In yesterday’s column “viewpoints,” I wrote something that I think needs clarification in light of the response to a statement: “Call me a cynic, but I don’t see any way at this point that the findings from an investigation will be such that she has to step down.”
This statement was meant to express skepticism and cynicism that the process set forth by UC President Mark Yudof will bear fruit. Some took it to mean that I have made up my mind and no finding would be adequate to change my opinion.
That was actually a view expressed by one of the protesters – a view that I did not and do not agree with.
Do not get me wrong, I do believe that Chancellor Linda Katehi needs to resign.
That view starts with a look at the videotapes. Some revisionist views have suggested that the protesters were well-warned (they were) and therefore they asked for it (they may have). That does not mean it was proper for Lt. Pike to give it to them.
Second, they suggest that the video shows the police were surrounded. But it also shows the police freely moving through the crowd. It showed no effort or intent by the crowd or protesters to take an aggressive stance against the police, and no overt threat.
Lt. Pike used pepper spray as a dispersal mechanism when it should have been used only as a defensive agent.
Is it possible that an investigation is going to unearth something we do not see with countless videos, including a very lengthy Aggie TV one? Yes. But based on what we have seen so far, I think the use of pepper spray violates the use of force protocols and the law as the Ninth Circuit Court has laid down in a number of decisions, as we have previously examined.
That fact is not sufficient to get us the Chancellor’s resignation. The second part of her problem was her own response. Her first response was to say it was unfortunate, but necessary, to use force and remove the students, due to safety concerns.
It was only later that she called the images shocking, and only later still that she claimed that she had told the police not to use force. Where are those orders and those documents?
Her statements are also inconsistent. On the one hand she said: “The police do not report to me. [The department] reports to the vice chancellor for administrative and resource management [John Meyer]. The only thing that a chancellor can do is to make a decision of whether the police needs to have, in that particular case, the dismantling of equipment [the encampment]. Beyond that, I don’t have the right to direct the police to do anything. As a matter of fact, the University of California protocol specifies that I do not do that.”
Later she said: “We were very specific that it has to be peaceful and not like Berkeley. In a peaceful way, [UCD Police Chief Spicuzza] was only supposed to take the equipment down, not disperse the crowd, not remove the students. We also told her specifically she should not do anything if there were too many students or they were too upset or whatever the environment was that would not allow them [to remove the tents]. That’s what she got from me.”
Prosecutors often use inconsistent statements of this sort to demonstrate a guilty conscience. In fact there are even jury instructions suggesting that a defendant who “made a false or misleading statement” may show a consciousness of guilt.
Of course, the jury instructions argue that this is not enough to prove guilt itself, and certainly the inconsistency in the chancellor’s story does not prove that she is guilty, but it does raise a red flag.
Finally, there is what we know, through Griselda Castro, about a prior incident where the police showed up at Mrak Hall in riot gear.
Assistant Vice Chancellor Griselda Castro told Reverend Stoneking: “The police were not supposed to be in riot gear and the administration was also not happy about their response.”
This can really be seen as a prelude to the pepper spray incident. However, in response to this event, we find out that the chancellor had more important things to deal with.
Ms. Castro said, “The Chancellor is unavailable due to her triple-booked schedule to move forward her agenda of globalization and internationalization of the university.”
So strong leadership might have nipped this in the bud before it blew up on national TV, however, the chancellor was too occupied with her other obligations to effectively deal with this. Now, is that on her? One person who has been remarkably quiet is former city manager, and now Vice Chancellor John Meyer, who is the person that the UC Davis Police Chief answers to.
Bottom line on this analysis is that, while I think there is enough that we know right now to reasonably call for the chancellor’s resignation, I can see a reasonable point to allow the process to move forward.
But Law School Dean Kevin Johnson has argued that the chancellor has due process rights. As an at-will employee, they can fire her, bringing disrepute to the university, so I think that case is overblown.
However, the real problem for me, and this is the point I was trying to make yesterday – I don’t trust the process.
The protesters had a visceral reaction to William Bratton, based in part on his history in Los Angeles, particular the mishandling on a May Day protest, but also his policies of dealing with indigent people and adherence to the broken window theory of law enforcement.
