Occupy leaders are claiming another victory, as they have apparently successfully shut down U.S. Bank’s UC Davis branch office.
According to a release from the university on Friday, US Bank told UC officials that it is terminating its agreements with the campus. In a March 1 letter to the Board of Regents, the bank stated its reason as the interference by protesters who intermittently blocked the door to the bank branch in the Memorial Union since January.
The bank chose to close during many of the protests, and, now, in a letter to account holders, the branch says it is “officially closed” (as of Feb. 28). The letter refers the approximately 2,500 account holders to U.S. Bank branches in Davis and Woodland.
However, UC officials said they believe the termination letter is premature, noting that the university had been in discussions with bank representatives about the future of the branch office. The university had hoped to resolve the situation in a manner that would enable the bank to resume operations while at the same time making allowance for law enforcement to prosecute proven violations of the California Penal Code and also allowing for peaceful protests.
U.S. Bank employees “were effectively imprisoned in the branch,” bank Senior Vice President Daniel Hoke said in his March 1 letter. He noted that employees felt they needed to call campus police to escort them from the branch.
Other protests on campus during this academic year have included an overnight occupation of Mrak Hall, tent encampments on the Quad, a two-week-long occupation of Dutton Hall and a four-day occupation of the former Cross Cultural Center.
“We’re disappointed that U.S. Bank has indicated that it wants to leave after UC Davis worked with students to find creative financial solutions during these difficult budget times,” said Associate Vice Chancellor Emily Galindo of Student Affairs.
In January and February, demonstrators had blocked the doors to the US Bank branch in the UC Davis Memorial Union. The blockades resulted in closure of the bank at times and involvement of the campus police.
According to an article in the Aggie back in January, “Occupy protesters assert that the presence of U.S. Bank on campus is uniquely harmful because students may opt for the convenience of obtaining a high-interest loan there, rather than shop elsewhere. Ultimately, the protesters say that they want the bank closed.”
However, others disagreed.
ASUCD Senator Justin Goss told the Aggie, “The occupiers claim they are working for students, but they are actually disrupting funding for the same services they want to be improved.”
“Opened in 2010, the branch was part of a broad partnership between UC Davis and U.S. Bank, which the university hoped would bring needed funds for student activities,” the Aggie reported in January.
“The university received a total of $167,500 from U.S. Bank last year. That is in addition to the $8,333 we receive every month in rent,” said UC Davis spokesperson Claudia Morain. Moreover the University gets a cut of money depending on the number of bank accounts opened by UC Davis students.
Last month, UC Davis had set up an “engagement team” that was made up of a police negotiator, professional mediator and Student Affairs representative, and they had visited the protest site regularly, warning protesters of the potential for criminal prosecution.
The Vanguard asked specific questions about the engagement team, but was instead given stock information.
“The members of the engagement team serve as communicators between student protesters and administration. We convey and solicit questions, information and responses to questions between those involved in the particular protest event. Our main function is to serve as conduits for information exchange. We engage in dialogue as a means to determine interests and facilitate greater understanding of perspectives in support of resolution,” the university told the Vanguard last week.
To date, the engagement team has provided the following information to protesters, the university spokesperson continued, “Memorandum of Understanding and Lease Agreement with US Bank, FAQ for the UC Davis – US Bank Partnership, Information on Rights & Responsibilities concerning peaceful protest at UC Davis (summary),Information on Rights & Responsibilities concerning peaceful protest at UC Davis (full notice), Student Judicial Affairs notification.”
“The Engagement Team has provided bank occupiers with verbal and written information explaining that violations of student conduct standards may be referred to the Student Judicial Affairs office. Such cases may be resolved informally or through a formal hearing process, with potential penalties ranging from counseling to dismissal,” a February 24 release from the university stated.
Donald Dudley, the Director of Student Judicial Affairs, declined to respond to questions about how protesters would be treated as opposed to other disciplinary issues.
While students could face expulsion, Mr. Dudley said that is a last resort and only used for repeated offenses.
