From the start I believed that the known incidents would not be sufficient to force the University of California to act against Chancellor Katehi. I always said that, if she goes down, it will be a over a secondary incident that we don’t know about. That was partly true, but in the end, Ms. Katehi probably went down for failing to learn the lessons of Watergate – it is not the scandal but the cover up of the scandal that will get you.
Indeed, it was not the pepper spray incident that got her, it was attempting to whitewash it from history on the internet and probably, more importantly, attempting to lie about what she was trying to do, coupled with some good old fashioned nepotism, that brought her down.
Nepotism
Almost from the start of this lengthy and drawn-out crisis, the Vanguard learned of Chancellor Katehi’s relatives in positions of employment. But knowing this and figuring out what was illegal or improper was a very difficult task. UC Davis is not nearly as open and transparent as a public institution ought to be.
It comes as some solace that the chancellor had apparently pulled the wool over the eyes of President Janet Napolitano as well, who stated in her letter, “You have verbally assured me that all matters relating to the employment of your husband, son and daughter-in-law have been consistent with policies and procedures, but documents and other information appear contrary to that assurance.”
There are several different problems that President Napolitano highlights in her letter. First, it appears that there is nothing necessarily improper about simply hiring people like her husband, son and daughter-in-law. However, the promotion of her daughter-in-law and her pay increase of $50,000 over a period of two-and-a-half years raises flags. But the fact that she reports directly to someone who reports directly to the chancellor is a huge problem. Add to that, “During that same period, you put forward a pay increase of over 20 percent and a title change for your daughter-in-law’s supervisor.”
Then there is her son, whose entire academic program “was moved into the same department in which your daughter-in-law is employed, but also that the program was placed under her direct supervision.” She adds, “It does not appear that appropriate steps were taken to address, document or obtain approval for the fact that your son now reported to your daughter-in-law, who, in turn, was supervised by one of your direct reports.”
Pepper Spray Scrubbing
While this is all troubling, I think the biggest problem was the Pepper Spray Scrubbing Program.
When the Sacramento Bee brought to light the huge contract to remove references to the pepper spray incident, UC Davis responded using their official communications channels that this mischaracterized the facts.
In fact, it was now the man who is acting chancellor, Ralph Hexter, who attempted to defend the university first here, stating “These stories mischaracterize the facts. The campus hired outside consultants, using no public or student funds, to optimize search engine results in order to highlight the achievements of our students, faculty and staff.”
UC Davis claims, “The external vendors referenced in The Sacramento Bee article on April 14 were brought in primarily to improve our capacity and expertise in digital communications. We recognize that it is not even possible to remove content from the Internet, and that was not our intention.”
But the contract was clear: “Launch an aggressive and comprehensive online campaign to eliminate the negative search results for UC Davis and the Chancellor through strategic modifications to existing and future content and generating original content as needed,” as well as eradication of references to the pepper spray incident in search results on Google for the university and the Chancellor.”
In her letter, Linda Katehi said, “I assure you: none of our communications efforts were intended — or attempted — to erase online content or rewrite history.”
As to the contracts? “In hindsight, we should have been more careful in reviewing some of the more unrealistic and ridiculous scope-of-work claims in the written proposals of our outside vendors. What might be accepted industry hyperbole in the private public relations world falls far beneath the high standards of a public institution of higher learning.”
All of this was apparently kosher. But when Linda Katehi told newspapers including the Davis Enterprise that she had not even seen the contract, that is where the shoe fell off the foot.
Documents emerged, after she threw her contracts department under the proverbial bus, that proved she was lying. Yes, we have to use the “l-word” here because, as Ms. Napolitano put it, “Despite public statements to members of the media, as well as to me, that you were not aware of or involved with these particular contracts, documents prepared in response to a Public Records Act request indicate multiple interactions with one of the vendors and efforts to set up meetings with the other.”
Again, it is not the act, but the effort to clumsily cover up the act that catches her in both of these incidents.
Communications
Much was made of the increased communications budget. As we pointed out last week, it was questionable that UC Davis was getting its money’s worth here. The Sacramento Bee released the reports from the communications department where they were attempting to track social media activity.
In an editorial where the Enterprise belatedly concludes it is time for Chancellor Katehi to go, they point out that, after every incident, “dating back to the 2011 pepper-spraying scandal, Katehi repeatedly has said she ‘takes responsibility’ for whatever’s gone wrong. But never has she taken a concrete action that would demonstrate responsibility. Instead, we’ve been handed a nonstop stream of obfuscation, scapegoating and deflection.”
The Enterprise argues, “Another common theme, especially in regards to the post-pepper-spray attempt to manipulate UCD’s online presence, is that the university needs to do a ‘better job’ of communicating. That also misses the point; UCD ‘communicates’ just fine, especially when there’s good news to share.”
They add, “And when there’s bad news, the staff often does its job well, too; it’s just that at that point the job is to shift blame away from the top. It’s not a lack of competence; rather, the entire UCD ‘communications’ apparatus appears designed to hide the truth from its own students, from the Legislature and from California taxpayers.”
While the Enterprise makes some good points and astute observations, I don’t completely agree. The University certainly made a lot of concrete changes following the pepper spray incident. They removed the leadership at the police department which had long been problematic in escalating rather than deescalating tension at student protests. They changed engagement policies. They put in place police oversight.
The problem here is that they couldn’t make the one change they really needed to – changing the bad judgment by Linda Katehi and those around her who enabled that bad judgement to go unchecked. It is actually far worse than people think, because at least some of the better administrators who stood up to her were removed and replaced by apologists.
But I can’t say the communications department worked just fine. It seems to me and to many others, the more UC Davis has spent on communications, the worse they have gotten.
UC Davis doesn’t communicate “just fine” – the tale of the pepper spray scrub from beginning to end attests to that. When the defense is not to believe our own eyes about the contract, that is a failure to communicate. The chancellor is gone in part because the house of cards that a professional communications department allowed to be put forward could not withstand scrutiny or pass the smell test.
Ralph Hexter
It is understandable that Ralph Hexter as provost and number two man would be asked to step up as acting chancellor. But his hands are not exactly clean in all of this. As we noted above, he was the first to obfuscate and defend the pepper spray scrubbing incident – where his defense was proven wrong.
He was also the attack dog against the protesters in Mrak Hall.
In fact, he was a defender of Linda Katehi until the end.
At the press conference he stated, “I’m very sorry that our chancellor has had to step down. I think Linda Katehi is a fantastic leader.” When he was asked if he disagreed with the president’s decision, he quickly backtracked and stated in a very defensive tone, “I didn’t say that.” He said, “I don’t have the materials that she does. I understand why she feels that this is the decision that she has to make.”
On the other hand, he offered that the chancellor expects this investigation to clear her name. He called Chancellor Katehi “a tremendous leader” and stated “she’s the reason why I came to Davis.” He said, “She has lifted up the university, it’s a great university. One of her great skills was to send the message both internally and abroad that we have so much to be proud of.”
More and more as I think about this, I am troubled by his comments. Yes, it is understandable that he would have some loyalty to the chancellor, but he came across as an apologist for her actions.
During the student protests, it was Ralph Hexter who was critical of their presence, noting that their presence “presents a number of challenges.” He accused them of confronting staff members, posting videos of these interactions and stated that “some staff have experienced outright intimidation.”
On Thursday, he stated, “I never thought of them as representing all of the students. I know that there was a tremendous number of supporters who by nature are more silent.”