I think he has a much more nuanced record, and I side more with Robert Meister, a Political Science professor at UC Santa Cruz, who heads the Council of UC Faculty Associations. “We take no position here on Mr. Bratton’s personal qualifications; our objection is to the conflicts of interest of Kroll Security itself, which is already a major contractor with UC on security matters.”
“According to its website, Kroll’s services are not confined to securing databases and facilities from attacks by criminals and terrorists. It also protects many global financial institutions and other multinationals against threats to ‘operations’ that may come from public criticism and direct political action,” Professor Meister continues.
He writes: “By deepening UC’s links to Kroll, you would be illustrating the kinds of connection between public higher education and Wall Street that the Occupy UC movement is protesting. Kroll’s parent company, Altegrity, provides data-mining, intelligence and on-the-ground security to financial institutions and governments seeking to head off and defeat both private sabotage and public protest. In addition, Altegrity’s parent company, Providence Private Equity, is a major global investor in for-profit higher education companies that benefit from the decline of publicly funded higher education.”
Basically, you have a protest that is based in part on the questioning of official ties to Wall Street, and you hire a big business, multinational corporation to investigate the complaints.
I see a concerted effort by the research wing of the university to rally around Chancellor Katehi and I question at this point whether the investigation is going to be done fairly.
I have no doubt that Lt. Pike, and probably Chief Annette Spicuzza, will become the fall people over this, but I think there will be a firewall protecting the chancellor. That is not saying that I believe she should resign and nothing that could come out can convince me otherwise.
For instance, if it really does come out that she ordered the police not to use force and they ignored her order, then I agree that she should not resign. But I am skeptical that she did that, given her initial comments.
So, we are where we are, the powers that be are closing ranks in support of Chancellor Katehi, the investigation will play out, and I remain skeptical that the kind of change that needs to occur, will occur.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
These statements are not inconsistent and you should not equate them to prosecutors in Yolo County. It’s inappropriate. You’re also not a psychologist, nor an expert in the field.
[quote][i][i]Her statements are also inconsistent. On the one had she said: “The police do not report to me. (The department) reports to the vice chancellor for administrative and resource management (John Meyer). The only thing that a chancellor can do is to make a decision of whether the police needs to have, in that particular case, the dismantling of equipment (the encampment). Beyond that, I don’t have the right to direct the police to do anything. As a matter of fact, the University of California protocol specifies that I do not do that.”
Later she said: “We were very specific that it has to be peaceful and not like Berkeley. In a peaceful way, (UCD Police Chief Spicuzza) was only supposed to take the equipment down, not disperse the crowd, not remove the students. We also told her specifically she should not do anything if there were too many students or they were too upset or whatever the environment was that would not allow them (to remove the tents). That’s what she got from me.”[/i][/i][/quote]
David –
I haven’t seen any updates on what is happening with the Occupy UCD protests since the first day they occupied the financial services building. Can you provide an update as to what has happened in the last week?
David
Interesting information on Kroll, Altegrity, and Providence Private Equity. Is this newly posted on this blog or did I just miss it in your previous articles ? This connection should make for some interesting reading.
“These statements are not inconsistent and you should not equate them to prosecutors in Yolo County.”
Nowhere did I mention prosecutors in Yolo County and it is on you to argue that they are not inconsistent, you merely asserted it.
Medwoman, I believe I published it in Friday’s story on the independence of investigators.
Adam Smith, I will try to get back to that this week. I’ve been out of town and also covering a murder trial, so it’s difficult to be everywhere.
None of the five investigative panels has shown tangible evidence of moving in the immediate future despite public clamor for answers. Look for announcements to the effect that such action will be deferred until after the holidays. Meanwhile, this matter continues to fester.
Select Katehi quotes describing her role in police instruction are shown here. The contradictions are duly noted. Let’s take a closer look at the content as it may give further insight and lead to determining much-needed additional facts.
Katehi said that University protocol prohibited her from direct authority over the police department putting the onus on her immediate subordinate, John Meyer.