Most often, students agree to take part of a process which results in some sort of formal or informal hearing.
“The choice of a disciplinary sanction depends on several factors such as does the student have prior violations, how serious is the violation, to what extent has the violation harmed others, and the level of intent,” Mr. Dudley told the Vanguard. He added, “Even serious disciplinary sanctions can be educational and provide an opportunity for personal growth.”
Student groups informed the Vanguard that they prefer to deal with Judicial Affairs rather than law enforcement.
However, the release on Friday indicates that UC Davis police had forwarded six cases to the Yolo County District Attorney’s office, recommending prosecution for violating Penal Code sections that make it a misdemeanor to “willfully and maliciously” obstruct the free movement of any person on any street, sidewalk or other public place, or to intentionally interfere with any lawful business.
Mike Cabral, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, said on March 15 that the district attorney’s office had not yet completed its review of the case files – and that a decision on whether to prosecute is likely to come Monday or Tuesday (March 19 or 20). If the decision is made to go forward, the district attorney’s office will notify the suspects by mail, ordering them to appear in court, the university release continued.
UC Davis has referred the matter to outside counsel to evaluate the legal consequences of the bank’s termination of its agreements with the university.
Several banks maintain automated teller machines on campus, but U.S. Bank was the only one with an on-campus branch – one of 21 U.S. Bank branches on college campuses in 10 states.
In addition to operating the UC Davis branch office, U.S. Bank installed seven ATMs around the campus, supplied campus ID cards, offered a financial management seminar for incoming students and parents, and contributed financial support to student programs.
The agreements last year generated $167,000 for student programs. The bank had guaranteed annual payments of $130,000 to $780,000, based on the number of accounts activated, which could have meant nearly $3 million for student services over 10 years.
In the March 1, letter to the Regents, US Bank Senior Vice President Daniel Hoke wrote, “U.S. Bank advised the Regents of their default resulting from the faculty and student protest at the Branch.”
Most provocatively, he called the employees virtual prisoners, writing, “The employees of U.S. Bank who, at times, arrived prior to the protesters, were effectively imprisoned in the Branch.”
Protesters vehemently deny the claim, arguing that the employees were allowed access both in and out of the building.
Mr. Hoke continued, “For well over a month now, U.S. Bank has been deprived of the use of the Branch because of the human barricade formed by the students and faculty in front of the door to the Branch. Notwithstanding the repeated demands of U.S. Bank, the Regents have not provided access to the Branch.”
“The Regents have refused to remove or arrest the persons participating in the illegal gathering even though the Regents have used available laws to disperse protestors who have congregated elsewhere on the University’s campuses,” he continued adding, “Instead of trying to disperse the illegal gathering, the Regents allowed the blockade to continue. It has become clear that the Regents will not disperse the protestors and are content to allow the blockade of the Branch to continue. U.S. Bank, however, cannot permit the risk of physical injury to continue, and it cannot continue to suffer economic loss.”
Mr. Hoke writes, “In light of the above, there is no doubt that U.S. Bank has been constructively evicted from the Branch due to the repeated and unabated breach of the covenant of quiet possession. The Regents have been given notice of their default and have failed to cure it.”
The University, however, fired back in a letter from Greg Haworth, who noted that there are eight years remaining on the lease and, “The Bank’s position and its conduct over the past several weeks are contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Financial Services Partnership Agreement and the Lease.”
It is mainly a breach of contract argument, in that the bank has not fulfilled its obligations under the lease for termination of contract.
They write, “The Bank has chosen not to send a written notice with respect to the acts of protesters outside the Branch, and is attempting to treat the January 13 letter as a notice of default with respect to conduct that had not yet occurred.”
More notably, “The Bank has not conducted itself in the spirit of the Financial Services Partnership Agreement. The Regents asked repeatedly for the Bank’s assistance and collaboration in addressing the problems created by the protesters, and the Bank has either outright refused to provide such assistance or has delayed responding in a manner that has caused reasonable suspicion that the Bank was not genuinely interested in maintaining a long-term presence at the Davis campus.”