Perhaps. But Mr. Hexter seems reluctant to acknowledge that, while the number of protesters were small, a number of people, who disagreed with their tactics, agreed with the core message. The protesters drew support from numerous faculty members, labor groups, and the student organization, ASUCD.
When our student reporter went out to survey students, she had difficulty finding anyone who had a positive view of the chancellor.
“What I do know is that the occupation itself caused a tremendous amount of stress to the chancellor but above all to the staff who work here. So I’m very grateful that we managed to have them leave of their own accord. That was a good solution,” Hexter said.
They didn’t manage to have the students leave on their own accord, they lucked into it. Some have told me that the students leaving gave President Napolitano the space to maneuver. I tend to disagree on both fronts.
The students left because they had made their point and they too found the protest to be stressful on their lives. I think the president had enough facts that she was going to have to act regardless of the protest at Mrak. She had the evidence and delivered it in a careful and methodical way on Wednesday. There was no doubt left.
In retrospect, at the press conference I should have asked acting Chancellor Hexter more about his role of attack dog and apologist for the chancellor during the protests. He was not a neutral party and he comes away from this with his hands unclean.
Legacy
The legacy of Linda Katehi is somewhat muddled anyway. There are those who will note that she inherited the Agriculture School and Veterinary Medicine School
James D. MacDonald, a professor emeritus in the department of plant pathology at UC Davis, for example, wrote in early March that it was Dean Neal Van Alfen who rebuilt the agriculture program.
“It was Dean Van Alfen who worked with the chairs of the departments of agronomy, vegetable crops, pomology and environmental horticulture to facilitate their merger into the largest, most talented and powerful department of plant sciences in the world,” he wrote.
Professor MacDonald noted that, “as thanks for Dean Van Alfen’s leadership accomplishments, Chancellor Katehi decided to launch a search to replace him two years before the scheduled end of his term, a move that compelled him to resign. Thus, I find it quite ironic to see her claim the high ranking of the college as an accomplishment of her own.”
He said that when Dean Van Alfen was forced to resign, “I lost complete confidence in her judgment and her administration, so I, too, resigned.” He continued, “I feel that the recent events demonstrate that her professional judgment remains a continuing concern.”
This story we happen to have published, but in the last few days, I have heard off the record from very credible sources that Ms. Katehi was not the one responsible for the rise of UC Davis and, moreover, she is not the great fundraiser that many laud her to be.
In the end, what stuns me is the state of denial here. Ms. Katehi has hired an attorney who has argued that Katehi is being railroaded – that, of course, is likely a ploy for more severance. But the Academic Senate here – or at least the vocal strands – has been an apologist as well, with the lengthy letter signed by 350 people on Wednesday.
Since the president’s letter, many of these voices have grown silent.
Despite all of this, UC Davis is not nearly as stained as some believe. We have seen university presidents and chancellors have to resign for various reasons across the country. The key is making a good hire and continuing to move in the positive direction that the university as a whole has taken.
Finally, I think that the student protesters have legitimate concerns that go beyond just the chancellor and that need to be taken seriously. It is easy to dismiss young people who, at times, can allow their passion to overwhelm their ability to handle stressful situations, but that should not be used to discredit their concerns which are legitimate – and have been proven even more so by what has unfolded in the last week and few months.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
It appears that Hexter was speaing the truth, can anyone deny that these things happened? I think this can be seen as strong points for Hexter that he hopefully will stand up to student activist bullies and not automatically kowtow to their demands.
And you think that’s more important than the fact that he said, “These stories mischaracterize the facts.” When in fact, Chancellor Katehi “lied” about her involvement with the contracts and the plain English read of the contracts was exactly right? The protesters were right, the administration was not only wrong, they lied and tried to cover it up and Hexter was part of that and complicit with it.
Once again, in the paragraph quoted above what isn’t true? Were the students an inconvenience? Did they confront staff? Did they post videos and pics of staff? Did they intimidate staff? Yet you wrote that paragraph and somehow are trying to use it to say you were troubled by his comments. Why is the truth in these comments troubling to you?
First, I don’t consider it the full picture. He chosen to focus on the his negative impression rather than a broader view of the importance of the occupation of Mrak.
But when I said I was troubled by his comment, “More and more as I think about this, I am troubled by his comments. Yes, it is understandable that he would have some loyalty to the chancellor, but he came across as an apologist for her actions.” I was referred to his comments about the Chancellor. I then moved on to talking about the student protests and his role there.
Geez, give the man a chance. He’s held the post for a day or two and he’s already under fire.
He had a chance – he chose to defend the indefensible.
David – with all due respect to your valid point of view here is somewhat different take on it:
I believe there are many wrongs that were committed and will continue to be committed in every system. This is just how it is. For those reasons Napolitano was perhaps waiting to see when the certain threshold was to be crossed. It was not crossed by any of the student complaints – btw.
Hexter is a part of it and to his credit, he is not trying to distance himself from those actions at the politically opportune moment. I respect that.
I had the chance to ask him about his defense of the contracts, and I missed that chance. That’s really where I see his complicity here. I also believe that this could have been swept under the rug without the protesters forcing it to remain in the news. Maybe the Bee would not have allowed that to happen, hard to know.
Like Katehi should have, to defend herself and the University? PULEEEEZ!!!
Thank you for putting things into perspective David. At this point, we all need to take a step back and ask yourselves: what is the next step, and how do we go forward from here?
The Chancellor is gone. This is yesterdays news.
The remaining problem is that 99% of the problems remain in the system, while we are focusing on the 1% (familiar?). Those 99% will never make it to the press, while they are of life importance to those affected: You cited the story of the Dean Mc Alfen and Prof. McDonnald – their life and life work and legacy was ruined. But there was no story, no student protest, no Academic Senate action. Just nothing! This is typical. There are 100s of such stories at UC Davis. For them, nothing has changed.
UC Davis can spin great positive stories about UC Davis, but in reality many people working at UC Davis, hate it with passion. Why? Because of the pervasive injustice that is ingrained in this second rate campus. I contend, that without changing the “culture” of UC Davis, making it just and transparent, it will never make it to the ranks of UC Berkeley, which has very different “culture”, one that can not even be compared to UC Davis.
Those are suggestions I would give to those looking to move forward by making it a better campus.
P.S. Interestingly no one in those discussions has given any credit to students. You were the first one. Why? From the start, they gave me an impression of a “color revolution”. None of their reasons to protest stood. Some of the valid ones, such as expensive tuition, books etc, are nothing Chancellor can do about.
Raph Hexter gained my respect. Why? It is just the opposite to your quotes: while every political opportunist would be putting blame on Linda Katehi, he expressed appreciation and solidarity with the actions that were justified and he was part of. The man has spine! This is something UC Davis needs the most – spine!
I agree, I saw it in his interactions with the MRAK Hall squatters. He gained some respect for the way he stood up to them.
What you call spine, I call something else as evidenced by his lack of it when talking about Katehi.
Why, because he doesn’t fall into your view of what he should be saying about her? How about we let the investigation look into the Katahi issues and let this man do his job?
I already explained to you it comes down to the single line where he chose to defend the indefensible: “These stories mischaracterize the facts.” When in fact, they did not. And we know that Katehi lied to Napolitano and the press about her role in those contracts.