What about this protocol that Katehi is employing to get a pass on PD oversight? Does it exist? A policy as important as that must be in writing and I have not seen any comment or discussion on that key point.
John Meyer is a very bright guy and an exceptional administrator. It is virtually inconceivable with his pedigree that John would take entire responsibility for the police without first conferring with his boss on contentious policies and actions from that particular department.
John’s silence is also duly noted, although he has been physically present at some of the public forums. Has anybody asked John what happened and what his response is to Katehi passing the baton to him? Would he confirm the assertion that he is the buffer between the actions and responsibilities of the police department and the Chancellor?
A Katehi quote not cited here had to do with who was responsible for Pike’s actions. Katehi said that Pike acted on his own accord. This remark leads to the inescapable conclusion that Pike’s actions were the subject of an immediate internal investigation. More information on that process,how it unfolded, and the roles played by Katehi, Meyer,and Spicuzza would be helpful. If Lieutenant Pike was unilaterally culpable why is he still on the payroll?
“Later she said: “We were very specific….”
If the quotes are accurate, note that she never said “I” but rather “we”. I would guess that her job description was fund-raising and media work to augment the public image of UCD rather than day to day management skills, that was Myer’s job. Her first statement about Myer being the one accountable was probably the most candid. Later,assuming an accountable role with “we” which was true, in principle(the “buck stops here” at the top) deflects attention from Myer whose forced resignation would really throw a clinker into day to day UCD management, something that she was not interested in doing, hired to do or even actively oversee.
Long-standing UCD administrative culture supports control/repression of legitimate student free expression and activity, claiming that it is doing so to protect the safety of the students who are placed in their charge. This current incident has its roots in this administrative culture which ironically, and inevitably, resulted in placing students in harm’s way.
“This current incident has its roots in this administrative culture which ironically, and inevitably, resulted in placing students in harm’s way.”
When the students chose to block the path of the police when they were trying to remove the arrested protesters I would have to say to you that the students put themselves in harm’s way.
I’m a little puzzled by the logic here. The thrust of this article seems to be:
It’s possible she may be innocent, but seems unlikely to me based on what I know, so let’s not wait for the investigation to call for resignation.
[quote]So, we are where we are, the powers that be are closing ranks in support of Chancellor Katehi, the investigation will play out, and I remain skeptical that the kind of change that needs to occur, will occur.[/quote]
I’m with J.R. I am at sea as to what the exact point of this article is. What “kind of change” do you think needs to occur? The removal of Katehi? The removal of Spicuzza? The removal of Pike? Policy changes?
rusty: [i]When the students chose to block the path of the police when they were trying to remove the arrested protesters I would have to say to you that the students put themselves in harm’s way.[/i]
One problem I have with this line of discussion is that if there were students blocking the path of the police, then the police should have directed their warnings and pepper spray at them and not at the seated protesters.
[quote]One problem I have with this line of discussion is that if there were students blocking the path of the police, then the police should have directed their warnings and pepper spray at them and not at the seated protesters.[/quote]
Fair point!
DG, I fail to follow your rationale for your demand of Katehi’s resignation based upon her public comments to the public as being inconsistent. I think that they were inconsistent, but the reason for their inconsistency to me seem not only potentially legitimate, but likely legitimate, based upon what the facts appear to be today. I understand that Katehi made her initial commments based upon the Police Chief telling her that the police were surrounded and in a threating situation. Katehi was not there and it does not seem unreasonable to believe that what your Police Chief tells you is accurate, particularly given that the event occurred in public with many witnesses. Also, in that context, it does not seem appropriate that Katehi should say that she did not want to respond to back-up the actions of her police, as that would undermine the authority of the police department, making it more difficult for them to carry out their duties, without any indication that this was justified. In fact, I think that it would have been irresponsible for her to have said “My police chief has told me that the police were surrounded and threatened, but until I get others to verify that this is what occurred, I’m not ready to say whether their actions were justified or not.” Maybe this is what you think should have been said, or some variation of it, or perhaps you think she should have been silent, or said something entirely different, but I find no fault with her trying to respond with a comment that she thought could help difuse the situation, based upon a belief that the information she had received was accurate. It seems to me to be implicit that when someone makes a statement, it is based upon what they know and/or believe are the facts at the time. What do you think Katehi should have done or said in the hours following the incident, since you seem intent on playing Monday morning quarterback with the presumption that it is that which we do not know that should be the basis for condemning Katehi. Maybe you shouldn’t finish your opinion pieces with “- David M. Greenwald reporting” as that is not solely what you are doing. Additionally, your logic regarding how you believe that Katehi needs to resign, but that you have not yet made up your mind is simply baffling to me. I don’t even know how to respond to that. The protesters clearly have a lynch mob mentality, and I frankly expect that out of them. I don’t expect it from one who claims to be reporting news. Drop that “reporting” tag at the end of your opinion pieces and I’d have fewer issues with your expressing your own personal opinion on things. You do start out the piece with the word COMMENTARY, so I do applaud you for that.