“We hope to be able to resolve this issue without conflict,” said Fred Wood, vice chancellor for student affairs, in February. “We encourage and support expressions of free speech on this campus, and make every effort to ensure that students’ voices can be heard on a range of issues.”
He added, “At the same time, we have an obligation to honor our contract with U.S. Bank and a responsibility to ensure that members of the campus community who have business to conduct at the bank, or have jobs at the bank, can safely enter and exit the branch.”
The university told the Vanguard that it will not have further comment on the bank closure in the near future.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]Occupy leaders are claiming another victory as they have apparently successfully shutdown U.S. Bank’s UC Davis branch office.[/quote]
Occupy leaders can “claim another victory”, when all they did was shoot themselves in the foot, to wit:
[quote]ASUCD Senator Justin Goss told the Aggie, “The occupiers claim they are working for students, but they are actually disrupting funding for the same services they want to be improved.”
“Opened in 2010, the branch was part of a broad partnership between UC Davis and U.S. Bank, which the university hoped would bring needed funds for student activities,” the Aggie reported in January.
“The university received a total of $167,500 from U.S. Bank last year. That is in addition to the $8,333 we receive every month in rent,” said UC Davis spokesperson Claudia Morain. Moreover the University gets a cut of money depending on the number of bank accounts opened by UC Davis students.[/quote]
Secondly, Occupiers do not have the right to decide for others what type of funding arrangement a particular student wants to make –
[quote]According to an article in the Aggie back in January, “Occupy protesters assert that the presence of U.S. Bank on campus is uniquely harmful because students may opt for the convenience of obtaining a high-interest loan there, rather than shop elsewhere. Ultimately, the protesters say that they want the bank closed.”[/quote]
Elaine: I find it interesting that you focus on the students but not the lack of fortitude by US Bank. They now leave themselves open across the country to be bullied. The comment about their employees being imprisoned is just pathetic (not to mention untrue). I think UCD has a great case against USB for breach of contract.
[quote]Mr. Hoke writes, “In light of the above, there is no doubt that U.S. Bank has been constructively evicted from the Branch due to the repeated and unabated breach of the covenant of quiet possession. The Regents have been given notice of their default and have failed to cure it.”
The University however fires back in a letter from Greg Haworth who notes that there are eight years remaining on the lease and, “The Bank’s position and its conduct over the past several weeks are contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Financial Services Partnership Agreement and the Lease.”[/quote]
I think the bank has a lot stronger argument than the University…
I don’t think it is. But moreover, what good does this serve US Bank? Now they make themselves a target and they lose a huge contract for ten years and the students wouldn’t have lasted long.
“The Vanguard asked specific questions about the engagement team, but was instead given stock information.”
What do you mean here? What answers didn’t you find satisfactory?
It’s interesting the University might be fighting the bank to keep it on campus when it chose not to stop protestors from shutting down the banking operations by keeping student customers and employees from doing business with other. Sounds like constructive eviction to me.
“Now they make themselves a target….”
Obviously, the bank already was successfully targeted and the University could not or would not assure the bank could conduct business UCD now thinks is important. Why criticize the bank when this is the outcome the protesters wanted? UCD knew this and failed to fulfill its basic duty to allow the bank to do business on university property. How is this different than turning off power and water until the employees are driven out?
I think the bank has done exactly what it should. Its employees are put in situations that border on harassment, their business and service models are disrupted, and the university allows the demonstrators to block access. Perhaps the bank will agree to come back if the university eliminates the harassment, but that seems doubtful since the demonstrators believe they have the right to impinge on the rights of others. The losers are the students and the Occupy movement – I believe they will have less support from the students now, and the university loses money.
This will have almost no impact for the bank in other locations, because police will not allow a situation like this to exist in the real world.
I am a little confused by what looks like an apparent inconsistency to me.