I saw that video too. The student behavior was disrespectful and simple disgusting. I would have never dared to talk to my Teaching Assistant in such a way in my student days. If I were in Ralph shoes, I would have called the “pepper spray cop” and get them out in minutes + teach them respectful behavior. Spoiled brats.
Nice try, nobody is saying or has stated that would’ve been a proper way of extracting them.
Sorry Pall – this was my reaction, please read ” If I were in Ralph shoes” – the emphasis on “I“. But even that should be taken figuratively – of course! …. No dirty tricks here, nor trying to put words into your mouth ….
Nice article David! I think that this is a balanced and thoughtful appraisal of events. I’m not sure why BP is focusing on what the student protestors did that ruffles feathers. Were they an annoyance? Sure they were. Did they do things in ways that I would have avoided? Yes. Were they right? Same answer. Frankly, if not for their noise-making, I think that the whole controversy would have gone away…..which is exactly what the admin was hoping for. So by painting them solely as miscreants, Hexter was demeaning their message and promoting the message of the administration. The message from administration was basically: ignore the protestors, they’re loud and smelly.
I especially want to acknowledge the thoughtful words by Professor McDonald. Taking credit for the work of others is inexcusable. If I were to do this (as a STEM scholar), I would be pilloried by my colleagues and I would deserve it. McDonald’s article in the paper did not receive nearly the attention that it deserved. Thanks for bringing it up again.
I just sent this private email to a friend…who just happens to have married into a powerful family…and
good morning my friend…. I hope you and your family get to enjoy this beautiful day
I know that times are REALLY tough… but just try to ignore the idiots and enjoy what you can of the here and the now….
By being MINDFUL of your surroundings today and other days, you will FEEL better and the truth will present itself to YOU.
The TRUTH will help with the cases and will set each of you free from the trauma that you are feeling.
And, that is how you and your FAMILY and the rest of your and your friends….WILL prevail.
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
Marrying into a powerful family is not the problem, Marina. It’s the violation of University policies that put them into this position. These are high level administrator of the University and they cannot do what they want willy-nilly and ignore the rules for themselves, but enforce them for others.
If WE and UCD are TRULY Fortunate, the Chancellor will RISE from the Dead and the NAPO will be history.
Tommorrow is Russian Orthodox Easter and I just COULDN’T Help MYSELF>
Enjoy this beautiful day, all.
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
A MUCH more balanced article by a MUCH better newspaper than the LOCAL rag…
http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-uc-davis-20160429-story.html
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
Marina Kalugin
I appreciate your posting of this alternative article from the LA Times. I welcome other perspectives from my own. I have a great deal of admiration for Linda Katehi who undoubtedly is brilliant in her area of academic expertise and who has done much to advance the careers of women and others who have been underrepresented in the STEM areas of academics. I also respect your loyalty to a family with which you obviously are engaged personally at some level. Finally, I whole heartedly wish the best for all involved.
However, I was and am amongst the voices calling for Chancellor Katehi’s resignation. Not because she is a bad person ( which I certainly do not believe) but because her firmly held world view as demonstrated through her own words and actions is not compatible with the mission of a public university. I believe that the Chancellor would have a very appropriate niche in a private institution where she would be a much better fit and could devote her obvious intellect to pursuits more in line with her educational and business philosophy.
The most stunning part of this LA Times article is quotation from Linda Bison:
“Asked if she remained pro-Katehi, Bisson said she would withhold judgment until the investigation was completed.
“I’m pro-facts. I’m pro-transparency,” she said. “Then we go forward.”
Bare in mind Linda Bison was enamored with Linda while on the committee that hired her. She was behind the “single storyism” letter defending Linda.
Now, she is “pro-facts and pro-transparency”. This begs the question, perhaps Bison should have asked Academic Senate for “transparency” at UC Davis. Uuupppsss! – Linda Bison was Academic Senate Chair – twice! Wrong person!
Disgusting!
Nice post, David. It confirms what everyone I know in town is now calling you: David Murdock. There have also been variations like Vanguard NewsCorp and Ruport Greenwald.
For someone interested in social justice, you’ve missed a lot of things, like, e.g., a graduate student funded on a grant (the son) does not report to a staff person (his wife), ever. He reports to the grant PI and staff cannot hold PI positions. Why you ever assume the ex-Homeland Defense Secretary would tell the complete truth is truly stunning.
I understand you are not happy with the outcome here, but if we are the Vanguard NewsCorp, then so too is the Bee and the Enterprise.
“Why you ever assume the ex-Homeland Defense Secretary would tell the complete truth is truly stunning.”
I don’t assume anything. I saw most of it with my own two eyes. In fact, we could have run some of this two months ago but for the fact that we couldn’t confirm a breech of policy on the hires/ promotions and couldn’t get the university to cough up the chain of command, and therefore we didn’t want to unduly malign her family members.
ContextMatters
I didn’t know the investigation is FINISHED and the jury has spoken, has it?
Much of what has been posted in the MEDIA IS a lie……how do you know that what YOU posted is the truth?
if there is a grain of truth in an article of LIES>>>.does that then make the REST of the LIES true?
PS> The JURY is not OUT yet….for anyone who may be wondering.. In fact, I have not heard than anyone has even been appointed yet.
PPSS> WATCH for a HIGH LEVEL CRONY Of the Gov or the NAPO….or BOTH….
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
“Much of what has been posted in the MEDIA IS a lie”
That’s a pretty sweeping statement – what do you consider a lie that has been printed here?
David, I thought people were supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Why can’t you wait for the full investigation?
We are waiting for the full investigation, however, that ignores that we have facts in evidence. Which of these do you believe are not true?
Don’t be so touchy…..
As I often tell some of my family: “I was NOT talking about YOU, but if the shoe fits YOU can wear it also… “.
Please just wait for the “report”…
Thank you and enjoy this beautiful day.
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
David Greenwald is a bright shining light of this “Payton Place” called Davis.
I would think that if it were not for him, Sac Bee would remain silent and none of this would be known.
As a faculty, we went several times to Davis Emptyprize – to be rebuffed. They told us openly that UC Davis is too powerful and they do not dare to print anything that would go against UC Davis administration. (this was during Vanderhoeff time, when Davis was North Korea).
I am sure David could be “slap sued” by UC Davis at any time, and his life ruined. It is just a matter of when, will he cross the “threshold”.
You may disagree with some of his opinions at the time, but you may change your mind after more facts were known to you, but have a due respect to where respect is due.
David – they can call you whatever they want, you are gaining traction and this means success for someone who is in the news business. Keep doing the great work you have been doing, and thank you, thank you so much!
AND, THIS is the opposite view…of how QUICKLY one can ignore YEARS of experience and so QUICKLY turn on someone who HAD been a friend and throw THEM under the bus… Now THIS is disgusting..
Dear Colleagues,
As the news broke of President Napolitano’s decision to put Chancellor Katehi on administrative leave, I found myself reading every recent news article I could find. I have taken the time to reflect on all of the support the Chancellor has provided to Staff Assembly as well as took a hard look at the last conversation I had with her. During my tenure with Staff Assembly, the Chancellor has always been receptive to our suggestions and has been supportive of virtually all of our requests.
When Chancellor Katehi and Provost Hexter met with Staff Assembly leadership on Thursday, April 14, I felt that we were being shielded from what was really going on in Mrak Hall. They may have been trying to protect us, but this came across to many of us as dishonesty. As I reflect on the articles I have read and the conversations I have had with colleagues across campus and the UC system, the following questions come to my mind: [Read more]
Jessica R. Potts
Chair, UC Davis Staff Assembly
staffvoice@ucdavis.edu
PS> Jessica has NOT been the champion that the ACADEMIC Departments needed during recent years. AND< I would be happy if SHE goes….
