For months the Sacramento Bee has been breaking important news stories about Chancellor Katehi, ranging from her board work for the DeVry educational institute, her work on the board of Wiley & Sons textbook company, and of course the infamous pepper spray scrubbing contract. These stories play an integral role in the investigation and paid administrative leave, and the call for her resignation by student protesters and lawmakers.
But defenders are starting to accuse the Sacramento newspaper of piling it on. This week’s story reports that the chancellor sent officials overseas and across the country to learn image-boosting techniques.
On Wednesday, the Bee reported, “Last November, as UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi was searching for ways to improve the university’s online image, she dispatched staff to companies in Switzerland, Texas and Maryland to study their digital operations.
“The trips cost more than $17,000 in airfare, lodging and other expenses, according to travel records and emails released to The Sacramento Bee on Wednesday in response to a May 5 California Public Records Act request. The visit to Switzerland by three members of the team came after Katehi visited Nestlé’s Digital Acceleration Lab in June 2015 in Vevey, Switzerland, on the shores of Lake Geneva, records indicate.”
The article quotes from a September 13 email where Ms. Katehi wrote, “This gave me an idea to create a similar lab at UC Davis, primarily to help us accelerate our understanding and use of social media in communicating internally and externally and in understanding how UC Davis is perceived both in California but in the U.S. and around the world.
“We have started the process of putting the team together that will create the lab together,” Ms. Katehi added. “We will tremendously benefit if we could send two or three of our people for a day’s visit to your lab so they can get an idea of how it is set up and how the training programs are in place.”
Lee Houskeeper, an advisor, sent out a response on Friday, arguing, “For months it has appeared that the Sacramento Bee has become a partisan in the matter of UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi. The paper’s often one-sided and breathless reporting of issues with zero real news in them is something we hear about from a lot of people.”
He argued, “If you have any remaining doubts about the Bee’s squishy objectivity, look at its reporting today and yesterday on how Chancellor Katehi led the creation of a Digital Acceleration Lab at UC Davis.”
Pressing on, he argues that the Bee has failed “to grasp the realities of social media and to harness its power to connect with new audiences,” to which he attributes the Bee’s “plummeting circulation.”
“Linda Katehi was not going to let UC Davis make that same mistake,” he continues.” As an accomplished engineer and academic, she has long understood that social media is the way people communicate today and will communicate exclusively tomorrow. She and members of the faculty sought to create a world class Digital Accelerator Center at UC Davis to benefit faculty, staff and students. Having a social media training center on the campus will keep Davis competitive and on the leading edge of research – whether that’s in food science or political science.”
He argues, “So what did she do? She set out to learn more from the companies who have advanced Digital Accelerators – Nestle, Marriott, and Dell. She publicly reported on these trips and as an added bonus met with the CEO of Nestle – an important partner for one of the world’s largest schools of food, agriculture, and nutrition.”
“Digital Accelerator,” he would argue, is an emerging field where many companies have developed means to respond online to a rapidly changing communications environment.
However, Mr. Houskeeper argues that the Bee has attempted to spin this into a negative story and a conspiracy.
He notes that the Bee headlined its story this week as follows:
UC Davis chancellor sent aides to Switzerland to learn image-boosting tactics
- University spent more than $17,000 on trips to Switzerland, Texas and Maryland
- Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi wanted to build digital acceleration lab at UC Davis
- Under Katehi, UCD strategic communications budget went from $2.93 million to $5.47 million
“Image boosting tactics? Please. Can the Luddite editors at the Bee at least try to see the difference between ‘Mad Men’ era spin and fundamental, DNA-level changes in communications and research? The snarky claim of ‘image-boosting’ says more about the Bee’s mindset than Linda Ketehi’s,” he argues.
“$17,000? Doesn’t seem like a lot for a $4 billion organization like UC Davis to spend on core digital fact-finding from the masters of the game,” he continues. “A $5.47 million strategic communications budget? Actually, paltry for a leading university dealing with a huge volume of communications initiatives and more than a few crises. Did the Bee even bother to see what other UCs spend on communications, to put UCD’s budget in context?
