.~ if ‘ 'hiiyfsii utp’fhhi 11. Promotions within the police department should be m§§§$7 from registers established on the basis of testing and er amining for qualities required in positions to be filled. . .J 12. A position manning table should be prepared for the police department which clearly establishes required supervisory and command positions for which promotional examinations should be held. 13. The four top positions of responsibility under the https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8714cee47f2273247dd701a0d41b91b4.tif 88be137cd2763e92f71911a6a8da7ba0 PDF Text Text .5- Director should be contract positions to allow some flexibility of appointment and assignment of greater specific responsibility for successful operation to the Director. Contract position holders would retain the civil service rank from which they were appointed and each could be returned to it under a 'variety of circumstances. 14. Accompanying this recommendation that overtime be a line item in the Department's budget is the need for a careful 'analysis Of overtime practices, controls and costs. ‘- 15. The Director of Security should improve his commun- - -:ication with all segments of the University community, but .fparticularly with the students, faculty, the lower echelon ”aéngthe‘police department, and with central administration. :ﬁ planned comprehensive program of improvement, implemented Fpromptly, is necessary to overcome communication deficiencies felt by these publics. v .. ~ ‘ METHODOLOGY After receiving the new charge frOm President Olds on May S, the Committee was divided into four sub-committees as follows: 1. Models fOr campus security-~chaired by Allen Rawitch 2. Records, record systems and relationships between campus police and other law enforcement agencies-- chaired by Charles Green 3. Campus community attitudes-~chaired by James D. Dooling, and _ 4. Campus security policy, practice and personnel~-chaired by.George D. Eastman. Each sub-committee held meetings as necessary-~approximately https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e91078797f7bf6153608b4f07ad81559.tif 8b2624e67505fda8b89e12965d1b3692 PDF Text Text -5- twelve were held with the police department alone-~and the full cemmittee met at least weekly to review progress, share tentative conclusions and to receive advice on future directions. Written sub-committee reports were received which formed the basis for the formal recommendations. Because of the specific nature of James Dooling's report and its present limitations, the Covering transmittal sheet and the final summary and conclusion page are included as Appendix I. SUPPORTIVE DATA In order to maximize reader ease in relating recommendations _to background information, findings, or.the rationale resulting in.each,’they are discussed in the same grouping and order as were the recommendations already presented. Nature, Need and Stope'of CampuS'SeCurity. l. The Dooling survey revealed only one percent of the students and faculty and no non-academic employee in’favor of L i not having a police department operating on the University campus. Additionally, only five percent of the faculty, eight I percent of the students, and thirteen percent of the non-academic employees favored the Kent Police Department performing policing and security functions rather than the Campus police. Obviously a need for security-policing operations is perceived that best can be satisfied through an armed security policing operation with emphasis given to the security operation. A review of current and past records relating to numbers of' services provided, security matters attended to, and crime reported and investigated, including apprehensions, verifies the https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9cf2209c03413d8ca9ae5f9b16dcddcf.tif 97a9fef5255e3bd3e276a0c56469d9dc PDF Text Text -7- perceptions of need for a full-service security—policing operation. ' Local police agencies in the greater community concur with both the need for complete police services on the campus and the desirability of the University continuing to maintain its own policing activity; however, one police administrator indicated that his agency would have the ability to adeduately provide this service on'a contract basis.' ' V The Committee has two members who support the concept of the Kent Police Department assuming responsibility for the policing function on the campus. 2. Additional and detailed Study is necessary to determine the optimum size of the campus police department. Dooling’s study indicates that the majority of all respondents know the present size of the campus police department and feel it is about right. The Committee does not have sufficient information to make" a firm recommendation at the present time regarding the exactly desired number of men and women that should comprise the department. Questions specifically relating to the allocation of personnel to the various functions, for instance line oper- -ations, vis«a-vis auxilliary services, remain unanswered. The significant reduction in police personnel in the past year has caused serious job inSecurity in the police department.- Of particular significance is the general police feeling that overtime such as incurred at the end of spring quarter‘ .! https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0f42497a0d63809dd45873db575d350d.tif 09bc56a92d1cb957ef75701ef3cc4534 PDF Text Text >~8~ will result in further personnel reductions in the coming year. It would appear to be unwise to-allow the department to decrease in size if necessary services are to be maintained. 3. Dooling's survey indicates a large majority of respondents consider parlx ing enforcement one of the least limportant activities engaged in by the campus police. Yet it is an area that seemingly engenders strong negative feelings towards the police by a minority of the same respondents. In short, parking enforcement, although necessary, is perceived ras a low priority activity that causes resentment by its very nature. The police agree with this opinion.. i The removal of parking enforcement from the police officers would free them from an activity not commensurate with theirr qua11f1cat1ons-:tra1n1ng-and salary levels. On the other hand, placing reSponsibility for this function- in the Office of Parking and Traffic would provide meaningfulo employment for students and, more importantly, provide a vehicle for a limited type of self- -policing This separated activity',. in order to maximize the benefits to both those who will have the responsibility for parking enforcement and the police who no longer will, should be accomplished by individuals distinctly identified in dress which is different from the police unif- Q; '- 4. The surveillance policy already recommended by the; Committee is supported by the Dooling survey. However, it is an area where significant numbers are opposed to any surveillance as well as significant numbers who feel the Director of Security should make the determination of the appropriateness of all surveillances. Regardless, campus https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/030355482edcea31608f2f11ea262e9d.tif 3799529dfbaa65d9e65aefcb5159aa5c PDF Text Text -9- police concern with political type activities of students is not supported by the majority of respondents regardless of the highly unorthodox or potentially radical change such type of activity may bring about. The majority of student respon« dents also believe that the campus police keep files on the political activities of students. The Committee did not find the last statement to be true, although in a few individual cases, information of a non~criminal nature was collected on individuals apparently not known for any criminal activities. 5. Campus police personnel perceive the most serious problem requiring police attention as the larcenies and burg- laries that occur on Campus property. lhis View is supported by the respondents in the Dooling survey. However, students A particularly, and faculty to a lesser degree, want police activity concentrated on service and security with less emphasis given to law enforcement functi0n3.; Obviously, these views_ commend themselves to a prevention program geared to the .dormitory residents and to the faculty and staff entrusted with University property. It is not anticipated that the police assume total responsibility for such a program, rather that they provide a leadershn>and coordination role. Part of this pre- vention program requires a more aggressive security patrol during the day and times when University property is most apt to be stolen. 6. It is necessary for the President to establish the principle of administrative control of the police department while at the same time the integrity of the police in their https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/90ae7557e258991c761e555edc4796ed.tif 97b305460e836e4766f5290788825b5b PDF Text Text ”lU‘ law enforcement capacity is not compromised. This is‘a deli; cate balance made possible by respect, trust, and open communiCa- tion between the President and the Director of Security. It ' is recommended that the Director of Campus Security be made responsible for the development of all policy and resultant procedures concerned with the security-police operation on the campus. However, upon development of policy or procedure, copies will be sent to the President for his information and affirmation or other response. In any area of concern to the President where a policy and procedure has not been developed,' a request for development should be initiated by the President and aCcomplished by the Director of Security. ‘ \ security functions should be er ecuted according to these / policies and procedures and, in their absence, tasks will be performed in a manner consistent with related policy and pro-‘3 cedures and within the overall philosophy and goals they are ‘inte nded to serve. Deviations from established policy and procedures may be expected to occur infrequently and_ then 1 $H¥‘ ’-normally only require a justifiable rationale for the excepesu tion. Tactical operations are clearly the responsibility Of; _;llm the Director of Security and they should conform to agreed:- h upon policies and procedures and, importantly, with the philosophie , cal role of campus policing on the Kent State University Campus. Despite these attempts to harmonize administrative control of the police with police enforcement integrity, areas of legitimate difference-of Opinion will arise. For this reason the President of Kent State University and the Director of Security must have respect and trust for one another. These https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6ca51fec163467cf33e5280d1096de5d.tif 873762b36669571f7cb3fad674f7a04d PDF Text Text -11.. attributes are built over time, and only if candid, open communication prevails. Certainly within reasonable para- meters, philosophical agreement upon the role and function of a campus security and policing operation must exist between the President and the Director of Security. If fundamental agreement exists, then, in addition to compliance with the letter of established policy and procedure, the more important spirit of understanding prevails. Policy and Review of the Relation of Campus Security to the Wider Local, County, State and Federal Security and Law Enforcement Agencies. 7. To arbitrarily oppose appropriate consolidation of services in this period of societal change is to position ene- self as opposed to the inevitable; and the inevitable appears generally to be desirable. In the case of the campus police, -however, lie two compelling reasons for caution.v One is the uniqueness of a campus community which may suggest or require, even at a loss of monetary savings and some efficiency and ,effectiveness of action, greater autonomy and independence of its police agency. The other, and not measured during the course of this study, is the competence, capability, and philosophical stance of the agencies with which consolidation might be effected. Clearly coordination with other agencies must be in ' the forefront of administrative concerns, but progress toward it, in whatever field of interest may be under consideration, should be carefully planned under circumstances which allow full . recognition and evaluation of consequences: These views are supported by the Dooling survey. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/291d20823f3f68b1dde849700f9ccf15.tif 6b557177cdf9c65c76195e5318f75174 PDF Text Text J -12.. 8. Ohio State civil service regulations require a 12~ week (480 hour) course for lrecruit campus policemen. Except, however, for the 528- hour course offered by the Center for State and Local Government, no such program is available in the State. .It should be noted that most campus personnel have not been through this program, although most have had a 400- hour course offered by the Ohio Highway Patrol. The Center program is midway in its second full year in campus security training under a matching-funds arrangement with the Administra- ltion of Justice Division of the Ohio Department of Development, and is seeking sponsorship and funding for a third year to begin in January, 1973. . .sr ' . It is designed on a multiple—purpose basis pertinent to this . I { study and report. It provides training designed to fit young men .a and women for the demanding and unique re quirement s of campus security and police agencies, in part by making them fully sensitive to the complexities of human interrelationships lound in a campus community. Enrollees must be students at Kent State University or another college or university; thus, each finds W . . . himself in a valuable complementary education/trainino Situation.i It is, as well, an excellent means of providing student financial assistance in a significant learning process. i Even this program requires further modification and st rength- ening. It can be seen, however, that the University treats”. seriously the matter of appropriate training for campus policew and security officers. Thus, in order to effect close working relationships with local county and municipal police agencies, and to have them work efficaciously with campus police on campus https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/61caef6d5ed176e7784430088457b140.tif e5c31e908b5064ddf87502162da66b36 PDF Text Text -13- and in the greater community, similar training should be pro- vided to their personnel. Consolidated training cannot simply ’be an end in itself and will not be worthwhile in relationship to improvement of on-campus operations unless elements of the campus training program are made part of the training for local-agency personnel. The Committee is fully committed to improved training. A further observation seems appropriate; it is that all campus policemen should hold baccalaureate degrees. It is not suggested that such degrees be a condition of original employ- ment; rather it is suggested that attaining such degrees should be a condition of continued employment and that arrangements should be made so that study tpward degree attainment is made feasible for campus police employees. Evaluation of Present Policy, Practice and Personnel. and Future Need in the Light of Any Recommended Policy. 9. The current review of police operations, in itself, disclosed personnel practices seemingly inimical to the best interests of the University in hiring, assigning, promoting, disciplining and otherwise procesSing non-academic personnel. The Committee sensed that personnel practices which are detri- mental to the campus police operation are common throughout the University and, thus, should be of both general and specific concern to the administration. It is believed that inquiry of management people across campus would develop strong support for a general study of nonracademic personnel practices. It has been reported to this Committee, as well, that the Institu- .tional Governance Committee has parallel concerns. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4e90cc784d58ef48ac5acc1bf77dc504.tif 25ad3c0f4b1a1444a16fadf9bf71a74d PDF Text Text ..... ' . , '_ V _ f . .' ‘ ,_ v .. -,, J“ ‘ ’ ' — l - , ' ' . ,. x ' '4 ’ - ‘ - . . . ‘ . , . .. a ’ ' .. ' ' I 10. Perhaps without exception, authorities in the poiiéé"*a field~-both educators and practitioners--have long recommended careful screening of applicants for police service. -Policing on campuses, as in municipalities and elsewhere, is a sensitive function which cannot be adequately performed by inadequate people. Thus, the University must assure itself that only the best of available recruits are accepted for appointment. Current practices, except_for those used independently by the Campus 1 police themselves, dare not responsive to basic needsizii y'éi“§: '11.- The University has no formal policy, with supporting, 'and definitive procedures, for selecting police personnel to be, appointed to positions of superviSory or command positions. Proei. motions, in the ranks of non— academic personnel, lead quickly and without qualification to tenure. In View of obviously inadequate promotion practices, poor appointments may be made and, with 'current non—use of probation as a screening device, a poor I appointment may result in career-long handicaps to the wells$d% ‘1.) 1 being of the University. ' 1" -1,-V" ' ':---‘;“:;;¢flffi” 12. Considerable confusion presently exists in supervisory-( and- command and rank- and- title relationships in the campus pol1ce‘ﬂ agency; it is felt keenly in the department and signif icantlyjiiff‘ outside the department. The confusion arises largely out of the need to establish certain supervisory and command designa- tions for which provisions are not made within the framework of civil_service or contract policies and regulations. 13. Fulfilling the responsibilities of campus security involves sensitive and demanding decisions and actions. Moreover, https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/82689a96b8fc62cdf053c6210c3cd2a2.tif 4a72ba84818f6b5fc40ed493e8e5b29a PDF Text Text -15- campus requirements may change dramatically over intervals of time. In order to meet present requirements and adjust rapidly to changing circumstances, perhaps four command positions should be open for prompt replacement of incumbents and indeed, if conditions so dictate, for abolition. Contract positions, properly described and established, will provide for such eventualities without disservice to incumbents or the University. 14. In order to remove the currently held police opinion that unusually large departmental use of legitimate overtime, for instance, campus disturbances, will result in subsequent- year personnel reductions, a line item of overtime should be included. There is no information available to indicate this type of overtime will not be needed in future years. However, the determination of whom should receive overtime, in other situations, by whose authority and under what conditions, needs comprehensive study. The accompliShment of recommendation thirteen would be a step in this direction. . 15. Fifty percent of the students in the Dooling Survey indicated the police area most needing improvement was public relations and better communications with the university community. Twenty—nine percent of the faculty and thirty-six percent of the non-academic employees also selected better public relations as _the area most needing improvement. It was the area most men- tioned by all respondents. ‘ Complaints of both faculty and student regarding the , inaccessibility of the director have been received. , Many of the police personnel who were interviewed, although expressing https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/04fbf7d3c9008f5e617f4a3c3e4d72c2.tif 469706513b6616212373b090ecaf15aa PDF Text Text support for the professional competency of the Director, indicated a feeling of remoteness from the administration of the Department. The Committee, itself, found difficulty in maintaining effective communication with the Director although he was free and open in the various exchanges of information and opinions. Equally of concern is an apparent lack of communi- cation between the Director and central administration. In short, there is evidence of communication weaknesses. o ISTUDY LIMITATlONS Events, both on campus and off campus between May S and June 3, requiring police activity of an unusual and demanding cted ta FJ. nature, we tr meet with sub- committee members. These meetings, crucial to. Committee members attainment of information and understandings, were held during the entire study period with the last meeting‘ held on June 1. As a result, full committee deliberation of recommendations was not completed until June 6, with a resultant _ \ delay in final report preparation. j_' . lgéihffnfigéiﬁi The type of concerned and committed individual selected to serVe on this Committee is equally attractive to and desired by.- other groups and activities. As a result, several members were. simply unaVailable for periods of time. . Although not contained in the charge, oral agreement as to the desirability of securing "campus community" opinions about security functions has resulted in the obtainment of_an enormous amount of raw data with little time for careful and prudent analysis. In addition, validity and reliability tests have not https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5a8c6ca5691a254c6feb8df84fae173c.tif cf73a8f5dbabc9681b0bce8b303f53be PDF Text Text been accomplished. In short, the 10gistics of the survey could not be accomplished in the short time frame allotted. The nature of the Committee charge with its extremely short time frame and the resultant report format does not allow for a recitation of the positive and in many caSes very well executed activities of the campus police. Similarly it does not permit a cataloging of the Director of Security's contributions to the present improved status of the campus police when compared to its condition a short few years ago. However, the Committee would be remiss in not mentioning the obvious integrity, commit- ment and professional competency of the Director.and the impact these characteristics have had upon the Department. Finally, the comprehensive request for review, analysis and recommendation was simply beyond the time resources available. Admittedly,_in some, it not all areas, much more study could be- done. _ ' O ‘ Within these limitations, the Committee Chairman is deeply in the debt of each person who so faithfully performed his role in the accomplishment of assigned tasks and is pleased to present this report. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5bb032244803f64df2a02da14e08c7a2.tif ca2dce620c1e2671d1d54265d34316f4 PDF Text Text APPENDIX I DRAFT COPY: Not to be cited. The Campus Police at Kent State: A Survey of Opinion Subcommittee report prepared for the Campus Security Advisory Committee, June 1972. D. James Dooling Kent State University NOTE: The conclusion drawn in this report are that of only one member of the Campus Security Advisory Committee. This report does not necessarily represent the considered judgment of the Campus Security Advisory Committee. DRAFT COPY: Not to be cited. NOTE: In its present form, this document cannot be consr idered a reliable or valid representation of opinion for the follo wing reasons: , 1; It is based on incomplete returns. Questionnaires were still being received daily as this first draft was being writte n. . 2. Appropriate inferential statistics have not been per- ,formed on the data. Some differences that look significant, may not be. Some differences that do not look significant, may be. 3. Appropriate internal checks on the validity and reliabil— -ity of individual items have not been carried out. For er ample, some items may have been ambiguous and not given the interpreta~ tion intended by the author. Such items have yet to be discovered gor eliminated. -‘7 ‘ 4. Deadline pressures have not allowed for a thoughtful and careful interpretation of the results. ‘. 1.x, ‘.'~ -_ . Ho https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8606dba0467b0886be7b3ec88e99ae57.tif 5bd7b94919c5b33f85106985fbc54e4c PDF Text Text DRAFT COPY: Not to be cited. All conclusidns drawn at the present time must be inter- preted with great caution due to the reasons previously given. The general picture that emerges is that the campus police have good support from the faculty and non-academic employees, while the student body is either divided or neutral. The large number of students who are neutral towards the police may reflect apathy or lack of contact or it may mean that students judge police according to individual situations. It is never- theless clear that students are not overwhelmingly negative toward our campus police department. While the events of this spring have not had very much effect on the overall feelings toward the police, there are two possible changes in attitude that may have occurred: (a) While the average rating remains about the same, there may be a slight tendency towards more polarization at the present time From 1971 to 1972, both positive and negative evaluations increased slightly. (b) There may be a good deal more student concern about surveillance and record- keeping --- All segments of the university provide strong support for having a campus police force that is staffed by professional police who are well-paid. The tendency, however, is to stress ‘_seCurity and to de-emphasize investigatory work. The problem with investigations centers on political activity and drugs. The role of the campus police in both.of these areas needs 'sharper definition so that they engage in activities that have the support of the people on campus. This must, of course, be balanced against the pressures from townspeople who are greatly concerned about drugs and who do not want student demonstrations impinging on the town. The surveillance policy adopted by CSAC seems to closely reflect the opinions of the university community. ‘ There is a serious morale problem in the campus police department. It is not clear as to what is the most important aspect, but several of the following actions seem to be called for: (a) Increased communication between the Director of Security and his men. (b) Granting the Director power to discipline men without goir g through the personnel office. (c) A study of off ice vs patrol needs should be conducted. (d) A clear procedure for promotion should be instituted to insure fairness. (e) The men m'st be given reasonable job security--the campus community agrees that we should pay good salaries to attract good aeople. Like ewise, the university administration should provide present patrolman with reasonable job security. While the campus police get more favorable than unfavorable ratings, it is also clear that overall performance tends to be rateda as only fair. This may mean that there is a real need for improvement. Or-~it ma y be the normal kind of rating that police departments can typically expect to get. A control study, using other college campuses would give us some information on this question. ii https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b112565d61f75d961d29f625be8ba820.tif 356ba7d4135cdf858f82cfe9d1ce3004 PDF Text Text INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE KENTSTATElﬂﬂVERSTY KENT, omo To Mr. Earle Roberts, Chairman, Campus Security Advisory Committee Féom President Glenn A. Olds ' DATE June 19, 1972 sugugn-Campus Security Advisory Committee Report This will acknowledge with appreciation the difficult but important task of you and your Committee and its valuable report delivered June 12. In accord with my own promise, I take this form of response within the week, to acknowledge its significant recommendations, and what I intend to do about them. I will concentrate on the specific recommendations, leaving the subsequent supportive materials for later study and any further appropriate action. Recommendation 1. The President concurs, and will seek to strengthen this emphasis and balance. Recommendation 2. In response to real need and sagging morale, the President will indicate to the Department and publicly, that we intend to hold the present level of staff until additional study of work requirements, prescribed below, has been completed. Recommendation 3. The President will propose immediately removal of parking enforcement from the Security Department. He will emphasize training and utilization of responsible students, clothed in a distinctly different manner from campus security. *He is assuming there will be no legal problem entailed in relation to City or County in the law enforcement attached to parking violation or monitoring. Recommendation 4. As already indicated and announced publicly by the President, we will implement the surveillance policy already recommended and endorsed,and will insure that no improper gathering and filing of information of non-criminal significance will take place. Recommendation 5. The President will instruct campuswide intens— ification of our current efforts at crime prevention, with increasingly aggressive educational and security measures. Recommendation 6. The President accepts this principle of accountability under the Board of Trustees as axiomatic. The General Assembly reinforced this accountability in its recent legislative measure, Senate Bill #475, page 199, as follows: https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/51d7bac18d439863f858af4053f33c4f.tif 83205ca04326738ea2af56a70a01b6cf PDF Text Text Mr. Earle Roberts -2— June 19, 1972 "The general assembly hereby declares its expecta- tion that the authority of government vested by law in the boards of trustees and in the boards of direct- ors of state-assisted institutions of higher education shall in fact be exercised by said boards. Boards of trustees and boards of directors may consult extensively with appropriate student and faculty groups. Administrative decisions about the utiliza- tion of available resources, about organizational structure, about disciplinary procedure, and about administrative personnel shall be.the exclusive prerogative of boards of trustees. Any delegation of authority by a board of trustees or by a board of directors shall be accompanied by appropriate standards of guidance concerning expected objectives in the exercise of such delegated authority and shall be accompanied by periodic review of the exercise of this delegated authority to the end that the public interest in contrast to any institutional or special interest shall be served." The President accepts this delegated authority, and has the assurance that the Security Director and officers do as well. ' Recommendation 7. The President has endorsed and encouraged this form of cooperation within our stated policy. He has further encouraged coordination of all appropriate services under that policy. He will instruct a special study and report on any new proposals on consolidation and merger, and request the Advisory Committee's Review of the same. Recommendation 8. The President will strongly recommend that the Department of Criminal Justice Studies undertake, in cooperation with the Security office, appropriate and addi— tional training in the unique features of University require- ments in these areas. ~ Recommendation 9. The President will appoint an appropriate ad hoc committee to review the University‘s non-academic personnel practices and policies to make appropriate recom- mendations for improvement in this area. Recommendation 10. This policy of quality testing and selec— tion of appointments thus recommended will be followed. Recommendation ll. Promotions will follow the same pattern. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/23214beb076225a9e3f0e5919e993eaa.tif 1db7ba73884f11477107ee00985d147e PDF Text Text Mr. Earle Roberts * ~3— June 19, 1972 'Recommendation 12. The President will instruct the Director of Security to prepare, in consultation with the appropriate University personnel officer, such a position manning table. Recommendation 13. The President will initiate inquiry whether these top four positions may be moved to a contract base to provide this essential flexibility and accountability, and, if possible, do so. Recommendation 14. Such an overtime analysis, the Director of Security indicates, has been done and is available. Recommendation 15. The President, subsequent to receipt of this report, has held an extensive discussion with the Director of Security on all items of the report, but with special reference to the necessity for marked improvement in the area .of communications. We have discussed immediate programs of education, improved University—wide interpretation of both our policy and practice in this area, significant changes in both symbol and practice of policy presence on campus, and implications of the various supportive data of this report. The summer will be used to take specific action for improvement in this area. Finally, may I express special appreciation to Dr. Dooling for his attitude survey, and its finished form expected by August 1. Though I recognize his reservations for findings done under such a time pressure, and in the special campus climate of that period, his inventory and analysis is especially helpful. The report makes clear that the general polariza-~ tion of campus attitudes over the relation of political activity and of drugs to criminal behavior is still deep and divisive. Yet, it indicates the level and form of present activity in this area enjoys widespread support.- It suggests further that the climate of criticism and contention of the personal or professional competence of our staff do not reflect a significant body of opinion, and that specific reforms mentioned and subsequent studies should permit us, swiftly and significantly, to improve this area of Univer- sity service. The Umversity community is in your debt for https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3b9732d966c33fcd6803fc6e65943ac2.tif 822826090a8badd5841002ff4b4c214a PDF Text Text Mr. Earle Roberts -4- June 19, 1972} the responsible way in which you and the Committee moved in so short a time to address a critical area. I will expect your continued helpfulness as Advisory Committee as we move now to implement your recommendations. GAO:hk Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Report with Recommendations Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1972-06 Description Report submitted to Kent State University President Glenn A. Olds by the Campus Security Advisory Committee in June 1972. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 23 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f2fce6e044f16f498c4c5be26d53aa9b.tif 94fb6e45d72994c6086fcf22f91a1f3b https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6543b26991d08067971d6f39cbef6b8b.tif 2cd6b3b80589d6005f71803d2842d7fb PDF Text Text the Director should be contract positions to allow some flexi- bility of appointment and assignment of greater specific responsibility for successful operation to the Director. Contract position holders would retain the civil service rank from which they were appointed and each could be returned to it under a variety of circumstances. Recommendation 6. The Director, as others of like responsibility in the University, should have clear—cut disciplinary authority to make summary and other suspensions when they are, in his judgment, required. Guidelines for these actions, of course, require careful additional consideration. Observation 1. The Police Department now has 39 sworn police- men (not including two institutional security officers, aged 70 and 62). Of these,27, or 71 per cent, are in field positions (including Crawford). The 27 (less Crawford) are composed of: 20 patrolmen in the patrol unit 2 patrolmen in the task force 2 patrolmen in general investigations 2 patrolmen in special investigations One patrolman, however, is on extended sick leave. An effort is made to keep four regular patrolmen on duty around the clock, supplemented by a. The task force men five days a week from 7 p.m. to 3 a.m. b. Essentially one tour per day by Fyke or one of his three key personnel who assume an extra tour of duty each four days. .c. Men on loan for several hours at a time from both Staff and Inspections and Auxiliary Service units. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/650ac3d20358b971cefe5a391a236ca5.tif c1843b83a0830316c7063d80c4aaf256 PDF Text Text K-n‘ d. Patrolmen on overtime assignments. It is urged, in this report, that a careful analysis be made of overtime practices, controls, and costs. If we may help further, please so notify us. GDE:no https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1b0004ee7f33899a3e2d532fd6e80575.tif ea5051fa03503612033b021dd204f548 PDF Text Text COMMITTEE REPORT Nature, need and scope of campus security A. Cite annual activity figures 1. Criminal 2. Non-criminal Dooling survey 1. Combination security-police operation 2. Rawitch model Coordination, consolidation trend 1. Communications and records a. Kent-K.S.U. b. Ravenna reaction c. State government reaction 2. Four county narcotics squad Police perspective — full service 1. Present deployment of manpower — functioning 2. To whom responsible — why University administration perspective — why Recommendations 1. Nature — philosophy 2. Scope - Mbdgﬁé} or B Gaga 3. Size 4. Special considerations — limitations https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/bb955334434129d7c65d9ccb5d1a34ef.tif 40e04c203afc0c73d17595fd0874969c PDF Text Text II. Review of present policy and practice A. General disclaimer - lack of time and involvement of police in campus activities B. Dooling survey results - perspectives of students, faculty, non—academic staff, and townspeople C. Eastman report 1. Personnel practices difficulties 2. Police perceptions — Dooling survey D. Recommendations I l. Eastman survey 2. Implied in Dooling survey a. "Special" campus police training b. Community relations 3. Committee III. Policy and review of the relation of campus security to the wider local, county, state and federal security and law enforce— ment agencies A. Green report 1. Special relationship between Kent and KSU police (change from 1970) 2. Other local police 3. State and federal'agencies u. Special area of intelligence files B. Recommendations (if any) IV. Evaluation of present policy, practice and personnel and future need in the light of any recommended policy A. "Tone" and philosophy B. Reassignment of personnel https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/02079f76491011c1cee2e6039e588ec2.tif 67686a09f1eb5d499b644542f50fd253 PDF Text Text New relationships — other agencies Recruiting and selection procedures Training Size ——Dooling study as it applies https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1022ec23899adc6c2b9d9beeede3899e.tif 03b740c6a4351be14b606f902a89a6e4 PDF Text Text Decisions—— 1. 2. 10. ll. Should there be a University police department? What activities or functions should it be involved with? In each of the above functions, what degree of effort (time, personnel, resources, etc.) should be expended? What degree of consolidation with Kent P.D. should be encouraged? With other agencies Records and communications Investigations ,lntelﬁﬁggnnnr Training Court officer What cooperation with other police agencies should be encouraged? Intelligence Narcotics What size should the KSU police department be? What philosophy should guide the KSU police? Problem of budget — overtime, etc. Selection, training, promotion of men - problems — civil service reform Is the present police leadership compatible with out views of what campus security ought to be? Recommendation How can administrative control of the police be maintained at the same time that integrity of the police is maintained? Policy development Tactical situations https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d08d980cebbe92315935aa8c4513754c.tif 4a90c86e0536165593f9cbf57ebc1a7a PDF Text Text This very brief report will deal with the following: I. Intelligence files maintained by Campus Security'Department, A. Criteria for inclusion in files B. Collection of data C. Content D. Transmittal E. Purging II. Campus Security Department's relationship to other law enforce- ment agencies Highway Patrol Federal departments A. City of Kent B. Ravenna C. County D' E III. .Recommendations The subcommittee was charged with the task of reviewing the records and lrecord systems of the Campus Police; however, this report will make note of .only the "Intelligence Files." Attention will be focused here because of the general campus paranoia centered around the files and because of the standard and routine nature of the regular records. It must be especially noted that intelligence files are not part of the department standard master index file system but are part of the Chief's Administrative File System (initially re- ferred to as his Personal Internal files). Other parts of the administrative file system includes personal correspondence, complaints against personnel, commendations, personnel files, and anything not kept in the master index. The chief has an index card which corresponds with each intelligence file. Each card has a name along with other data and a code which identify the nature of the offense. Because of the sensitive nature and the raw data in the files, the subcommittee agreed to view only the index cards. The system has been in operation for slightly less than one year and https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/928cbf51feae533a981530c414033372.tif 90bc16c86b1097efa8aea441578e76fb PDF Text Text already has approximately 3,000 cards (some date back almost five years).~ The range of campus folk included, both student and faculty, appeared to be i rather broad and the maintenance'of the system appeared rather poor, e.g., many of the records were without offense identifying codes. Criterion for inclusion in the files follows: a. An arrestee or suspect with possible arrest imminent-—for the ‘ following offenses: . narcotics . . violent activity (revolutionary) . gambling' . prostitution b. Names submitted by other departments c. Person who is a continuing source of information (1. Victim ' e. Sex related crimes f. Pornography #‘UOMH In view of some of the names included criterion is not closely adhered to. The files appeared to consist of principally raw data, e.g., newspaper ~clippings, pictures, data from surveillance at rallies, etc., etc. However, .the names of these individuals are on file, as a matter of practice and poli- 'cy, with the highway patrol and the Kent City Police Department. Any law enforcement agency has access to this (largely unverified) information. The Chief was not clear as to whether or not he had power to periodically purge these files. Campus Security Department's relationship with other law enforcement agencies varies from formal to very informal. The Kent Police Department is KSU's Chief back-up unit and as a matter of policy keep duplicate intelligence card files. They are, of course, near a merger of their records and communications systems. Their evolving relationship is being watched very closely by other local en- forcement agencies. Ravenna's Chief, for one, is concerned about the close relationship between the city of Kent and the campus security. He opposes movement towards a county wide communications system and any other joint effort https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b60df8ac5444410b712ac2022dba29c3.tif 98fdbe855a7f996260be0c6345434c51 PDF Text Text because of concern about losing his autonomy. In that Ravenna has a mutual aid pact with the city of Kent, disruptions on campus put a great deal of stress on his small department. .The chief suggested that campus security‘ get out of the police business and permit the city of Kent to assume this function. - Sheriff Hedgedus firmly recommended that campus security retain its ~ police functions because to change would place other agencies under a great deal of pressure, plus the culture of the university is such that it needs to police its own. The Sheriff has felt the need to increase its campus ' surveillance since the reduction of campus security's efforts in this area. Several federal agencies operate on this campus from time to time, often without the knowledge of campus security. They range from the Secret Service, . when threatening language has been used toward the President, to internal ‘lrevenue when bogus money is circulated. The most active are the FBI and the Treasury Department (drug traffic). Army Intelligence investigate when there is an ROTC problem. i I strongly recommend that campus security take the follwing actions re— garding its intelligence files: 1. Greatly delimit man hours devoted to the present form of intelligence work. 2.‘ Review and sharpen the criterion for inclusion in the intelligence files. 3. Review the policy of transmittal, both formal and informal, to other law enforcement agencies. ' h. Campus security initiate steps to purge the files of those who have not committed a crime nor are likely to commit one (only 15 of the 3,000 files are active). I will support a recommendation to contract with the City of Kent for police services.‘ The Kent City Chief has indicated a willingness and a capacity to assume the functions with the understanding that he will need additional resources. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Reports: Sub-Committees Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1972 Description Subcommittee reports submitted to the Campus Security Advisory Committee in 1972. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 10 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/94e9f5327b154f6fe745a4ae856610d2.tif 7756cce69ff9e6cf695ddc1082e8b98e https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f31ea0faa4ebd8f27daf43baf2ec38f2.tif 8920e7c9d18e01cea047b717ccc5ec18 PDF Text Text ' . ’ : O-IOJ-IREV. mun. fORM APROVIO IUOGET BUREAU NO. a—aoom g-ILETURN A MONTHLY RETURN OF OFMT‘QSES KNOWN TO THE POLICE TO OE FORWARDED TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU (1" 11i‘v'f’x'HGATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.. 20335 BY THE SEVENTII BAY AFTER CLOSE OF MONTH .‘r \ "JR T’L‘T imImrﬁonL - oho IaIIy shoal. ‘ L...“ ”I,“ T 2 , 3 4 s I _ , . , - NUMBER or omuscs onmm P:‘» w) : m. A --———« CLASSIFICATION or orrsuscs oﬁTT-‘OWR TO P'LHCTI "’“mUNU‘D' "5" $2133; (IT-50131.33; ‘2 “5"” 3' “Fm "I" ”om” ., , , FALSE 0a nAsmss ~--~-«- (PART I CLASSES) LUDE UNFOJNCLL COMPLAINTS mwus COLUMN 3) a IT AND ATTEL‘I???” {INCLUDE ATTEMPTSI . TOTAL OFFENSES “Y LINES" O" V CLEARED PERSONS UNDER 1. INCLUDED IN So) I. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE a. MURDER AND NONNSGLIGENT MANSLAUGHTER b. MANSLAUGHTER GY NEGLIGENCE .2. FORCIBLE RAPE . ' TOTAL 0. RAPE BY FORCE - b. ASSAULT TO RAPE - ATTEMPTS 3. ROBBERY A TOTAL 0. ARMED . NY WEAS‘CN b STRONG-ARM - NO WEAPON 4. ASSAULT GUN ...._L mﬁwm maize: !' , m 'M! '4? O H ’nm Tm ETC. - AGGRAVATED OTHER ASSAULT: .‘ rm Ac-.<;w./ATED er 5, BURGLARY TOTAL "Emu“; ‘ r ,FOQ $.35me EN??? . NO roads A 6. [ARCENY - THEFT (EXCEPT AUTO THEFT) A VA ' ,' I - 2 C b. UNDER :50 IN VALUE ' ‘5’ / - 3 ' 7'. AUTO THEFT ' ’ 2' GRAND TOTAL . g .9, 3 TOTAL ARRESTS THIS MONTH @6’ 7 2’ FOR ALL OFFENSES EXCEPT TRAFFIC / . . 30f“ ADULTS ' - , JUVENILES ﬂi— (AGE As oarmso BY YOU! STATE) ' PREPARED BY _ , “HE 4 ' L CHIEF. COMMISSIONER. OR SUPERINTENDENT /‘ r5461“? ‘0 4W 7 5” 4 MONTH AND YEAR ‘ DO NOT us: Tm: ”AC! INITIALS asconoso asvuwco . ‘ runcnto . , I * _ vmnto jZ‘A/r 5;;7'5 [Al/d54454ry‘ ﬂy“: ‘ ADJUSTED ' . CITY AND STATE https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/386dad76daddd9abc57d1b0e0f28442d.tif 6671b8b1008e735b99f55b60c4bd393b PDF Text Text 2 . , s-Toa-msv. 744-64) I Tom Amoon ‘ , auocET BUREAU No. 0400!: 93.34: 3R?\ A ' ‘ :‘~«"t"":*~£'."1§’l_‘x’ RETURN OF OFFE NSES KNOWN TO THE POLICE "TO BE FOR‘.‘ ARD-D TO THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVES‘HGATION, U.$. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C., 20535 BY "(iii 55‘ ’5? 37d DAY AFTER CLOSE OF MONTH. See olhor side for instructions - also Taﬂy shoal. ,' T . 2 L 3 4 s " NUMBER OF OFFENSES . OFFENSES memo NUMBER OF ACTUAL -—-- CLASSTELCATTON OF OFFENSES OR 'KN'OWN To POLICE ngsFEogrgig'n'g's OFFENSES (COLUMN 2 CLEAR“) " ”Em "“5 MONT” (PART I CLASSES) LUDE ‘UNFOUNDED" COMPLAINTS MINUS COLUMN 3) g b ' AND ATTEMPTS) (INCLUDE ATTEMFTS) TOTAL OFFENSES BY ARREST OF ‘ CLEARED PERSONS UNDER 18 (INCLUDED IN So) ‘CRIMINAL HOMICIDE i a MURDER ANO NONNEOUOENT MANSLAUGHTER b. MANSLAUOHTER av NEGUGENCE 2. FORCIBLE RAPE V l c. RAPE 6‘1 FORCE ASSAULT To RAPE . ATTEMPTS 3. ROBBERY o. ARMED - ANY WEAPON b. smONO-AEAA . NOWEAPON 4. ASSAULT GUN TH S WEAPON .. ' N a HAND FEET . AGGRAVATED ‘: 9 OTHER ASSAUL . NOT AGGRAVATED _'.: N 5. BURGLARY " F N w - E ENTRY 6. LARCENY - THEFT (EXCEPT AUTO THEFT) A . . b. UNDER Sso TN VALUE V 4’0 3 9 g 7. AUTO MEET ' '1 ~ ‘ 2' i _ ,, . ; GRAND TOTAL 7 g L 75 5 g , ' ' ' ‘ M 794 i , . - TOTAL ARRESTS THIS MONTH ; . " 3/ " ’M’ *' 1 ' EOE; ALL OFFENSES EXCEPT TRAFFIC » -. _- _ 3 DATE . ‘ L . 77"./ . v (1" . ADULTS . JUVENILES- , ‘ ‘ ' LACE AS DEFINED BY YOUR STATE) ‘ . THEMED BY ~ E _. TITLE . p . V \ ‘ . ‘ ' “ - E '\'. i / ‘ ‘ -' ’2‘ . r '5 ' 1 ‘ ' , .,; cmEE. COMMISSKDNHI. on SUPERINTENDENT . A} ,1 li‘ki’w‘y‘, I :7 '2’” _ T. . 4 MONTH ANO YEAR _ . , . ’ ' ' ' r00 NOT USE THIS SPAC! l OAIHOAIO https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a7d9bbc1f15a15a3e1e9cefdea825744.tif 9ad71a23658554562de6241b0ff3891f PDF Text Text - wax-(Rev; 744.50 FORM Amovzo 4 IUDGET aURRAU NO. 43—100” . RETURN A _ . MONTHLY RETURN OF OFFENSES KNOWN TO THE POLICE TO BE FORWARDED TO THE FEDERAL ETUTTEAU OF TNVESTSCATTON, U.$. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHTNGTON, D.C., 20535 BY THE SEVENTH DAY AFTER CLOSE OF MCMTH. {an nth-T 956-3 5m instrurﬁons -- also To”)! than}. ‘ ,. I 2 z 3 4 5 _ . . A . . I ., - NUMBER 0; ommes . . Offznﬁﬂ T.r:.:>-.n . , . NUMBEROT ACTUAL ———————: GLAS:,.::c.-\sz4.or OFFENSES OR (RWY: TI) W‘ "’"o‘mom' "E" orrmsss IGOLUMN 2 CLEAR“) 8' "Em "“5 ”ONT” (PART I CLASSES) uNCLum "Ixmeugaw" ”‘éggﬁtﬂmt‘s‘m "AhNTTSYowwa 3) a I, , ' AND ATTUAP’S‘I ' (INCLUDE ATTtMHS) TOTAL OFFENSES av ARREST OF - CLEARED PERSONS UNDER 18 HNCLUDEO IN 5a) _ l. CRIMINAL HOMPCIDE c. MURDER AND NONNEGUGENT MANSLAUGHTER K b. MANSLAUGHTER BY NEGLIGENCE '2. FORCIBLE RAPE, ' ' ' ' TOTAL 5. RARL 8‘! TOAD: b. ASSAULT To RAFS . ATTEMPTS ' ' ‘ . 3. ROBBERY . TOTAL 4 ' —"\b . Ia, ARMED - ANY WEAPON b. STRONCoARM - NO WEAPON 4'. ASSAULT ‘ ' TOTAL Z/ ‘ ' " ' \S’ - . ' 0.61).“; ‘ ' b. KNIT: ca CUTTING TNSTRUMENT (LUTHER DANGEROUS WEAPON 1’ / ‘ a, HANDS, FISTS, rm, ETC. - AGGRAVATED / ' / , o, OTHER ASSAULTS - NOT AGGRAVATED 2,, , .2— s.'RURGLARY. TOTAL ’ a. FOQCIFLE ENTRY b. UNIAWFUL ENTRY - no FORCE CLA'TTEMPTED FORGISLE ENTRY L 6. LARCENY - THEFT (EXCEPT AUTO THEFT} V . ' 0‘ ssn AND OVER IN VALUE J? 929 S b. UNDER S50 IN VALUE 4%? ' . 415’ f 7. AUTO. THEFT . .2 2— GRAND TOTAL 83 3) Q. 6/ ' (9 4 p1? . 7 L TOTAL ARRESTS THIS MONTH 3 ’4 DATE FOR ALL OFFENSES EXCEPT TRAFFIC A /& 6 . , . n -. Aguﬂyy K p ADULTS JUVENILES . ' , (AGE As DEFINED av YOUR STATE) PREPARED av TITLE 37 ‘ (7/ I CHIEF, COMMISSIONER. 0R SUPERINTENDENT Mpg/T: 72/ ' ‘ ' . V o 4 MONTH AND YEAR DO NOT us: THIS SPACE INITIALS " . - , RECORDED (/13 , ’ REVIEWED 1’. 7 ' I ’ ‘I . . h . PUNCHED ? - , ' VERIFIED i . ',.‘:S{’/}.)r‘ 5;fo (/AJ/y'fmfg I 7y; ﬂy [a _ ‘ “ammo CITY AND STATE _.. ._- .... ..... . _.- https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b280598b9ecc7c99de2a09e71b264318.tif 89d255a37f597d4fe712d54148146bff PDF Text Text '\.\' ‘ STATE UNIVERSITY (5 KENT RETUl OHlU r! ANNUAL RETURN OF OFFENSI . 0H067ll Clip, County For year ending December 31. 19 CLASSir ICATION OF OFFENSES (Part l classes) 2 OFFENSES Reported or Known to Police (include "Unt0undcd" and Attempts) Unfounded, i. e., False or Boseless Complaints 4 Number of Actual 5 . Number of OFFENSES Cleared by Arrest This Year OFFENSES (Column 2 Minus Column 3 (include attempts) A Total Often ses Cleared b By Arrest of Persons Under l8 (included in 50) CR umAL HOMICIDE a. Mu:a'cr and Nonnegligcnt Manslaughter \J ' b. Manslaughter by Negligence .’ FORCIBLE RAPE TOTAL o. Rope by Farce b. Assault to Rape - Attempts (.0» NNOQ) ROBBERY TOTAL y 0. Armed - Any Weapon b. Strong-arm - No Weapon _' , 3 A i 4. ASSAULT TOTAL 33‘ 32 ‘ :2 a. Gun - ”‘3: ‘ b Knife or Cutting instrument 3 ._ 3) . '1. '1 c. Other Dangerous Weapon 2 ’ 2‘ g d. Hands, Fists, Feet, etc. - :‘ Aggravated 4 A". q c. Other Assaults - ,1 , A '.' Not Aggravated ,7} 3 '7‘ i I: 3) f 5. BURGLARY TOTAL 44 ’ — l 4 3 4 a. Forcible Entry 20 I I [q , i b. Unlawful Entry - No Force 1; """ ‘ 2F c. Attempted Forcible Entry 3 ‘, 3 3 l6. LARCENY - ‘(l'HEFT 3 except auto theft) “ a _ ‘ a. $50 and Over in Value 2 34' N I 2 33 \ 4 b. Under $50 in Value ﬂ 3 ‘8 ,2 4 3.59 ,ZC] . . . / ' 7. AUTO THEFT Z V 3‘? 5 GRAND TOTAL ”1‘30 raf \ z (”rm 3‘l difference. it" the entries in column 4 above do not agree with the'sum of your monthly returns. brieﬂy stute reasons for DO your entries; in column 4 Of Return B include all olfenses of the designated types known to have been The en. Cnmmlllcd ... your jurisdiction last year? (Note: lhouu Ihe value of the property Clearer. lg :1rrr st, (wiewed izrzctltccl Vizri fl ed stolen was small. Prepared By r All thefts reported to the police should be included even Attempted crimes should be included. l _________ Title -.< ir. columns 521 and 5b should not represent the number of persons arrested. but the number of offenses ' Include offenses reported in prior years. but not cleared until this year. Date Chief. Sheriff. Commissioner or Superintendent .19.... https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/bb30fbccff6daf7d159e26896b426a7b.tif 560bb72fc920210d1e4184215da3101a PDF Text Text RETURN O.-- MHEUAL RETURN OF PERSONS CHARGED (Please Read Instructions on Reverse Side) dine, _ “w - - H ‘Pcrsons Charged by Police Disposition Total Ad 2 G 'lt Referred Other Arrested Summoncd, Persons u '5 U' V Acquitted to (Include pending, (Hold for Notified Charged of of or Juvenile [unscented else- : prosocu- or (Columns offense . lesser Otherwise Cowt Where in lieu of Classrfication of Offenses . lion) Cited 2 and 3) Cllnrng Ofﬁmﬂe 055013306 JUV‘SdiC'iO" VOW luriﬂdldlon. __ . (I) <2) (3) (4) <5) (6) , (8) etc.) (9) Part l Classes ' t , ' 3. Criminal Homicide: (C) Murder andi‘lonnegligcnt Manslaughter » bl Manslaughter by Negligence _____ 2.ch:chle Rape ______________ 3 Robbery __________________ o’.. Aggravated Assault (Return B-4a-d)___ 1—; 3— k4 . 5. Burglary -- Breaking or Entering _____ Z '2 0? 3 p 1 ’ 6. Larceny -- Theft (except auto theft) ..._.... x) 2 ~ J 7. Auto Theft ________________ ‘ . ' .r - Li ,' . TOTAL, Part l Classes _._.__._ 2‘ (’3 Z (’2 Z t" : Part ll Classes . ‘ l l“. t ‘8‘. Other Assaults (Return B - 4e) -__.___. s} e) 3 ' ‘ if '- ' , , . C‘ Arson ____________ . ,,,,,,,,,, I i i ‘ I Fermwy and Counterfeiting ___.-._...__. . 1 _ .- ' f7 1 C") .r - ~. ' El l‘lraud _______________________ Lr‘i ‘9’) _ ‘4 , V I I ‘3. i'." :xi:\e;zlement ________________ l‘ (I I} I W. Sv‘nlcn Prep-3n)»,- Buying, Receiving, 9 7 _ ’rl ’ “wsessmg __________________ r') ‘ r! [i I- ‘_ Vandalism ________________ ' 1’ 1/ 17 li‘."‘r:cjpans,i Carrying, Possessing, etc. 7“- ( ' l 1 F 'uslituﬁan and Commercialized Vice-.. '1 2 .- .4 . Rx Otfenses (exccixt 2 and l6) _____ Z ’J 1-“ '35:.:‘:otic Drug Laws ______ ';_"_'.'._ ' (l A ' , l l" l l ' ‘ I .' Gambling”____;_.______;s___ ‘ ‘ T‘icnses Against the Family and ' ~ ""47 l .‘ n - :1 Children __________________ I ‘ T's. C’;-Tv':ng Under the influence _____ __ ’2 l (2 12 ~' Liquor Laws ______.____._._....__L_._..'. C? l q 9 J. Drunkenness _______________ H L U 4’ i. {liserdcrly Conduct ___________ ‘1' E ii ‘1' 3 , 2 r 6' ‘. Vagraﬁcy__________._.__.___....._... I l I 2 7"». All Other Offenses (except traffic) __._ 73 ‘7 3 ‘7 3 2 a 4 l} 2 - ,; 2r ~ , ' ,i C é TOTAL, Pan 11 Classes__... BBQ; ' (30‘ ls l r . l 4’ l _ GRAND TOTAL _______ l G s) L‘ ’6 b ’65 ﬁ- 1;; q ' 2-— . l‘ v I ' ‘ . ' 2 5 Traffic Arrests . i i : V 71/ physical Custody and wanants served O'CDIOICIOIIIOOCOOCII.‘.IUI'D...‘.IIIII'...‘I...' L l ’: Cll.L‘LlOﬁS issued too. oooooooo eon-ooooooouooooonoalooa:oooocoooooououoao-oolaaooooaeoeaooelaoll q\54 i. Tntﬂ‘l lrﬂffic arrests ucanucocoo-0.0.1.ocan...ooaoooohn-noaoonoon-coon...oooooo‘aeooooonlooooa ' i ‘5‘ I . r l. 121, . ___. ..___. . 19—... ; . . . . ‘ Prepared By 3 Title Chief. Shenft‘. Comrmasnoner or Superintendent t . To be forwarded to the Federal Bureau of investigation, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. 20535. by January 22 3 (SEE REVERSE SIDE) _ W-.. . - .. ., z, ,. t. .m r ,._. ﬁremen. use.“ ..._.....e,...r_..._.,.___...._...,......- ,-,._. “nut..- -...x j! ' r I . J ‘2 :- U " I. “ I. ' .5. lz" - é" https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7723eac57a53690f338fda58eaeee758.tif 0771cd43a10bafaa97be69b9cdf90b6b PDF Text Text SERVICES RENDERED AND CRIMES INVESTIGATED FOR PERIOD, 0001 HOURS, 1 MAY 72. TO 0700 HOURS, 30 MAY 72. MAINTENANCE NOTIFICATIONS: Lock Problems Sprinkler System Probfems Heating Problems Outside Door Problems Sign Problems (Not Concerning Parking & Traffic) Electrical Problems Broken Windows PIUmbing Problems Trash and Littering Problems PARKING & TRAFFIC NOTIFICA’IDNS: Meter Problems Traffic Signs needing repair Gates Broken - Other Gate Problems HIRE PREVENTION NOTIFICATIONS: Equipment Problems False Alarms OTHER MAINTENANCE PROBLEM NOTIFICATIONS: University Motor Vehicle Defects (Not Including Police Vehicles) Telephone Problems (Ohio Bell Telephone Notified) Elevator Problems (Outside Elevator Repair Services Notified) OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES ASSISTED: Kent Police Department .Ohio State Patrol Portage County Sheriff's Office Akron Police Department Kent Fire Department HEALTH, SUDDEN ILLNESS 0R INJURIES (Not Including the Volunteer Ambulance Service) Health Center Calls (Using the Station wagon or cruiser only) Robinson Memorial Hospital Transports (Station wagon or cruiser) Akron General Hospital Ambulance Calls OTHER SERVICES RENDERED Assisting Troubled Juveniles Loczzti1g Lost Animals Emergency Notifications (Death or Sudden Illness Notifications) Escm1st (Campus Day Floats) . Motorist Assists Unlocking Doors Pedestrian Transfers Outside Lectures money Transfers NO‘MU‘IHkNP‘U Ptc~rlt~ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9eb3805a93428cc7ed0efd1516698653.tif 81bfab1278f3a6bc937ba8d27239600b PDF Text Text NONCRDﬂINAL POLICE RELATED SERVICES: PART Parking Complaints Answered Unlocked Doors Found Vehicles Towed Accidents Investigated: I CRIMES INVESTIGATED: Assault ! I v | (Property Damage Only) Knife or Cutting Insﬁrument Other Dangerous Weapon Hands. Fists, Feet, Etc.. Aggravated Other Assaults, Not Aggravated Larceny $50.00 and Over Under $50.00 Auto Thefts Arrests Made: Adult Juvenile (Page 2) ll 40 18 O‘UHP‘ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6b370a2a1bd25b59b89f4b0d2255f0f3.tif 44effb3cb5a78fb56b8b298034d7b8fe PDF Text Text . 'Weﬁe :Kddeodk WOJA be waSn’Am-eel 436th (05"th 0"“ REPORT FORMS TO BE USED f lm v “PA (4" IN REPORTING INCIDENTS AND OFFENSES KENT STATE UNIVERSITY POLICE DEPARTMENT ”and; 5‘1ng . v Report Classification Incident or Offense - ,Required' PART I CASES 0100 - Criminal homicide' 1 “ 0200 Rape 1 0300 Robbery 1 OhOO Assault 1 ‘ 0500 Burglary 2y 0600 Larceny-theft 2 0700 Auto theft 5 PART II CASES 0800 Other assaults 1 0900 Arson 2 1000 _ Forgery and counterfeiting h 1100 Fraud h 1200 Embezzlement 2 1300 Stolen property '2 11400 = Vandalism 1’ 1500 ' ~ Weapons violations ' h. "1600 Prostitution h.” 1700 _ J/ Sex offenses 'h‘ 1800 , Narcotic drug law violations h 1900 ' Gambe ling 1* 2000 Offenses against fhnﬁly' h 2100 . Driving under influence of intoxicants/drugs 1‘53/ 2200 .‘ ‘ . Liquor law violations ' h 2300 Drunkenness kE/ 2h00 Disorderly cOnduct h 2500 ' vagrancy \ '“ 2600 Other offenses h 2601 Abortion ‘ . a h 2502 Bigamy and all marriage law violations “- 2603 Blackmail V '- . 1+ . 2601l Bomb threats, scares j ‘ . h 2605 ' - ~ Bribery _ . o ; “ h - 2606 Burglary tools, possession, etc. h ‘ 2607' Contempt of court ~ h 2608 Disobeying police officer - h , ' 2609 Discharging firearms, fireworks hf 2610 Escape from custody ' ' h 2611 ; Fire prevention law violation h 2612 Juvenile delinquency offenses h x 2613 ' ’ Kidnaping ' l a 261h Obscene literature h 2615 Parole violations 1‘ 2616 Perjury - h 2617 Possession, sale of drugs, etc. ' h 2618 Probation violations 16 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/052875a9199f3c0fa22e8cee0c875d23.tif 43f0a2fde6fc4eaf0faf409b758e1ce3 PDF Text Text Report 17 g<:\ Classification Incident or Offense Required PART II CASES 2619 Public nuisances 3 2620' ' SubVersive activities (Criminal) # 2621 ~ 1 Trespassing violations - 1h 2622 ' Unlawful use of explosives ' # 2630 Prisoners held without charge 8 26#0« All other state law cases -- 26#l Traffic 3 26#2_‘ 'Criminal # 2650 All other city ordinance cases. -- 2651 Traffic 3 _2652 Criminal h 2653 Regulatory h 2700 Arrests for suspicion 89/ 2800 Curfew and loitering violations (Juveniles) # 2900 Runaway (Juveniles only) PART II CASES - 3000 Lost and missing cases -— 3010 _ ,; lost and missing persons 3 3020 lost and missing animals 3 3030 Lost and missing property 3 3100 Fbund cases -- 3110 Fbund persons 32/ 3120 ,,1Found animals 33] 3130 '" Fbund property 32/ PART Iv CASES , A'3200 ‘ Fatal motor vehicle accidents. 6 3300 Personal injury motor vehicle accidents 6- 3#OO Property damage only, motor vehicle ace. 6 3500 -0ther traffic accidents (not motor vehicle) 3 3600 Public accidents 3 3700 Home accidents . 3 3800 Occupational accidents 3 3900 Firearms accidents . . “ # #0000 Animal bites _ r _ _ . . 3 - #100 Suicides ,_ A , _;, # #200 Suicide attempts # #300 Sudden death and bodies found # ##00 Injured or sick cared for 3 #500 Mentally ill persons cared for 3 PART V CASES \ #000 Miscellaneous Officers -r https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c82357f488812bee846a1c06cc8d48ce.tif 0188f838cf1bc1e16baa78b9a6be6ce8 PDF Text Text Chart C-II (continued) . Report Classification Incident or Offense Required l PART V CASES icontinuedi #610 Service to other agency 3 #620 Quasi-criminal investigation 3 M630 Departmental service 3 h6h0 Personnel complaint-police 3 M650 Personnel commendation-police 3 M700 Miscellaneous public -- h710 Public service 3 h720 Public complaints 3 h730 All other public contacts 3 Footnotes Note: All arrests require the completion of an Arrest/Booking Report in addition to the Case Report shown, except as provided fOr in Footnote c and in section 3. b of this manual. I x 2/ $229 of Report: 4—”me 0 vehicle Report .Traffic Accident Report Supplementary/Folloszp Report Arrest/Booking Report Crimes Against Person Crimes Against Property Miscellaneous Incident/Service General Case Report 'mﬂ Own 2/ Except of auto accessories or from an auto, use a Vehicle Report. '9/ Except on-view arrest, use Arrest/Booking Report only. g/ Also requires appropriate type of case report. 5/ Except if connected to a prior case, use a Supplementary/FleoWBUp Report. 18 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Reported Offenses to Campus Police Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1972 Description Lists and tallies of reported offenses to the Campus Police between January and May 1972. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 11 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/754f6e94a92037cab407ebf74cc5bc64.tif 592c0f1cee507468609bf9cbac2863f8 PDF Text Text MIKE WHITE I wanted to speak because I understood that there was some confu- sion for some people this morning in a bit of a misunderstanding at the Conference on Campus Security when I did not appear to participate in the student panel. Last night at 6:30, Alan Rawich suggested to me that I might appear on the panel. I explained to him then that the political prospective of myself and my constituency did not allow me to appear unless a collective decision should determine otherwise, I told Mr. Rawich that if a different decision were reached overnight I would appear exactly on time if not before the panel began. This morning it was announced apparently that I was not going to appear. There was some confusion with Bruce Gerhart and others. However, in my opinion there was no reason to conclude that I would appear; no reason to hold up the proceedings, and certainly no reason to infer from my absence that either I or movement groups were irresponsible or that the point of view by the panel was thus substantiated and correct. I explained last night to Mr. Rawich the poli- tical reasoning as to why I would not attend and not be a participant. I am somewhat disappointed that he was not able to explain the situation to the Conference beforehand and that he was not able to offer my rationale and defense of some inferences that could possibly be drawn because I did not show up. Since he did not, I would like to state to you my reasons for not participating in this Conference. I was originally one of the first members of the Kent State University's Campus Security Advisory Committee which was to review the policies and procedures of the campus police force. This comnittee was chaired by Earl Roberts, and George Eastman from the Center for State and https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e3489ca23503510febb207e798e093c6.tif ea194a435b541c1c5871dfaefdaf2f79 PDF Text Text Local Government was a member of it. .In June, 1972, Mr. Roberts wrote a report which falsely claimed according even to CSAC's own findings, that there was no political surveillance on campus. He also, contrary to the committee's wish, praised Chief Fyke on what he had done. Even while the committee was working last spring, Chief Fyke was found in a driveway on a house in which I was visiting with three carloads of police. They apparently followed me to a house downtown checking out all the cars located in the driveway. He did this in spite of President Olds alleged claim publicly made sometime before, that there would be no more such surveillance. In August of l972, this past summer, Mr. Fyke attempted to dis- rupt the CSAC procedures and proceedings by falsely accusing me of releasing secret and confidential material. Documents and testimoney by the committee members demonstrated that I wasn't even present at the meeting in which Mr. Fyke had alleged that I secured this information. In my opinion, Mr. Roberts did not forcefully pursue my demand that Mr. Fyke substantiate his charges. As time went on, serious questions were raised throughout the procedures of the committee regarding Mr. Robert's and Mr. Eastman's connections with Chief Fyke. There were serious issues involving their investigation of a Mogadore policeman, Gene Shacoin?, who has been known to not only entrap people in drug arrests but established his own network with dealing with drugs. To say that I and other students are irresponsible not to parti- cipate in this Conference would be totally false. I myself authored a 60-page report on surveillance and intelligence files and overtime. It included criticisms of CSAC's own investigation, consolidation of city and campus police files, and a history of undercover agents. Great concern was voiced in this report regarding contractual arrangement with other police agencies and grants received from local, state, and federal https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/bc0dd92b97e6eb1d3d00b0e665e8e774.tif ec3f49e8e17d3012d44a8055c8a371a6 PDF Text Text sources such as LEAA. Another section detailed the case of Rinhold Moore, a KSu undercover agent who was paid $918 a month and who attempted to entrap and provoke local activists by offering them illegal weapons; an AK47 and a rocket propelled grenade launcher. This section of the report quoted the Federal Gun Control Law which proved Moore's weapons were illegally possessed; and it exposed the conspiracy of the city and campus police along with agents of the alcohal, tobacco, and firearms division of the Treasury Department to illegally avoid prosecution of Rinhold Moore. Chief Fyke and Detective Robert Winkler later contracted their earlier statement that they knew nothing of the weapons when they testified under oath before the Ohio Personnel Board of Review that Rinhold Moore had been told to use the weapons to enhance his position. Last but not least, the report submitted by the students of the Campus Security Committee included four pages of specific recommendations regarding the changing of the direction of campus security. Besides showing great concern and apprehension regarding our report, Mr. Eastman and Mr. Roberts, I think, feared our investigation of LEAA Funds which they along with Mr. Fyke's department were receiving. Mr. Eastman made a motion to disband the committee in order to stop our legitimate efforts to find the facts and to keep our report from being made public. No student voted in favor of the committee's disillusion, however, almost all the faculty and administrative representives did. The vote was tied and Mr. Roberts, as chair person, broke the tie in favor of disbanding this com- mittee. Since then President Olds has refused to make available the report, refused to comment on it, or to respond to our recommendations. The University has totally ignored and surpressed this report because it represents the truth. They have instead formed another committee. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e38fa5acf0279a0dd8bb6923fd8e0cc9.tif 55fdab9b3d6bedb6956497e026c1f69f PDF Text Text Since this time another report has been written which documents many cases of undercover agents who have provoked and created crises situ- ations on this campus and who have falsely testified in order to put activists in jail. These situations such as the supposed takeover of the Music and Speech Building by the $05 in l969, and even quite possibly the burning of the ROTC Building in l970, were deliberately planned by administration and police officials. In some cases, admission has already been made by these same officials inthe case of Music and Speech that they would in fact do this. That it was entrapment. All of this in order to discredit and destroy the anti-imperialist and anti- war movement and to enhance the university's chances of receiving police related funds. They have been successful as far as the latter. Among them Mr. Roberts, Mr. Eastman and Mr. Fyke have accounted for as closely as we can total from public documents about l.8 million dollars in LEAA funds alone since l969. Why the grants. As one journa- list wrote and I quote, "The cops are tooling up for repression." The November 23, 1970, issue of The Nation, an issue which also included an article on Kent entitled "The Town Turns on its own Children," provided the first nationwide survey of how LEAA funds were being used and spent by local police agencies. He concluded that ”The Federal Government has taken the first dangerous steps toward transforming the United States into a society whose police agencies have a repressive capacity unparalleled in history." He went on to say that LEAA is strengthening the police politically and physically for professionalism, gives the c0ps an aura of infalibility when they deal with lay politicians. Traditionally isolationists and elitists, the cop is using his new wealth to withdraw, even further from any restraints. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0242a205cb132e7619435b6cefde4f9a.tif 1a99931d7e72084f7f9e01500f5e376e PDF Text Text Last April, the House of Representatives subcommittee confirmed what is actually happening to that LEAA money. Nearly half of the action grant funds, it stated, of many states have been for hardware including land and air vehicles, communication equipment, ammunition, firearms, and the like. The LEAA programs, the subcommittee continued is riddled with inefficiency, waste, mal-administration and in some cases corruption. Considerably less than 25 percent of the action grant funds dispersed to subgrantees has been used to fight crime. Large amounts of action funds dispersed to local governments lie idle in local banks or inside investments. It referred to the diversion of funds for political pur- poses. The political purposes referred to by the subcommittee would seem to be those state and local government bureaucracies intent on spending their LEAA grants on human behavior, drugs, and riot management, mobile radios and closed circuit TV's for surveillance, helicopters, riot control equipment, and training and fingerprint ID systems, develop- ment of metropolitan crime squads that would operate by their own rules and regulations, and modified PPS-l4, foilage penetration and surveillance radar originally developed for spotting the enemy in the jungles of Viet Nam and now capable of seeing through brick and cinderblock walls. All of these available for use in combatting civil disturbances. This brief history is important for you to understand so that our decision that I would not participate can be made perfectly clear. The reasons for this decision include all the contradictions that we believe this Conference and its organizers represent. The first contra— diction, the fact that when this Conference was set up no students from the original campus Security Advisory Committee were invited to attend let alone participate. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/73e79d2856aee9408206f6be6239efa5.tif 0b626dc279e29ccdf7e25470a78f57c6 PDF Text Text However, all faculty members were invited of which four out of five have had a speaking role. Second, I was asked to speak only after it was known that a group of concerned students had met to discuss actions to take against this Conference. Third, the organizers of this Conference are the same persons who disbanded this Security Advisory Committee, sur- pressed the student report, and have publically denounced us. It would be absurd for me to participate in a Conference which claims to seek student opinion and dissent when the organizers of the same Conference did everything in their power to silence and crush that same student opinion and dissent when they had the perfect opportunity to hear it. Fourth, we find it criminal, immoral, and wholly deplorable that a Con- ference of police discussing campus unrest and considering how to con- trol and eliminate student protest should be held here at Kent State University, a university where four students were killed as a result of police and military use of repressive force. To think that partici- pants in this Conference come from as far away as Berkeley, California, where similar beatings, killings, gasings, and arrests occurred simply serves to amplify our abhorence of this Conference. We, in opposition to this conference demand that the original Campus Security Advisory Committe's policies and operations report sub- mitted Friday, November l7, l972, be recognized and made public to the university community at the expense of LEAA funds which, if I am correct are sponsoring this same Conference. In the event that a Con- ference of this nature takes place on this campus again, we want it clear that all students of the university community should be forewarned by advance publicity and not only admitted to the Conference but also https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/16e2de377df5ddf6f960816e14b00cd2.tif 09aa53ee803f4c626e2ed298e4e8f797 PDF Text Text allowed to enter fully into the discussion panels. The students for the most part on the panel representing Kent State University, did not represent the university community but they represented only the side that Mr. Fyke, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Eastman and President Olds would wish to have made known at this Conference . Admittedly Mr. Leo Mingal of the student panel considers him a friend of Mr. James Fykes and Mr. Peabody the same. Mr. Peabody was one of the students who continually supported without, I believe, critical appraisal, the police activities on this campus and was referred to at one meetingof the Campus Security Advisory Committee as an informer to the police chief whenever demon- strations and rallies occurred. It was stated at this committee that Mr. Peabody would make sure that the chief was fully aware of such demon- strations. L In closing, be it known at the Conference, that police repression at Kent State University has reached its highest level. While Kent State operates under a budget that is larger than all of the Portage County police agencies crime continues to soar. We feel that the funds are misused. If the Security Department would stop spending money on undercover agents, highly advanced electronic equipment to entrap political activists, anti- riot equipment and a host of other equipment, crime could be brought to a low level on this campus. The movement will continue in our struggle to and police repression on this campus and I guess that is about it. I just wanted to make it clear to this Conference the rationale for my decision and the decision of the other people, that I should not participate in this Conference. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CSAC: Statement by Michael White Description Undated remarks made by Campus Security Advisory Committee member Mike White, explaining his reasons for not participating in a panel at a conference on Campus Security. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 7 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 May 4 Author White, Michael dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Speeches, Lectures, Forums May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/15db4c30bf1e81e31e3e10e8b3d90c7e.tif d75ff4b887cb75a0557b59a1641b2913 PDF Text Text 1' REPORT OF THE? C®MMISSION ON CAMQHS SEEﬁRITY JUNE 1970 ; ANN-3 SECURH‘X V, 77 H , ~7.\‘4_:_U_U..V M»- _.‘_ __.,_ ‘ WM— -v ,M, 7... w .._,-\ r_,.___.__~_.. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e5c5866c53d88ad3029c33e2693366b0.tif 315cb2483dc8962700bba73ea8691aec PDF Text Text DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSﬂCL biUuLu KENT STATE UNIVERSITY COUNSELING AND GROUP RESOURCES CENTER KENT, OHIO 44240 (216) 672-2487 June 19, 1970 Dear President White:. I am pleased to submit, on behalf of the Commission on Campus ‘Security, a partial report of our recommendations. .Covered in this - report are three of the four concerns listed by the Ad Hoc Commission to Review the "Flanagan Case." (1) Under whose administrative control should police operations be placed? (2) Are there police functions upon campus where it is not necessary for police to carry weapons? (3) Should campus.police change from the classic police uniform to a distinctive yet more civilian type of dress (e.g., blazers)? These items were considered by the Commission to be of the highest priority due to tragic events of the past weeks. The widespread emphasis and possible restructuring of campus security motivated the Commission to 'provide you as quickly as possible with our recommendations pertinent to the above concerns. Due to recent discussions with local enforcement and judicial officials we have decided that the relationship between the Student Conduct Code and Ohio Revised Statutes needs further study. This also takes into consideration Mr. John Huffman's recent appointment as Dean for Judicial Counsel and possible restructuring in that area. We will thus make every effort to present you with our recommendations in this area as soon as feasible. V The entire Commission was completely involved in our project and report. This includes Michael Ferrari, John Huffman, David Metcalf, Lowell Orr, David Seffens, and Kenneth Swarthout. Professors George Eastman and B. Earle Roberts served as Resource Consultants. In addi- tion, James L. Fyke of the Institute of Government Research and Service performed beyond the call of duty in many capacities as consultant, discussant, and editor. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a7b4d404ea2f96d8c18319c52cf5f89b.tif f38408214df2dc925e6df26b14e5a0ed PDF Text Text ‘v President White June 19, 1970 Page 2 we wish to express our appreciation for the cooperation extended to us by the Director of Public Safety and Services and his staff, in addition to the students, faculty, administrators, local citizenry and officials who also c00perated with us. Following your review of this report we would like to request the opportunity in the near future to discuss personally with you our findings and recommendations. Sincerely, cur—Le a- m; Arvin I. Lubetkin, Chairman Commission on Campus Security AIL:ij p-..“ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a8f61d1352e45076ef84bc3019d2dcdc.tif 299750017369d2fe41c03ab5bd22417d PDF Text Text TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONSHIPS MANPOWER PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT V Recruitment and Selection Training Promotional Practices Personnel Records Compensation and Employment Guidelines Departmental Rules and Regulations Allegations of Misconduct Internal Inspections UNIFORMS WEAPONS Firearms Training Use of Firearms Policy General Regulations Concerning the Use of Firearms Procedure to be Followed When Firearms is Discharged Board of Review Other Protective Measures OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Improved Operational Liaison Parking Control and Building Security Emergency Ambulance Service Community Relations/Public Information Program ' Money Transport Analysis Fire Protection Service Tow Truck Operations Organization and Management Review CONCLUSION iv Page 10 11 16 19 22 23 27 27 29 29 31 31 32 32 34 35 36 37 37 37 37 38 38 38 39 39 40 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/f9f703088f33858b11c7e3dffeec413c.tif a3814b2bcfeec47c9d7acb6082a417c4 PDF Text Text 'EXHIBITS Tables Present Organizational Structure for Public Safety Functions Kent State University Propdsed Structural Organization for Public Safety Functions Kent State University (Alternative One) Optional Organizational Structure for Public Safety Functions Kent State University (Alternative Two) Proposed Qualification Table Department of Public Safety Kent State University 1970 Salary Schedule, Michigan State University . APPENDICES Job Description University Director of Public Safety Suggested General Duties and Responsibilities of the Director of Public Safety Job Description Assistant Director of Public Safety Suggested Functional Responsibilities of Other Assistant- DirectOrs of Public Safety Survey of Firearms, Aerosols and Gases - Campus Police Page 13 26 42 46' 57 55 57 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/32becb61321bfc053cf61f49c0012fb5.tif 44bec388c1d29d2c18c7a3fa5319153a PDF Text Text INTRObUCTION The Campus Security Commission has interpreted its charge to be that of examining and making recommendations regarding the following questions: 1. Under whose administrative control should police operations be placed? 2. Are there police functions upon campus where it is not - necessary to carry weapons? ‘ ’ 3., What is the relationship between the Student Conduct Code .and the law as set forth in the Ohio Revised Statutes (e.g., what powers do campus police possess with respect to students who violate the Student Conduct Code)? 4. Should campus police change from the classic police uniform to a distinctive yet more civilian type of dress (e.g., blazers)? The Commission researched these and related problems in weekly meetings during the Winter and Spring Quarters of 1970 by interviewing nine individuals involved with campus security, by hearing student and faculty testimony on campus security operations, by examining the literature on the problems, and by visiting Michigan State University for interviews with the administrators of their highly respected security Operation. Early in Commission proceedings, Commission members became impressed with the magnitude, complexity, and uniqueness of the campus policeman's reSponsibilities. Few in the University community are charged with reSponsibilities that affect so many with such intensity; few must carry https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/657fae1c6a6f19516c072c164c4a6ace.tif 274e3befefabd44ffde94f0b59d9ccea PDF Text Text .- out their reSponsibilities under the surveillance of so many, and few are so severely tried in the performance of their duties. Also impressive is the changing role of the campus security officer. No longer is he the individual whose major responsibility several years ago was to rattle doors and check for broken pipes. Today he must be an» integral part of the University community, for he must now be capable of ‘monitoring the sensitiVe interfaces of many groups espousing widely differing ideological positions and placing constraints with discretion ’ upon those whose actions threaten the University's fulfillment of its obligations or the safety of the campus community. To discharge these duties effectively, he must possess a genuine concern for and under- standing of student frustrations, preferably rooted in his own experiences as a university or college student, and through continuing and effective communication with the student body. The effectiveness of his communication with the University community 'unquestionably will depend upon the quality of the relationships which he establishes. Therefore, efforts must be made to minimize intellectual and social gaps between the campus community and security officers. The campus policeman must be articulate, compassionate, and comfortable in his role as a member of the academic community. It is because of these new demands on the campus policeman that he is rapidly evolving into a "new breed" of security officer on those campuses with the best security Operations. Commission members are unanimous in their belief that all specific recommendations regarding the organization and operation of a security program are secondary to the quality of the individual recruited into that program. The https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/43e49dfdcb8a31b8871db67957bd3e07.tif de6822d1b30df0778e811b2b3f0b0385 PDF Text Text ‘w ’ . ‘ Vrecommendations made in this report are therefore based on the premise that serious attempts will be made to constantly upgrade security personnel to meet the unique and demanding specifications of the modern campus policeman. With this in mind, the Commission recommends that this report be considered as a total entity for implementation rather than viewing it as discrete sections. Implementation by sections would damage or perhaps destroy the complete integration and actualization of the entire package. Administrative Relationships After examining the several alternatives for the placement of responsibility for security operations, the Commission recommends that the University maintain local control of its own law enforcement and public safety responsibilities. The Commission's study of the organizational structure and admin- istrative process of the campus security Operations focused on the hierarchical arrangement of the office within the University. The hierarchy should not be considered an immutable, rigid system of rela- tionships, but as a flexible human-oriented structure designed to meet the changing environment and demands placed upon a campus safety and security function in a large, complex university community. Within the current structure of the university, the office of campus security is under the supervision of the Director of Public Service and Safety, who in turn reports directly to the Vice President for Business. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7892e997d90ca0d2ecc3d9df58dbe5c4.tif a9575ce17152b4ecf710c3093cc595b7 PDF Text Text Table 1 illustrates the current structural arrangement. Table-l Present Organizational Structure For Public Safety Functions Kent State University President Vice President for Business Director of Public Service and Safety Campus Parking Environmental . Fire Golf 1 - Security and Health Marshal Course - ' , Traffic Among the major reasons cited for the existing organizational pattern are the following: I (1) Some activities of the office of campus security involve 'financial responsibilities, e.g., collection of parking fines and fees, tran3portation of money; and seem to fit under the-Vice President for Business' hierarchy. (2) PlaCement of the campus security office under the Vice President for Student Personnel or the Provost seems to be inconsistent with the major functions of those offices when compared to basic law enforcement functions of campus security.‘ L»' (3) Historical development and traditional evolution of university structure. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/38f385a88da98af1acb04a886d659a83.tif a011d2f6022a2ec310f25eec5c456c82 PDF Text Text ‘uv" _The Commission has found major operational and procedural problems growing out of the current structure, howeVer. Key areas are listed below. . (1) In reality, law enforcement and safety activities transcend any one functional area and relate more to the total community. (2) Communications lags inevitably develOp as information moves through the various levels to and from the President and allow confusion and misperceptions to occur in daily Operations as well as in crisis situations. (3) There seems to be general confusion as to who has the operating authority and reSponsibility for law enforcement on campus. After careful consideration, the Commission on Campus Security recommends a change in the current authority relationships. Two basic alternatives are offered: (1) The Director of Public Safety should report directly to the President and the office of public safety should be re— structured, or (2) the Director of Public Safety should report directly to the Vice President for Administration and the office of public safety should be restructured. The first alternative is the primary recommenda— tion of the Commission, and the second alternative, although less favorable . would be an acceptable compromise. These alternatives are practical only if the Director of Public Safety is a highly trained and educated professional, sensitive to the policies and values of the University. He must have the complete skill and author- ity to implement these policies and be capable of directing daily Operation without presidential supervision. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d2c0f134ca8aa4e1f7156437f6a868b1.tif 1a5d9c9b6bb16f9277941f63f2e6431a PDF Text Text ,- Tables 2 and 3, reSpectively, depict the recommended changes. 3322. .Proposed Structural Organisation For Public Safety Functions V Kent State University (Alternative One) President Vice President for.Business A; Director of Public Safety\ . Director of Services \ Advisory Board Asst. Dir. Asst. Dir. Asst. Dir. for Law for for Fire Enforcement Environmental Protection Health Under Alternative One, the proposed office of Director of Public Safety is to be created. See Appendix A for the job description of this office. Although neither a vice presidential level nor cabinet, position, the Director of Public Safety would report directly to the President. .Under the direct supervision of the Director would be the following offices: Assistant Director for Law Enforcement, Assistant Director for Environmental Health, and Assistant Director for Eire Pro- tection. The prOposed Assistant Director for Law Enforcement is a new position replacing the Security Officer and the job description is https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/7c0107b7d4211d6cd48cfdcd107d369a.tif 27d9b27edc877620900e7472388b131f PDF Text Text I enclosed in Appendix B. Brief functional outlines of the other Assistant Director positions are contained in Appendix C. Remaining under the control of the Vice President for Business is the Director of Services and the offices of Parking, Transportation, and Traffic Engineering, Golf Course, and other assigned administrative units. Alternative one is the first choice of the Commision for these reasons 2 (1) (2) (3) (4) The public safety and security activities are university- wide responsibilities affecting all segments of the university, not simply a business, student-personnel, or curricular matter. Safety and security policy inputs must be entered at the highest possible administrative level to assure an appropriate and reasonable balance between the individual freedom and control necessary and desirable in the community. The establishment of a direct link with the President mini- mizes the communications blockages and misperceptions that occur when many organizational levels must be traversed. 'Direct reporting to the President provides for a clearer definition of the safety, security, and law enforcement functions, the implementation of the philOSOphy and policies of the president, as well as the execution of and obedience ' to appropriate civil statutes. The second structural alternative would be acceptable, although it f‘e' does not possess some of the strengths of the first alternative. See Table 3. Alternative Two lacks the directness and clarity of the (ar ' recommended structure in portraying security and safety functions of https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/895669cec646e78883ca64ddc8411f2c.tif fb61fa63c79abf12fdeb7b4b4969dc9f PDF Text Text the university. Since the Vice President for Administration has uni- versity—wide reSponsibilities this could warrant placing the Department of Public Safety under his jurisdiction.. The Commission is cognizant of and in agreement with the current trend to decentralize university structure. However, the Commission feels that the responsibility for the policies and operation of the security office should remain within the higher administrative structure of the University. Table 3 .1 Optional Organizational Structure For Public Safety Functions Kent State University (Alternative Two) President Vice President 7 Vice President For Administration For Business Direc or . ' Director Of Public Safety\ Of Services \ l ‘Advisory Board I' I I I‘ll Asst. Dir. for Asst. Dir. for Asst. Dir. for Law Enforcement Environmental Fire Protection . Health https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2815aacd122cd31e75e3c5442d07fe69.tif 7ebf75d37940c60c764d11aa1df3b4f4 PDF Text Text It should be noted that in both alternatives, the Commission recommends the creation of an all—University board to serve in an advisory capacity to the Director of Public Safety. This Advisory Board should be representative of faculty, students, staff, and the general community. The board should serve to promote better inter- action between the Department of Public Safety and the community which it serves (e.g., to function as a sounding board for policy decisions, and to make recommendations concerning public relations and other critical areas). Manpower In no area of police management is the word standard more commonly used than in reference to manpower, and nowhere else so inapprOpriately. Average ratios of police personnel to units of population have become "standards" to police administrators who have lower ratios. Obviously, if this year all departments with below-average ratios for their popu- lation groups had their personnel complements raised to match these ratios, there Would be next year, new and higher ratios and, thus, new and higher "standards". It may be said categorically that there are (1) no standards for optimum security staffing for universities of various sizes and (2) no precise formulae available for determining personnel needs. This is true largely because there is no standard university and perhaps no two so alike that the staffing pattern of one would precisely meet the needs of the other. Variances in the location, campus community com- position and tradition are all conditioning factors. Campus community https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e56ec87682dfad594068662fe431fb2d.tif cbc8f0a398a7ca95619032297eca7093 PDF Text Text 10 and official interest in the security service, the quality of courts and prosecuting agencies, recruiting and training practices, and con- ditions of employment all introduce variables. The mere addition of personnel to a poorly or questionably managed force serves no purpose and should not be considered,_even as an expedient. It is clear, in determining manpower needs, that: (1). There are no standards of staffing that can be applied to Kent State University. (2) Gross manpower solves no problems. (3) Complete and accurate records provide the only logical basis for making staffing decisions. (4) Sound organization, effective administration, and the attain— ment of departmental and personnel competence must be attempted before gross manpower is given serious consideration. Personnel Management Personnel management involves a wide range of functions and activities which affect members of the police force throughout their careers. Ihese include recruiting and selecting personnel, basic and special training to insure the successful accomplishment of departmental objectives, evaluating employee performance, promoting qualified indiViduals to supervisory or command positions, formulating and developing departmental rules and regulations involving rules of conduct, ethics, Operational pro- cedures and many other activities. Therefore, even though technological improvements are increasingly important to effective police Operations, the greatest gains yet to be made in improved service lie in better personnel management procedures. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/dd340d08c9c76e3b3fbbeaba54056f73.tif 5883976305ad534d413ac7f4a10ca992 PDF Text Text ll Recruitment and Selection The adequacy of the recruitment and selection process determines the quality of those candidates who are appointed as recruit patrolmen. The recruiting base must be broad and the selection process, from formal application through the rigors of an effective probationary. period, must be sufficiently discriminatory to reasonably assure the selection of only those who are fully qualified. The entire process must be flekible enough to waive artificial and less important barriers, - yet strict enough to avoid compromise; sound enough to provide for the future, yet appropriate for today's needs; and attractive enough to provide sufficient numbers from which to choose, yet objective enough to meet departmental needs.” ~Recruiting should be extended to all geographic areas within the United States. Advertising in national newspapers and magazines ”(including, but not restricted to, industrial security, law enforcement, and public management journals) should become common procedure. The following general qualifications for applicants should be adapted: . 1. United States citizenship. 2. Age range of 21 to 30 years. 3. Intelligence quotient of 110 or above. 4. High school diploma or equivalent. 5. Height of 5'6" to 6'4". 6. No criminal record indicating moral turpitude or conviction for any felony. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/35c3c42622087a5d854e4e6ffae506ef.tif 86686455dae7c6487e9255f0a6334470 PDF Text Text 12 In keeping with sound management practices, a Standard waiver of basic qualifications should be established to permit the employment of applicantS'who may possess superior qualifications in some areas but may not fully meet certain other requirements. The Commission recogniZes that a number of our recommendations are limited by existing civil service requirements.' With this in mind, we feel that the University should seek civil service modification via the prescribed channels so as to promote these recommendations. The following "sliding scale" qualification table is recommended for use as a guide in the granting of waivers of basic qualifications. See Table 4. EaCh factor to be considered is scored with a numeric value ranging downward from 20 to 11. To be considered for employment under these provisions, an applicant should achieve a total minimum composite score of 80 points. Policy should provide for the acceptance of appli- cations for appointment only from candidates achieving a score of 80 or better, providing that the mandatory requirements prescribed in Items 1 and 6, above, are met. The requirements are lenient enough to provide a broad recruiting base, yet stringent enough as a first point of selection. A written examination should be given to all applicants concerned with intelligence and aptitude, not with the Specifics of law enforce- ment, local geography, civics or law. The written exam should be designed to exclude those whose mental capabilities and aptitudes are not sufficient to meet the basic requirements for patrolman and to provide a basis for grading those who do. In short, it should test for potential not present ability. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3363cf96dc9193402bbe4a01ff529630.tif f95451fd2587a0d7d4297c97ca3c526c PDF Text Text 13 Table 4 PROPOSED QUALIFICATION TABLE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY KENT STATE UNIVERSITY Weighted . Uncorrected IValue Age» Height ' Education I liSb. Visionﬂj 20 21-22 6'0" College degree 130 20/20 19 - 23424 5'10" 3 years 9r A.A. diploma 125 20/30 ‘18 ' 25-26 5'9" 2 years . 120 20/40 17 - 27-28 5'8" 1 year _ 115 20/50 16 29-30 5'7" [High school-graduation. 110 20/60 15 - 31' 5'6-1/2" 'GED and 3 years high school 1001/ 20/70 14 I 32' 5'6". GED and 2 years high school 2] 20/80 13 33 5'5"2/ _ GED and 1 year high school A - ' 20/90 12 _ 34 g] , . GED and 8 years grade school - 20/100 11 35 — g] '> - 2] \ EICorrectable, where deficient, to 20/20. h/No points given, but not necessarily disqualifying in itself. E/Disqualifying. Note: Under this plan an applicant possessing less than the standard for a particular qualification, but more than the standard in other areas, could still qualify for appointment providing the other requirements for appointment were met. For example, a person 23 years of age, 5'7" tall, who has successfully com- pleted 3 years of college, has an intelligence quotient of 120, and whose vision is rated 20/50 would be acceptable since his composite score exceeds 80. His score would be calculated in the following manner. Age-~23 19 points Height-*5'7" 16 points Education--3 years college .19 points I.Q.--120 18 points Vision--20/SO ._ 17 points _Total 89 points Pom-a...— 1 y...” https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/26e1781de732863a74ae8f84972a8a6d.tif 355b535d21c3972b3fd63154b233e02d PDF Text Text ”W... I v 14 In addition to the basic written examination, a standardized intelligence teSt should be administered to assist in determining the applicant's level of intelligence. Candidates earning less than the minimum score on the examination should be disqualified.. Oral interviews should be considered as a vital part of the selection process. It is recommended that the oral board be composed of a personnel expert recruited from, preferably, local business or industry; a cbmmanding officer representing the Department, usually the Director of Public Safety; and a third person with Special Competence in personnel or police adminis- tration; plus a fourth person selected at large from the university com- munity. Once the applicant successfully completes the written portion of the examination process, he should next appear before an oral hearing board where he should be graded on poise, ability to express himself, attitudes, and other factors. Care should be taken not to examine for knowledge of police procedures or related technical matters. The board 'should conduct standardized interviews which allow each candidate to be judged basically on the same traits and qualities exhibited in the same setting and under the same general circumstances. This can be facili- tated by use of standard rating forms which contain basic guidelines to measurement and evaluation. The candidate's application should be available to the board. 