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
Marina:
I disagree with your statements. Jess Potts is the MSO of my department on campus. Admittedly, as a faculty member, I am not 100% in tune with all staff concerns, but I can attest to Jess’ sincere efforts to represent staff concerns, many of which I can personally attest to and I feel are well represented in the letter that prompted your comment. That letter was to raise concerns with Katehi’s actions and was not suggesting nor arguing for a negative conclusion. I understand you are both professionally and personally affected by the whole mess the past six weeks, but I implore you to not attack people just because they express opinions or concerns, either personal or on be behalf of others, that differ with yours. Jess is a strong advocate of staff concerns and deserves respect for her efforts.
I truly LIKE Jessica and have gotten to know her more in recent months… But, I don’t like people who through THEIR allies under the bus to simply join in on attacks.
I felt she was doing THAT in her volunteer gig as Staff Assembly Chair…
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
I wish more staff would ask questions. There is no opinion in this article, just questions. It appears that this person wants answers to these questions for all staff. It also looks like this person is encouraging ALL staff to ask questions. In looking at this website, it looks like this whole Staff Assembly thing is a volunteer gig. I applaud a staff member that not only does their job but looks for answers for all staff.
Jessica Potts is the best MSO I ever worked with. I think that she’s the best MSO in Letters and Science and probably the best MSO on campus. She is a champion of staff. I don’t have to write this. I retired several years ago and wouldn’t bother to respond to you Ms. Kalugin, but you are so off base — and frankly, given your other comments in this very long string, quite muddle-headed — that I had to correct the record. As far as Chancellor Katehi is concerned, you should consider reading some outside sources, such as newspapers. If the president of the University of California indicates in a letter to a campus chancellor that she thinks she has lied, you should sit up and notice.
I am glad to see people come out to support Jessica. I wish that Linda’s friends would do the SAME.
I USED to have respect for the UCOP…but Janet Napolitano lost MY respect before she even showed up here as Pres….
Unlike many HERE, I do READ outside sources…and I come to MY own conclusions…
And, I see when someone is being railroaded inappropriately.
I could sling LOTs of dirt but I chose NOT to….
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
BP
I think that you are choosing to focus on the lesser problem. The students may well have been a nuisance, a few may have engaged in what you characterize as “bullying behavior” however, these are very small and local problems being created by young, inexperienced students whose responsibility is to learn both academically and how to be more effective in all aspects of their lives. This should have been seen by those in leadership positions as an opportunity to lead and teach.
I feel that the far bigger problem is multiple errors in judgment and as now demonstrated, lying, misuse of power, nepotism and cover ups at the highest levels of university administration.
So let’s take a simple example. If your child has a mild sunburn which is self limited but clearly an uncomfortable nuisance, but is also suspected of having meningitis which is potentially lethal, which problem do you want the doctor to address first and more vigorously ?
Am thinking a better analogy would be an older child presenting with a mild to moderate case of sunburn, and the physician asks the parent “how many times has this degree of sunburn appeared?”. Parent says, “eight times in the past five years”… shouldn’t the physician be looking for signs of melanoma instead of meningitis?
hpierce
Point taken. But in that case I would recommend treatment of the meningitis, inspection for melanoma and counseling of the parents who are clearly negligent in allowing their child to have so much unprotected sun exposure in that order. Either way, responsibility lies with the leaders, whether parents, doctors, or top administrators.
You equally make a damn good point… perhaps the Regents, the State of California, were clearly negligent in not limiting, by clear policy AND frequent reminders, from making clear that one thinks twice about hiring relatives, promoting them, not making pepper spray an option for dispersing a peaceful (if inconvenient, embarrassing) demonstration, joining boards of private colleges/universities, working as a consultant for a major ‘textbook dealing company’ (both of the latter for compensation, rather than “expenses”), trying to use “sunscreen” (paid for by others), after the fact, to hide the skin exposure, etc.
Am coming to the conclusion that Kaheti, Napoliatano (sp?), and the entire board of Regents (except for the constitutional ones, whose terms we can end separately) should be shown the door. If the charges are true, Tia, this isn’t melanoma that can easily be excised, if caught early, this isn’t meningitis that can be treated with drugs, this is looking more like metastized (sp?) cancer.
If the Chancellor is removed, the negligence of the UCOP, and/or the entire Board of Regents seem to cry out for a complete and total “spring house-cleaning”.
Thank you Tia, for clarifying my thoughts/opinion. That “clear negligence” phrase did it for me, coupled with your profession that the Chancellor, in your opinion, is not a bad person.
“Some have told me that the students leaving gave President Napolitano the space to maneuver. I tend to disagree on both fronts.”
The students rightly figured out, just as you did, that once the internet scrub broke Katehi was toast since manipulating the data is akin to academic fraud. They also likely realized that Napolitano would be reluctant to act while they were still in the building. They left and a week later UCOP moved to get Katehi to resign. The student protestors were brilliant at the end after enduring a vigil that started with an objective, if not a concrete plan for Katehi’s ouster, and should be recognized as such in the great tradition of the excellence that brought them to UC and those who came before them like Mario Savio.
I think you give the student activists too much credit. More likely they were tired of the siege and didn’t want to miss the jubilations of picnic day.
Maybe but the fact that UCOP moved against Katehi a little more than a week later supports my contention that it was then obvious that Katehi was toast. I even said so at the time that the kids figured out that UCOP would be reluctant to move against Katehi while they were still in the building. I even predicted Katehi would be out by May 15 but in my mind that assumed that she would resign when asked and finish the year. I think I underestimated how badly the internet scrub was viewed by academia and UCOP would want her out immediately. I think the deliberations of the students in deciding for Elvis to leave the building is something David should ask them about.
I think the lying about the internet scrub was the key more than the act itself. It insulted everyone’s intelligence that clear and key provisions of the contract would be so readily dismissed as meaningful.
The internet scrub itself was a cover up. I think the students left before Mrak started to try to spin the internet scrub. I remember thinking when they left the building that they did so figuring Katehi was toast.
You give the brilliant strategy too little credit; and you don’t understand these students if you think they give a hot damn about Puke’n-it Day.
I am afraid this kind of thinking was flying so high above their heads – levels they will never reach. Unless they had “handlers”, who had some strategy. This is what I wrote: they are giving me a feeling of “a color revolution”.
Mario Savio – please have some respect for him and do not compare him to those. May he rest in peace.
Take your place on the great mandala.
One has to place Katehi’s mis-steps in context. While departmental budgets are being cut across campus, offices consolidatedand staff laid off, she expands the budget and the number of administrators of Mrak Hall. While staff salaries are stagnant over years, take home pay is declining and promotions/reclassifications are moving at a snail’s pace or at a standstill, raises of 20%, 50% are being given to her own staff. We pay her a lot of money, provide her with free housing and generous perks, employment for her spouse, with the expectation that she will devote herself full-time to the running of the University, but she then pusues moonlighting jobs with companies either directly profiting from the University or in competition with it. All this, while raising tuition. Instead of accepting ownership of these decisions and defending them, she tries to deflect responsibility off to others who would never take these actions without the direction and support of Katehi. It appears that her staff have difficulty opposing her and those that have quickly disappeared. She seems to have a low tolerance for the messiness of conflict or disagreement or protest or even argument. Thus the order to remove student protesters from the Quad by force and her refusal to talk to the student protestors in Mrak.