“And here’s the icing on the cake,” he stated. “The UC Office of the President (UCOP), which soldiers forth on its compromised investigation of Chancellor Katehi, released these documents on travel to Switzerland etc to the Bee without the courtesy of sharing them with Chancellor Katehi or her team. We’ve said all along that the UCOP is playing games with the release of public information to stack the deck against the Chancellor.”
Mr. Houskeeper and Ms. Katehi’s legal team believe there will be more of these type of stories that they call “squishy,” with “zero real news in them.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Who is Mr Housekeeper? The beat goes on….
The one who is supposed to clean up ‘messes’? ‘Sanitize’ surfaces?
The Wolf
No “e” in the last name
Accept irony when you find it… or have you changed the VG position re: spelling/grammar?
It would seem the the Bee has no monopoly on “squishiness”.
Mr. Housekeeper picks up on a single phrase “image boosting tactics” and then proceeds to list 3 completely factual statements beneath. He does not appear to be disputing the fact that she spent this amount of money on the information gathering, that she wanted to build a “digital acceleration lab” at UCD, nor the increase in the budget allotted for what is essentially public relations under a fancier name. ( My link would not post so just Google Nestle digital accelerator to check their goals in their own words). It simply seems that he does not like the fact that there might be an alternative and less flattering view of these activities and expenditures.
For me, it is now, and has always been all about judgement and sound decision making. Fiscal responsibility would seem to be a part of the Chancellor’s role.
My question would be, was this a wise use of university funds ? Given that one of the three main accelerators to be studied was a short trip down the road to Nestle, why the need for expensive trips to distant plants ? With the current state of electronic communications, her team could not have made a physical trip to the local plant and virtual tours of those more distant ? Now $17000 is probably not a huge sum of money to the Chancellor, but I know a number of students for whom this amount would make the difference between attaining their education…..or not.
Yet, David doesn’t point out the ‘no “e”‘ in your post… only others… [Houskeeper]… yet there are two “e”s in the name, just not three… whatever…
hpierce
Pardon my error. And I would also point out yours. David does not do the spelling and grammar corrections. We have a volunteer for that duty. I am greatly appreciative of her efforts on behalf of the Vanguard and would allow her some slack for not catching every error.
This is certainly open to debate. No need to bring up a poor student who couldn’t attend school for lack of $17,000. The same could be said for almost any programs. Why send probes to outer atmosphere when we still have people living under poverty line? Why do we need to understand how the universe started when there are still people starving?
From my point of view, I believe UCD definitely deserves a better press. When I travel outside of Davis, and talk about the great academic and transformational work we do at UCD, not many people are aware. To most people, UCD is a one of the UC campuses, it is an OK school, and it is in a small “unknown” city. Most are not aware of the many great programs at UCD. I believe that we definitely need more publicity.
This is a good question that applies to many of the charges that have been levied against Katehi. The media (including the Vanguard (see the highly unflattering picture above that has been used repeatedly in Katehi articles))–and particularly the Bee–have put a negative spin on Katehi’s actions without providing context necessary to determine how out of line her practices have been. The Bee has a legitimate axe to grind over UCD’s stonewalling in response to records requests. It’s certainly legitimate to question Katehi’s actions and the incompetent and bumbling way she has responded. But it’s also legitimate to consider whether the Bee’s objectivity is compromised because of its adversarial relationship with the University.
I understand the point here, but two wrongs don’t make a right. If other UC’s are expending exorbitant amounts of money on media communications, that doesn’t necessarily make it right that Katehi nearly doubled the budget for media communications for UCD on her watch to match other UC’s excesses.
Its not the cost. In the greater scheme of things its a pittance.
The problem is the “War Room” or “Bunker” mentality.
In fairness to Katehi there were many who were out to get her and if you want to include the Sac Bee and the Enterprise go ahead. After all they did finally get on board with getting her out at the very end, sort of like Russia declaring war on Japan in the last weeks of WWII.