1 Interviews should last only long enough to determine the accepta- bility of the applicant within defined boundaries; usually 15 to 20 minutes will suffice. Rejection by the oral board should immediately disqualify the candidate. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/73ed710951df93d4f12e70b73ef81103.tif 5e0bff23fce665a8176e21dc65949da0 PDF Text Text 15 It is recommended that the next steps in the selection process be a psychological assessment and medical examination. The Michigan State University security program considers psychological assessment one of their prime selection factors. These evaluations should be so thorough as to identify potential functional and organic disorders that would soon or ultimately restrict the candidate's capability to adequately perform his work. The Department must be assured that those who pass have high probability of long and effective service. Background investigations of applicants should be expanded and intensified. To meet the requirements for an adequate background inves- tigation, a careful analysis of school, employment, credit, military and criminal recOrds; personal interviews of persons in the applicant's neighborhood, past and present employers; and the applicant's immediate family should be undertaken. A negative attitude on the part of an applicant's wife toward a police career should be considered in evalu- ating the candidate's possibility of a successful career in the service. The full investigative process should extend to other communities if the appliCant has lived or worked elsewhere; and each investigation should be conducted by the Department of Public Safety. If an applicant's history_deve10ps derogatory information which cannot be satisfactorily explained, all.uncertainties should be resolved in favor of the Depart- ment. No compromise to the security of the public should be permitted. Ideally, recruits should be appointed in a civilian status and not sworn as police officers until completion of their recruit training. Adoption of this procedure would avoid occasional embarrassment to the Department and other problems because of officious, illegal, or un- warranted police actions by untrained persons. It has the additional https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/494ea14099657e7c81879ae54f623927.tif 26381cbec99381851371eae3548cb722 PDF Text Text 16 advantage of extending probation by the length of the training period and any service time prior to formal training. However, existing realities may preclude immediate implementation of this recommendation. Nonetheless, the recommendation brings into clear focus the principle that a one year probationary period should be viewed as part of the selection process, and, as such, should be used to separate those individuals, who despite "passing" a rigorous selective process, demon- strate an inability to function at the desired level of competency, morality, or service. Training It is recommended that the Department expand its present training program. Adequate training directly related to the attainment of Department objectives is mandatory if successful Operations are to be developed and maintained. It should prepare recruits to perform in conformance with high standards for Special types of reSponsible work. Recruit training, although handled outside the Department, should be analyzed and suggestions for improvement made where inadequacies exist. If enisting programs cannot meet the needs, provisions should be made to Supplement the available courses with instructors from either within or outside the Department or arrange for improved training programs through the on-campus Center for State and Local Government, the Law—Medicine Center at Case—Western Reserve or similar institutions. Regardless of the adequacy of off-campus recruit training schools, it will always be necessary to give additional recruit training through the Department or other University units. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2d8fea0c956105cdf38934408de2eb41.tif c119ce08e7a9fdd4b15927c69a38654b PDF Text Text 17 A carefully selected and specially trained group of qualified senior patrolman should serve in coach-trainee relationships to new patrolmen ‘for 30 to 60 days after they are first assigned general duty, ideally following recruit training. While so serving, coaches should receive extra compensation. Selection of coaches should be made by the Director of Public Safety from a list of patrolman recommended by supervisory and command officers.. - Special training should be provided those persons assigned to specialized functions; e.g., investigators should receive training in matters pertinent to their assignments, first-aid and emergency pro— cedures-in the care and transportation of the sick and injured should be provided personnel serving on the ambulance. Special training classes should be provided when sufficient numbers of personnel are assigned to a new duty. Joint classes with members of the Kent Police Department and the Portage County Sheriff's Office should be scheduled so that optimal interaction occurs, to insure understanding of complementary practices and to assure optimal class size. If this is not feasible, carefully controlled instruction by competent supervisors from either agency should be provided. b In a new area of learning, all concerned personnel should be given formal classroom instruction in coordination with field problems by com- petent personnel recruited from within or outside the Department. In-service training programs should be established for all patrolman, specialist, and supervisory positions. When special training equipment and programs are purchased and/or developed they should be procured and https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5275c39f8160777886d2ff631ac94a51.tif dfc4db69667edb3b57cca2eaa975325f PDF Text Text 18 utilized. At the outset, comprehensive examinations should be administered to all employees to identify (1) general training needs, (2) persons incom— petent to fill their present rank or assignment, and (3) persons with unusual on special knowledge, and will assist in determining their pr0per assignments. The results of the examinations will help provide a realistic base for the determination of training needs in each group. Follow—up examinations should then be administered to determine the degree of achievement of training goals and objectives. Advantage also should be taken of outstanding national schools such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Academy, the éouthern Police Institute, and the Northwestern University Traffic Institute, on a programmed basis, with tuition and other expenses paid by the Depart— ment from specially budgeted funds. Because of the expense involved, only hey personnel should attend and, upon completion of their course work, they should be expected to make available their recently acquied informa- tion to others through staff meetings and training classes. Post training assignments should, if possible, relate directly to the primary areas of study. The Director and his subordinate command officers should hold regular staff meetings which, themselves, will serve as seminar—style training vehicles, ‘Frequently, the meeting should include discussions by outside Specialists in selected fields (e.g., including Student Affairs and academic representatives). Continuous in-service training should be provided all personnel. Refresher courses in Supreme Court decisions, local and state laws, and changes in University or Department programs, policies, and procedures should be offered. ln—service training is https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3e6a8ea0408d298f60696a63dda04fa2.tif 1c1ce738848a7a73d87b2d48344e26ac PDF Text Text 19 *0 designed to refresh personnel on material covered earlier and on which recall may be below an acceptable level and to keep them informed on deVelopments since their last training period. Because of the existing _1eve1 of training, it is probable that 10 to 15days of in-service re- fresher training will be required the first year; and at least five to 10 days per year will be required each year thereafter. such factors must be considered fully in budget preparation to prevent staffing difficulties. Rollécall training should be developed to meet immediate and ongoing needs. This type of training requires only a few minutes each day it is offered, but will prove invaluable when administered prOperly. Use of the Sight/Sound filmstrip device is especially worthwhile for this pur- pose, as is the International Association of Chiefs of Police Training Key series. Promotional Practices It is critical to the successful operation of the Department that only highly qualified personnel be promoted to positions of reSponsi- bility. There can be no compromise for any reason. If a young man is promoted to a sergeancy, it can be assumed that he will remain in that position or'a higher one for many years. If a mistake is made in the promotion, the Department must pay for it over a long period of time. The basic need for promotions is a broad base of competent per; sonnel; and it is for this reason, in part, that so much stress was placed earlier on recruiting and selection practices. Aside from this, however, the requirements for promotion must be so stringent that only the best of a select group may be named. If an examination discloses https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/73b21d35d00c420f34829f31cae14acd.tif 9d866d213c2ae830f3d9b49f15aac37e PDF Text Text 20 that there is an inadequate number of qualified officers, the vacancies should remain unfilled; unqualified personnel must not be promoted. It is proposed that the following minimum educational requirements .for promotion be established in the Department as a condition of employ- ment for new members, but need not necessarily apply to present personnel: two years of college for promotion to sergeant, three for lieutenant, and four for chief.‘ Meanwhile, some credit on promotional scores could be. given for college work to men in the Department who voluntarily avail themselves of educational opportunities. - If these suggested educational requirements appear to be several! it should be realized that the almost universal requirement of a high school education for entrance to the police service was likewise thought so only a generation ago.. Requiring higher professional standards in the police service is a natural course stemming from the many changes influencing our way of life. As time passes, it can be expected that the above suggestions will not only become mandatory, but will be increased in order that public police protection be placed in the hands of only those most qualified to direct it. The administrative goal should be to develOp within the Department of Public Safety highly trained personnel who, because of professional l/"A superior officer of any police department should certainly be conversant with the structure of our government and its philosophies. He must be well grounded in sociology, criminology, and human relations in order to understand the ramifications of the problems which confront him daily. He must understand what makes peOple act as they do and what impact his actions in the performance of duty will have on them." Taken from, Task Force Report: The Police, President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967) p. 126. ‘ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/34470a68d090a0dcfa97b17d872720ef.tif f535008d68459531d63b99b0a1117c24 PDF Text Text 21 ability, would qualify for better job opportunities on a national scale. If this were to be stressed and encouraged, better candidates would be attracted to police service careers. It would be in the public interest - for the Department of Public Safety to develop, educate, and train employees for opportunities for advancement outside the University in police careers. Not all department members and eligible future members will be satisfied with the limited opportunities for promotions within the Department. Morale in the police service, as in other lines of endeavor, is invariably highest where general opportunity for advance- ment prevails.. I i '” The actual examinations for promotion should be directly related to and designated to test the potential for each of several levels of supervision, command, and administration._ For example, a sergeant's examination should be concerned primarily with supervision and a lieu- tenant's with supervision and command. _In addition to a written exam- ination, performance evaluation data must be considered an integral part of the promotional process. Evaluation and adoption of a modified Diagnostic Forced—Choice Personnel Evaluation used by the Ohio State Highway Patrol should occur.2/ It is recommended that a candidate for promotion, like a candidate for recruit patrolman, appear before an oral board after passing the written examination. The board should appraise the candidate on his poise, judgment, ability to express himself, and insofar as it can be 2/ Diagnostic Forced-Chaise Personnel Evaluation, The Ohio State Highway Patrol, 1958. ‘ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4b1bf5e3e3fd42897bb01a93aed1df63.tif ff5021af943aa80492d0ba03a37a4f07 PDF Text Text 22 ! determined, his potential for the position being examined. This is but a part of a candidate's competitive promotional examination process, and the score derived from it should be given a predetermined percentage weight in the entire promotional process. The use of this board is another step in selecting only those who are best qualified to perform essential tasks. It is preposed that seniority be discontinued as a factor in the promotional process. Time served the Department provides no indication of potential supervisory, command, or administrative ability. A11 promotions should be probationary for one year. A probation- ary period should comprise the final step in the promotional process. To be fully effective, it must be based on regular and objective reporting by command personnel. Personnel Records Proper administration of any business, including law enforcement, requires that management know precisely what to expect in matters con- cerning employee working habits, time, cost of replacement help, training needs, educational and skilled trades, backgrounds of employees, and other personnel employment facts. Therefore, the administrative services. element should be assigned responsibility for deve10ping a comprehensive personnel file. Personnel records currently maintained by the Department should be expanded and reorganized to provide the base for a good personnel records system. The Department personnel files should be complete even at the risk of duplicating others kept by other agencies or commissions. The common https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d39e60b37f441f7ca56bdac5692e79b2.tif 27c74a6b3d6ee0acf3efa7b26c549a7b PDF Text Text types of personnel records that should be maintained should include, among other items, the following: Application for employment and supporting information. Report of background investigations . Medical history and current health record Psychological assessment data Educational data (including training schools) Disciplinary reports, investigations, and action taken Letters of commendation and criticism Evaluation of performance and counseling by superiors Probationary period reports and evaluations Results of promotional examinations Orders of promotion and demotion Work record (sick time, injury, vacation, days off, leave) Compensation and Employment Guidelines Compensatory practices are of great concern to all police officers; they should be of equal concern to the University, for this is one factor, among several, which significantly influences a university's ability to attract and retain qualified, competent personnel. Pay and fringe bene— fits and the surroundings in which one works significantly influence incentive, morale, efficiency, effectiveness, and, in some respects, a person's competency. One obvious but major contribution of an adequate compensation plan is the lessening of need to supplement income through "moonlighting." Restricting moonlighting within narrow bounds should mean less illness, more interest in promotions and professional advance- ment, and a general improvement Of police effectiveness. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/aa49a545e62289435a5c2c1ac1c204e4.tif a663f05254487065b5c181013ccbefb5 PDF Text Text ," ' .2 A 24 Salary requirements for supervisory and command positions should be sufficient to provide financial incentives in addition to those inherent in the positions. Present salaries are wholly inadequate to meet market demands for security personnel meeting the prOpOSed standards. Salary differentials for promotional positions should approximate those shown below for the ranks indicated. Rank Salary Differential Patrolman ‘ Base salary Sergeant ’ 10-15 percent above base salary iLieutenant 15—20 percent above sergeant's salary Asst. Director for 15-20 per cent above lieutenant's salary Law Enforcement Thus, an officer promoted to sergeant would receive a 10 to 15 per cent salary increase above that earned at the time of his promotion. . Similar increases would be granted as shown for other promotional grades. Appointive positions which are considered key specialist positions, such as training officers, should earn approximately five per cent above the base salary which the officer would normally draw as a patrolman. No Specialist pay should be given for any supervisory or command position since such persons are members of the administrative staff of the Department, and their salaries should reflect the added reSponsibi- lities of the position held. Patrolmen acting in a supervisory or command capacity for extended periods of time should be compensated in accordance with the usual pay of the position filled. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a6f35d13ea1e016f54cee674f00c0947.tif 514cf96de956d6dbe0cc0e8890a504ca PDF Text Text 25 Overtime should be compensated for by direct monetary payment at an adequate rate under carefully prescribed conditions and controls, and neither overtime nor court time should be allowed to accumulate beyond the equivalent of two or three work days. Direct payment of all overtime and court time relieves several problems which usually accompany the practice of allowing time off for overtime; it avoids personnel scheduling disruption, discriminate application, and depletion of line and service complements. Reimbursements for overtime and court time should be made from a special overtime account and, except for withholding or other required taxes, should not be subject to any other deductions, such as pension contributions. . ‘hhere off—duty employment is allowed, employees should be required to receive prior approval and keep the Department informed of the type of work being performed, hours and conditions of employment, and the amount of compensation received or earned. Strict adherence to local, state, and federal income and other tax laws should be required, and failure to do so should result in disciplinary action. An incentive plan should be developed to include a 5% increment over base salary for earning half the credits necessary for a bacca- laureate degree and a 10% salary increment for a bachelors degree from a recognized college or university. Table 5 presents the 1970 pay schedule from Michigan State University based on such a plan. The salaries shown indicate the type of personnel market which faces the university desiring to recruit personnel of the quality required by the Michigan institution. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/31ed11e846869581e7239d8b333ee8a9.tif fc328a5976699711d2fa52c7afb092df PDF Text Text F“ i.204 Pay Schedules: Table 5 € 1970 Salary Schedule Michigan State University 4.204.1 Effective January 1, 1970, the following base salary schedule has been established: Time Base. Time Base Time and 1/2 Salary . and 1/2 Salary and 1/2 Base Hourly Hourly" Plus Hourly Hourly Plus Hourly Hourly Elassification Salary Rate Rate 5 Z Rate Rate 10 2 Rate Rate DESK CLERK: V 5,700 2.74 4.11 - - - - - - IV '6,045 2.91 4.37 - — - - - - III 6,390 3.07 4.61 - - - - - - II 6,715 3.23 4.85 - - - - - - I 7,080 3.40 5.10 — - - - - — ’UBLIC SAFETY OFFICERz' , L V 8,300 3.99 5.99 8,715 4.19 6.29 9,130 4.39 6.59 IV 8,700 4.18 6.27 9,135 4.39 6.59 9,570 4.60 6.90 III 9,000 4.33 6.50 . 9,450 4.54 6.81 9,900 4.76 7.14 II 9,300 4.47 6.71 9,765 4.69 7.04 10,230 4.92 7.38 I 9,600 4.62 6.93 10,080 4.85 7.28 10,560 5.08 7.62 QRPORAL or DETECTIVE: V 8,600 4.13 6.20 9,030 4.34 ‘6.51 9,460 4.55 6.83 IV 9,000 4.33 6.50 9,450 4.54 6.81 9,900 4.76 7.14 III 9,300 4.47 6.71 9,765 4.69 7.04 10,230 4.92 7.38 II 9,600 4.62 6.93 10,080 4.85 7.28 10,560 5.08 7.62 I 9,900 4.76 7.14 10,395 5.00 7.50 10,890 5.24 7.86 ERGEANT: V 9,200 4.42 6.63 9,660 4.64 6.96 10,120 4.87 7.31 IV 9,600 4.62 6.93 10,080 4.85 7.28 10,560 5.08 7.62 III 9,900" 4.76 7.14 10,395 5.00 7.50 10,890 5.24 7.86 II 10,200 4.90 ' 7.35 10,710 5.15 7.73 11,220 5.39 8.09 I 10,500 5.05 7.58 11,025 5.30 7.95 11,550 5.55 8.33 92‘ r.-.” ... https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/efde9305d66df016eea8b28fb219222f.tif dbc2c154d654b6226692559e7bfee439 PDF Text Text 27 It is recommended that an officer's entire uniform, its replace— ment, and the cost of maintaining it be provided by the Department. This provides an added feature to the recruitment program.- Required replacement of all items determined worn, defective, or otherwise unfit to wear will promote incentive to dress well, help develop pride in the uniform, and portray a better image to the public. Vacations should be scheduled in conjunction with training schedules. This practice should prevent any great fluctuations in the numbers of available personnel and permit proper manning the year around. ' Departmental Rules and Regulations A revised manual of departmental rules and regulations should be prepared in cooperation with members of the Department for approval by the Director of Public Safety and his administrative superior. The manual should be prepared in loose-leaf form for easy correction and addition and should be comprised in five sections: Ethics and Rules of Conduct, Organization and Administration, General and Special Orders, Procedural Instructions, and Training Materials. It is suggested that the recommended rules of conduct, with whatever modifications may be considered appropriate, be placed into immediate effect. The Director and supervisory officers of the Department should be delegated specific authority to handle matters of a general nature, including the authority to summarily suspend a person under prescribed circumstances. Allegations of Misconduct To provide for proper administrative action and for other pertinent reasons, whenever a complaint is received regarding a police officer, a https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5f70eb9a4ec29cf320dd6989dab024ca.tif 841fddfb4c6787829a1713aa2d461df8 PDF Text Text uniform procedure for handling the complaint should be adopted for use by the Department. All complaints, regardless of their severity or seeming triviality, should be made matters of record for protection of both the accused officer and the Department. Case reports should be forwarded to the responsible unit supervisor as soon as possible. In cases of urgency, the appropriate unit supervisory officer should be notified of the circumstances immediately. Each complaint should receive a case report number in the same manner as any other police matter, but the nature of the complaint and the name of the person lodging the complaint should be kept confidential until at least such time as the supervisory officer handling the case informs the officer against whom the allegation was made; The complaint-should be investigated completely and detailed reports made of all action taken. All personnel complaint reports should be placed in the appropriate personnel file, not in the main records files. An indicator page should be inserted in the main file containing only the date, time, case report number, and a notation of the present location of the file, e.g., the office of the Director. The handling of disciplinary actions is almost always suspect to some degree by members of the Department, public officials, and the public. Thus, complete objectivity, impartiality, and equity,are essen— tial to a good program. Very importantly, the Director himself normally should report fully to the complainant on departmental findings and actions. A well-administered department, of high eSprit de corps, soon becomes largely self—disciplined. This desirable result can be achieved and maintained by a sound program. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c8508f2bd2c986e23a3cf472dea5537e.tif 805ebec7e1b49acf3a0068379701ab67 PDF Text Text 29 Internal Inspections ' ; A process of staff inspection should be established to continuously review program, policies, Operations, and procedures in order to (1) keep the Director fully informed of conditions and (2) make recommendations for improvements. Staff inSpections should be the responsibility of the commanding officer of the staff or administrative services element. Uniforms Uniforms are worn primarily for the purposes of ready identifica— tion by all persons with whom Department personnel come in contact, and secondarily as a focal point for unit morale and eSprit de corps. To serve these purposes, uniforms must be attractive, serviceable, and distinctive. I Obviously the campus community, visitors, and area citizens must be able to distinguish easily between Department personnel and members of other law enforcement agencies in the surrounding area. It is equally vital that these persons be able to identify members of each of the sev- eral units within the Department of Public Safety, both'sworn (police officers) and non—sworn (security guards, library guards, meter maids, etc.). Further, a uniform must not only be distinctive, but also should convey neither a harsh nor militaristic image. These same factors——distinctiveness and image--were also examined from the officers' vieWpoint. At present those officers of the Univer- sity who serve in a police capacity are largely indistinguishable from those who perform other duties on campus (e.g., library guards) Or from City of Kent police officers. There is a dampening effect upon eSprit https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/df02713810227d13b888867de52665b9.tif 3bb57d6325804681cd92a118a80a188d PDF Text Text 30 de corps in a unit whose individuality and self-image are relatively indiscernible and confused in the public eye. In a similar vein, a uniform which identifies a campus police officer as "just another cop" may serve as a psychological obstacle between the officer and the Univer— sity community, with whom the officer should maintain an atmosphere of mutual respect, trust, and friendliness to be most effective. In view of these factors, the Commission recommends that uniforms for police officers within the Department of Public Safety be revised or modified to create a new, more favorable "set" both internally and externally. Such revision should be made by the Director of Public Safety after consultation with all personnel involved and should tend toward a more distinctive uniform, probably of a color other than the traditional "police blue" (e.g., dark green trousers, light green shirt, and a ﬁcampaign" hat similar to that of the Ohio Highway Patrol).~ Non- police personnel within the Department should be provided with uniforms and/or identifying insignia and apparel different from that of the police service and unique for each sub—unit. In addition, the CommisSion recommends that the Department provide neat, trimly—tailored blazers, with police insignia on the breast pocket, to be worn by personnel engaged in certain situations such as public relations activities discussed elsewhere in this report (e.g., freshmen orientation programs or public speaking engagements). The Commission also recommends that all uniforms be owned by the Department and that a suitable cleaning and minor repair allowance be provided each uniformed employee in order to encourage Optimum care and appearance of the uniform. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a28efb20e174440d17765a385d17366c.tif 4b96bcdaa014ba1cac5af79d6955e5d0 PDF Text Text 31 Weapons, .’ The Commission is unanimous in its position that the police force should retain the use of firearms in the performance of their duties. As long as the Department is charged with protecting the lives of those in the University community, the Commission recommends the carrying of _weapons. This provision does not include non-sworn personnel such as parking control personnel and security guards, however. It has become apparent to this Commission that the issue of the carrying of firearms is of secondary importance to several others. The primary factor underlying arguments both for and against.the use of firearms concerns ' the rationality of the officer or "the man behind the badge" concept. Therefore, the Commission is again stressing the importance of Kent State University officers being carefully selected and well trained. It appears at this time that the Department lacks sufficient time and facilities for such training and therefore lacks this vital and visible aspect of the officer's total functioning. See Appendix D for a survey of firearm, aerosols and gas use by various campus police forces con- -ducted by the University of Massachusetts.. Firearms Training Before an officer is permitted to carry a firearm he should meet the following minimum training requirements: a. Four to six hours training in familiarization with the firearm. b. Four to six hours training in ethics, law and departmental policy on the use of firearms and other deadly force. c. Twenty hours of range firing. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/087b04deaa74d40c93d681ad0e096dcb.tif bfaefec39e09f18235f5915be215125f PDF Text Text 32 d. Four to six hours training on practical pistol,courses. e. Sixteen to twenty hours of training in other defensive methods to deter violence and protect the officer in his charge short of firearms. . . - In addition, every officer should yearly receive four hours refresher course on laws and departmental policy on the use of firearms and should -be required to re-qualify at least three times yearly with his firearm.§/ Use of Firearms It is recommended that the Department of Public Safety adopt the following firearms usage policy: I. Policy Members of the Kent State University Police Department shall exhaust every other reasonable means of apprehension before resorting to the uSe of firearms or other deadly force.&/ . II; General Regulations Concerning the Use 2: Firearms A. 'An officer shall not discharge firearms in the performance of his police duties, except under the following circumstanceS’ and after all other means fail. I. In the necessary defense of himself from death or serious injury when attacked. 2. In the necessary defense from death or serious injury of another person attacked. élRecommendations contained in this section reflect accepted practices of outstanding police agencies and consultive recommendations of the Insti- tute of Government Research and Service, Public Administration Service and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. é/This section is based on police firearm and use policy proposed by the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice Police Task Force, 1966. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ad422e9ca9afd83c3253680797828bc8.tif d72f3ddd71dac517b6ac63d53a69add8 PDF Text Text 6. 33 To effect the arrest or to prevent the escape of an adult person who has committed a forceable felony or to recapture or to prevent the escape from custody of a convicted adult felon when all other means have failed. To kill a dangerous animal or one that is so badly injured that humanity requires its removal from further suffering and other disposition is impractical. To give an alarm or to call assistance for an important purpose when no other means can be used. For target practice at an approved range. Firearms shall not be discharged under the following circumstances: 1. 2. An As a warning. At moving or fleeing vehicles unless the circumstances come within the provisions of Section II A, l and 2, of this order. From a moving vehicle. In all misdemeanor cases. officer shall not draw or brandish his sidearm in any public 1 place, except when it is to be officially and properly used or for inspection by a superior. An officer shall not fire at persons known to be or suSpected of being juveniles (persons less than 18 years of age) except under circumstances which come within the provisions of Section II A, l and 2, of this order. An officer shall file a written memorandum report through established command channels to the Director of Public Safety immediately following the purchase, replacement, loss, or https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/41d95bae81eb5559b8e0471bb7c0a58b.tif 772e373d425aa254d08cc08b9f52fd49 PDF Text Text 34 other diSposition of a departmental or personal firearm used in the line of duty and shall list a complete description including the serial number. A report concerning the loss (including theft) of such'a firearm shall include all facts p surrounding the loss. III. Procedure t be Followed When Firearm i§_Discharged A. Notification and Report by Member Involved 1. Whenever a member discharges his firearm either (a) acci— dentally, or (b) in the performance of police duty, (except at an approved range under firearms practice conditions) he shall orally notify his on-duty supervisor as soon as time and circumstances permit, but in no event later than the conclusion of his current tour of duty. If a command officer is not on duty in his division or unit at the time of the discharge, the member shall orally notify the highest ranking officer on duty at the time. The member who discharged his firearm shall file written report of the incident, through established channels, with the Director of Public Safety and with a copy to the member's supervisor within 16 hours of the incident. If the member who discharged his firearm is hospitalized or fatally injured during the tour of duty and incapable of filing the report required in paragraph 2 of this subsection, his supervisor is responsible for filing as complete a report as possible pending departmental investigation. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3237716e0b9504a1b6cbc22f8da8adff.tif 707e6888d6911ee099873ecc4b2397b8 PDF Text Text 35 B. Investigation by a Command Officer 1. I Each discharge of firearms shall be investigated personally by the on—duty command officer of the member involved. If the discharge occurs when there is no cOmmand officer on duty in the division to which the member is assigned, the ranking command officer then on duty shall personally con— duct the investigation when notified that the discharge of firearms has taken place. After conducting a thorough investigation of the circum- stances attending the discharge of firearms, the command officer shall submit a detailed written report of the results of the investigation to the Director of Public Safety through channels. The report shall also contain the Observations and conclusions of the command officer as to whether the discharge was justified and in accordance with this order. IV. Board g§_ReView A. Membership of the Board 1. There shall be established a board of review which consists of the following members, along with others who may be designated by the Director of Public Safety as he deems necessary: a. The commanding officer of the patrol element, who shall act as chairman of the board. b. The commanding officer of the auxiliary services element. c. One supervisory officer of the member who discharged _ his weapon. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/61096345c14aab95b42330d6ec3c3dfe.tif d8b7cb5b78704293e39db7b6ab41fe24 PDF Text Text 36 d. One member selected from the University community. B. Meetings of the Board 1. A meeting of the board shall be called by the chairman within a reasonable time after the report of a firearm discharge comes to his attention. 2. Notification of activation of the board shall be in writing. C. Authority of the Board 1. The board is authorized to review the circumstances Iattending each discharge of firearms by a member of the Department and to recommend to the Director of Public Safety approPriate disciplinary action. The Director shall make the final decision as to whether disciplinary action is to be taken againSt the officer and the nature and extent of the action. 2. The board shall make and/or receive recommendations for the modification of the Department's firearms use policy and shall make recommendations concerning training necessary for the effective implementation of such policy. Other Protective Measures ‘ It is also recommended that the Director of Public Safety keep abreast of other additional means for the protection of officers such as Macg:2 riot batons, protective vests, helmets, shields, and other personal protective items. Under current circumstances, Optimal pro- tection is not provided, thus officers are unduly exposed to injury or death and are thus subject to personal harm which may tend to cause over- reaction to situations which otherwise would be relatively minor. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/014a72d36adbdd0891ef5928e92785f1.tif 43b90232b41032be58479ba214e0d771 PDF Text Text 37 Other Considerations . During its investigation of the primary areas of concern, the Commission found that several other factors were of sufficient importance to warrant inclusion in this report. The recommendations listed below are neither extensive in their treatment nor exhaustive in their scope, but this is due to limitations of time and resources rather than choice. Therefore, it is strongly urged that the Department of Public Safety undertake the following: Improved Operational Liaison Establish increased operational and communications contacts on all levels between campus and local criminal justice agencies. This might include, for example, joint training sessions, combined patrol crews, coordinated records and communications services, and integrated planning programs. Parkinngontrol and Building Security Create a nonesworn service category for parking enforcement personnel, in addition to the existing n0n~sworn building security forces. Parking con- trol aides, cadets, or "meter maids" could be employed to carry out most non-moving violation enforcement functions. Both parking control and institutional security guard positions should be filled by student employees wherever possible. Emergency Ambulance Service Continue the provision of emergency ambulance services by highly skilled, compassionate, sworn Department of Public Safety personnel, primarily for service and secondarily for public relations value. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/32215ff42f5610aa8857d3f29e0b5897.tif 37ac6ef496fabfa57dba10b23050bba5 PDF Text Text 38 Community Relations/Public Information Program Develop a formal community relations and public information prOgram to promote a more positive community image. The Department should in- crease positive public contact through increased routine foot patrols, the provision of instruction in emergency and safety procedures and ‘similar service programs. The Department should promote formal and informal human relations activities designed to provide better police— community relations. It must be emphasized that the first requirement of a good public relations program is a job well done. Stylish presen- tations and concentrated press exposure will not make up for inadequate services or personnel. ’Money TranSport Analysis Conduct a cost—effectiveness study of money escort duty by Department of Public Safety personnel in comparison with a professional money escort service. Fire Protection Service Institute a program of firemanship training for all employees of the Department. Such a policy will prepare University safety personnel to assist local fire officials in rescue, fire extinguishment, and fire prevention activities, further emphasizing the importance of the Depart— ment's commitments to the preservation of life and the security of property. The Assistant Director for Fire Protection should be delegated re5ponsibility for program execution and liaison with appropriate fire officials and educators. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1f49e2ee18a296e89ef14d4a03545f38.tif 6f1a53cbee53f2bf326d4f71d95150c0 PDF Text Text 39 Tow Truck Operations Reassign the operation of the police tow vehicle to (a) the Motor Pool, (b) the parking enforcement unit, or (c) a special detail of non- sworn employees under the supervision of the police unit. These recom- mendations are listed in descending order of desirability. The towing function does not require the services of the highly trained and com— pensated policeman recommended elsewhere in this report. Further it is of negative public relations value, and could provide additional student employment opportunities with a minimal amount of changeover. ‘ Organization and Management Review Request an in-depth organization and management study of the Depart- ment to assist in short- and long-range deve10pment and effective utiliza- tion of personal, physical, and fiscal resources, and the establishment of a continuing assessment of the Department's efforts to meet the needs of the campus community. Too frequently agencies with heavy daily demands \for service tend to allow routine matters, important though they may be, ‘ to monopolize the time and efforts of key personnel, thus depriving the unit of its opportunity for self—evaluation, reflection, and goal—setting. The use of joint internal—external Specialist and consultant teams, drawn from on- and off-campus sources would allow the Department to keep abreast of modern techniques of personnel management, improved administrative pro- cedures, up-to-date technological and scientific devices and processes and other vital innovations necessary to maintain goal-oriented progress and a sense of balance within the environment of the University. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a90d6d57d06569cdbcd321c06b75703b.tif 4d3191fcc6f4f04303196e0db3d15a36 PDF Text Text 40 This recommendation is of considerable significance, but should not begin until major policy and personnel decisions are firm. In no event should such study c0mmence prior to the point at which the security staff is capable of providing the basic kinds and levels of service recom- mended elsewhere in this report; present circumstances would not permit a meaningful management and operational review program. Conclusion It is the conclusion of this Commission that a highly-motivated, compassionate, educated, welletrained, and adequately equipped public safety agency is essential to the safety, convenience, comfort,-and security of the student body, faculty, staff, and guests of Kent State University. The safety unit must be flexible, understanding, and in consonance with the general goals of the University and must demand excellence in every facet of its operation. It must be staffed with intelligent, knowledgeable, skilled, career personnel who must be sensitive to the Spirit as well as the definition of the rules they must execute. The challenge of University service requires the utmost in competence, .dedication, and intelligence on the part of administrative and supervisory staff of the Department. Innovative leadership, combined with personal and professional integrity, is required of key personnel and every effort must be expended to assure the campus community and general public that Kent _State University understands its obligation to provide superior service through the performance of its security and safety officials. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/972bfb473adc2f18b6f585062df10e97.tif e7ba5c4356984326184b81b4024bdeec PDF Text Text 41 The challenge is great and the Department of Public Safety can ' .meet it only with the complete support, moral and fiscal, of the Administration and the Board of Trustees. The task of this Commission has been difficult, but will seem simple when compared with the imple- mentation of these and related recommendations. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/21e9e9142b0fbba516f4544f9c9b37b6.tif 047a9e97cc0d9d35069f9c5dec40b63e PDF Text Text 42 Appendix A Job Description University Director of Public'Safety Nature of Position The Director of Public Safety directs and administers the central public safety agency of a large public university which is charged with the protection of life and property of members of the university community, their guests and visitors. The Director is responsible for the direction and control of all employees of the Department of Public Safety, including the formulation and/or execution of administrative policy, departmental and professional career development, the coordination of all safety functions, liaison with other public safety agencies and-officials, the execution of civil law and regulations, the preparation of comprehensive safety and law enforcement plans and programs necessary for a well— balanced, effective, and professional agency within a complex university setting,_ I The director must exercise extensive independent judgment and is expected to direct the internal activities of the Department with minimal need for technical or administrative assistance. He serves as advisor to the President and the Board of Trustees on all matters of law enforce- ment and public safety and may be called upon to assist cabinet—level administrators in policy development and/or execution within general guidelines established by the President. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/93e98f6aafebc619247f200a38ee37d5.tif caebeabcd8e4aff97851e8b39391968f PDF Text Text 43 While the Director must perform most duties within the framework of federal, state, local, and/or University laws or regulations governing public safety and institutions of higher education, he will be required to establish meaningful statements-of policy and procedure and to inter— pret appropriate regulations so that the role and mission of the Depart- ment may clearly be understood by all persons affected by the agency. The Director is further reaponsible to the President for the overall professional leadership of the Department and for the establishment and maintenance of high ethical standards for all departmental personnel. Illustrative Examples of Work Plans, organizes, directs and reviews administrative methods and procedures for the operation of the Department of Public Safety. Prepares departmental rules and regulations, operating manuals, and procedural orders for the department and its subdivisions. -Supervises and reviews the work of the heads of the various sub— divisions in their detailed execution of Operating policies and pro- cedures. Consults with and advises the President and Board of Trustees regarding public safety needs, plans and operations. Approves assignment or re—assignment of personnel within the sub— divisions of the Department and exercises first approval over budgetary expenditures. Supervises recruitment, selection and training of departmental personnel. Supervises and participates in the preparation of periodic or special status or Operating reports as well as studies of particular- problems and situations. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2badd027ee013aa23e66432574be7644.tif 5a755862c5bf21f1f012efc756219586 PDF Text Text 44 Performs related work as required. Requirements 9f_Position DemonStrated competence in management of complex operations; baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or university; preferably experience in law enforcement practices and procedures including some responsible administrative experience; or any combination of education, experience and training which when combined with the baccalaureate degree, provides the following knowledge, ability, and skills: Thorough knowledge of principles of modern police administration and organization; Some knowledge of fire safety and physical security administration; Thorough knowledge of the means and standards by which the quality of public safety is evaluated and of the use of records and their appli- ‘cation to agency administration and planning; 'Considerable knowledge of the functions of other governmental jurisdiction and authorities as they relate to public safety; Knowledge of the principles of criminal and accident investigation; Ability to communicate in a variety of settings, with students, employees, and guests of the University in such a manner as to assure a high level of mutual understanding, confidence, and respect; Ability to plan, organize, and direct the work of subordinate per- sonnel performing various departmental operations, to develop proper training and instructional procedures for such employees, and to maintain a high level of discipline and morale; Ability to establish and maintain continuing and effective working relationships with other University and City officials, State and Federal https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ce9b764d2d51f45aff33bf982c2c8760.tif 1bbebdacbc3bf1b99e51dcf030fa24f5 PDF Text Text 45 authorities, civic leaders, and the general public;_ Ability to prepare and effectively present oral and written commun- ications relating to activities of the Department, including the prepara— tion of reports, presentation of public Speeches, informal group and I individual discussions, and the conduct of press conferences and interviews. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/fb142a36305fe5dde68ff0bd07eec3b8.tif 493caae280037e8f5c37ad7c035d6dab PDF Text Text 46 Appendix A-l p - , Suggested General Duties and Responsibilities of The Director of Public Safety A. Basic Duties and Responsibilities The Director of Public Safety shall be the chief executive officer .of the Department of Public Safety. He shall be responsible to the President for the prOper administration of police affairs, suppression of criminal activities, prevention of accidents and traffic congestion, and for the execution of policy pertaining to matters as determined by the President and the Board of Trustees, subject to provisions of the ordinances of the City of Kent and the Ohio Revised Code. B. Other Duties and Responsibilities (1) (2) (3) (4) He shall have control of the assignments, stationing, and transfer of all police officers and civilian employees in the Department. He shall execute promptly all regulations and ordinances relative to the safety service and issue such orders to the Department as may be required for‘their proper enforcement. He shall organize, direct, and control all resources of the 'Department for the most efficient discharge of its duty to protect persons and property, preserve the peace, and obey and enforce all appropriate ordinances of the City of Kent, and all criminal laws of the State of Ohio and the United States of America. . He shall maintain the organizational structure of the Department in accordance with professional concepts and, by consideration of sound management techniques and principles, integrate related https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/bb6146c991ad691995cc36752a6df434.tif 6e6e19933e2672ff82390d2a63ab905f PDF Text Text (5) (6) .(7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 47 activities under the Control of intermediate supervisors. He shall hold them accountable for effective conduct of Such activities. He shall plan and execute a police service program designed to prevent and repress crime, apprehend and prosecute offenders, recover and return property, and regulate certain prescribed noncriminal conduct.. He shall modify the program to combat current trends as revealed by analyses of records and reports. He shall see that the Department establishes and maintains acceptable standards and procedures for recruitment, selection, and promotion of Department employees and shall require the preparation and maintenance of detailed manuals of procedure .for each division or independent unit by the respective commanding officer of each element. He shall work for the enactment and strengthening of laws and ordinances for the restraint of criminal activities. He shall cause an adequate and progressive program of employee training to be organized and implemented. He shall formulate techniques for recognizing outstanding per— formance by Department employees. He shall continually strive to improve employee working con- ditions in order to achieve manimum efficiency and morale. He shall establish and maintain high ethical standards for Department personnel and exercise the vigilance necessary to sustain observance of such standards. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6052857515959ed4d96c09a991af7c32.tif 3d994d67b962ca778abcf8e4f8bec1d1 PDF Text Text (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) 48 He shall at all times inform himself of the affairs of the Department and be assured that the duties of his sub- ordinates are properly discharged. He shall visit and cause‘to be visited at irregular and unannounced times all Department divisions and units for inspection to determine their operational efficiency and effectiveness. When unsatisfactory conditions are found, he shall refer them to the division or unit commander for corrective action. He shall exercise general supervision and inapection of all public places within the University and cause the laws and ordinances concerning them to be observed. _He shall develop and conduct a sound program designed to earn public confidence and shall interpret policies and objectives to Department personnel, the press, and the public. He shall maintain suitable, productive relationships between the Department and other governmental agencies and with private organizations, eSpecially those concerned with traffic, crime prevention, fire protection, and the administration of justice. He shall Submit required reports to the President in such form and detail as to clearly depict conditions and police action, including an annual report which adequately presents the problems, services, and actiVities of the Department. He shall insure prompt reporting to other University agencies of any important matter falling within their jurisdiction. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1d33b19a278e5803fcd719c11b466d3a.tif 78daf656d55f4f29729e0106237c500c PDF Text Text (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) 49 He shall conduct periodic meetings of his staff to discuss and resolve current problems, establish, discuss, or modify policy, and disseminate information. He shall maintain an active alliance with professional police, fire, and security associations and authorities and participate in programs for the mutual improvement of proficiency in com- bating crime, traffic, and fire protection problems and in improving management capabilities. He shall deve10p or adopt new techniques to improve the Department's effectiveness in the discharge of primary obligations. He shall establish and supervise a program of experience _analysis and continued planning in preparation for the development of facilities to fulfill prOSpective requirements. He shall supervise the preparation and presentation of, and submit, a realistic annual budget estimate. He shall administer the Department's fiscal affairs in a manner calculated to convert available resources into Optimal effective service, economically employed in areas of demon— strable need. He shall be reSponsible for providing aggressive leadership both within and without the Department to secure community understanding, support, and assistance in identifying, analyzing, and resolving those community problems that https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/16397158fc3543d411d0df379f0df5c2.tif 646713a5df351ec5d21089eae40855ab PDF Text Text (26) ultimately result in the need for police or other safety service action. He shall be responsible for the establishment of a chain of succession to assure an acting Director of Public Safety in his absence or incapacity. 50 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/68d2f6a46914902efdd10b54096d96f9.tif 565746297592efcbb85d37e39739332a PDF Text Text 51 Appendix B Job Description Assistant Director of Public Safety Nature of Position The-Assistant Director of Public Safety for Law Enforcement directs and administers the law enforcement component of the public safety agency of a large public university which is charged with the protection of life and prOperty of members of the university community, their guests and. visitors. The Assistant Director is responsible for the direction and control of all police employees of the Department of Dublic Safety, including the formulation and/or execution of administrative policy, divisional and professional career development, the coordination of designated safety functions, liaison with other law enforcement agencies and officials, the execution of civil law and regulations, and assisting the Director of Public Safety in the preparation of comprehensive safety and law enforcement plans and programs necessary for a well—balanced, effective, and professional agency within a complex university setting. The Assistant Director must exercise considerable independent judgment and is expected to direct the internal activities of the police agency with only moderate need-for technical or administrative assistance. The Assistant Director must perform most duties within the framework of federal, state, local, and/or University laws or regulations governing law enforcement agencies and institutions of higher education. In addition, however, he will be required to understand and communicate statements of policy and procedure and to interpret apprOpriate regulations so that the https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3d288c6bf697a60be5ef0b9ff27e0685.tif 99966c4027a35287ad5d0ed5421d0020 PDF Text Text role and mission of the Department may clearly be understood by all' persons_affected. The Assistant Director is further responsible to the Director for the overall professional leadership of the police division and for the establishment and maintenance of high ethical standards for all divisional personnel. Illustrative Examples of Work Plans, organizes, directs and reviews administrative methods and procedures for the operation of the police division. Assists the Director in preparation of departmental rules and regu- lations, operating manuals, and procedural orders for the Department and its. subdivisions . I Supervises and reviews the work of the managerial personnel of the various subdivisions in their execution of operating policies and pro-_ cedures. Consults with and advises the Director regarding law enforcement needs, plans, and Operations. Provides for assignment or re—assignment of personnel within the police division and exercises responsibility for budgetary expenditures, by and with_the approval of the Director. Provides for the recruitment, selection, and training of police personnel as instructed by the Director. Supervises and participates in the preparation of periodic or special status or Operating reports as well as studies of particular law enforce— ment and traffic safety problems and situations. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b261735d87bcdcbe95e51c95cdc1a6e4.tif 0af4740d5dc98b8acc62480320215188 PDF Text Text ’K 53 Acts as Director of Public Safety in the Director's absence or I as otherwise instructed. Performs related work as required. Requirements of Position Demonstrated competence in the management of complex operations; associate or baccalaureate degree from an accredited college or univer- sity; experience in law enforcement practices and procedures, including some responsible administrative experience; or any combination of education, experience and training which when combined with the associate or bacca- laureate degree, provides the following knowledge, ability, and skills: Thorough knowledge of principles of modern police administration and organization; Some kndwledge of physical security practices and administration; Considerable knowledge of the means and standards by which the quality of law enforcement service is evaluated and of the use of records and their application to divisional administration and planning; Knowledge of the interactions and relationships of other govern— mental jurisdictions and authorities as they relate to law enforcement, traffic safety, and physical security; Knowledge of the principles of criminal and accident investigation;_ Ability to communicate effectively, in a variety of settings, with students, employees, and guests of the University in such a manner as to assure a high level of mutual understanding, confidence, and respect; Ability to plan, organize, and direct the work of subordinate personnel performing various departmental operations, to assist in the https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8f73f3ec63c779000aca7f83178e2ca3.tif d89fe20feffae1610b8a8941425e4235 PDF Text Text 54 development and supervision of proper training and instructional pro- cedures for such employees, and to maintain a high level of discipline and morale; Ability to establish and maintain continuing and effective working relationships with other University and counterpart City officials, State and federal authorities, civic leaders, and the general public; Ability to prepare and effectively present oral and written com— munications relating to activities of the division including the preparation of reports, presentation of public speeches, informal group and individual discussions, and the conduct of conferences and interviews. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ca8def40092e88623cea11d5fb23edfd.tif f535b154b1012f6ca30a1434b517c215 PDF Text Text 55 Appendix C Suggested Functional ReSponsibilities Of Other Assistant Directors of Public Safety I. Assistant Director gf_Public Safety for Fire Protection This administrator should be assigned re8ponsibility for the following activities: A. Administration of a comprehensive fire safety and inspection program. B. Coordination of campus fire protection programs with the City ' of Kent and other concerned fire officials and organizations. C. Provision of other services necessary for or directly related to the successful accomplishment of general University goals within this area of competence and responsibility. II. Assistant Director g£_Pub1ic Safety for Environmental Health This administrator should be assigned reSponsibility for the following activities: A. Administration of a comprehensive environmental health program designed to provide for the safety of persons and property through insPection, monitoring, and training programs in the following matters: 1. Radiation and chemical usage 2. Air pollution control 3. water quality control 4. Home and job accident prevention and education https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2bf528dc4be9dfe796a09bb82bea7a99.tif 0dc84b116e251c97e801b501e9bc0575 PDF Text Text Ps. 10. 56 Sanitation and waste diSposal practices Equipment construction and usage hazards Building construction and design hazards Rodent and pest control Chemical and biological agent use practices (e.g., detergent and insecticide usage) Technical supervision of on—campus safety and health training programs Coordination of campus environmental health programs with appropriate City, County, State and other health agencies, officials, and organizations, Such as the National Safety ' Council. Provision of other services necessary for accomplishment of University goals in the assurance of the environmental health and_we1fare of students, employees, and guests. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/773aadb26a179701b530a6ad9059d3d8.tif 8de3560e94da971993ca79630b4190a6 PDF Text Text Appendix D I SURVEY OF FIREARMS, AEROSOLS AND GASES - CAMPUS POLICE A Survey Study Conducted by John C. Merchant Director of Security University of Massachusetts Amherst December 1968 _57 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/0a5a02751dd928ccf7ba0c6aa91fb446.tif b4edcbaf660ff5125c88709c1dc2e0a2 PDF Text Text 58 Overall response from the 140‘institutions provided the following general statistics; 4 Sidearms Carried full time by campus police ~103 *Carried only on specific assignments - 19 Not carried at any time - 18 Shotguns or Rifles Carried in patrol vehicles - 9 Available for emergency use - 38 Not carried nor available for emergency use - 98 Mace, Tear Gas. etc. Carried on person of officer - 49 Carried in patrol vehicles -- 16 Available for emergency use - 52 Not carried nor available for emergency use - 56 Campus police have arrest powers in adjacent off-campus areas - 73 With respect to the carrying of sidearms by campus police, little differ- ence was reflected between those institutions having a adjerity of resident students and those reporting a majority of commuting students. At the urban institutions 75% carried sidearms at all times and 16% did not carry sidearms at any time. On Suburban campuses 67% of the institutions reported that campus police carried sidearms at all times, while only 102 reported that campus police did not carry sidearms at any time. Responses relating to enrollment indicated that the percentage of campus police who carried sidearms at all times noticeably increased uhen the stu- dent body exceeded 5,000. . , * Includes "money carrying", "money protection", "at night" and "week ends". Attachments: . ~ - Annex A - Urban_Campus - Majority of Students Campus Residents Annex B - Urban Campus - Majority of Students Commuters Annex C - Suburban Campus - Majority of Students Campus Residents Annex D - Suburban Campus - Majority of Students Commuters Annex E - List of Respondents https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1ad088c938c932ed7ff6b66d04b53b71.tif 4ac018b25708de4f1de55daba78eb667 PDF Text Text 59 . ANNEX A. URBAN CAMPUS - MAJORITY OF STUDENTS CAMPUS RESlDENTS (Total institutions in category - 31) EQUI i‘l‘IENT ‘ ENROLIMENT I I Under 2,006 5, 303 ' 10, 000 ' over VTOTAL 2,000 to to to 15,000 ~ 5,000 10,000 15,033 ‘ Sidearms - Carried full time ' 1 ' 1 10: . _ 6 7 ‘ 25 Carried only on specific ‘ assignments or at night - - - l - 1 Do not carry at any time p - ‘ 2 1 2 - - __jL: 31 'Shotguns or Rifles Carried in patrol vehicles - - ,1 ‘ ' - 1'. 2 3 Available for emergency issue - l - ‘ 1 -»~— 2 ‘\\ 2 6 Not carriea nor available 1 2 10 7 5 25 MaceL Tear éas, etc. ' 0 ~_ Carried on person 1 1 ‘ 4 1 - 7 Carried in patrol vehicle - - 1 1 - 2 Available for emergency issue - 1 ' 3 '3 3 10 Do not carry or have _ ' - . 2 4 5 4 15 Arrest Powers in Surrounding _ Off-campus Areas ’1 2 5 5 _ 5 18 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/52b33f47c4202324703dc353c4b7a804.tif a97d1331641fbe37be31086281eb4dc4 PDF Text Text 7 URBAN CAMPUS - MAJORITY OF STUDENTS COMMUTERS (Total institutions in category - 43) 312111114131er ENROLIMENT Under 2,000 5,000 10,000 2,000 to to to - 5,000 10,000 15,000- Sidearms Carried full time 1 3 5 7 Carried only on specific assignments or at night - - 2 1 Do not carry at any time 1 1 2 1_ Shotguns or Rifles ‘ Carried in patrol vehicles ' - - - ‘ 2 ' Available for emergency issue - 2 2 2 Not carried nor available 2 Z ‘ 7 _ 6 Mace, Tear Gas, etc. Carried on person - 3 1 5 Carried in patrol vehicles - 1 1 -' Available for emergency issue - ‘ 1 4 2 Do not carry or have , 2 1 5 2 Arrest Powers in Surrounding ” Off-campus_freas 1 4 1 3 60 ANNEX B ' Over TOTAL 15,000 15 31 . 2 5 2 7 43 2 a 8 14 11_ 28 9 '18 3 s 9 16 4 14 11 20 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d36b1763d0223b13396b8cd291ee84a7.tif 6c6d4dade199524b5a13179a8b08acb1 PDF Text Text VSUBURBAH CAMPUS - MAJORITY OF STUDENTS CAMPUS RESIDENTS (Total institutions in category -39) EQUI PMENT ' , Under 2,000 Sidearms Carried full time 1' l 3 Carried only on specific assignments or a: night 3 Do not carry at any time 1 Shqgguns or Rifles. 1 Carried in patrol vehiclee 1 Available for emergency issue 1 Not carried nor available 5 Mace, Tear Gas, etc. Carried on oerson 3 Carried in patrol vehicles 1 Available for energency 15508 1 Do-not carry or have 3 Arrest Powers in Surrounding I Off-camgus Areas 4 ENROIJMENT 2,000 5,000 'to , to 5,000 10, 000 1 ' 11 1 3‘ 2 1 1 .4 3 n z s - 4 1 6 1 6_ 2 7 10,000 to 15,000 61 ANNEX C - 9 - 4 39 _ - '1 ‘ 2 9 4 29 l 13 1 7 5 14' 2 16 6 24 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/257ef478cad32b4630619a79837ad8b3.tif 6aa285c309a0c9dc20035bcab3405476 PDF Text Text ANNEX D SUBURBAN CAMPUS - MAJORITY OF STUDENTS cmm'rms (Total institutions in category - 19) EQUIPMENT — ' ' ‘ ENROLDIENT I Under 2, 000 5 , 00:) 10, 00-3 Over TOTAL 2,000 to to to 15,000 ' 5,000 10,000 15,000 Sidearms . ' ' Carried full time - 3 3 . - 7 13' Carried only on specific V assignments or at night - 2 1 1 - , 4 Do not carry at any time '- 1 1 - - 2 ' 19 Shotguns or Rifles 2 Carried in patrol vehicles . - l - i - ‘\x 1 ' 2 Available for emergency issue - 2 ' 1 ~ 5 8 Not carried no: available - 4 4 1 - 1 9 JMace: Tear Gas; etc. Carried on petson . ‘ v 3 2 v “ 5 10 Carried in patrol uehicles - - 1 4 ~ - 1 Available for emergency issue - . 