We have to decide if these things, these failings or flaws make her unsuitable to lead the University. People say that she has been good for UCD. It is difficult to see past the damage she has caused.
I agree all of this amounts to a failure to lead by example. Remember Jerry Brown’s Plymouth? That was leadership by example and the kind of leadership Katehi should have provided when cutting salary and budgets and raising tuition.
What would you have preferred Hexter to say David? The campus has been badly divided. It is a time for healing. Maybe he could have channelled Gerald Ford and said “Our long campus nightmare is over.” Perhaps the Who “Meet the new boss same as the old.” Or perhaps take a page from DJUSD and simply told everyone to “Move On.” What could he have said? “I’m sorry I defended my boss.”
It was not a kick em while they are down moment David. Whoever said give Hexter a chance was right. Remember he is only a place holder. The big question is who will be the next Chancellor. If it is some Katehi sycophant or clone then UCD is in trouble and those that are critical of UCOP are right. If it is someone who can heal the campus while still moving UCD forward in its mission and the many good works of Katehi it will be great. Then we will see if Hexter can adapt. That is the test for him and not you wanting the dog piling of Katehi for no positive reason as she is already out.
Yes! How do we move forward?
Forget yesterday (but not the lessons we learned).
Give the man (Ralph) confidence help and support. Hope he appreciates it (reads VG: – meaning Davis VanGuard). Takes advice and will do good.
I am very afraid of the “New Chancellor” UCOP may hire. (please read my comments about Linda Bison change of heart.) Perhaps Ralph will do a good job. If he is “a bad guy” at least he is “our bad guy” or the “bad” we know and know what to deal with.
In what way is he our bad guy? It seems like he has only been here five years.
Sorry, correction, I meant “EVEN” … “Even if he is “a bad guy”… “even” was missing.
Never wanted to imply he is, (innocent until proven guilty), just to counter some of the assumptions / accusations that he is…
I like the categorical thinking in this piece. Good job.
This certainly contributed to her current situation, but the gravity of the “offense” is a perception based on ideology. Interesting that those ranting over this are the same that opine for changes in our criminal justice system to expunge criminal records of certain classes of people so they can get on with their lives. The backstory justification seems to be that they did the time for their crime, so why keep punishing them? My perspective is that the liberal social justice activists were so giddy over the level of attention for the pepper spray incident, that they want to cling to it for eternity… and resent any expunging… even though all guilty parties had been sufficiently lynched for their offenses.
From my perspective, the nepotism issue is the straw that broke the camel’s back. But what is missing in the analysis of this issue is this evidence that the university is basically a cartel. And it is the same for most public sector business. There is very little accountability and oversight at the top management levels. And because they are public-sector roles, the people that get the jobs tend to have direct connections with political power. The game is to get in and grab all the pay and benefits you can and then retire as early as possible. And if you can bring in your family and friends to the game, then all the better.
Franky (because I am) I see in this chapter of UCD drama shadows of the very things that feed the fires of an angry national electorate. This nepotism issue fits right in the pocket of what Trump and Sanders would leverage on their anti-establishment platform.
Now, when I say there is very little accountability and oversight, I give kudos to the Davis Vanguard. And I begrudgingly tip my hat to those students and the UCD liberal arts faculty that made such a fuss. Although I don’t condone the WAY these folks worked to make their point (they don’t seem capable of doing things in a civilized manner), I appreciate that we are at least now talking deeply about the problems and given them credit for getting that conversation going.
Wow, the drains are circling the other direction today, the sun rising in the north.
And as for civility, what is little posted is the fact that the students cleaned up completely after themselves when they left, steam cleaned the carpets, and sprinkled Katehi’s waiting room with fresh flowers. That’s pretty damn civil.
If Janet Napolitano would have family and would move from other state than all members of her family (husband and kids ) would be working for University of California . Get real . This is life . Neapolitano did not hire Katehi and former President most likely know more whether Katehi should employ her family or not . What a garbage .
Here are the statements in David’s post made that draw conclusions for which there are no facts:
This has been asserted in the Bee and its coverage, but no clear evidence has been presented. People have jumped to conclusions, but when asked to show exactly the statement made that are contradicted, nothing is ever provided.
Is this true? By whose definition? There are policies at the UC that allow this (it’s much the same as a dept chair spouse with a spouse also in the same dept; UCD has LOTs of those). There are policies and paperwork to file. Who are we to believe at this point? Katehi or Homeland Defense? Pointing out that this may be okay depending on the paperwork followed would be the responsible thing to do
As I pointed out in my earlier posts, this is just stupid. He was on a grant. Graduate students on grants report to the grant’s PI. Staff are not allowed by university policy to be PI’s. There may be more here, but report it as difficult to understand given current information. If you don’t know the policies, ask someone who does – any STEM faculty member could have clarified this for you, David.
Did this happen before or after they met? She was already working at Davis when they met. They only married last Dec as I understand. Did the salary change also involve a title change? Was the title given to someone who wasn’t qualified? These are important “facts” to establish before raking them all over the coals.
Really? Who?
The Planning and Budget Committee reviewed expenditures for the office. They conclude something far different. Have you even asked for a copy of their findings. It is widely available.
So these facts, which have clearly been established (no matter how ‘onerous’ each of us might think of them) establish him as a ‘attack dog’? Why don’t you just tell us that if anyone disagrees with your conclusions, we will be seen as an apologist.
This is your conclusion alone and it simply overlooks the fact that the students wanted amnesty and Chancellor gave it to them and they left. This is also widely known.
Where are you getting this crap? At least two large petitions are going around asking for a censure of Napolitano. And again, your tactic of smearing everyone that disagrees as an apologist is just irresponsible.
You think? We, as taxpayers, pay a small fraction of the costs to send a student to a UC. This trial in the media has hurt Davis – do you not read the statements by all the business people in Sacramento? Have you not read the statements by high flying faculty who took a pay cut to come here because of the Chancellor? Do you really think UCD is better off because Napolitano couldn’t figure out a way to wait until Thursday when a graceful exist could be taken? (Read the LA Times).
It is not about the Chancellor anymore. You have damaged UCD by not presenting a complete picture, printing rumor and innuendos and quoting whoever made your case stronger. It is irresponsible journalism.
Give up, Context . . . all those words you wrote, wasted.
It would be interesting to see documents UC Davis Compensation Department documents which shows whether Katehi ‘s family members went through the normal process of hiring or it was the under the table deal and who in the department approved her family hiring. The hiring process had to be initiated by somebody and pay raises as well . I am quite familiar with the wage increase process because of the secret 12 % pay raise for small group of employees in UC Davis Medical Center . The mentioned pay raise outraged many employees in UCDMC during furlough in the campuses. I have 50 pages of documents how it was done .
ContextMatters
“You have damaged UCD by not presenting a complete picture, printing rumor and innuendos and quoting whoever made your case stronger. It is irresponsible journalism.”
I believe that true strength means celebrating your strengths, but acknowledging and steadily working to rectify your problems.
If you believe that not presenting a complete picture is damaging to UCD, then you should also consider that Chancellor Katehi also damaged UCD by attempting to dampen down negative coverage while stressing the positives of UCD. That also would not be “presenting a complete picture”. Do you feel that this was also “irresponsible journalism” ?
