I think those economists call this a natural experiment. Before 2010 UO had a contract with the EPD for armed officers to patrol campus and respond to campus trouble. I think it cost $500,000. Then VPFA Frances Dyke canceled the deal, and started dumping money on her pals in the UO public safety office. But state law prevented them from having guns. So, no armed response to campus crime. What happened to campus crime rates without a ready armed response? A key fact for any rational decision on arming the new UOPD.
Nick Ekblad has the scoop in the Commentator: UOPD Interim Police Chief Carol McDermed doesn’t know what happened to UO crime rates. But I’m guessing she knows exactly what happened to her budget, her salary, and her PERS: as a police officer, she gets to retire with full benefits 5 years earlier.
Any questions about what happened to our research money? 2/27/2013.
Why is she faculty?
Mcdermed conveniently does not know the crime stats because they will refelct that there is no need for 25-30 armed police officers to be marching around the campus. Can anyone really recite a serious crime issue that happened on camups since UO ended the contract with EPD? Fact is there have been less than a half dozen crimes against persons on campus and zero involving a weapon. Eugene Police always takes the lead in any serious investigation and always will. Why be redundant and have a less experienced less law enforcement savvy agency like the newly formed UOPD take a lead?
If you ask point blank at one of these forums why a heavily armed police force is needed on campus the answer will be more like everyone else in the PAC 12 has one. It is not because it is needed to keep anyone safe.
The other reason is, and they have mentioned this already, UOPD wants to make traffic stops. Not sure what the purpose is since there are no high traffic accident rates on campus that would indicate heavier enforcement is needed.