2 4 - 4 10 Do not carry or have - ’ I ’2 2. 1 ' -' 5 Arrest Powers in Surrounding ” Off-campus Areas - . 3 4 .v 4 11 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/83ffe3db56585b11495d12ec000b33a7.tif 1ee4fd0fb5988c10e0021a6a94730aad PDF Text Text 63 .ANNEX B LIST OF RESPONDENTS ,U. of Akron (Ohio) Fresno State College (Calif.) U. of Alabama Georgetown University (D.C.) American International College (Mass.) University of Georgia Appalachian State University (N.C.) , Georgia Institute of Technology University of Arizona . Green Mountain College (Vt.) Arizona State University University of Hartford (Conn.) U. of Arkansas Medical Center Hartwick College (N.Y.) Ball State University (Indiana) Harvard University Bates College (Maine) ' ' Hofstra University (N.Y.) Baylor University (Texas) . ‘ University of Heuston (Texas) Bowling Green State University (Ohio) Howard University (D.C.) Unive1 sity of Bridgeport (Conn ) University of Idaho Brigham Y0ung University (Utah) Idaho State University Brown University (R.I.) University of Illinois Bucknell University (Penna) - Indiana University California State College - Hayward Indiana State University California State College ~ Long Beach - University of Iowa California State College - Los Angeles Kansas State Teachers College Capital University (Ohio) ’ Kansas State University Central Connecticut State College _ ' Kent State University (Ohio) Central Michigan University University of Kentucky Central Missouri State College Lamar State College of Tech. (Texas) Central State University (Ohio) Lehigh University (Penna,) Central Washington State College Lewis and Clark College (Oregon) Chatham College (Penna.) ‘ Loma Linda University (Calif.) \w"University of Chicago Loras College (Iowa) City College of New York ' Loyola University (111.) Clemson University (S.C.) University of Maine Cleveland State University (Ohio) Marquette University (Wisc.) . Colgate University (N.Y.) ‘ . University of Maryland - College Park . Colorado State College University of Maryland - Baltimore COlorado_State University Mary Washington College (Va.) Columbia University (N.Y.) University of Massachusetts University of Connecticut d ' Massachusetts Inst. of‘Tech. connecticut College for Women S ’ Memphis State University (Tenn.) Cornell University (N.Y.) Meramec Junior College Cio.) C.W. Post College (N.Y.) Michigan State University University of Dayton (Ohio) _ Middlebury College (Vt.) Dean Junior College (Mass.) Middlesex County College (N.J.) . University of Delaware University of Minnesota Dickinson College (Penna.) . -Mississippi State University Drew University (N.J.) r University of Missouri Duke University (N. C. ) Mohawk Valley Community College (N. Y ) East Tex as State Unive1sity University of Montana Itstern Illinois University ' Montana State University Eastern Michigan University ' Moorhead State College (Minn.) Eastern Nevaexico University Murray-State University (Ky.) Emory University (Gao1gia) University of New Hampshire Fairleigh Diclcinson University (N. J. ) University of New Mexico (I Fe1ris State College (Mich. ) ‘ New Mexico State University “’ Florence State University (Ala. ) State U. of 'ew York - Albany Unive1sity of Florida State U. of New York - Buffalo Florida Presbyterian College » State U. of New York ~ Cobleskill Florida Southern College State U. of Ne; Yorl: - Farmingdale Florissant Valley Community College (Mo.) State U. of Ne w Yor!< - swego https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e72012df4e22b02514efb46d28bd9582.tif 38c4ead1359bf0bf2cacab17ec94e36b PDF Text Text State U. College at Brochport (N. State U. College at New Paltz (W. New Yorlz University Pd“: vv vNorth Carolina College at Durham North Carolina State University University of North Caio*ina University of North Dakota Northern Illinois University University of Northern Iowa Northeast Miss ouri State College Northwest Missouri State College Northweste e::n University (Iﬂ .) Northwestern State Col ege of Louisiana University of Notre Dame ‘ Oakland University (Mich.) Ohio University Ohio State University Ohio Wesleyan University University of Oklahoma Oklahoma State Universit~ Oral: ioberts University (0 la.) University of Oregon U. of Oregon Medical & Dental Schools Pace College (N. Y. ) Universi 11y of the Pacific (Cal if.) Pacific Union College (Calif.) Pan American College (Tex.) Pasadena City College (Cali f. ) University of Pennsy vania 'Pensacom Junior College (Fla.) Unive1 rsity of Pittsburgh (Penna .) P1 ince George 3 Community College (Md. ) Piinceton University (N.J.) Providence College (R I.) Pu1 due Unive; sity (Ind. ) Redford College (Va.) Reed College (Or1.) University of Rhode Island Rhode Island School of Design Rice University (Tex Ricks College (Idaho) .Universit 1y of A chester (N.Y.) Rockf01d College (Ill. ) Rutgers, the State University (W.J.) Saint Louis University (30 St. John‘s University N.Y.) Saint Mary’s College (1nd.) St. Mary‘s College (Minn.) Salem State College (Mass.) S mford University (Am .) San Fe1nando Valley St ate Col:.ege (Calif. ) lavannah State College (Georgia) Seton Hall University (N.J.) 64 « -Smith Colle oe (Hass.) 0" South Dacota State UniV1rsity Southern Connecticut State College Southern Illinois U. - Edwardsville Southern Illinois U. ~ Carbondale Southern Hethodist University (Texas) University of Southern Mississippi Southwest Texas State College Stanford University (Calif. ) Syi acuse University (N.Y.) University of Tennessee ‘Unive ersi ty of Texas 1 Arlington Universi ity of Texas ~ Austin Texas A & M University Texas Technological College University of Toledo (Ohio) Trinity College (Conn.) Tufts University (Mass.) Univ. Circle Devel. FOundation (Ohio) University of Utah Utica College (N.Y.) Vassar College (N. Y. ) University of Vermont University of Virginia Virginia Polytechnic Institute Washington University (M0,) University of Washington Washington State University Wayne State University (Nich.) Wellesley College (Mass.) Wesleyan University (Conn.) West Chester State College (Penna.) Western Illinois University Western Kentucky Unive 1rsity Western Michigan University Western New Mexico University Wichita State University (Kan.) Williams College (Mam .) university of Wiscon nsin Wisconsin State University Yale University https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ec379d432b828bb3e821fac52b5545eb.tif ee94bb14d05231a31985565266ba8d87 PDF Text Text 3-. The most difficult issue that we were called upon to answer is the relationship between State statute and the Code of Student Conduct. The frustrations expressed have been numerous and have in fact become frustrating to the Commission. {We have heard much complaining that the Security Office must check with the Vice President for Student Affairs beiore making an arrest. Though this policy exists; good or bad, the facts will show that this policy has not been followed and therefore is not; in the opinion of this Commission; the major cause of the frustration that presently exists. it is our understanding that this policy resulted from the now famous.Flanagan incident. of last year, and in fact the very existence of this Commission resulted from . _ | the same. This report speaks to this issue and makes specific recommenda— tions to assist in alleviating this problem; ' . The second complaint which is common is that when a student is charged 1 . 'under-the Code of Student Conduct rather than the civil courts, little if any reSults are attained. This issue is not directly dealt with in our report, but we do recommend that a re—eValuation of the Code of Student Conduct and/or the manner in which it is being implemented is necessary. The third complaint has been that of inconsistencies in the Security Department as to when a student would be arrested or sent to the Office of Student Conduct Programs. This problem can never be totally answered simply because we are dealing with individuals and indiyidual situations where rapid judgmental decisions must be made. The Commission does have recommendations which it feels Will assist in alleviatingjthis problem. The total situation can be summed up as follows: there exists at the present time a high degree of frustration by all segments of the https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/dd5604a8f7f5601c6ec69211d96e9c25.tif be865d7b2405718e36e9a760aedf0572 PDF Text Text University resulting from cross chains of command, certain poor Judgmental decisions, and inconsistent handling of given situations by all elements i . v ' . of the campus community. Before discussing the recommendations, we want to'point out to the reader that a number of laws, rules and regulations were read and taken Fa into consideration in the making of these recommendations. Those include 'but are not limited to the following: 1. The new House Bill 1219 which prohibits certain activities desig-I . nated as disrupting the orderly conduct of lawful activities at the, university and preacribes misdemeanors for violation; mandates dismissal of students, faculty and staff of the university convicted of certain crimes; and establishes a hearing procedure outside of the univerSity_structure to determine suspension prior to the civil trial on the issue. .2. .The Code of Student Conduct, includifg that provision which states gas follows; - ' _' l a ' i ' ' '. . . Although ordinarily the University will not impose further sanctions (emphasis is ours) after law enforcement agencies have, disposed of the case, it does have the bligation to introduce counseling and/or disciplinary action_if the student's conduct has interfered with the University's exercise of its educational objectives or responsibilities to its members; and disciplinary action taken on this basis shall conform to the terms of this Code, including appeal. 3. Chapter 2935.03 - which establishes the duties and obligations ,of a police officer concerning violation of the civil law. There appear to be four basic approaches to this problem during the .-l . normal function of the University with certain built—in methods of operation. '1. A totally unsatisfactory alternative is to continue as we now operate. . ‘ y. '. ' i i f 2 2. Establish and publish a policy that all civil violations may subject; 'the person to civil arrest. That after an officer makes an arrest he must notify the Office of Student Conduct Programs so that they, the Office of https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c89f613a7086f7b14d2d703b5b70b686.tif ae8af9a288b589edccc198c857b36909 PDF Text Text v r‘ -—-. :rvq Student Conduct Programs, may review any action taken by civil authorities regarding the student for educational purposes by counseling or disciplinary action. Further, that in the event a student is found innocent by a civil court of proper Jurisdiction he may not be tried for the same offense under the Code of Student Conduct.. 3. Establish and publish a policy which states that any criminal act committed on the campus which is a felony offense under the Ohio Revised Code shall subject the person to civil arrest. Further, that any criminal act which is against a person or preperty when such person injured or the owner or person having legal control of such property desires to sign a complainth or any theft of property whereby the owner, or person having legal control of the same, desires to sign a complaint, shall subject the person to civil arrest. Further; any other criminal acts not described above which are committed upon the campus by any individual may subject the person to civil arrest. This does not abrogate the duty of the Office of Student Conduct .Prpgrams to review any action taken by civil authorities regarding the student for educational purposes by counseling or disciplinary action. Further, that in the event a student is found innocent by a civil court of prOper jurisdiction he may not be tried for the same offense under the Code of Student Conduct. 4. Establish and publish a policy that states that any criminal act that is committed on the campus which is a felony offense under the Ohio Revised Code shall subject the person to civil arrest. Further, that any criminal act committed on the campus which is a misdemeanor offense under the Ohio Revised Code or a violation of the City Ordinance of the City of Kent may subject the person to civil arrest. This does not abrogate the duty of the Office of Student Conduct Programs to review any action taken by civil authorities regarding the student for educational purposes by https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ab825efdc45270553a246c46aebe6405.tif bc1e4681bf7beb33d56837af5f4ac3c9 PDF Text Text counseling or disciplinary action. Further, that in the event a student is found innocent by a civil court of proper jurisdiction he may not be ‘ tried for the same offense under the Code of Student Conduct. The latter three alternatives do establish a certain amount of consistency and accountability that is so direly needed. They further assist. in relieving the pressures of having to check under normal circumstances with a third person. They are highly desirable, but still leoming in the background is a potential Flanagan situation resulting fromi 1. A poor judgment on another or not sufficient facts exist to make 1 an arrest and a conviction, and; 2. A lack of understanding or appreciation for some of the sensitive_ issues on the campus, when alternatiVes to arrest would be the J better solution to the problem. ‘ . In essence, the Success or failure of any alternatives in this area depends _upon the expertise of the officers faced with the factual situation, and o 'the leadership provided by their immediate superiors. In conclusion on this issue, either #2, #3, or #4'appears to be a. workable solution to the problem. To safeguard against the potential Flanagan .situation,-the following should be considered by the Police Department: 1. That identification, and full fact investigation, be made prior to arrest; There are obviously circumstances Where this is neither practical nor possible, but in many of the cases it is not only norkable but desirable. In other words, under many circumstances, rather than making an immediate arrest, make prOper identification and factual investigation first. The arrest can be made later. This type of tactic not only minimizes crisis situations but gives the officer time to discuss the facts with his superior if he has questions as to how he should proceed. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a8de1ddf0b9ba54264ff56403218dc99.tif 549ece8528f5dcaa3519e51e0c5d3ff1 PDF Text Text y . I" »‘ .1 . x 2. better training of the officer, so that he will be more Qualified to make sensitive judgment decisions. ' ‘ ' l 3. Develop a closer working relationship between the security operation and Student Conduct so that mutual goals can be obtained. 4. Employment of full-time legal counsel by the Police Department. The employment of such counsel would be of great benefit to the students and faculty as well as the Police Department in that he could assist in making determinations as to when arrest and civil proceedings were legally proper. His specific duties would be as follows: a.' To assist the police officer in determining whether sufficient facts exist to effect an arrest (when this issue is in question -j__§y‘the officer or his superior). . t b. Assist in educating the officers about the Ohio Revised Code the various elements of each provision listed therein, and ‘the University rules and regulations. c, Act as a liaison with the Prosecuting attorney of Portage County and the City Attorney of Kent.‘ .3 ’.i d. To act as liaison between the Security Office and the Office of Student Conduct Programs. e. Keeping the entire University community advised and up—dated on the change of the law. We feel that the above guidelines can be helpful to the establishment of consistency between the Code of Student Conduct and State statute. One must heep in mind that ultimately it is a human decision and that the expertise of the person called upon to make those decisions and his Superiors will cause these or any other guidelines to succeed or fail; https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ac5a419e912e3f9654dec9b35df6aaa1.tif 8a2fafefb0340e4036c732e9a8ac7885 PDF Text Text Policeman 1 Police.Sergeant Police Chief CAMPUS POLICE STARTING SALARIES Fax Range 15 17 18 20 21 W 'Current 3.12 3.42 3.57 3.92 4.12 OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL STARTING SALARIES ‘ Highway Patrolman N " Sgt. Lt. Staff Lt. Pay Range 19 22 23 24 As of Oct. 3.25 3.55 3.70 4.05 4.25 Hourly Rate Current 3.72 4.31 ‘ 4.50 4.69 As of Oct. 3.85 4.43 4.61 4.79 1970 1970 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6199eca416ebeac0750e1d4efa28ba0d.tif 483d3db9d3ffa181af9a1964525d33a3 PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3bf47e7f25f9006548c632cff94b7ec6.tif 649a3d8944e3438b46382309e8458a5f PDF Text Text https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1503e8ce83155ef20e6fb8bbb3e1e4cc.tif 3409ec468eea7e45b26da071f244918d PDF Text Text EDITED REPORT OF The Commission on Campus Security The Task Force recommends the creation of an all-University Board to serVe in an advisory capacity to the Director of Public Safety. This advisory board should be representative of facultx,.» students, staff and the general community. The board should serve to promote better interaction between the Department of Public Safety and the community which it serves, e.g. to function as a sounding 'board for policy decisions and to make recommendations concerning ‘public relations and other critical areas.' ﬂagpower It is clear in determining manpower needs that (1) there are no standards of staffing that can be applied to Kent State University; (2) gross manpower solves no problems; (3) complete and accurate 'records provide the only logical basis for making staffing decisions; (4) sound organization, effective administration, and the attainment of departmental and personnel competence must be attempted before gross manpower is given serious consideration. Even though technolog— ical improvements are increasingly important to effective police operations, the greatest gains yet to be made in improved service lie in better personnel management procedures. The following general qualifications for applicants should be provided: 1. United States citizenship. 2. Age range of 21 to 30 years. 3. Intelligence quotient of 110 or above. 4. High school diploma or equivalent. 5. Height of b'6" to 6'4". 6. No criminal record indicating moral turpitude or conviction for any felony. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/1489f603d878cda22402a5bf94a17c7b.tif eebd9bf1f5e1161896bd65178318cd42 PDF Text Text A standard waiver of basic qualifications should be established to permit the employment of applicants who may possess superior qualifications in some areas but may not fully meet certain other requirements. The Commission recognizes that a number of our recommendations '-are limited by existing civil service requirements. With this in 1-mind, we feel that the University should seek civil service modifi- 'cation via the prescribed channels so as to promote these recommendations. The following "sliding scale" qualification table is recommended for use as a guide in the granting of waivers of basic qualifications. ISee Table 4. Each factor to be considered is scored with a numeric value ranging downward from 20 to 11. To be considered for employment under these provisions, an applicant should achieve a total minimum ‘composite score of 80 points. Policy should provide for the acceptance of applications for appointment only from candidates achieving a score of 80 or better, providing that the mandatory requirements prescribed in ltems l and 6, previously, are met. A written examination should be given to all applicants concerned with intelligence and aptitude, not with the Specifics of law enforce- ment, local geography, civics or law. The written exam should be designed to exclude those whose mental capabilities and aptitudes are not sufficient to meet the basic requirements for patrolman and to pro- vide a basis for grading those who do. A standardized intelligence test should be administered to assist in determining the applicant's level of intelligence. Candidates earning less than the minimum score the on/examination should be disqualified. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b2651c598ba288d627831d50385a5d92.tif 0b152542016a4614470d7a76f4feac06 PDF Text Text Table 4 ._._..-_., _au-.___... PROPOSED QUALIFICATION TABLE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY KENT STATE UNIVERSITY is rated 20/50 would be acceptable since his composite score exceeds 80. E/Correctable, where deficient, to 20/20. Weighted Value Age Height Education ' 20 21-22 6'0" College degree 19 23-24 5'10" 3 years 9r A.A. diploma 18 25-26 5'9" 2 years 17 27*28 5'8" 1 year 16 29~30 5'7" High school~graduation 15 31 5'6—1/2" GED and 3 years high school 14 32 5'6" GED and 2 years high school 13 33' 5'5"P/ GED and 1 year high school 12 '34 SJ GED and 8 years grade school 11 35 — g] 130 125 120 P/No points given, but not necessarily disqualifying in itself. E/Disqualifying. Uncorrected ' a 4 Vision_/ 20/20 20/30 20/40 20/50 20/60 20/70 20/80 20/90 20/100 2/ Note: Under this plan an applicant possessing less than the standard for a particular qualification, but more than the standard in other areas, could still qualify for appointment providing the other requirements for appointment were met. For example, a person 23 years of age, 5'7" tall, who has successfully com- pleted 3 years of college, has an intelligence quotient of 120, and whose vision score would be calculated in the following manner. Age—~23 l9 Height“—5'7" 16 Education—m3 years college 19 I.Q.~~120 18 Vision-“ZO/SO 17 points points points points points Total §ﬂiaaiege m... 3 His https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d5a253dd1dd1164f3a8ba3c6680603c5.tif 42b623949fc8f865513fe43c68611ccc PDF Text Text Oral interviews should be considered as a vital part of the »selection process. It is recommended that the oral board be composed of a personnel expert recruited from, preferably, local business or industry; a commanding officer representing the Department, usually the Director of Public Safety; and a third person with Special com- petence in personnel or police administration; plus a fourth person selected at large from the university community. Once the applicant Isuccessfully completes the written portion of the examination process, dhe should next appear before an oral hearing board where he should be graded on poise, ability to snpress himself, attitudes, and other factors. Rejection by the oral board should immediately disqualify the candidate. It is recommended that the next steps in the selection process ’be a psychological assessment and medical examination. These evaluations should be so thorough as to identify potential functional and organic disorders that would soon or ultimately restrict the candidate's capa- bility to adequately perform his work. Background investigations of applicants should be expanded and intensified. To meet the requirements for an adequate background in- vestigation, a careful analysis of school, employment, credit, military and criminal records; personal interviews of persons in the applicant's neighborhood, paSt and present employers; and the applicant's immediate family should be undertaken. If an applicant's history develops deroga- tory information which cannot be satisfactorily explained, all uncertain- ties should be resolved in Favor of the Department. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3908ddf20d0843f402c7547b5b0bfabb.tif 18b7076017710d9f6caf7714f5788626 PDF Text Text Recruits should be appointed in a civilian status and not as sworn police officers until completion of their recruit training. Adoption of this procedure would avoid occasional embarrassment to the Department and other problems because of officious, illegal, or unwarranted police actions by untrained persons. A one year proba- Itionary period should be viewed as part of the selection process, rand, as such, should be used to separate those individuals, who ,despite "passing" a rigorous selective process, demonstrate an inability to function at the desired level of competency, morality, or service. Training It is recommended that the Department expand its present~training -program. Adequate training directly related to the attainment of Department objectives is mandatory if successful operations are to be developed and maintained Recruit training, although handled outside the Department, should be analyzed and suggestions for improvement made where inadequacies exist. If existing programs cannot meet the needs, provisions should be made to supplement the available courses with instructors from either within or outside the Department or arrange for improved training programs through the on—campus Center for State and Local Government, the Law—Medicine Center at Case-Western Reserve or similar institutions. Regardless of the adequacy of off—campus recruit training schools, it will always be necessary to give additional recruit training through the Department or other University units. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/908a008e57e80bdaddc4480a1817f04a.tif 6c597be21d41f05af1743357dffc08f8 PDF Text Text A carefully selected and specially trained group of qualified senior patrolmen should serve in coach—trainee relationships to new patrolmen for 30 to 60 days after they are first assigned general duty, ideally following recruit training. While so serving, coaches should receive extra compensation. Special training should be provided those persons assigned to specialized functions; e.g., investigators should receive training in matters pertinent to their assignments, first—aid and emergency pro- cedures in the care and transportation of the sick and injured should be provided personnel serving on the ambulance. Special training classes should be provided when sufficient numbers of personnel are assigned to a new duty. Joint classes with members of the Kent Police Department and the Portage County Sheriff's Office should be scheduled so that optimal .'interaction occurs, to insure understanding of complementary practices and to aSSure optimal class size. In a new area of learning, all concerned personnel should be given formal classroom instruction in coordination with field problems by com- petent personnel recruited from within or outside the Department. In—service training programs should be established for all patrolman, specialist, and supervisory positions. When special training equipment and programs are purchased and/or developed they should be procured and utilized. At the outset, comprehensive examinations should be administered to all employees to identify (1) general training needs, (2) persons incom— petent to fill their present rank or assignment, and (3) persons with unusual or Special knowledge, and will assist in determining their proper assignments. The results of the examinations will help provide a realistic base for the determination of training needs in each group. Fallow—up examinations should then be administered to_determine the degree cf achi - - - ' ‘ ’ ’ ' ' . evement of training goals and ObJCCLlVCS. ' ‘ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6f492a62aa7ddb42b3bdbe630e6e3261.tif 14c950577336a5fab6daf827b1d0dd80 PDF Text Text The Director and his subordinate command officers should hold regular staff meetings which, themselves, will serve as seminar—style training vehicles. Continuous in—service training should be provided all personnel. Refresher courses in Supreme Court decisions, local and state laws, and changes in University or Department programs, policies, and procedures should be offered. In—service training is designed to refresh personnel on material covered earlier and on which frecall may be below an acceptable level and to keep them informed on developments since their last training period. Because of the existing level of training, it is probable that 10 to 15 days of in-service refresher training will be required the first year; and at least five to ten days per year will be required each year thereafter. Such factors must be considered fully in budget preparation to prevent 'staffing difficulties, Promotional Practices It is critical to the successful Operation of the Department that only highly qualified personnel be promoted to positions of reSponsi— bility. There can be no compromise for any reason. The basic need for promotions is a broad base of competent per— sonnel; and it is for this reason, in part, that so much stress was placed earlier on recruiting and selection practices. Aside from this, however, the requirements for promotion must be so stringent that only the best of a select group may be named. If an examination discloses that there is an inadequate number of qualified officers, the vacancies should remain unfilled; unqualified personnel must not be promoted. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/02f042d4658c9f9312b1e30c30a3bda3.tif d3d0daf2f1400a2349db4afe98f5ce3d PDF Text Text It is preposed that the following minimum educational requirements for promotion be established in the Department as a condition of employ—i ment for new members, but need not necessarily apply to present personnel: two years of college for promotion to sergeant, three for lieutenant, and four for chief. Meanwhile, some credit on promotional scores could be given for college work to men in the Department who voluntarily avail themselves of educational opportunities. The actual examinations for promotion should be directly related ‘to and designated to test the potential for each of several levels of supervision, command, and administration. For example, a sergeant's examination should be concerned primarily with supervision and a lieu- tenant's with supervision and command. In addition to a written exam- ination, performance evaluation data must be considered an integral part of the promotional process. Evaluation and adoption of a modified Diagnostic Forced—Choice Personnel Evaluation used by the Ohio State Highway Patrol should occurull It is recommended that a candidate for promotion, like a candidate for recruit patrolman, appear before an oral board after passing the written exam. The board should appraise the candidate on his poise, judgment, ability to express himself, and insofar as it can be deter- mined, his potential for the position being examined. It is proposed that seniority be discontinued as a factor in the promotional process. Time served the Department provides no indication of potential supervisory, command, or administrative ability. 2/ —— Diagnostic forcedfghoice Personnel Evaluation, The Ohio State Highway Patrol, 1958. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/52a16f05f063c25991e965fa9498b188.tif 4e98f59bc1c42819516c9809c22255ce PDF Text Text p All promotions should be probationary for one year. A probation— ary period should comprise the final step in the promotional process. Personnel Records Personnel records currently maintained by the Department should b%expanded and reorganized to provide the base for a good personnel Vrecords system. The Department personnel files should be complete even at the risk 'of duplicating others kept by other agencies or commissions. The common types of personnel records that should be maintained should include, among other items, the following: Application for employment and supporting information Report of background investigations Medical history and current health record Psychological assessment data Educational data (including training schools) Disciplinary reports, investigations, and action taken Letters of commendation and criticism Evaluation of performance and counseling by superiors Probationary period reports and evaluations Results of promotional exams Orders of promotion and demotion Work record (sick time, injury, vacation, days off, leave) Compensation and Employment Guidelines Compensatory practices are of great concern to all police officers; they should be of equal concern to the University, for this is one factor, - among several, which significantly influences a university’s ability to https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/fa22dbe791e8ada0b4ca01b2ddf84e6c.tif 25089d094ca0f873c205b05244a5e6db PDF Text Text attract and retain qualified, competent personnel. Pay and fringe bene— fits and the surroundings in which one works significantly influence incentive, morale, efficiency, effectiveness, and, in some respects, a person's competency. Salary requirements for supervisory and command positions should be sufficient to provide financial incentives in addition to those inherent ,in the positions. Present salaries are wholly inadequate to meet market ,demands for security personnel meeting the proposed standards. An incentive plan should be developed to include a.5% increment over base salary for earning half the credits necessary for a bacca- laureate degree and a 10% salary increment for a bachelors degree from a recognized college or university. It is recommended that an officer's entire uniform, its replace— ment, and the cost of maintaining it be provided by the Department. Departmental Rules and Regulations A revised manual of departmental rules and regulations should be prepared in cooperation with members of the Department for approval by the Director of Public Safety and his administrative superior. The manual should be prepared in loose-leaf form for easy correction and addition and should be comprised in five sections: Ethics and Rules of Conduct, Organization and Administration, General and Special Orders, Procedural Instructions, and Training Materials. It is suggested that the recommended rules of conduct, with whatever modifications may be considered apprOpriate, be placed into immediate effect. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/afe8e5f90b0cca2e67a954ebfedc0322.tif 2fd524cbd46c44631c79fb7649e75794 PDF Text Text Allegations of Misconduct To provide for proper administrative action and for other pertinent _reasons, whenever a complaint is received regarding a police officer, a uniform procedure for handling the complaint should be adopted for use by the Department. I The complaint should be investigated completely and detailed reports made of all action. All personnel complaint reports should be placed in -the appropriate personnel file, not in the main records files. The handling of disciplinary actions is almost always suspect to some degree by members of the Department, public officials, and the 'public. Thus, complete objectivity, impartiality, and equity are essential to a good program. Very 'mportantly, the Director himself normally should 'report fully to the complainant on departmental findings and actions. A well—administered department, of high caprit dc corps, soon becomes largely self—disciplined. 