But so what? A free press is under no obligation to be fair to Linda Katehi.
“The article quotes from a September 13 email where Ms. Katehi wrote, “This gave me an idea to create a similar lab at UC Davis, primarily to help us accelerate our understanding and use of social media in communicating internally and externally and in understanding how UC Davis is perceived both in California but in the U.S. and around the world.”
Personally, I don’t see this latest revelation as having much to do with the reasons why Katehi is being investigated. However, it does point out that Katehi has been fixated on UCD’s image for some reason, with a desire to make UCD #1 no matter the cost. Under her watch the strategic communications budget nearly DOUBLED. That is a huge chunk of money just to improve UCD’s image in the media, which was already stellar. But apparently stellar wasn’t good enough – UCD needed to be top in the nation according to Katehi’s world view…
UCD under this Chancelor has needed better PR: maybe this was a good thing but appears more nefarious given the scrubbing contract and agree could have done virtually. Also given her desire/need for her own accomplishments (and touting others’ as her own) to be center stage, this story is also in line with her MO.
I have no problem with increasing UCD’s stature as a top university but not the number 1 priority as it seems to be. I would imagine she saw this process as elevating her reputation so she could move to a higher position elsewhere. I saw little evidence she tried to engage with community or campus (the latter at some pressure).
I wish some of this money would go to simple things like janitorial work in the Haring restrooms across from the Silo where the buses all stop on campus.
True, and I had wished we could have more money to build a few more garages. But the other angel to it is that if UCD has better publicity, we could have more endowment funds that will get these things fixed, especially now that the State is not interested in funding the so-called “public” universities like the UC.
I see no problem with pushing UCD to be a better school, and I’m all for the idea that UCD should become #1.
And I came to understand that people from different disciplines have different world view. For people from the sciences and engineering, the goal has always been to be #1. You strive to build the large particle collider, the fastest car, the most powerful rocket, etc. It’s very much like athletics. You always compete to be #1.
Tia, you appear to claim to know what Ms K believes/thinks… you have lost any credibility to protest those opining what you believe/think… at least with me… “fixated”? Pretty strong word… particularly from one sensitive to others attributing ‘motivations’/beliefs to you…
I also will opine that Ms K was less concerned about UCD’s “image” than her own… although, in respect for your oft cited statements, I do not pretend to know what Ms K believes/thinks… nor your beliefs/motivations… but given the actions of her ‘defense team’, am pretty sure my opinion has more evidence than you are bringing to this discussion…
To be clear, I am questioning your logic, not you as an individual…
I wrote “fixated” (not Tia), and I stand by what I said. Katehi herself kept going on and on about how important it was to boost UCD’s image when trying to explain away the pepper spray scrubbing incident, as if UCD somehow desperately needed its image boosted. She seems to see an urgent need for UCD to be #1 in the nation, based on comments she has made. See:
http://blogs.ucdavis.edu/higher-ed-matters/2016/04/03/chancellor-linda-katehi-uc-davis-ranked-1-by-forbes-as-best-value-college-for-women-in-stem/
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/updated-highly-ranked-nation-and-world
http://blogs.ucdavis.edu/higher-ed-matters/
From http://www.sactownmag.com/August-September-2015/Linda-Katehi-Leans-In/index.php?cparticle=2&siarticle=1
“Four years after UC Davis police pepper-sprayed student protesters, chancellor Linda Katehi has not only strived to build stronger ties with her campus community, but her hyper-ambitious plans to transform UCD into one of the top 10 schools in America—and maybe help save the planet while doing it—finds her building an entirely new legacy for her university, and for herself.”
I see no problem with pushing UCD to be a better school, and I’m all for the idea that UCD should become #1.
And I came to understand that people from different disciplines have different world view. For people from the sciences and engineering, the goal has always been to be #1. You strive to build the large particle collider, the fastest car, the most powerful rocket, etc. It’s very much like athletics. You always compete to be #1.
If the Chancellor succeeded in bring UCD to the top ranking university, or even the top ranking public university, I think she well deserves the reputation/legacy.