Tia,
Do you really expect me to be bugged that someone hired by the university tried to game the search engine for Google? The fact is that no one in their right mind (and Katehi is definitely smart and in her right mind) would honestly think they could erase that stuff from the internet. So I actually think all the hoorah is ridiculous.
The senate review I read said the funds were not tuition or state funds. That’s the big thing. So what if UC Davis tried to get better search results? It’s not a crime; why is it being treated like one?
But to get your larger point about this incredible, terrible, terrible crime that has been committed – by Google beta, an incident so much worse than anything else that has ever been done at Davis – she’s not advocating herself to be a reporter.
David presents himself and the Vanguard as a news outlet.
By that alone, there is a different level of responsibility.
ContextMatters
“Do you really expect me to be bugged “…?
I have no expectation at all regarding how you will feel, but I can tell you how I feel about paying an outside firm to improve one’s image by manipulating internet searches. I feel that the language of the contract as quoted was plain as to its intent and was intended to hide adverse statements from view. For me, it is quite simple. Chancellor Katehi either knew that this was going on, or she didn’t. If she knew, I believe it is unacceptable for a person at her level to find this acceptable. If she didn’t know, then I would see this as “inadequate supervision of those under her” which would be a lesser issue but would still speak to her overall judgement. Not questioning her intelligence, or her “right mind” but her judgement.
“David presents himself and the Vanguard as a news outlet.
By that alone, there is a different level of responsibility.”
Linda Katehi presens herself as the Chancellor. By that alone, there is a different level of responsibility. I have accused Chancellor Katehi of no crimes. I have stated repeatedly and under which circumstances I believe that she has demonstrated poor judgment. The exercise of poor judgement alone should not cost someone their job if they are in training, new to the job, young and/or inexperienced since one expects that judgement will develop with maturity and experience. However, if over an extended period of time, any individual has repeatedly demonstrated poor judgement in the exercise of their duties, then I think it is reasonable to question whether they are a good fit for their position, especially when that position is one of great power and responsibility as is true for UC top administrators.
I think that it is a good idea to base employment decisions on facts and I think that an independent investigation is clearly called for. I would go further. I would say that an independent investigation of UC administrative policies might be called for as well.
The issue with Linda Katehi is complicated. UC Davis permits spousal hires and her husband’s hire was done legitimately. Her daughter-in-law was not married to her son when she was hired. But how her son came to be a grad student at the university is unclear. In any case, UC Davis also has policies in place to hire ‘near relatives’ so the hiring of family members isn’t really the issue — the question is whether Ms. Katehi followed the procedures that are in place to make these hires legitimate — the process requires a number of approvals. My assumption is that she did not, given her lack of ability to follow due process with other aspects of her job, particularly her appointment to the DeVry board which should have been vetted by Napolitano before it was announced. (Why her HR people weren’t all over this to make it clear is also a problem.) I think Napolitano is just tired of the distractions Katehi is causing and that the documents don’t match up with what she says in person and wants some outside opinion. Maybe Katehi did everything right. KCRA posted all the requested documents including hiring papers etc. Policies regarding hiring of near relatives is on the UC Davis site.
The haven’t come this far unless she is toast; therefore, she is toast.
I think if the UC Davis (not to get personal ) made an attempt improve the it is own image by hiring outside contractor than it must a common practice . Nobody likes to looks bad and ugly . Reading about other universities or public corporations on their web pages you will not find bad stuff there . Some corporation language on their web sides could give you impression that you should pay them to work there . Personnel I think that what UC Davis did was stupid but Katehi did not do this without being advised by the UC experts in this filed. Most likely it was not Kateh’s idea at all . It was somebody over medicated and over dedicated with J.D degree from UCOP office . Totally communist idea and propaganda of futile success with a short legs.
My opinion is that the BEST person to set things right is Katehi herself. SHE went toe-to-toe with Napolitano on several issues already and the fact that SHE stood up and did NOT allow the NAPO to railroad HER, speaks volumes to the strength of character of our Chancellor.
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
Anyone who has been around the block in this town may remember me from various causes over the decades. And, David and I have been on the same side more often than not 🙂 Sadly, it appears not this one…
Marina
First , you should not trust politicians . Napolitano is not the Golden Girl . Don’t forget where she worked before regents hired her.
Second, Did you read the April 28 , 2016 letter authored by Assemblyman Luis Alejo which was submitted to Napolitano supporting her decision? Five democrats and one republican signed the letter.
Four democrats are Latinos or Chicano. Why only five legislators jumped on the wagon to lynch Katehi . This whole soap opera stinks big time . Letter is posted http://district38.cssrc.us/sites/anderson.cssrc.us/files/160429_Letter_Regents.pdfon or on my https://twitter.com/Vashchook1980/status/726465301324296192
Don’t take me wrong I have nothing against Latino dems . My grandson name is Diego Salvador Waszczuk and lives in same town where Assemblyman Luis Alejo and he has no son but he named his dog Diego and another dog Frida . La vida loca .
I can’t tell you how much I care.
Now, there’s information that you’d get nowhere else. Never met either dog, but I’m sure both are very nice. The whole Katehi dilemma has much greater clarity with these additional facts.
Are you speaking of GOD here?
I was sharing with a friend a few weeks ago:
From: Marina Kalugin Rumiansev
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 6:26 PM
To:
Subject: Big Brother
Hi XXXXXX
It appears I have truly stepped on some toes lately.
I blind copied the chancellor and the police chief HaHa.
Not sure what ends up where, but so far My chair is tolerating me, the Exec Asst Dean wants to meet with me, and I am finally on the calendar of the interim dean.
My letter to the editor was sent back for “shortening” to only 350 words….
I don’t have time to summarize it…..but it is just as well.
I have the ears of so many on campus and off right now…..and somehow I will be retiring soon.
Our new staff have been truly stellar and though still learning are going to be able to take the load off EEEEEE.
I hope you are doing well.
Sorry we keep missing each other.
btw… did you meet BBBBB or see the talk?
I heard BBBB was TRULY grilled but that it was not more than usual for a chalk talk.
Have a good evening!
Marina
*************************
Marina Kalugin Rumiansev
Management Services Officer
Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics
College of Biological Sciences
University of California at Davis
One Shields Ave.
Davis, CA 95616
http://mmg.ucdavis.edu/
Phone: (530) 752-7467
FAX: (530) 752-9014
*************************
Still searching for the infamous letter that the Enterprise said was too LONG>>>>it shoulda been a SPECIAL>..but I guess THEY were not interested in some truth…
will post it when I find it…
For now, enjoying a gorgeous day…and so should everyone else.
Marina
RECRUITMENT APM – 520
EMPLOYMENT OF NEAR RELATIVES
520-0 POLICY
The employment of near relatives, including domestic partners and those listed in APM – 520-4 (below), in the same department is permitted when such employment has been authorized in accordance with the following subsections. Such
concurrent employment may arise under the following circumstances:
TWO EMPLOYEES ALREADY HOLDING POSITIONS IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT SUBSEQUENTLY BECOME NEAR RELATIVES,
SIMULTANEOUS APPOINTMENT OF NEAR RELATIVES IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT IS RECOMMENDED.
APPOINTMENT OF ONE WHO IS THE NEAR RELATIVE OF AN INDIVIDUAL ALREADY EMPLOYED IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT IS RECOMMENDED.