'Internal Inspections A process of staff inspection should he established to continuously review program, policies, operations, and procedures in order to (1) keep the Director fully informed of conditions and (2) make recommendations for improvements. Uniforms are worn primarily for the purposes of ready identifica— tion by all persons with whom Department personnel come in contact, and secondarily as a focal point for nnit morale ard esprit de corps.- To serve these purposes, uniforms must be attractive, serviceable, and distinctive. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/8363cfebcca7b35c8c4403b752a9508d.tif 5f1bf1b6de89a9758b203e8cca08a6f0 PDF Text Text Obviously the campus community, vis.tors, and area-citizens must be able to distinguish easily between Department personnel and members of other law enforcement agencies in the surrounding area. It is equally vital that these persons be able to identify members of each of the sev- eral units Within the Department of Public Safety, both sworn (police officers) and non~sworn (security guards, library guards, meter maids, eetc.). Further, a uniform must net only be distinctive, but also should 'convey neither a harsh nor militaristic image" These same factors~wdistinctivaness and image ~were also examined from the officers' Viewooins. At present those ifficers of the Univer- sity who serve in a poiice capacity are largely indistinguishable from ’those who perform other duties on campus (e,g., library guards) or from .City of Kent police officers. There is a dampening effect upon esprit de corps in a unit whose individuality and selfwimage are relatively 1 indiscernible and confused in tae public eye: In View of these factors, the Commission recommends that uniforms for police officers within the Department of Public Safety be revised or modified to create a new, more favorable "set" both internally and externally. Such revision should be made by the Director of Public Safety after consultation with all personnel involved and should tend toward a more distinctive uniform, prooabl* ofua color other than the traditional "police blue” {c.g., dark green trousers, light green shirt, and a "campaign" hat similar to that of the Ohio Highway Patrol). Non— police personnel within the Department should he provided with uniforms and/or identifying insignia and apparel different from that of the police service and unique for each thwunitn https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/29105ed7d069b7880b79cf1588b743e1.tif ddf51e5a7391438de1a9d4fe6a1ffbb2 PDF Text Text In addition, the Commission recommends that the Department provide neat, trimly—tailored blazers, with police insignia on the breast pocket, (7| to be worn by personnel engagen in certain situations such as public relations activities discussed elsewhere in thin report (e.g., freshmen orientation programs or public speaking engagements). \— https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/a993d5666add6350405568132109cf04.tif 62216e7fb09ce227a5b31f1d38c00ee1 PDF Text Text Eﬁéﬂﬂﬁﬁ The Commission is unanimous in its position that the police force should retain the use of firearms in the performance of their duties. As long as the Department is charged with protecting the lives of those in the University community, the Commission recommends the carrying of weapons. This provision does not include non~sworn personnel such as parking control personnel and security guards9 however. It has become a apparent to this Commission that the issue of the carrying of firearms is of secondary importance to several others. The primary factor underlying arguments both for and against the use of firearms concerns the rationalitr of the offiter or ”the man behind the had e" 3 . g concept. Therefore, the Commission is again stressing the importance of Kent State University officers being carefully selected and well trained. It appears at this time that the Department lacks sufficient time and facilities for such training and therefore lacks this vital and visible aspect of the officer‘s total functioning. See Appendix D for a survey of firearm, aerosols and gas use by various campus police forces con- ducted by the University of Massachusetts. 'Firearms Training I Before an officer is permitted to tarr; a firearm he should meet the following minimum training requirements: a. Four to six hours training in familiarizatien with the firearm. b. Four to s’x hours training in ethics, law and departmental policy on the use of firearms and other deadly force. c. Twenty hours of range firing. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/98f5cee7929c8044eb7b92db248520fd.tif 628ac57b9a21d12684631eccf2d18fba PDF Text Text d. Four to six hours training on practical pistol courses. e. Sixteen to twenty hours of training in other defensive methods to deter violence and protect the officer in his charge short of firearms. In addition, every office“ should yearly receive four hours refresher course on laws and departmental policy on the use of firearms and should be required to re~qualify at least three times yearly with his firearm.§/ Use of Firearms I It is recommended that the Department of Public Safety adopt the following firearms usage policy: 1-. Falter Members of the Kent State University Police Department shall exhaust every other reasonable means of apprehension before resorting to the use of firearms or other deadly force.&/ II; 'General Regulations Concerning the Use_g£ Firearms A. An officer shall not discharge firearms in the performance of his police duties, except under the following circumstances and after all other means fail. I. In the necessary defense of himself from death or serious injury when attacked. 2. In the necessary defense from death or serious injury of another person attacked. 3/ -Recommendations contained in this section reflect accepted practices of outstanding police agencies and consultive recommendations of the Insti— tute of Government Research and Service? Public Administration Service and the International Association of Chiefs of Police. ﬁlThis section is based on police firearm and use policy prOposed by the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice Police Task Force, 1966. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c5d024e1bfb43abeaf5194d1d8f3178d.tif 8fd08458ff5bb6985dd1f451318c9d2a PDF Text Text 3. To effect the arrest or to prevent the escape of an adult person who has committed a forceable felony or to recapture or to prevent the escape from custody of a convicted adult felon when all other means have failed. 4. To kill a dangerous animal or one that is so badly injured that humanity requires its removal from further suffering and other disposition is impractical. 3. To give an alarm or to call assistance for an important purpose when no other means can be used, 6. For target practice at an approved range. Firearms shall not be discharged under the following circumstances: 1. As a warning. 2. At moving or fleeing vehicles unless the circumstances come within the provisions of Section TI A, l and 2, of this order. 3. From a moving vehicle. 4. In all misdemeanor cases. An officer shall not draw or brandish his sidearm in any public place, except when it is to be officially and properly used or for inspection by a superior. An officer shall not fire at persons knohn to be or suspected of being juveniles (persons less than 38 years of age) except under circumstances which come within the provisions of Section II A, 1 and 2, of this order. An officer shall file a written Lemorandum report through established commend channels to the Director of Public Safety immediately following the purchase, replacement, loss, or https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ea349e0ac2ea8ef6f95cf0fb3d05f7ab.tif 7d3f846b67089ce7bbd7e2080cf0fea1 PDF Text Text other diSpOSitiOn of a departmental or personal firearm used- :in the line of duty and shall list a complete description including the serial number. A report concerning the loss (including theft) of such a firearm shall include all facts surrounding the loss. III. Procedure tg‘_g Followed When Firearm_i§ Discharged A. Notification and Report by Member Involved 1. Whenever a member discharges his firearm either (a) acci— dentally, or ch) in the performance of police duty, (except at an approved range under firearms practice conditions) he shall orally notify his on~duty supervisor as soon as time and circumstances permit, but in no event later than the conclusion of his current tour of duty. If a command officer is not on duty in his division or unit at the time of the discharge, the member shall orally notify the highest ranking officer on duty at the time. The member who discharged his firearm shall file written report of the incident; through established channels, with the Director of Public Safety and with a copy to the member's supervisor within l6 hQIrs of the incident. If the member who discharged his firearm is heapitalized or fatally injured during the tour of duty and incapable of filing the report required in paragraph 2 of this subsection, his supervisor is responsible for filing as complete a report as possible pending departmental investigation. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5eb58a4066d5f5405965c611e86eb832.tif f9b073f71bbabfee92e4f669a04aa514 PDF Text Text . B. Investigation by_a Command Officer 1. Each discharge_of firearms shall be investigated personally by the on-duty command officer of the member involved. If the discharge occurs when there is no command officer on duty in the division to which the member is assigned; the ranking command officer then on duty shall personally con- duct the investigation when notified that the discharge of firearms has taken place. h After conducting a thorough investigation of the circum- stances attending the discharge of firearms, the command officer shall submit a detailed written report of the results of the investigation to the Director of Public Safety through channels., The report shall also contain the observations and conclusions of the command officer as to whether the discharge was justified and in accordance with this order. IV. 'Board'9f_§gyiew A. Membership of the Board 1. There shall be established a board of review which consists of the following members, along with others who may be idesignated by the Director of Public Safety as he deems necessary: a. The commanding officer of the patrol element, who shall act as chairman of the board. b. The commanding officer of the auxiliary services element. c.- One supervisory officer of the member who discharged his weapon. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/e07bca04dcdc9bfd68f5394b95e1f1fc.tif 414a2113cf66cbdc2298f9490909fb23 PDF Text Text d. ‘One member selected from the University community. B. Meetings of the Board ‘ l. A meeting of the board shall be called by the chairman within a reasonable time after the report of’a firearm discharge comes to his attention. 2. Notification of activation of the board shall be in writing. C. Authority of the Board 1.~ The board is authorized to review the circumstances attending each discharge of firearms by a member of the Department and to recommend to the Director of Public Safety appropriate disciplinary action. The Director shall make the final decision as to whether disciplinary action is to be taken against the officer and the nature and extent of the action. 2. The board shall make and/or receive recommendations for .the modification of the Department's firearms use policy land shall make recommendations concerning training necessary for the effective implementation of such policy. Other Protective Measures It is also recommended that the Director of Public Safety keep abreast of other additional means for the protection of officers such as Macg:2 riot batons, protective vests, helmets, shields, and other personal protective items. Under current circumstances, Optimal pro- tection is not provided, thus officers are unduly exposed to injury or death and are thus subject to personal harm which may tend to cause over- reaction to situations which otherwise would be relatively minor. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/97f58c02e0662a37fe11cc2e20a91baf.tif edd4018bd00de2b147d1837ed633d2a8 PDF Text Text Other Considerations During its investigation of the primary areas of concern, the Commission found that several other factors were of sufficient importance to warrant inclusion in this report. The recommendations listed below are neither extensive in their treatment nor exhaustive in their scope, but this is due to limitations of time and resources rather than choice. Therefore, it is strongly urged that the Department of Public Safety undertake the following: Improved Operational Liaison Establish increased operational and communications contacts on all levels between campus and local criminal justice agencies. This might include, for example, joint training sessions, combined patrol crews, Icoordinated records and communications services, and integrated planning programs. Parking Control and Building Security Create a nonusworn service category for parking enforcement personnel, in addition to the existing non~sworn building security forces. Parking con— trol aides, cadets, or "Aeter maids" could be employed to carry out most non-moving violation enforcement functions. Both parking control and institutional security guard positions should be filled by student employees wherever possible. Emergency Ambulance Service Continue the provision of emergency ambulance services by highly skilled, compassionate, sworn Deiartment of Public Safety personnel, primarily for service and secondarily for public relations value. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/766e1f16c44a4673cdbabdeb1b4e68d1.tif 24ce8f3e527081ad63eb7fec67a6970a PDF Text Text 'Community Relations/Public Information Program Develop a formal community relations and public information program to promote a more positive community image. The Department should in— crease positive public contact through increased routine foot patrols, the provision of instruction in emergency and safety procedures and similar service programs. The Department should promote formal and -informal human relations activities designed to provide better police- community relations. It must be emphasized that the first requirement of a good public relations program is a job well done. Stylish presen- tations and concentrated press exposure will not make up for inadequate serviCes or personnel. "Money TranSport Analysis Conduct a cost-effectiveness study of money escort duty by Department of Public Safety personnel in comparison with a professional money escort service. Fire Protection Service Institute a program of firemanship training for all employees of the Department. Such a policy will prepare University safety personnel to assist local fire officials in rescue, fire extinguishment, and fire prevention activities, further emphasizing the importance of the Depart— ment's commitments to the preservation of life and the security of property. The Assistant Director for Fire Protection should be delegated responsibility for program execution and liaison with appropriate fire' officials and educators. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2f5c519874ad9ba859baf95f617a5c10.tif 9bdf323a22657fb1cc863fbfc0dd5d00 PDF Text Text Tow Truck Operations Reassign the Operation of the police tow vehicle to (a) the Motor Pool; (b) the parking enforcement unit, or (c) a Special detail of non— sworn employees under the supervision of the police unit. These recom— mendations are listed in descending order of desirability. The towing ‘function does not require the services of the highly trained and com- pensated policeman recommended elsewhere in this report. Further it is ,of negative public relations value, and could provide additional student employment Opportunities with a minimal amount of changeover. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ef7792d4cdd24f244649ad83fbe2165e.tif af59686bf5fc2d9ca7a84ec5e20ec46d PDF Text Text gonglusion It is the conclusion of this Commission that a highly—motivated, compassionate, educated, well—trained, and adequately equipped public safety agency is essential to the safety, convenience, comfort, and security of the student body, faculty, staff, and guests of Kent State (University. The safety unit must be flexible, understanding, and in consonance with the general goals of the University and must demand ‘excellence in every facet of its operation. It must be staffed with intelligent, knowledgeable, skilled, career personnel who must be sensitive to the Spirit as well as the definition of the rules they must execute. The challenge of University service requires the utmost in com— petence, dedication, and intelligence on the part of administrative .and supervisory staff of the Department. Innovative leadership, combined with personal and professional integrity, is required of key personnel and every effort must be expended to assure the campus community and general public that Kent State University understands its obligation to provide superior service through the performance of its security and safety officials. The challenge is great and the Department of Public Safety can meet it only with the complete support, moral and fiscal, of the Administration and the Board of Trustees. The task of this Commission has been difficult, but will seem simple when compared with the imple- mentation of these and related recommendations. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CCS: “Report of the Commission on Campus Security” Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1970-06-19 Description Report of the Commission on Campus Security submitted by Chairman Arvin I. Lubetkin on June 19, 1970. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 100 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Commissions, Hearings, Tribunals Kent State University. Administrators Kent State University. Police May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b418604a1dde5a5d5b4446446b037977.tif 7cd860d852b12c0fde0c406b00fae0f4 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d9451ac5f1f94aff8e888305707abb62.tif dd444c9b5f973fa7ab1dbabe5127903d PDF Text Text -2... Faculty members interested in this program shuld be encouraged to participate in it, going through the training sessions. At present over a hundred third party people have been trained, but more are needed.. Mr. James Crocker, teaching fellow in the School of Speech, has infommation on training sessions. After discussions with aarious people, including Mr. John Huffman, Mr. Crocker, and Dr. Paul dare (of Haverford College, a national authority on third party service programs), members of the executive committee of the Faculty Senate, , have concluded that, in addition to the third party service, another kind of serviee, one perhaps more accurately called a "marshalling" program, would serve a useful purpose: one involving faculty members as faculty. These discussions have shown.nuite clearly that such a program could be a an additional factor in preventing violence and one which would not in any way compete with or hinder the operations of the third party service. It should be made clear that though a faculty marshallnprogram would be designed to be thus compatible and cooperative with the third party service, it is in no way connected with that service and has no endorsement by it. And though the two different kinds of forces to prevent or control violence would be engaged in‘a common enterprise, they would https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/b8a482d4c498d252aa6114ab1a83d404.tif 5b4bb64f9da08f686198ee4a956ccf21 PDF Text Text function in different ways, from different perspectives and missions, and perhaps might even perform actions that on the surface might seem to be conflicting ones. The present proposal is as yet in a rudimentary stage of development, but, as one faculty memberiahg- has through deep commitment and involvement with non-violence earned the right to an opinion, "the faculty has to get involved; if they don't want to bein the third party service, they had better get into something else." The executive committee, thereﬁdre, wants to get started a program in which faculty can get involved. In the light of recent tragic events, it is regrettable that a proposed program for faculty marhalls was voted down by the Senate in 1969, for even though the program may not have suited everyone, there would have been something that might have helped on the night of May 2 and at noon of May A. ' Here in enumerated form are some features of the faculty marshall program as presently envisaged: 1. dﬁigg; Pnabably the number of faculty marshalls, at least those participating in any one demon- stration, should be relatively small--samll in relation to the size of the demonstration, so as not to give the impression of dominating it. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/16ca97e1fe2e26787428da2805bb0ec0.tif 06e3c7c23d71cc61d4ed7797395a36d5 PDF Text Text 2. .Membership. Any faculty member would be welcome 3. to join the group if he is willing to undergo the training required for this service and agree to the principles of action for the group. Function; One important function for faculty marshalls would be simply that of being visible as faculty members who are actively concerned with allowing dissent and demonstration of dissent (or approval of something) but also committed to non-violence. Another function might be simply that of observing what is going on--not as spies for security forces but as a faculty body reporting to the Faculty Senate and through its executive committee to the Provost, as trained and objective observers. The new crime of "asmpusc disruption" in H8 1219 would seem to make such observers worth haVing. In addition, faculty marshalls should be thoroughly informed, able to pass on accurate information on to demonstrators. If violence .were likely to erupt, they should use their personal influence with participants to persuade those persuadable not to be involved in it. Obviously, they should not in any way participate in the dmonstration itself except by being present and should stay with the demonstration, doing what they can to keep violence from growing, even if https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5e7cf58fea1c6f1087a67f5f3c908593.tif ba528cf40c868f6132c2d7c2c5822721 PDF Text Text h. security forces arrive--though if the situation develops to the point where mass arests are made or tear-gas is used, they may consider their usefulness to be at an end and depart. Thongh they would function as visible faculty marshalls, hopefully known to security forces, they could not have any guaranteed immunity from arrest,. though presumably if their participation in the action was dlearly directed toward keeping the peace, they would be cleared and not be subject to the hearing and suspension provided for in HE 1219. Training. It seems imperative that faculty marshalls have third party service training, partly as an experiential introduction to the psychology of confrontation and partly to gain a very clear underStanding of what the third party service might be expected to do in any action. It is just possible, for instance, that without this training faculty marshalls might direct their efforts to persuading the third party people from doing something which they had been trained to do. Or, hot knowing third party techniques, faculty marshalls might observe behavior which they would mistakenly interpret as disruptive and thus vitiate their function as observers. In addition https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/20061bdc066892c7dcdff1c6347221c4.tif 6b9bc18c9a9172d62746027c35a4dbdd PDF Text Text 5. to third party service training, faculty marshalls should have special training—-or at least good orientation-~in their special function. This should include, among other things, a clear. understanding of the University's crisis operation, the probable kinds of involvement by security forces, familiarity with security personnel, but most importantly clear guidelines on action to be taken at every stage of a developing situation. Other features of a training program would probably be developed by Hr. Paul Hare, previously mentioned, who would be willing to come to our campus to help us. Third party service traihing takes a few hours spread over two evenings; faculty marshall training hopeﬁﬁlly would not take many more. A small amount of background reading would be highly desirable. The whole training experience could be rewarding in itself even without participation in the marshall program. Liaison, etc. 'As mentioned, the primary identi- fication of the faculty marshalls would be with the faculty through the Faculty Senate and the PPovost as the chief academic officer of the University. The marshalls would, of course, have a clearly understood working relationship-~though not necessarily a formal liaison--with the third https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5c6842162361e671f20b9ff597af8f66.tif 3583c2fb28a7f49a54ed50c9f99b35f5 PDF Text Text party servide, which must retain its independence and autonomy. In addition, the marshalls would have to be in communication with the Office for Emergency Operations and cooperate with this office so long as the marsghalls would not lose their identity as clearly a faculty group. The great danger is that they might lose their credibility as interested faculty and come to be regarded as tools of the police, "peace-pigs," not to be trusted and perhaps even to be attacked. There is no question but that their credibility will be attacked by some as soon as they are formed-- or before. But there is no help for that. They must behave in a way to preserve their credibility, which must be honestly earned,pwithpanyone who is honest. Probably no pledge or oath will have to signed, but a faculty member participating in the marshalling program would threaten the effectiveness of the whole thing if he got physically involved, operated as an informer, etc. Preserving a clear identity in conditions of extreme duress may be hard, but hopefully the training program would make this-possible. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CNV: “A Proposed Faculty Marshalls Program” Description Document from the Committee for Non-Violence titled "A Proposed Faculty Marshalls Program," written circa 1970. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 7 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1970 DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Demonstrations Kent State University. Faculty May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/3541163719b85404e30adec100c1a71c.tif 9de46bfc8ea2ce893a7de7bb02fcbedf https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/d3e734f9636c0b977cdb48fc7468ff95.tif 2723daa211ce5fe4b1ce2861fcdcd912 PDF Text Text 5 At this meeting a list of people who are to be a on a steering committee was discussed did include at least the representative from the two groups I have already mentioned. Although no formal decisions were made at this meeting, it was the consensus of the group that they thought that at tomorrow's meeting of Paul Sites's group a marshalling group would be formed that would have a steering committee, etc., etc. as discussed in this meeting. On the following day the meeting already referred to was held at the Newman Center chaired indiinitially by Paul Sites of the Department of Sociology. After some preliminary remarks by muxPaul he made an attempt to articulate members of the steering committee etc., which time was subjected to considerable vocal abuse for mentioning that either the campus police or the vice President for Student Affairs should be in any way connected with marshalling group. This led to a sort of group consensus that there ought to be an election of a chairman of the meeting which was accomplished with the election of two co-chairman, Maury Kurtia and Tim Butts. Upon taking over as co-chairmen, they asked for the selection of several people to act in a steering committee capacity and this was accomplished by several people nominating from the floor individuals who agreed to serve. Little ielse was accomplished at this formation w except a list of names was taken of those who were in attendance and would be interested in peace marshalling. A short time later, date and time unknown, a meeting of the steering committee was held at the United Christian Fellowship house. At this meeting attended largely by steering committee members and a few others a philosophy of peace marshalling was begun to be discussed. Quite obviously https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/acc0a76163109d951b1f1d63cfea02da.tif 2fbfea64445ad4f997f1e9c018ca17c7 PDF Text Text major differences of opinion existed as to xxx 1. whether the marshalls should ever, no matter what the conditions would be, appear to be supporting local law enforcement or "the establishment". Specifically, this was the matter of whether the marshalls would be witnesses to what they saw during the time of turmoil. the second major area of difference and concern was the credibility of the marshalls to g the groups who would be the recipients of the service. Specifically, this issue was https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/cc873bc3d00b9adea6c290d8936f62fa.tif b9e4c5b314f518209a8bd5721a999a89 PDF Text Text Concerned People for Marshals for Peace Janet Hoover.............................673-7443 Royce Murphy..........................1..773-360u Peter Kratoski...........................633-5955 Richard Taylor...........................673—6377 Paul Kriese..............................6788313 Thomas KorllOSOOOOOOOOOJOIOI000.00.000.00673-1871#/7%M4 423' Orrin Shanecooooooooooooooopooooouooo-oooh 688-7409 0 672-25 62 Sharon Brunink...........................h 678’8319 0 672-2487 Wm. ReSChou00.00.0000scout-cocooooolcooooh 678-91 79 GSC 672—2235 Barb Bixenstine..........................673-6992 Robert anﬂ Barbara Tener.................928-7837 Richard Toernei Dansek St. James Coke...............................673-0288 Robert Clawson...........................688-7812 Marc Jones...............................678-0934 Thomas Woerz.............................673-123“ Paul Jones...............................678—102U John Koury...............................678-0396 Ginny Rickard............................678-9311 Bob Bayne................................678—9N29 Larry Baas...............................673-3102 Niel Brownstein..........................867-2187 Frank Smith..............................673-8589 George Pownall...........................678-9470 Robert Dyal..............................678—1172 Lance Davis..............................622§12&2 Barbara Harkness.........................678~1282 Gordon Keller............................678-OIQO John Quarry 57X355§L kg; _Lzﬁaaégp;/ :/ ; ‘I’ r F l w “77/. // 07%., éiic/e/ <5izf351’ I“ , f "w, . '"‘, ,. w, ! z . / ’ ,» .' / » § ‘2 ‘ .f r: I! I, / y; - , s‘ ,» .,/e ,»r~~gw , , _ ‘,;3 t {o X,» . bx V\ X 7 672-2315 ? 362 f'/ we? Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CNV: “Committee for Non-Violence (Marshalls)” by B. Earle Roberts Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1970 Description Document written by B. Earle Roberts circa 1970 titled "Committee for Non-Violence (Marshalls)." Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 4 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 May 4 Author Roberts, B. Earle dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Kent State University. Faculty May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/35a977a8f3946031e7f30152cacd5bb6.tif 2fb7fc8ccdcfa0c39cce2e788cb57965 PDF Text Text ' W°3M»M.m,ww - «wwwmm MM. a...“ M rm couittoe For Nomiolencee‘hmhniin" ’ I vim-1.133323 Deer faculty Keener: ‘ “ we need your help. w. eel: that on econ no possible the; the etetenent 5'13 below he reed to yours students. Ir invite you to Join our eronp.bnt it ie important at this tine that. lore students Join our etiorto. Some tecnltv mi mbere of our couittee aretPeul Sites (ooeioloey) .‘Sy Bare!“ ”holeﬂk‘. 3. hot]: Tenor(m118h)“ Dolores Noll(ednoation) .cerl Hoorehpeech tn Earth) .Dioh Taylor political ecience) .xen Oalkimuietorﬂ .mle Roberto . lee enforcement? .‘end Glenn Prkaeeoloey).Tm you. ; . ,. ;: sum“ The count» For Nonviolence in dedicated to nonviolencomot no I. ‘ negative concept) and to tho cecarine and aainteinine oi’ the rieht to , diooent in an etnoophere or nonviolence . A11 nonberesdf the 15.8.0. commity are invited to particigete in the i;- trainine that is required of nowhere of or Committee. The 0 other ' ' , eq‘airenont for membership is that after e traini individu -* ‘ ccneitted to the otrateeydt not the philoophy or no iolence. we are new -~ ~- f 60 ctr-o .411; no ﬁg ﬁg: #39:, All Committee decisions are node deno- ,3 '. mug yM n co ee 0 he whole meetings. ' ' . - houeh we on dedication” the right oi dissent, we are not a direct /'_ .., act, n group. neither are we at police or vigilante group. we “provide ‘ 'Fthird services which include commicetiom comnltetion.nnd no ti-f ' ‘ iation monolline'.‘ end the training or harshelllev tor out-seine .. , 3 ' 1 other ntereoted eronpo . Ont first priority in the corvetion of life? in. o. group. we ' 3: have taken a position eeeinot ermine for either the proececution . ~ 3' * or the defenoe. ' _- ' ' - ' ‘ Him of no have “been trained in principles of none-violence and in . techniques 40: marshallinf reocntetives or the Peace Committee ' at th Philadel cry Heet of Friends. They are a. direct action 3 he halls for the New Hobo nereheo on Washington. D. 0.‘ . .- ‘. . new offering for those who riot. to Join no. Again we 3 ~‘ 'tneed re members. The oeeoicno will not be lectureo. ‘* - ‘ oe‘ooiono vi be oifered Jniy 6-9 and July 13-16. , ey entei1 attend . , four three hour ooooicw?’ to 10 P.H. in local or ; '- heo. Those interested should come to the Preehyterian Church 3 ' on Smit Street opposite the Science complex Ho. tdey July 6 on Monday , ~Ju1y £3 at 73% 3?. 3!. To help no plan the trainLng we ask that thou ' interested call one or the poo 1e below to indicate which week they desire . 3;; train: Training oeooiono w 11 also be offered during the oeeond - omen tern; Thank you. . .