To generalize a little bit, It is not wise to question the leader of an organization when he/she shows interest in promoting the organization and making it a better one. He/She is hired to do exactly that and if he/she is successful, he/she deserves the legacy. Serving an organization and building a stellar career don’t go against each other. In most cases, they are actually the same thing.
hpierce
I will be equally clear. I have never claimed to know the motivation for what Chancellor Katehi chooses to do. I have never accused her of anything that she has not openly admitted to. If you believe that this is not true, please post the quote that you believe supports this claim.
What I have repeatedly said is that I believe that the number of “missteps” that she has, in her own words made, and my interpretation of the consequences of her documented actions have indicated is that she is not a good fit for Chancellor of a public university.
I await your demonstration of any comment of mine about “what she thinks”.
This melodrama, a veritable sissy-fit, is a voyeur’s delight. But a vital point must be made right about now. Nothing that results is going to allow the continuance of–and obedience to–the long self-proclaimed notion that the University of California faculty and leadership is “the best of the best.”
Remember that phrase, taxpayer? It’s what we’ve been fed for decades in defense of inflated salaries and bloated personnel numbers for the entire UC System. All those “associates,” “vices,” “seniors” “administrative” in various combinations. This army of university heads, their advisors, and their attorneys, this is “the best of the best” on full public display.
Now look–really look–at how they behave. We pay for this clown factory, are we getting our money’s worth? As a figure of speech, we sure do, it’s extremely entertaining. But as a “pay for services rendered” measure, we’re better off putting the whole University leadership on the minimum wage and shifting the millions in savings towards lowering tuition charges.
The entire University of California operation and policy structure is going to get public exposure as it has never received before. There are some folks behind closed mahogany doors in Oakland in profound fear right now. The Legislature must and will act. Long after the complaining parties and respondents go wherever fate decides. some eventual good will come from this soap opera.
SacBee has a state salaries website — it’s very informative to look up UC salaries. And comparing teacher salaries at a high school with teacher salaries at UCDavis, what a huge disparity.
“The entire University of California operation and policy structure is going to get public exposure as it has never received before. There are some folks behind closed mahogany doors in Oakland in profound fear right now. The Legislature must and will act. Long after the complaining parties and respondents go wherever fate decides. some eventual good will come from this soap opera.”
Phillip
It must to be something more drastic than the Napolitano’s-Katehi’s feud to force legislature to act .As you call this soap opera, it did not get much attention from the legislature at all beside five or six legislators which sided with Napolitano in this feud. Regents don’t care . Only one ex-officio regent Gavin Newsom tweeted against Katehi long time ago. If the legislature cut the money for UC than the UC administration will implement furlough and other budget cuts which won’t hurt them much in preserving their status quo. Probably it would end again in turmoil with students protests in the UC campuses and brutal police action against protesters . The UC establishment knows and has power to preserve the existing status quo . Replacing one or two UC presidents or chancellors means nothing .. The California Constitution and California Supreme Court decisions protects UC administration quite well .
I read the article in the Bee. While I was interested in the expense, I recognized that the article did not include the resulting benefits to the UCD community. I completely forgot it.
Now that Houskeeper has dredged it back up, I find that my interest is greater. I question why the trip cost $17K for 3 people to fly to Europe for one day. I would like to know the status of the project and if the project is confined to Mrak Hall or is it helping broadly across colleges and departments.
There are other systems that the University is spending money on that are questionable, such as a new degree certification app when there already an existing one being used that is working just fine, first class travel and unnecessary travel by directors will no clear purpose, etc. Because Katehi didn’t order these, it isn’t newsworthy, so it seems. Maybe that is Houskeeper’s point.
Have you checked airfares recently? Hotel, per diem, etc. $17 grand sounds about right.
I agree.
WOW. I checked it out. Fares are $2300 RT. Hotel rooms $1000 per night. It seems to be correct that it costs $17K to send 3 people for one day to Geneva.