At this point, we don’t know who knew what when. Do you know whether Pike was ordered to use the pepper spray or whether and with whom it was in consultation with? You can’t just fire people in this country. It is neither legal nor appropriate to do so without an investigation to determine all of the relevant facts. I think that the fact that one of Katehi’s Vice Chancellors made the comments about her unavailability because she was essentially too busy was extremely unfortunate. However, we don’t know whether that was simply the Vice Chancellor’s choice of message, or directed by someone else. If Katehi did direct this message, it is my belief that this was the biggest judgement error that I have seen so far that could be attributed to her. Is it sufficient justification for her to resign? I don’t think so, but I’ll let you or others try to make the case that it is.
I would ask you a question, however. If the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff told the President of the United State that a house that was blown-up by a US drone missile contained Osama bin Laden, and the President subsequently told the press that this attack was necessary, only to subsequently find-out that Osama bin Laden was never there and in fact an innocent family had been killed, should the President be forced to resign? Please help me differentiate these two situations as I see strong parallels between the two and personally find know fault with the actions or the remarks by either the Chancellor or the President.
“One problem I have with this line of discussion is that if there were students blocking the path of the police, then the police should have directed their warnings and pepper spray at them and not at the seated protesters.”
The seated protesters were blocking the path.
Relevance of pronouns.
davissite2 offered:
“Later she said: “We were very specific….”
If the quotes are accurate, note that she never said “I” but rather “we”.
According to the information we have, Katehi did use a personal pronoun in showing her role in policy instruction to the Police Chief. Agreed, the corporate “we” was conveniently used throughout most of the message, which disguises who exactly was speaking and rendering instruction to the the Police Chief. I’d suspect that this ambiguity in accountability was deliberate.
But if you read further in the quote, you see Katehi admit to making detailed instruction directly to the Chief of Police. Katehi spoke of withdrawal from tent removal should the number and mood of the protestors require it. She then says, “That’s what she (Spicuzza)got from me.”
From that we may surmise that there was direct exchange between Katehi and Spicuzza on police tactics and policy, and University protocol be damned. Presumably Spicuzza’s boss, John Meyer, was in attendance as well.
OK, so the seated protesters were blocking the path. So what? Did they stretch clear across the campus? Why not just walk around them?
I do not seek Katehi’s resignation. I want to see what she does now. I personally believe she told the police to do one thing and they did another. I believe this in part because I cannot imagine any sensible person authorizing unprofessional general spraying of demonstrators, much less the alleged spraying down someone’s throat.
I believe the most important thing to do is seek criminal prosecution of the officers involved. There are so many instances in which officers act in ways not authorized by law, in ways that violate law and are not punished for it. This failure to punish police and/or prosecution when they act illegally is well illustrated in the This American Life episode Perfect Evidence. In the end the programs states that they have found numerous evidence of prosecutorial misconduct without finding any instances of criminal punishment or even serious civil punishment.
The second thing I think we must fight for is reducing the vote requirement for passing or raising taxes to 55T or so. The third thing we need to do is put pressure on candidates for governor to appoint regents who are truly representative of the people of California.
As for Katehi, I think if she is replaced she will be replaced by someone as bad or worse on issues of tuition and privatization. The only way to get someone better is to pressure the regents or change the regents or change the tax system.