520-4 DEFINITION
A NEAR RELATIVE IS DEFINED AS AN APPOINTEE’S CHILD (INCLUDING THE CHILD OF A DOMESTIC PARTNER (SAME SEX OR OPPOSITE SEX)), PARENT, SPOUSE, DOMESTIC PARTNER, OR SIBLING. IN-LAWS OR STEP RELATIVES IN THE RELATIONSHIPS LISTED, INCLUDING RELATIVES OF THE DOMESTIC PARTNER WHO WOULD BE COVERED IF THE DOMESTIC PARTNER WERE THE APPOINTEE’S SPOUSE, ARC ALSO SO DEFINED. THIS PROVISION ALSO COVERS OTHER PERSONS RESIDING IN THE APPOINTEE’S HOUSEHOLD.
520-10 STANDARDS
In searching for qualified candidates for a new or vacant position in a department, those persons responsible for recruitment shall not disqualify a candidate by reason of near relationship to an appointee already in the department or by reason of near relationship when simultaneous appointment of near relatives in the same department is recommended. When the recommended appointment involves such near relationship, this fact shall be noted in the recommendation, and an analysis of the possible conflict of interest or other disadvantage in the situation shall be forwarded through normal channels with the recommendation in sufficient time to permit complete review of the case before the proposed effective date.
RECRUITMENT APM – 520
EMPLOYMENT OF NEAR RELATIVES
520-16 RESTRICTION
A MEMBER OF THE UNIVERSITY STAFF SHALL NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESSES OF REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING ON ANY MATTER CONCERNING APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, SALARY, RETENTION, OR TERMINATION OF A NEAR RELATIVE.
520-24 AUTHORITY
EACH CHANCELLOR OR VICE PRESIDENT IS AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE AN APPOINTMENT IN WHICH A NEAR-RELATIVE RELATIONSHIP IN A DEPARTMENT IS INVOLVED OR WHEN SIMULTANEOUS APPOINTMENT OF NEAR RELATIVES IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT IS RECOMMENDED IF, AFTER REVIEW OF THE CASES, THE APPOINTMENTS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE JUSTIFIED AND IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE UNIVERSITY. Such review and approval by the Chancellor or Vice President is also required to authorize the continuance of the appointments of two members in the same department when a near-relative relationship is established between them.
Rev. 10/1/09
David,
Great piece. I agree with your assessment of the situation near 100%.
As for the comments section . . . am I the only one wondering what’s gotten into the water?
For those who wonder what is in the water, be thankful it is NOT FLUORIDE>>> LOL
However, the well water in Davis is QUITE contaminated…AND, therefore anyone who does NOT have a truly stellar water filtration system is systemically being poisoned DAILY>
It WILL be worse after the new water system is in place and being “TREATED”…..
PS> Thank you for posting THAT APM of NEAR RELATIVE policies…… Of course, there is a NEW version that is in FINAL stages circulating to Senior Managers and Faculty for input…and THAT is the version that the NAPO will try to use to hang our dear Chancellor.
Watch for THAT my friends.
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
PS> Amongst my several positions on campus since my first as a student Senior Clerk at the MU back in 1979, I took my first CAREER position at the Department of Chemistry. At the time, Bill Hapgood was the MSO, and Carol Witham was the AA II/Supervisor who ran the business office. Peter Rock, RIP, was a truly stellar Chair during the year and a half I was at that job. I ended up taking a leave after the birth of my first son, Alexander.
Of course, Jessica is a MUCH better MSO than the MANY who I knew over the years who took over after MR. Hapgood retired… Life was SO much simpler in those days.
When Carol was leaving, MR Hapgood asked me if I wanted HER job…. then when HE was leaving, others at the time invited me to take HIS job… I was not up for that as I was by then a single mother raising TWO brilliant young GATE-qualified MENSA sons, managing my own company, working on my MBA and so forth…
Jessica Potts is one of the few remaining Academic Department MSOs who understands much of anything and who DOES speak out.
Others have retired or died OR committed suicide like the CAO over Entomology/Nematology and Plant Path just last fall….. or whatever. There are VERY few of us due to combining of departments, sharing of services and so forth.
I believe I illustrated MY point however, how easily one can turn on someone due to some stupid statements….
Today is Russian Orthodox Easter and I will be visiting my dying mother…..
Enjoy the day and stop trying to HANG good people…
Thank you.
Back in the DAYS, a NEAR Relative was defined as a “spouse”…then it got expanded to include “significant others” then “partners” of same or opposite sex.
As things got a bit more difficult to sort through, then it was expanded to ANY roommates in a household.
Thus, in the cases where a pile of grad students share a residence to save costs, ALL of those students and all of their friends and family who share an address are NOW required to report THEIR relationships and go through this VETTING process.
It has been taken to the extreme lengths of absurdity…..
And, I would bet ANYONE reading that the degree of non-compliance to THIS policy is in the very high percentages…
MOST students do not even know that this would apply to THEM…and administrators, such as myself, and other staff can hardly keep up with changing addresses in the system fast enough to send W2s to the correct addresses,,,,much less know who moved and who is living with whom, OR who is now “together” or when they “split up”…and so forth.
If there was a UCD wide AUDIT of EVERYONE on payroll, then one could hardly throw stones at our Chancellor, as one would find likely HUNDREDS if NOT 1000s of cases at UCD alone where THIS was NOT followed to the letter…
The evidence WILL likely prove that this too, my friends, is a non-issue…
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
PS> There is hardly a soul left at HR or Academic Affairs who understands policy..
Most of the NEW people are ex-military, some are ATTORNEYS and so forth.
VERY few understand policies like in the OLD days…or how policies fit together.
This is another of my biggest beefs as the old guard have left….
YES< the Chancellor deserved BETTER staff, BETTER MSO/CAOs under her and a more competent Chief of Staff, who should have alerted HER to the policies. They are ALL newer than SHE is…
Unfortunately, when one DOESN’T know something and the people who should be helping don’t either, it is easy to miss things….
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
This is the set up and lynching Chancellor for the Lt. Pike image Katehi did not created . In 2011 she did not know who is is who is who is around her and old boys and girls club did not like her and her accent . Sickening .
I already sent special news to legislator Luis Alejo from Watsonville who join the mob with few others to lynch Katehi . Even she is in violation with some of these policies , this is a minor stuff . This is outrageous .
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRIAL COUNSEL/INTAKE
THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA
1149 SOUTH BAR HILL STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90015-2299
ADDENDDUM TO COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS LISTED BELOW:
CHARLES FURLONGE ROBINSON-SBN #113197; STEVEN ARNOLD DROWN- SBN #119689; KAREN JENSEN PETRULAKIS- SBN #168732; MARGARET LOUISA WU- SBN #184167 ;CYNTHIA ANN VROOM- SBN #139470; JOHN ALLEN LOHSE – SBN #195278;STEPHEN EDWARD CHILCOTT –SBN#196905;
DANIEL MORRIS DOOLEY- SBN #70674; DANESHA NICOLE NICHOLS –SBN#2227784; BRENT JOHN SEIFERT –SBN#249305; DAVID MARK LEVINE –SBN#251523;ANNA ORLOWSKI,-SBN #155577;TRAVIS JAMES LINDSEY – SBN #220935; WENDI J. DELMENDO- SBN #177389; MIA BELK –SBN# 216890;MARILYN ELIZABETH TAYS- SBN #158370;MICHAEL ALLEN – SBN # 86871;DARREL STEINBERG -SBN # 86871; MICHAEL WILLIAM POTT – SBN# 186156; ISMAEL A. CASTRO; SBN# 85452, ASHANTE L. NORTON-SBN 203836; JACOB ADAM APPLESMITH # 135850;JILL NOEL VANDEVIVER -SBN # 227901
This a over 200 pages complaint and 177 exhibits I sent in March 2016 to the State Bar . Bar is silent but FBI already got into.