So…was it worth it? What came from this visit?
ryankelly
Whether it’s worth is open for debate and quite honestly will take time to evaluate. I believe it is worth it if the initiative can indeed improve UCD’s publicity and image online, which most likely make positive impact on endowment.
Without the Chancellor championing for the effort, I’m afraid we’ll never really learn whether it’s going to be an effective initiative.
Indeed.
Lake Geneva is a fabulous place to vacation, and very, very expensive!
I believe it’s where the company sets up its headquarter. I’d say all Switzerland is great for vacation and very expensive!
As I stated many times, Chancellor Katehi has raised more funds for the campus than any prior Chancellor. She raised over $1 billion for the campus one year earlier than projected. Katehi held the Chancellor position for only six years and bringing more than 1 billion for the campus is beyond imagination . Her vision and goals to bring more money to the UC Davis requires good communication tools. As the chancellor and decision maker with her executive power, Katehi had all rights to shop around for the best communication tools she could find . We are living in the 21st Century, the drones and the digital media era. The technology is changing so quickly and it is require a lot of money not to fall behind in technological advancement and not to became a second class citizen in the world of higher education.
The Sacramento Bee reporters Lambert and Stanton found pleasure to endlessly and recklessly attack Chancellor for any reason they can find and I don’t know if anybody on this forum has noticed that other mass media don’t jump on SacBee wagon in attacks aimed at Chancellor. Some are only repeating the information from SacBee.
Katehi did not raise $1 billion dollars. Half of that money was raised before she was hired.
Al_Top .
My source of information about the 1 billion is the May 26, 2016 Chancellor Katehi’s legal counsel Melinda Guzman’s letter sent to UC General Counsel Charles Robinson. Melinda Guzman would not provide such information to the Sacramento Bee if information was false . The Bee and UCOP would be all over Chancellor and her counsel Melinda Guzman if she lied. What is your source of information about ? If you are dealing with legal matters you don’t provide false and misleading information which could be easily verified . Especially in case where termination of Chancellor is a stake .
It is false. Just do some Googling yourself.
Al_Top
Google is not the source of information in this matter. This is the strictly legal matter at this point and false in Google information will not fly .
The info is on ucdavis.edu. It is very easy to find.
“As these initiatives were advancing, Chancellor Katehi’s leadership team closed in on another crucial goal for the university, this one a full year ahead of schedule: raising $1.13 billion for student scholarships, programs, facilities and other academic support from 110,000 individual donors. The success of the university’s first-ever comprehensive Campaign for UC Davis has been vital to the campus’ continuing progress in the face of declining state investments in higher education. ” http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/about/
“One full year ahead of schedule” means they are taking about the fundraising campaign that started in 2006, three years before she was hired.
AI_Top
Why don’t you provide some direct information and link so that we don’t base our discussions on ambiguity?
“The technology is changing so quickly and it is require a lot of money not to fall behind in technological advancement and not to became a second class citizen in the world of higher education. “
What I would like to know is why, with the technology changing so rapidly, does it take a site visit to learn about one aspect of that technology ? To save money within Kaiser, we have cut back on our off site visits since this detracts from the number of patients that we can care for. Access to Webinars and other forms of electronic communication allow us to update our own processes and practices without flying to far flung luxury spots to do so. When an actual hands on skill is being taught, travel will be involved. But I strongly doubt since these are digital processes in which she wishes UCD to excel, that the information could not have been obtained…..gee….maybe digitally ?
Ms. Tia
Kaiser sucks and what the Kaiser has to do with Chancellor Katehi.
Ms. Tia. You sometimes amaze me with you logic which has no logic.
You are correct. Kaiser has nothing to do with the Chancellor. But if you cannot see that if electronic communications are adequate for transmissions of many highly technical purposes including perhaps setting up a “digital accelerator” then you are failing to understand the power of digital communications. Perhaps the Chancellor also did not see this possibility.
Jerry, like I’ve stated before, it’s a witch hunt. The detractors are throwing everything against the wall seeing what might stick.