The one thing I do hold against Katehi is her supporting the police in her first statement. However, I believe she was following protocol and not thinking clearly at that moment. Unfortunate, but I am not going to push for firing her at this point. I think she will never make that mistake again and that is better than bringing in someone new.
Vanguard: “Some took it to mean that I have made up my mind and no finding would be adequate to change my opinion.
That was actually a view expressed by one of the protesters – a view that I did not and do not agree with.
Do not get me wrong, I do believe that Chancellor Linda Katehi needs to resign.”
these statements are quite inconsistent, on the one hand, the vanguard says its mind is not made up, or putting off like it still has an open mind waiting to hear more facts, then in the next breath joins the battlecry for Katehi to resign. who is the vanguard trying to kid?
The arguments about Katehi’s ‘resignation’ are irrelevant. This is not about morality, this is about money. The University will keep Katehi around until they determine that she is a liability in fund raising. If she continues to instill confidence in the University to promote an atmosphere of fund raising, she stays. Unless there is a smoking gun memo, which seems unlikely.
[i]”If she continues to instill confidence in the University to promote an atmosphere of fund raising, she stays. Unless there is a smoking gun memo, which seems unlikely.”[/i]
Chief Spicuzza pulled this out of Katehi’s desk:
[img]http://cigarettezoom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Smoking-gun.jpg[/img]
Rifkin, you crack me up.
“Lt. Pike used pepper spray as a dispersal mechanism when it should have been used only as a defensive agent.”
No, he used it to punish them for saying “Fuck the police.”
I honestly don’t get this due process argument, she took responsibility and apologized. At best the investigations should advise her penalty.
“No, he used it to punish them for saying “f**k the police.”
And you know this because? Can read minds?
You watch, I’ll bet you Lt. Pike is going to be exonerated of any wrongdoing when the dust settles. That 30 minute video portrays a whole different story than the short clips that were first released.
rusty49
From my point of view, the 40 minute video, the one without the on screen editorializing about how it tells the ” real story ” shows a far more balanced story than either the very short clips or the one you seem to be referencing. This longer clip clearly shows how very thin the ” surrounding student line was ( sometimes no more than one person deep and widely spaced, how freely officers were moving amongst the students and how some police, presumably Davis city were clearly un intimidated by the situation . I will be continuing to watch.
Her initial comments do not give any indication of anything except that she thought the police actions were completely acceptable. It is difficult, if in fact not impossible, to think she didn’t know about this. This is a game of snaking out that she has played over and over again.
But what really astounds me the notion that it would look bad for the university to release her. That, I believe, is the only viable thing to do. Do they have any idea how horrifically bad it looks NOT to release her?
“Maybe you shouldn’t finish your opinion pieces with “- David M. Greenwald reporting” as that is not solely what you are doing. Additionally, your logic regarding how you believe that Katehi needs to resign, but that you have not yet made up your mind is simply baffling to me. I don’t even know how to respond to that. The protesters clearly have a lynch mob mentality, and I frankly expect that out of them. I don’t expect it from one who claims to be reporting news. Drop that “reporting” tag at the end of your opinion pieces and I’d have fewer issues with your expressing your own personal opinion on things. You do start out the piece with the word COMMENTARY, so I do applaud you for that.”
I disagree with you that a commentary or opinion piece is not a form of reporting.
“The seated protesters were blocking the path.”
You might have a point if it was a narrow path way, but in this case, people could simply walk around the protesters.
“You might have a point if it was a narrow path way, but in this case, people could simply walk around the protesters.”
David, the police were surrounded by the protesters with the ones sitting blocking the their path out. They were not only sitting on the path but also across the paths and out into the lawn area. The protesters had been shouting in unison “you can’t go” and “if you let them go, you can leave”. These protesters were committing a crime in deterring the officers from doing their job of trying to remove the arrested protesters. They put themselves in harm’s way. Officer Pike is seen three times going up to the sitting protesters and trying to reason with them. He walked up and put his hand on the shoulder of one of them and bent down and talked to him. The sitting students can be seen laughing at Officer Pike. I will grant you that I felt the UCD Police could have put more effort into trying to physically remove them first before they went to the spray. But possibly Lt. Pike felt that with them being surrounded that he needed to disable the sitters first before removing them thus using less officers while the others covered their backs. Like I said, I believe Lt. Pike will be exonerated.
