On Wednesday, Feb. 1, two Campus Safety officers were terminated, which has raised concerns among some in the department regarding treatment of staff in the Campus Safety Department and Lawrence University as a whole.
One of the former officers, who spoke off the record, will be referred to as Officer A. The other officer terminated will be referred to as Officer B. Officer A alleges that they were terminated at 10 p.m. in a parking lot, and that the new Campus Safety supervisor, Derek Diehl, was unable to tell them what they did to be fired because he too was unaware. According to Officer A, they were advised to go to Human Resources (HR). When they attempted to contact HR, they were not followed up with, and upon requesting a personnel file, they saw nothing but positive write-ups. Furthermore, they alleged that Lawrence was unwilling to work with the state to make sure they were able to receive unemployment benefits.
Officer A also alleged that Officer B was promised a promotion to Director of Campus Safety, while Lawrence was secretly looking for other candidates behind their back, which was only revealed in an email accidentally sent to the wrong person. Officer A also alleged that Officer B was demeaned by a former administrator, referred to as Administrator C, and accused of misconduct without cause, and that HR did not take the complaint seriously. Officer B chose not to speak directly with The Lawrentian.
As well as their firing, Officer A also spoke about Campus Safety staff being forced to work for up to 40 consecutive days and having to work 50-80 hours per week due to staff turnover. They also allege that during the worst of the COVID-19 outbreaks, the entire department was isolated two times, and custodians, as well as student Campus Safety workers who hadn’t completed training, were forced to absorb the responsibilities. During this time, Administrator C allegedly did not know how to operate the functions of the department, which necessitated Officer A working while in isolation, and although Administrator C allegedly claimed that they were on campus, working with Campus Safety staff, Officer A alleges that Administrator C was not seen or interacted with by any staff they spoke to.
Officer A added that Campus Safety staff have been begging for additional trainings and more staff, which they said the administration repeatedly denied. They noted that, while the administration told them there was no money to hire more staff, they saw the new arch, the new footbridge and upgraded sports facilities being constructed. Officer A also claimed that the 2021 annual Safety and Security reports are inaccurate, specifically the claim that Campus Safety officers have radio communication and that there were eight full-time staff and two part-time staff. They allege that officers communicate via old iPhones and that there were only four full-time staff at the time of the report. Vice President for Student Life Chris Clarke highlighted a new radio system instituted by Director Diehl intended to increase efficiency in Campus Safety communication.
Officer A also alleged being berated and cursed at by Administrator C when they refused to perform a duty that they felt was invasive and disrespectful to students. Similarly, Officer A referenced the walkthroughs of group houses by Residential Education and Housing (ResEd) that were unexpected and often happened late at night. Officer A was uncomfortable performing these tasks and felt that ResEd was reluctant to take responsibility for this policy. Officer A alleged that HR refused to hear complaints against Administrator C during another former officer’s exit interview. Additionally, Officer A reported that the Campus Safety office in Brokaw Hall regularly reached 85-90° Fahrenheit, and that they were exposed to black mold and asbestos while staff moved out of the office in December 2021 so that Facilities could address the problem. Officer A provided photos of the office during move-out. The Lawrentian was unable to enter the Brokaw office and verify its current state.
Someone who has experience working for the Campus Safety department, referred to as Officer D, commented that officers are working constantly to make sure the campus runs smoothly, including assisting with lockouts, medical emergencies, fire alarms and a variety of unexpected circumstances. Officer D feels that the adaptability and calmness with which Campus Safety handles these emergencies goes unnoticed by the university.
“This tendency to fly under the radar and go unappreciated is not uncommon for the Campus Safety department, nor is it unfamiliar to many of the other staff who work on campus,” Officer D said.
Officer D feels that the high turnover rate in the department is evidence that officers are mistreated.
“The constant high turnover rate provides evidence that the work they do does not get the acknowledgment it deserves, both in terms of wages and respect,” said Officer D. “Their pay is staggeringly low compared to other universities of similar stature […] Despite being a critical part of the university […] the Campus Safety department receives a shortage of support from the university that […] affects everyone who relies on their guidance and assistance.”
Another person with experience in the department, referred to as Officer E, believes that Officers A and B were mistreated and misled by the university. Officer E echoed Officer A’s statement that Officer B was promised a promotion to Director of Campus Safety while the university was searching for an outside hire for that same position. To Officer E, this seemed like a malicious attempt to give Officer B less of a chance of knowing about the position, so they had less time to prepare for the interview process.
Officers D and E feel that the termination of Officers A and B will have negative effects on campus. Officer D said that the terminated officers were always willing to go the extra mile to help their fellow officers, as well as students, staff and faculty alike. Officer E feels that Officers A and B made the Campus Safety department what it is today, including starting the student worker program, which they feel has saved the department money and relieved officers of less pertinent duties, and added that officers are focused on the safety and welfare of students instead of writing tickets and getting people in trouble.
Officer E is worried about what this means for the workplace environment. According to Officer E, two more officers have left since the terminations. Officer E said that they wouldn’t be surprised if more people left, because they feel that there is a target on their backs since Officers A and B were fired without a given reason. Officer E added that they believe Diehl was being truthful when he stated that he didn’t know that Officers A and B would be fired or that he was stepping over anyone taking this job, and that this decision harms him, too, because two more officers have quit since the terminations.
Clarke is unable to comment on personnel matters, but he pushed back on the claim that staff are mistreated overall, citing a pay raise for Campus Safety officers and all staff having Fridays off during the summer of 2022. Clarke added that the Campus Safety department is doing well under Diehl and that they are currently hiring new officers.