If the protestors were indeed blocking entry and exit from the bank, as opposed to making it less convenient or unpleasant by their presence, why were they not arrested and removed ? I would think that this is the same kind of situation in which protestors outside of clinics which perform abortions are allowed to protest in close proximity, but not allowed to block entrances or prevent women from entering and employees from entering or leaving. Any thoughts ?
[quote]I don’t think it is. But moreover, what good does this serve US Bank? Now they make themselves a target and they lose a huge contract for ten years and the students wouldn’t have lasted long.[/quote]
This is simple contract law. If one side breaches the contract, by making it impossible for the contract to be carried out (allowing students to block employees from entering/leaving), the contract becomes null and void. The University had an affirmative duty to remove protestors blocking the entrance, since the bank was on campus property, but failed to do so. I suspect the bank saw the writing on the wall, that they would be a continual target for protest, so decided to just close the branch and move off campus. I don’t blame them. The real losers in this are students who wanted to bank there, and the $$$ lost for student activities. If I were a student at UCD, I would be infuriated at the protestors…
[quote]I am a little confused by what looks like an apparent inconsistency to me. If the protestors were indeed blocking entry and exit from the bank, as opposed to making it less convenient or unpleasant by their presence, why were they not arrested and removed ? I would think that this is the same kind of situation in which protestors outside of clinics which perform abortions are allowed to protest in close proximity, but not allowed to block entrances or prevent women from entering and employees from entering or leaving. Any thoughts ?[/quote]
I suspect the University is gun shy about interfering with any protest now, since the pepper-spraying incident, even tho they have a legal right to arrest the protestors. What this has done is empowered the protestors, who are now getting out of control. The more the protestors are allowed to get away with, the more brazen and obstructive they will become. My hope is other students will express their displeasure at the protestors. If I were a student, I would…
“Why criticize the bank when this is the outcome the protesters wanted? “
That’s precisely why I criticize the bank. They are being wimps and allowing themselves to be bullied.
“I suspect the University is gun shy about interfering with any protest now, since the pepper-spraying incident”
This is exactly why Rusty was wrong when he said on 11/19/11 that they nipped it in the bud. They didn’t nip anything in the bud, they opened the flood gates. Overreaction is just as harmful as underreaction.
[quote]That’s precisely why I criticize the bank. They are being wimps and allowing themselves to be bullied.[/quote]
That’s right, blame the victim and not the bully! Geeeeeeeeeeeze…. The bank has no obligation to put its employees in harm’s way…
To Adam Smith: Well said!
In fact, what the bank has done is turned the tables on the protestors. No longer do the protestors look like victims, but now they look like bullies. The bank on the other hand looks like the victim. The protestors just played right into the hands of the “enemy”…
Elaine: What evidence do you have that the employees were in harms way?
[quote]Elaine: What evidence do you have that the employees were in harms way?[/quote]
How about:
[quote]U.S. Bank, however, cannot permit the risk of physical injury to continue, and it cannot continue to suffer economic loss.”[/quote]
Or this:
[quote]Mr. Hoke continued, “For well over a month now, U.S. Bank has been deprived of the use of the Branch because of the human barricade formed by the students and faculty in front of the door to the Branch. Notwithstanding the repeated demands of U.S. Bank, the Regents have not provided access to the Branch.”[/quote]
First of all, employees should not have to run a gauntlet every time they want to go to work. I’m sure they would fear for their physical safety. Secondly they should not have to stay extra hours at work bc students would not allow them to go. Thirdly, that sort of emotional anxiety can cause life threatening physical illness. The bank has no obligation to put up with such behavior…
By the way, I have been through this sort of thing, at it is extremely unpleasant, unsettling, and if you don’t have a strong constitution, it can literally kill you…
That’s hearsay at best. The protesters claim they allowed employees full access to their office. There is no evidence of violence. No one is accused of committing acts of violence.
[quote]What evidence do you have that the employees were in harms way? [/quote]I think the picture you posted would have many bank employees PERCEIVE that they might be in harms way. If 20-30 people walked back and forth for hours in front of your house, on the sidewalk (perfectly legal, as opposed to the USBank protesters), would you or any member of your household feel uncomfortable?