If that’s the case then why is Pike able to easily move from behind the protesters to in front of them with absolutely no effort by anyone to impede him?
David, it wasn’t just Pike that had to go through, all the officers had to go through while trying to escort the arrested protesters at the same time. How safe would that be for the officers to tiptoe past the protesters while trying to escort the arrested? But that aside, why should the officers have to squeeze past them putting themselves in harm’s way? They were performing an action that was being unlawfully impeded by the sitting students. The students were warned to move, they refused so Pike took action. This wasn’t a cut and dried police brutality case as you and much of the press would like to portray, Pike imo has an out.
I see no indication that the officers were in danger, they moved freely through the crowd, they didn’t have to be there.
“But that aside, why should the officers have to squeeze past them putting themselves in harm’s way? “
(A) That’s their job and (B) there is no indication that they were in harm’s way.
“This wasn’t a cut and dried police brutality case as you and much of the press would like to portray, Pike imo has an out. “
I don’t think he does. I predict he’ll be dismissed.
I think he’ll be dismissed too, not so much because of his actions but as a way for the administration to try and quell the situation. But I don’t think Pike will be convicted of any crime.
I think you are correct that he won’t be convicted of a crime. If you look at the case law, while the courts ruled the use of force unconstitutional they didn’t rule it criminal. It takes a lot for an officer to commit a crime while carrying out his duties.
[quote]You actually can if they are at will employees. John Pike can’t just be fired, but Katehi could.[/quote]
Have you read Katehi’s contract and know it is at-will for a fact?
My point was that Lt. Pike couldn’t be fired, since he was the one who committed the act in question. He’s a member of a union, presumably. I do assume that Katehi could be terminated at will, but this whole process is all about dealling with the equivalent of a lynch mob. The powers that be are having to decide between doing what respects individual rights with how the lynch mob will react to to different statements or actions.
David – If Lt. Pike pepper sprayed on his own accord, or if he was cleared to do this by the Chief of Police but did not have the approval or blessing of Katehi to take such an action; and, if in fact what Katehi has said regarding what the administration saw as appropriate action to the police chief was accurate, do you still think that Katehi should resign simply because she is the Chancellor? Or, are you basing your opinion on the belief that at least some of what she has said has been untrue? Or do you simply believe that the situation is such, including comments by Katehi and others that have potentially inflamed the situation, that Katehi needs to be sacrificed because her being the Chancellor does more harm than good for the university going forward? Or, do you simply not like her and her other policies and believe that this is a good excuse to use to oust her? There has been talk about whether Katehi controls the Police or not. I don’t think the semantics are particularly relevant as to whether they directly report to her or not. The reality is likely that administration can give and the police chief is likely to take into consideration any desires of the administration, but that because of their policing function and having to make decisions in real time that don’t nicely and neatly fall into any scenarios that have been pre-discussed, the Police Chief has to make the call. How can you hold Katehi responsible for their actions absent some direction that she has given them that would direct or encourage the actual pepper spraying?
David – How are you reconciling saying that Katehi needs to resign now with your statement that you aren’t prejudging what has occurred in advance of the completion of one or more of the investigations? Do you believe that the investigations do not need to occur and that Katehi should simply be forced to resign by Yudof? Or, do you think that Katehi needs to resign or be fired by Yudof but you still want the investigations to continue only to determine whether others are at fault? Or do you believe that Katehi needs to resign irrespective of whether she did anything wrong related to the pepper spraying itself, but simply because of her comments (even if nothing was false or inaccurate), as that is what is best for the university?
This should be the source andc target of the UCD protesters’ rage:
[img]http://www.cscdc.org/miscjeff/collegecost.jpg[/img]
Two questions:
1. Who is accountable for this?
2. Why isn’t this being debated as the root cause of tuition increases, instead of blaming the wealthy?