Underline names are are small but most important part of the club responsible for creating the November 18, 2011 image of Lt Pike for the UC Davis and for Chancellor Katehi to fire her in 2011 Charles Robinson , Steven Drown , Stephen Chilcott, Anna Orlowski , Mark Levine and the UC Davis lovely crooked Chief of Police Matt Carmichael and his Lt. James Barbour. With out them 18/11. would not take place. I have proof. This just a beginning. Napolitano better back off from the deal firing Chancellor. Napolitano is not anymore Obama’s Chief for Homeland Security and corrupted by the rotten administration UC system is not the United State of America , the greatest country on the Planet Earth. If she came to UC in 2013 to cover up corruption together with Jacob Appelsmith than they better leave . I was fighting communists long time ago and this is not much different.
Yes, Jerry…. You and I are truly on the SAME page…and you, my friend, saw FIRST HAND what happens to whistleblowers on THIS campus and at UC>
It is NO different than ALL whistleblowers…and it is NO different than Edward Snowden…and the NSA and the NAPO and what she did to Edward.
CitizenFour is a very highly acclaimed drama and documentary, which was glossed over by the mainstream media. And, there is a TON of truth in THAT documentary.
Fortunately for Ed, Putin look him under HIS wing…
Unfortunately for Dr. Nicholas Gonzales last year, he had NO one but the AMA, BIG Pharma and BIG food after HIM for daring to share cancer cures which are used successfully world wide to CURE cancer….
Just use DuckDuckGo to find out THAT truth also…
My family escaped from Russia during the very early 1900s…..then we escaped the communists in China after THAT revolution….we were refugees and we were highly educated Engineers and scientists…
This is a WITCHHUNT….egged on by people too stupid to understand what happened in 2011 and who cannot see that what was wrong back then has been resolved on THIS campus. Or, who were TOO young to have even noticed it some FIVE years ago….
The 29 YO grad student, a leader of the protests, who was quoted recently in the local paper rag, was seeething how upset HE was when HE showed up at UCD not long ago to find out that people were NOT all consumed and absorbed in the pepper spray incident.
How telling….most everyone had moved on….yet, he was throwing around DIRTY laundry which would keep GOOD students away…..after HE got his grants and subsidies in whatever liberal arts topic he was accepted in….
One would NOT find someone from STEM having the time to sit around for days and weeks to protest.
And, likely HE was still getting paid HIS stipends for NOT doing work….or was THAT his work?
Egged on by unions and others to cause trouble?
And, being still paid by the CHANCELLOR or his PI or whatnot..
KARMA is a bitch to people like him… I will call for an investigation of who was paying HIS bills during the time that HE was sleeping and causing trouble for innocent staff at MRAK…
But, today is Easter and THAT will have to wait until I show up on campus back to work tomorrow.
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
PS> Jerry, there are some truly incompetent new legislators and Regents these days…your post highlights that… LOL
Hi Marina
I noticed that you are Microbiologist . My daughter works in same field in private farmaceutical research corporation . She graduated from UC Santa Cruz. I have nothing against University of California , Great schools thanks to great scholars but wasting the university resources by corrupted and rotten management and administration is a heart braking . In this case like nobody cares that millions were being wasted and most important is to crucify Chancellor Katehi to have smoke screen for real problems crated by crooked establishment . I was crucified twice exactly in same scenario like Chancellor . First time in 2007 but I defeated crooks on arbitration in 2009 than they waited two years and hit me again with over one year administration leave . You believe this . And I am only worker with twisted English. I writing legal stuff myself using proofreading. If you would see my previous rewards I got fighting corruption you would be impressed . I thought for some times that Chancellor was involved in my case to knock me down but not anymore. She ordered confidential report on me in November 2011 and it is looks like her request triggered crafted by Steven Drown and Charles Robinson pepper spray attack to remove Spizuzza, Pike and Cpt. Souza from the posts . Thearafter muy psychologist house in Lodi was raided by evil forces and my doctor quit on being attacked by UC forces . It worse than I experienced in 1980 and 1981. Polish communist were more generous and deported me and my family to United States with one way ticket . I wanted to go to my mother funeral than I had get visa to my own country than I did not go .
Nice to chat with you .
This is my daugter Joanna essay what she remembers from Poland .
Joanna Waszczuk
Essay
1993
One of my most vividly remembered experiences which has also affected me greatly is when my father went to prison.
I was nine years old, living in Poland which was undergoing political upheaval struggling for democracy I knew that my father was involved with some sort of underground and that he was being followed as well. One night, a man came to our home at two o’clock in the morning and just took my father away, only allowing him to put on his boots and jacket over his pajamas.
Two weeks after that night, my family learned that my father was taken by a secret government agent to a prison for political activism trying to overthrow communism.
After a few more weeks, my father was allowed to write letters, but they were censored to the point that half the words were cut out with a razor or completely blacked out.
After five months, as I later found out, of being guarded by attack dogs, guards armed with machine guns, being brainwashed, having been fed rotten food and having had no rights, my father was released on the condition that he either leave the country quickly or go back to prison risking never being able to get a good job again. So, within two weeks my parents, brother and I received passports, sold or gave away everything and came to the United States.
Although I was angry with my father for bringing our family into this country and severing ties with the only type of life I had known, coming here has also taught me that with hard work, challenges can be overcome, and that being able to express oneself is very important. I especially had the latter instilled in me, because for the first six months in the United States, due to a language barrier, I could barely express myself or not at I am now inspired by my father’s standing up for his cause as I am by Freud, Darwin and Pasteur, because despite challenges, hardships and the opposition of society, they all struggled for their causes and beliefs for the benefit of humanity.
Dear Jerry,
Your history is so much like many others who fled the communists – and also much like many others who fled other corrupt regimes over the history of time.
In the US, there is an apparency of freedom and rights…as long as one doesn’t personally trip over an injustice, it appears most are happy to consume and enjoy their brainless TV shows…
When you share what you do, similarly to when I share such “unbelievable” stories, people start to question sanity….
Those of us who have lived through what we have, however, understand…
That you are still standing and fighting for this latest injustice to be fixed, is a testament to who you are. Especially after what you have gone through.
Thank you for speaking out…
Marina Kalugin (Rumiansev)
Irony, thy name is Vanguard.
Jerry W., there is another thread going on right now that talks about union rights and civil rights and someone even told me that I am likely old enough to have known about the freeing of POLAND>
Heck, I am old enough to have been studying outside of Leningrad in a tiny town of Sestroretsk in 1969 when the USA supposedly landed on the moon…and the Soviets kept it hush…and when enough Russians started questioning it, then the USSR said it was all a hoax.
We listened to that landing on the moon on a contraband radio listening to the BBC>>>.
Heck I am old enough to be MOST people on this forum’s grandma or great grandma.. LOL
Since the folks on that other thread are discussing unions and Poland and civil rights, perhaps you might want to enlighten them with YOUR true life story?
Thank you!
Marina