[quote]The protesters claim they allowed employees full access to their office.[/quote]You do not have any ‘evidence’ of the allowance of ‘full access’. That’s hearsay, at best.
Hpierce: I believe that private residences are afforded great privacy protection than a public business located in a public building.
Second, interestingly enough, the VP was not personally there to witness the incident, the protesters were. In a court, his statement would likely be stricken but the protesters statements not stricken.
[quote]I believe that private residences are afforded great privacy protection than a public business located in a public building. [/quote]Technically, the UCD land is NOT public property in the sense of public right of way (streets and sidewalks). The right to be on UCD land is “revocable at any time”… there are signs/plaques to this effect at many entrances to the campus. You, on the other hand, have no right to prohibit anyone from using the sidewalk in front of your residence, and neither are the police, unless they are violating some other ordinance/law.
“blame the victim”
I can’t let this comment pass. I have a hard time picture on of the largest companies in the world as a victim. If you want to argue that their employees are a victim, the employees didn’t make this call, I wonder if they would have chosen to close the bank.
[quote]”Occupy protesters assert that the presence of U.S. Bank on campus is uniquely harmful because students may opt for the convenience of obtaining a high-interest loan there, rather than shop elsewhere. Ultimately, the protesters say that they want the bank closed.”[/quote]
This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of. USB also has a reputation as being one of the best run banks in the country–in part because it was not as caught up in the subprime lending fiasco as BofA/Countrywide.
I used to support OWS but no more.
“…
The protesters claim they allowed employees full access to their office.
You do not have any ‘evidence’ of the allowance of ‘full access’. That’s hearsay, at best.”
It sounds to me as though both sides are engaging in hearsay.Too bad we dob’t have complete video footage of this as we do the pepper spraying. Any of you folks out there with smart phone footage ?
[quote]It sounds to me as though both sides are engaging in hearsay[/quote]Exactly. Which, outside a judicial proceeding, doesn’t bother me, per se. I get irritated when two (or more) sides engage in it, and then one accuses the other(s). That’s just hypocritical.
Thanks for giving us the great example of untended consequences. UC Davis will now be out millions in funding and more 99r;s will be unemployed, god work Occupy. Some of those jobs could have gone to students. If you could drown in irony there would be some floating occupiers. How does one provide unwavering support of the the UC occupiers especially when it gets this obvious. I guess someone has to do it.
[quote]Second, interestingly enough, the VP was not personally there to witness the incident, the protesters were. In a court, his statement would likely be stricken but the protesters statements not stricken.[/quote]
I’m betting there is video somewhere.
Can just about guarantee there is a video, if this bank branch used any security cameras like just about any bank/credit union I know of. But of course, even if the bank released the videos, there’d be at least a half dozen contributors to this site who would claim that the video was “doctored”.
[quote]I would think that this is the same kind of situation in which protestors outside of clinics which perform abortions are allowed to protest in close proximity, but not allowed to block entrances or prevent women from entering and employees from entering or leaving. Any thoughts ?[/quote]
Yes, I have some thoughts.
Your analogy is pretty good.
The protestors blocked access to the bank completely for all customers. There is no dispute about that fact from either side. If protestors blocked access to an abortion clinic they would certainly be arrested.
In the United States we do not believe that government enforcement of laws governing protests should depend on the views of the protestors or the issue being protested. That would violate free speech protections.
Conclusion: Either these protestors need to be arrested or abortion clinic protestors can also block access without arrest. Which is it?
From my point of view, protestors who are breaking the law should be arrested regardless of their political persuasion. If the University is holding back on making appropriate arrests based on concern over the aftermath of the pepper spray incident, this is the error of the University, not the protestors. Protestors who break the law should be prepared for arrest and the consequences of their actions. However, those consequences should not include the use of excessive force. This seems to be a distinction that is at present eluding the campus authorities.