‘Jeemio 21mm 673-1 e sen Reach we 9179 ’ c1 Krieee 3673-2913“ were . 673-3511 3 33.43.», 6 8-99 f 7, .m’évr Mao 3 ‘ . ' G7f~995r Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CNV: Correspondence to Faculty Date Input format: YYYY-MM-DD; YYYY-MM; or YYYY. If date is unknown, leave blank. 1970-07-01 Description Letter from the Committee for Non-Violence to Kent State University faculty members, dated July 1, 1970. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 1 page Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Permissions Public dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c971917ea39b9cb89b7580e8dc0c6e16.tif 3b1d63ac574ca20d952fb098ed3accb7 PDF Text Text 35¢ What do they do? MARSHALS: _ 4 How do you train them? A Handbook for Training Marshals for Marches, Rallies, and other demonStrations lWorking Party:- I ' I , ‘ Published by: Robert Levering V . ' Friends Peace Committee Chuck Noell '- »' ~ 1520 Race Street Lynne Shivers '. ' Philadelphia, _, Susan Terdiman . , ' Pennsylvania 19102 ' -George Willoughby - - ‘ ' , . 915/561-h6h0 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ef8d3d20dfdbe49bf259a6a170c85c00.tif 6bd3066201b47c44e7b54abc9d084e76 PDF Text Text CONTENTS 'Part One: Introduction to Training Marshals Why Train?, 2 Roles of Marshals, 2' Roles of Trainers , 2 Setting up a Marshal Training Session, 3 Part TEE: Training Marshals Explanation of Training Tools, h Some Sample Training Sessions, 5 Part Three: On the Job Some Helpful Suggestions for Marshals, 12 Organizing Marshals for Marches, 13 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/6b2bfc7a86b4a5e76f59c22f5a4aa687.tif 2a8e330c238c76750e705b27a27d2260 PDF Text Text Part One:_ Introduction to Training Harshals Why Train? To assure, as much as possible, the success of the demonstration. whether or not you become a marshal, this training will be valuable in _ rally, mass march, or vigil—picket situationso ROLES or HAwSHALs' Marshals are ordinary demonstrators IJhO accept reaponsibility for the tens of their demonstrationo‘ In a small demonstration-«for example, the Fast Fottstown Ieace Comp mittee's IJeekly vigil at the Draft Boardu-the participants would probably know each other in advance, and it no Id be easy for all or most of the participants to train together. In tzis situation, the marshals would simply as a con; la of 160 la taking special responsibility for helping the action run smoothly--e. go, one talkin;- to police and press, one register- ing new—comers and keeping the sidewalk clear enough for easy passage. ' In a large demonstration~~for example, the New Mobe March in washington, D. C. --the participants cannot possibly know each other in advance; marshals need to be recruited and specially trained for specific tasks: Lining the route of march, starting the march, protecting the speakers' stand, medical aid teams, etc. 1 Training should focus on the basic job of serving fellow demonstrators. 'Marshals should be able to: --give essential information. ~-convey confidence --think quickly and keep cool during trouble -—help coordinate, if necessary, with other marshals The marshals' attitude toward fellow demonstrators, potential disrupters, and strangers, heavily influences the tone and helps insure the success of the demonstration. ROLES OF TRAINERS The trainers set the tone for the marshals just as the marshals set the tone for the demonstrators. The purpose of a training session is to prepare the marshals adequately for the demonstration. First of all, the trainers should know as much as possible about the organization of the particular demonstration they are training for-—the goals of the demonstration, who the leaders are, what resources are available, and how they are to be used. Secondly, a trainer should have some experience in direct action, a knowledge of training techniques (provided by this manual), and a willing- ness to experiment; By his openness, his freedom in giving information, and his encouragement that workshop participants themselves become 0 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/9fe8c8c2136b42628da77f206e149db6.tif 278e83539743822b9af78508986a1106 PDF Text Text trainers, the trainer can communicate the idea of service which is central to the role of marshal. . Perhaps moSt important, the trainer can help marshals develop a sense of confidence. He should guide workshop participants in thinking, through the problems they expect to face, stressing seriousness of purpose but not anxiety. 'A“too—relaxed atmosphere might tell marshals their job is not important, while anxiety—»even though it might be justified——can lead to panic and freezing. Relaxed, low—key approaches and a sense of humor are the best means of training prepared, relaxed, and self- confident marshals ' sETTngggg A MARSHAL TRAINlNG SESSION The-trainer should:~ ‘ _ . -§~u _ , ' 1. Check out the available space. Be sure the floor space is adequate for the size of the training group and the scenarios you plan to use. _ 2. Assemble the necessary equipment. A blackboard, materials for roleplaying, and writing paper and pencils are particularly helpful. 3. If possible, have an assistant who can help with registration, equipment, and other details as they arise. In the orientation: 1. Discuss the goals of the demonstration; why it is important . to be nonviolent and organized. 2. Present the general plans of the demonstration:- Where, when, how, important people, other relevant details. Use maps or drawings if necessary. "I 3. Discuss the structure of marshal organization. Some important reminders: Time Pressure. If possible, hold the training session at least a day before the demonstration, thus allowing time to cnnsider all the angles and to do the marshalling job rested and calm. Training on the day of the demonstration adds to the pressure and anxiety. Size of Training Groups. Whether you're planning a large demonstra- tion or a small one, training marshals should be done if possible in small groups (10—15 people each). If you have more marshals than this to train, divide them into small groups with a trainer and assistant for each group. This provides a chance for everyone to ask questions. Allow enough space! Marshal Teams. Marshal training is most effective when marshals work together inﬁthe same teams they were trained in; this allows knowledge and trust of co—workers to develop and avoids a military4like bureaucracy. Key point: Train the marshals in the same tea.ns they'll work in. This requires that organizers of the demonstration have a clear_ idea of what jobs are required. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/5f8cc549cdc3bb44e463a94b4ee493c1.tif 8c2224f88bdd7cb2970252dc80aeaf1c PDF Text Text * Part Two: Training Marshals . h EXPLANATION OF TRAINING TOOLS ,Role—playing we include scenarios of typical marshalling situations. They will 1 help to bring out many of the common problems marshals may have to deal ’with. - Generally, it is goOd to begin with a roleplay that involves as many people as possible quickly If participants sugg vest a new roleplay 'and trainers feel it would raise important issues, go ahead and use it. As much as possible, simulate reality; but remember, more important than the realism of the situation is a tone that allows real feelings and real problems to be examined Following each roleplay in the manual,we list, as aides to the discussion leader, several issues that the roleplay may bring out. Other issues may come up; discuss them as well. Basically, good roleplaying depends on a few elements: 1. Present each scenario quickly, vividly. 2. Ask for volunteers to take roles. . Give special instructions to each role separately (preferably in separate rooms) to insure surprise. . Give participants a few minutes to plan strategy before starting theTEEtion. . Cut the roleplay after essential issues have appeared. . Make eValuation of the roleplay brisk and to the point. Don't let discussion drag; issues are often clarified by moving into another roleplay or re-playing the same scenario rather than by further discussion. ‘O\V‘l 5" U.) - A helpful tool for roleplaying is the MANUAL FOR TRAINERS, prepared- -by the Friends Peace Committee, 1520 Race Street, Philadelphia, Pennsyl~ vania 19102; phone (215) Sol-hobo. Situation Analysis This training technique is designed to teach people to think through or to clarify a difficult tactical situation. The leader should: _ 1. Draw the situation on a blackboard or poster board before the exercise begins 2. Explain the situation ' 3. Have participants think silently for a few minutes what action they recommend and why. h. Lead a general discussion for as long as it is fruitful. 1 The objective of the.exercise is to come up with alternativesuand to explore each one:- It is not necessarily to "solve" the situation. . Situation analysis gives marshals an over—all understanding of different perspectives on situations they may meet. ' O https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/878d079a393011b10a0acf6df3acc175.tif a022d105c107e206e6ac08cd9833df26 PDF Text Text [Quick Decision Exercises The.objective of quick decision exercises is_to give marshals experienCe in making decisions Quickly and in taking the initiative, even if their decision is not necessarily the best one. The leader should: 1. Have two to four marshals sit in a circle so that others can observe and listen (or divide everyone into 7groups of two to four44this has the advantage of getting several.different responses). _ 2. Explain the purpose of the eXercise; describe the situation 3. Start the group on discussion and stop it when the time is up h. Lead a general discussion and evaluation. >SOME SAMPLE TRAINING SESSIONS Following are some sample training sessions, each adapted to a particular type of marshalling situation. . Note that each training session is planned for a given time period, with suggested times for each exercise. If the time you have available is more or less, adjust the session accordingly. Additional exercises are included at the end of each session. If you have less time, choose among the exercises, using different types to be sure to bring out the important issues. Remember: These are only suggested outlines of training sessions. Pick the exercises that best fit your situation and organization, and ., use your imagination to add others that will be helpful. . MARCH (2 1/2 hours) .1. Orientation (15 mins.) 2. Roleplay I: Harrassment (10 mins.) SCENARIO: Demonstration, either march or rally. RELES: Marshal, demonstrators, 3 hecklers. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: To the 3 hecklers: call obscene names at the demonstrators. ' SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: What does the marshal say or do to help the demonstrators keep their cool? The marshal's job is to keep‘ the demonstration moving along; ignore the hecklers, they're only heckling. 3. Roleplay II: Moving March (10 mins.) SCENARIO: Marshal finds his portion of a moving march line lagging far behind the line in front. ROLES. Marchers, one marshal. SUGGESTED DIS CUSSICN POINTS: How does the marshal do his job? Does his tone of voice convey confidence? Is he too authoritarian or commanding? Center on problems of conveying a sense of reason (e.g., does he mention a reason to close up the line?). Attitude is most important in thistype of situation: a marshal needs patience in coping with repetitious instructions; conveying confidence or centrol to marchers; giving clear instructions. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/bdcc0ebe0cb501e981b83c6d0aa5f09a.tif 2588b59c9fe052d5fa4b2120888a47bf PDF Text Text "U‘U'U’U‘U'V "U’U‘U’U’U'ﬁ VARIATIONS ON THE SCENARIO: 1. Line is moving too quickly; marshal needs to slow it down. 2. Line is passing a heavily populated corner, arid there could be some confusion if people wander into the ' crowd. (Discussion points are the same as above) h. Quick Decision Exercises (30 mins. ) A. A man approaches a marshal and says, "I represent hO people. '. we want to join the march. "' -What does the marshal do? (30 sec.) ~B.-Someone has seized a bullhorn from a marshal and begins to A incite the crowd with provocative slogans. (One of the team members , discussi_ng this problem plays the marshal who had the bullhorn seized from him.) (30 sec.) C. A woman faints during the march. (30 secs.) D. Bricks are being tossed over yOur head toward police (15 secs.) E. March is stalled, people become impatient, cold. (30 secs.) 5. Roleplay III: Stolen Sign (10 mins.) SCENARIO: March or rally; people are carrying signs. ROLESz’ Demonstrators, 2 marshals, 3 toughs. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: To the toughs: rush in, grab signs, rush away. ""”""°‘”"‘““ , SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: What do the marshals do to assure that the demonstration continues? Would a marshal do anything if the toughs simply run off? The marshal's first responsibility is toward the demonstrators, not to hecklers or interierence. 6. Break (10 mins.) 7. Situation Analysis: Tear Gas (19 mins.) ASITUATION: A large march of 1,000 people is moving down the street. The demonstration has previously been warned that it will not be allowed to reach its goal, the draft board. Suddenly tear gas is released at the‘ front of the march; the gas drifts through the march line, frightening people more than debilitating them, and panic begins to grip some peeple. What action can marshals take? (M = marshals;X =demonstrator85P =police) LC) 4~_1<L_1..- Line of March Buildings 6;: M MX X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X XI 4X X X X X XX X X X X X XX XX 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 § xX X X X X X X XX XX X X X XX XX X X X X X XX X X X ’I \\ ~x~ X X X _X_ X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X XMX X X XX X X X ﬁ X X X X X X X tear-1111111111-1_1111.1._1.1- ‘ -11 gas Building as I ~*-~€> 'Wind Direction 1 St. Feet https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/4cf62fd327020ae175f2fc97cdc868d9.tif e1edfa240788daa412b350a3491f86c2 PDF Text Text ,SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: What should be the immediate directions that marshals give? Analyze the situation: Which (marshals can take what-immediate steps? Evaluate the effects of ” specific tactics: How'can the side marshals act in a way that the _front and end marshals cannot2 How can the marshals prevent panic and a stampede2_ ' ' ' - 8. Roleplay IV: "Nixon's a Pig1ﬂ (25 mins.) SCENARIO: A march is moving down a street. From'inside the line, a number of students begin chanting, "Nixon' s a pig!" ROLES: Marchers, several marshals, h student disrupters within the march, 3 sidewa11< disrupters. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS. To sidewalk disrupters: Respond to the chant with insults and heckling. To the student faction: Break away from the line and move toward the Sidewalk disrupters. SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: Isolating and containing incidents of violence; keeping the march line moving, reassuring fellow marchers so that no one else will leave the line. Marshals can possibly persuade students to return to the march before they reach hecklers. Marshal's tone Should be low key and persuading, not policing. 9. Final questions and evaluation (20 mins.) Additional Exercises Roleplay: Street Confrnntation (20 mins.) SCENARIO: March is moving down a street, toward the local draftboard. ROLES: Marchers, marshals, spokesmen for the march, police. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: To police: Move into the street with clubs; one policeman with a bullhorn orders the march to stpp. The police intention is to stop the march from reaching the draft board. SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: One issue here is how marshals ‘interpret to marchers what spokesmen are saying to police. Marshals' tone should be low key and persuading, not policing. Spokesman's role is obviously important If tactics may possibly be changed in the middle of the action, participants should be informed of this before the action starts. QUICK DECISION EXERCISES: ~ . 1. During the march, S demonstrators attack an isolated policeman. (15 secs ) 2. Marchers harass marshals, call them "pigs!" (15 secs.) REEEX (2 hours) I l. orientation (15 mine.) 2. Roleplay I: Harassment (10 mins.) (see page S) 3. Roleplay II: Rally Dispersal CENARIO: At the nd of a large rally, thecrowd begins to dis perse.~ ROLES: People in he crowd, 2 3 marshals. St GGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: What can marshals do to disperse the crowd with a minimum of pushing? How can his tone of voice convey confi- https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/82fcd37b822a71b3b025b50e58153bd1.tif 28314b3fecd4f0ba2e46aa11bf211fde PDF Text Text denbe and patience in giving instructions, explaining reasons for dispersing a certain way? 3 h. 'Quick Decision Exercises (25 mine.) _ ' A. Someone has seiZed a bullhorn from a marshal and begins to incite the crowd with provocative slogans. (30 sec.) : B. Dur i.ng the rally, 15 people begin chanting "pig'" to a nearby .. group of policemen Several hundred people may pick up the chant if marshals do nothing. (30 sec.) . C. During the rally, 5 demonstrators begin fistfighting in the middle of a crewd. (30 sec.) 5. Roleplay III: Fainting (5 mins.) SCENARIO: A rally situation. _ ROLES: Crowd, one marshal, woman with special role. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: To the woman: After the rally is going, .suddenly faint. ”III“ SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: Marshal‘s responsibility to the woman, to the rally. He may ask another marcher to stay with the woman while the marshal continues in the rally. The element of surprise and/or_ panic is important to consider. 6. Break (10 mins.) ' 7.. Roleplay IV: Speaker's Stand (3Ctmins.) SCENARIO: Three marshals are standing in front of.a platform where one of the rally speakers is speaking. Two other marshals are mixed in with a crowd of seven jast beyond the platform marshals. ROLES: S marshals, crowd_ 3 disrupters. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: To the disrupters: Appear from the crowd, demand the right to speak, and finally charge in an attempt to seize the podium. SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: What should be the role of the speaker and marshals in the crowd in keeping the crowd cool? Does anyone attempt : to reason with disrupters or engage them in conversation? Can people cool a situation by sitting down, etc.? 8. Final Questions and Evaluation (15 mins.) Additional Exercises Roleplay: Press Coverage SCENARIO: A rally is being held in a plaza. ' ROLES: Speaker, 2~3 marshals, 5—6 press men and women. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIOIMS To press people: Interfere with the rally by asking for special interviews with the speaker and mcmbers oi the audience. . SUGGESTED DI SCUSSICN POIIMTS What does the merihal do to help the speakers conti.nue? How can marshals best deal with press people, when press pedple lecl it the1r duty to corer a story closely and organizers want good coverage? '\ https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c20992794a7a60d751c12beaa51c3b9d.tif 3bfd3f334a4c514fe464db09f9597302 PDF Text Text Quick Decision Exercise ”A small group of demonstrators has moved away from the mass of demonstrators, with the intent of breaking into city administrati_on offices (30 sec.) . Situation Analysis: 'SpeakerS' Stand, Draw on a blackboard or poster board a diagram of the placement of ' the speakers' stand on the rally site. . ' Problem: How can marshals be placed to help insure that speakers will not be disrupted by individuals wishing to take over the stand? By small groups? VIGIL OR PICKET LINE (1 1/2 hours) l. Orientation (10 mins.) 2. Roleplay I: Unauthorized Sign (15 mins.) SCENARIO: A group is picketing a local draft board. Someone approaches the group and asks if he can join. ROLES. 5- 8 demonstrators, a marshal, the new participant, several passers by SE CIAL INSTRUCTIONS: To the new participant: If and when accepted into the picket line, produce own sign which reads, "Fuck the draft!" SUGGESTED DISCUSSION ISSUES: What can the marshal do? One issue is group discipline vs. individual rights. How can marshals most effectively make use of other demonstrators in provocative situations? ’ j. Roleplay II: Police Harassment (15 mins.) SCENARIO:' Your group is holding a vigil line outside a draft board. ROLES: Demonstrators, 2—3 marshals, 2-3 policemen. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: To police: Come up to marshals and inform them that the vigil line mustabe a moving picket line. * SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: Tone and attitude of a marshal in dealing with police is the issue here. Do you know your rights? How important is it to keep the vigil as is? How do marshals View themselves regarding police? Also important is how a marshal functioxis as a leader ’ of a group; it is probably important to communicate with other demonstrators what-the police request is, regardless of the outcome. VARIATION ON THE SCENARIO: If the vigil line becomes a moving picket line, police say that the line obstructs the sidewalk. How do marshals respond? ' - h. Quick Decision Exercises (10 mins.) A. The situation is a silent vigil line on Hiroshima Day; press people with bulky equipment insist on interviewing participants, thus breaking the dignity of the action. (15 secs.) - B. The situation is a_picket line outside a military base. Police charge into the picket lit: with no warning. (15 secs.) 5. Situation Analysis. Attack on Vigil (15 mins.) (See next page) 0 https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/ef4d8d66d30a64d051b305be599937d3.tif 7bf0a0f667d47965c3a27c779cfe80a2 PDF Text Text o A .- KKXXXXXX Sf/aEé'T SITUATION ANALYSIS: ATTACK 9N. VIcIL X - Vigilers C - Group captain A - Group captain's assistant 0- Leafleters P ~ Police SITUATION , . Poor Peoples Campaign support group, interracial, is ‘ conducting a vigil at a downtown site. The participants (X) stand near the curb facing the department store. ” Person at each end of the line carries an identifying sign. Time: 12:30 P.M. - ‘ -INCIDENT Two young men walk westward past the line, then suddenly intercept last person on the line, shoving him (her) into the pedestrians passing between line and store,: knocking a pedestrian down. The attackers then start to run on westward TASKS . Suggest responses: vigilers, captain, assistant, person next to one attacked, fallen pedestrian, leafleters, police. Analyze structure of the vigil for best potential responses. Evaluate effect after the incident has run its course. TIME FOR EXERCISE: 30 minutes - e --.—.... https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/81a17657e6affbd80d9513f9ff1f3ca2.tif 35310031d2bb5252498a6a64ff11b8e4 PDF Text Text 11 6. Roleplay III: Removal of a Demonstrator (IS mins.) SCENARIO: A group 0£ antiwar protestors are engaged in_a vigil near a draft board in a hostile neighborhood. “ K ' I- . A ‘ ROLES: S- 8 demonstrators, l marshal, passersby, 2 "kidnappers." SPECIAL INSTRUCTICNS: To passersby: Make hostile comments. To kid~ 'nappers: After seve:ral hostile comments, approach the vigil line and try -to physically remove the smallest demonstrator(s). SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: What can the marshal do? What are his _ responsibilities to the group? To the ”kidnapped" individual? What should be the responsibility of the rest of the group? 7. Final Questions and Evaluation (10 mins.) Additional Exercise Roleplay: Vigil Line SCENARIO: A group of suburbanites is holding a silent vigil in front of city hall to protest police brutality. ROLES: Demonstrators, 1-2 marshals, passersby. Numbers depend on which variation is played. ‘ ‘ ‘SPECIAL INSTRUCTICNS: 1. Some inquisitive passersby try to find out the nature of the protest, or 2. Some hostile passersby taunt the group and attempt to steal the signs or leaflets; or 3. A hostile passerby tries to taunt, Spit at, and push around one or more vigilers. SUGGESTED DISCUSSION POINTS: How can marshals be prepared to deal with .contingencies? How can their tone and attitude prevent further conflict? https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/c1919d20ef377cee6000de77377ed681.tif c60cdcdcb7da16561b37855984657233 PDF Text Text 12 Part Three: On the Job ‘w—c I—I-~ SOME HELPFUL SUG" JESTIONS FOR MARSHALS A one—page sheet with reminders such as those fellowing could be repro- H duced and distributed to the marshals before a demonstration. Here is a sample of one that was used in Phi_ladelphia.: Heckling: .-4We should try to engage hecklers.in conversation in the rally situation. They may be frustrated, and can communicate only by heckling. In the march, a marshal’s main respnnsibility is toward the marchers. Keep marchers moving around hecklers. -~If you do talk with heclclers, discuss, don't argue; arguing only gets both parties uptight. 1 ~~Be polite. Smile. Nothing is more disarming. §cuffle§i --Tell others to stay away. Keep between the scuffle and the marchers. Keep the march moving. Our backs should generally be toward the scufflers, while urging others not to join. -—Let the scuffle fizzle out. 'We don't need to play heroes and try to interpose ourselves. -—Don't touch or pus h people; many people resent such action. —-Don‘t run toward fights. Move quietly and quickly to a scuffle if you can help to isolate it. --Stay calm. It's only a fight. arrests: If one of the marchers gets busted: —-Urge people to stay away from the scene. . --Don't try to block the police or their vans. Urge others not to; it'll only provoke the police --Observe what happens: Why the arrest; who is arrested; names and badge numbers of police. Or get others to observe if you can’t. Be careful to keep some distance in observing. Some other pointers to keep in mind, and to use as they are relevant: Disrupters within the demonstration: -—Talk with them if possible. If they are fellow demonstrators, they may accept good arguments why the demonstration should be peaceful Or have a certain tone. -~Don't let disrupters distract the rest of the demonstrators. Keep people's minds on the demonstration by encouraging them to keep moving, singing, chanting, or whatever is appropriate to the situation. 2.11222 ~~Maintain contact between yourselves and the police whenever possible. --It is better to inforra police of your intentions than to request permis— sion from them. —-Be open to their legitimate concerns, such as traffic flow. https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/68772ebfc9ad5213ec5e52667eb765e6.tif f16f611a37b7c10b5cfbd300dddaee0d PDF Text Text v-Eer.s__'ms.éié;~ *- , ' - ° --In speaking with the media, be brief and to the point. The more you ' say, the more likely yOu are to be misquoted or misunderstood. -—Help them when possible by assigning people to talk with them and by‘ . having news releases and leaflets ready for distribution. ,. . Remember: These are only suggestions, net absolute rules for marshals. Use your imagination for others relevant to ydur own situation. ' ,_ ORGANIZING MARSHALS FOR l-EARCHES .Introduotion mvymmza ‘ U This section is concerned with how to organize marshals for marches. Many of the Same problems and principles would apply to rallies, picket . lines, and.vigils. Street or Sidewalk? Marches in the streets generally require permits. Street marches are bette: for large crowds (over several hundred), and are more visible' However, in the case of permit difficulties, short notice, or other street problems, a sidewalk march would be preferable. _ Moving or Stationary Marshals? Many variables-—length of the march, its size, the type or community, 3‘possible police behavior, etc.-—will determine whether it is most appropriate to have marshals move with the march, line the route of the march, or a . combination of both. MOVING MARSHALS: This is by far the moat common_arrangement. Here pis a diagram of a typical method of using marshals in a street march: M RIDE M M . M M ‘M f \R- M ~ .1 M R '13.;- . M’ M. 1‘4 M ' . , M ' M ,1, R M R cl’ M ‘- M _ 94/ M KEY: - 5*” ~ M“ Line marshals ' (M: Side marshals M _ M .x R Runners Line of marchers https://omeka.library.kent.edu/special-collections/files/original/2b718a9f4d6b3de6c8daec3cbd6297bb.tif 9af58c353a9b5aade89c6bd2ccad66e4 PDF Text Text 1h STATIONARY NARSHAIS: In some marches, particularly ones which 'extend over a long period of time or have a considerable number of par- .ticipants, it might be best to have marshals line the route of the march prather than move along with it. .In this way, the marshal organizers might find it easier to maintain control over the demonstration. Marshals ‘along the Sid.e of the route of march can make plain what the intended route 5.5 and can also conrey the intended tene of the demonstration through comments to the marchers. ' Further Considerations. COMMUNICATIONS DURING THE MARCH gullhorns: Used mainly to communicate to the marchers—~to give directions, encouragement, to start chants, songs, etc. Be careful in . selection of people to use bullhorns as they can easily be misused or stolen. Hand signals: Easily seen and recognized hand signals can be used for such problems asﬂstarting and stopping the march, making turns, etc. Probably the quickest and most reliable method for simple messages. Bestto have hand signals agreed upon in advance to reduce possible confusions. Runners: People who relay messages from side marshals to line marshals or otHE§“§ia§ marshals. Much more reliable but slower than electronic means. walkie-talkies: For rapid communications, usually between side marshals, or from the frontnof the march to the end. They are, however, more often unreliable than not. Can also complicate matters more than necessary, eSpecially if operators are inexperienced. J Radio: Superior in reliability to walkie-talkies, but much less mobil§T_.ﬁse only with huge crowds or for long distances. HEAD OF THE MARCH Sometimes it is difficult to keep the head of the march moving because of photographers, curious passersby, etc If this is an anticipated problem, the marshal organizers might consider assigning a group of marshals to walk several yards ahead of the march urging people to keep out of its way (see _ diagram for moving marshals). In especially difficult situations with ex- tremely large marches, a wedge of marshals with linked hands could be used for the same purpose. However, such wedges can be counter—productive if they behave in too militaristic a fashion. RESERVE MARSHALS For large marches a group of marshals standing by in reserve could be sent to difficult situations that develop during the demonstration. Two problems are:' communicating with them, and determining how many to send to a situation. In addition, these marshals will have to be particularly cool-headed. They shouldn't think of themselves as an elite corps since police-type behavior usually only exacerbates tough situatic‘s. MARSHAL TEAMS As much as possible, marshals for marches and rallies should work together in teams of 3 or h to a dozen. For instance, in a moving march several line marshals can work with one side marshal. It is best if these' _teams can get to know each other beforehand~-in training, for example. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title Kent State Shootings: Digital Archive Description The May 4 Digital Archive contains selected archival materials from the May 4 Collection that have been put into digital format including audio recordings, photographs, artworks, and thousands of documents. Materials will be added on a continuing basis. If you do not find an item you are seeking or have any questions or comments about the digital archive, please contact <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/about">Special Collections and Archives</a>. Publisher Publisher of the original item. Kent State University, Special Collections and Archives. Bibliographic Citation A bibliographic reference for the resource. Recommended practice is to include sufficient bibliographic detail to identify the resource as unambiguously as possible. Images and other sources used with permission should be properly cited and credited. Credits should include this text: Kent State University Libraries. Special Collections and Archives. Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title CNV: Handbook: “Marshals: What do they do? How do you train them?” Description Undated handbook titled "Marshals: What do they do? How do you train them? A Handbook for Training Marshals for Marches, Rallies, and other demonstrations," published by Friends Peace Committee. Subject For an item not part of an Omeka collection or an item part of the Exhibits collection, choose one or more general subject areas that apply to this item. For an item added to any of the other Omeka collections, a default value will be supplied for this field. KSU Shootings Extent The size or extent of the item (number of pages, for example). 15 pages Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the original item. archive (mixed materials) Institution Change the data in this field only if applicable. Kent State University Repository Special Collections and Archives Finding aid title Finding Aid for the B. Earle Roberts papers Finding aid URL http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/b-earle-roberts-papers Restrictions Handbook published by Friends Peace Committee. Permissions Copyright Cleared (NHPRC) dc.rights Change the data in this field only if applicable. This digital object is owned by Kent State University and may be protected by U.S. Copyright law (Title 17, USC). Please include proper citation and credit for use of this item. Use in publications or productions is prohibited without written permission from Kent State University. Please contact the <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives">Department of Special Collections and Archives</a> for more information. dc.rights.uri Change the data in this field only if applicable. <a href="http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy">http://www.library.kent.edu/special-collections-and-archives/duplication-policy</a> DPLA Rights Statement <a href="http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/</a> Collection Metadata Subcollection B. Earle Roberts papers Subcollection Location Box 134 dc.description Sponsor Information Digital capture of this material was sponsored by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). May 4 Subject Collection-specific subject(s). Committees, Task Forces Demonstrations May 4 Provenance Selection should normally be May 4 Collection. May 4 Collection