Ms. Tia
You confused me with your statement . I understand power of new technology. Are you saying that Chancellor did not understand power of digital communication.? Could elaborate a little more about please . My understanding is that Chancellor was looking for the best top on line digital communication technology to bring more money to university ? What is your understanding ?
Ms. Barak
Chancellor is an exceptional person and human being in her achievement an what she and her family experiencing today is a witch hunt and terror beyond the human decency . This is so sad that it is happening under the name of the University of California .
Tia
It seems pretty clear to me that the technology the staff members are try to learn about is on more effectively using social media whereas the technologies for enabling teleconferencing are those related to real-time digital transmission of videos and voices. They are two completely different categories.
Even with modern digital communication technologies, teleconferencing serves a mere role of reducing cost when possible. If teleconferencing is that convenient as you are implying, then most companies/organizations would have already abandoned offices and conference rooms and everyone would be working from home. We know we are not there yet and I think you know that very well too. You are simply distorting the facts to suit your argument which I find lacks logic.
David
I distorted nothing at all. I have learned many skills through “virtual” teaching media. Just because we have not gone completely digital does not mean that we cannot be moving steadily in that less expensive and less time consuming direction. Surely it is the role of the Chancellor to move us forward beyond the old way of information acquisition which was for those at the top, and their immediate subordinates to take expensive and luxurious trips, with the tabs picked up by the company, on supposed educational trips. If you can provide me with one concrete example of why the information that had to be gathered “on site” could not have been achieved through the visit to Nestle and the rest obtained through digital means, I will be happy to re consider this issue. Until then, I see it as an egregious waste of $17,000 dollars. True, this is not a fortune in terms of the university budget, but if this is representative of her judgment then I do not see it as a point in her favor.
Tia
Let me explain to you and the others on this forum how you distorted facts.
I think everyone knows that while teleconferencing technologies are great, they are not nearly sufficient yet to replace face-to-face interactions. The fact that you learn “many skills through “virtual” teaching media” doesn’t mean that you can learn everything remotely. My kids learn all sorts of useful stuff on Youtube yet they still have to go to school. If teleconferencing technologies are so wonderful, why do we still have physical offices?
You know this perfectly well (I would hate to believe otherwise because it would cast serious doubts on your intellectual level) yet you choose to bend the fact and started rambling about how they should avoid an actual trip. You don’t even know what they learned and what exactly they did on that trip. Why jumping to your conclusion so hastily?
This is why I’m calling you out for “distorting” and “bending” facts for the sake of winning an argument. It’s a common technique of sophistry and it doesn’t really add anything meaningful to the discussion.
There are numerous other examples like this in your posts. I can almost pick on every sentence because they are so full of logic fallacies, but it’s quite meaningless to do so.
the Sac Bee makes millions, if not billions, off the UC establishment, the Gov Brown, the legislators.
they don’t care about any facts and real issues, they know who butters their bread..
screw the Bee and the other media….
if you listen to the mainstream media, you deserve what you get….
and, waste too many hours on sites like this where the other folks who have a little life show up for hours, days, weeks, months……
cya
the Chancellor’s work to improve the UCD image HAS brought tons of funds to UCD>….
and it is efforts of this nature that work …… harvard and other high level universities have known that for decades..
and the [edited] on this board, the [edited] protestors on the 5th floor, and so forth who are the ones who are creating this mess….day in and day out…
it is the Gov Brown, the Napo, newer and dumber regents….so forth…those with their pockets greased by the UAW and so forth….. that create the issues.
the Chancellor was not responsible for the spray incident and that was over five years ago..
the union contracts with UC are expiring….they are the instigators in so much of what started a few short weeks ago…
get a clue someone …anyone…..the issues are way bigger and the sides are being drawn and it is a fight now…
as I said in my first post on this topic at the tail end of April……..
“those with their pockets greased ….”
So you have no problem with the Chancellor having her pockets greased by DeVry without obtaining prior permission as required by her own statement ?
Could you cite how much she has made on that board position?
DavidSmith
I believe that the number made public was $75,000 and an undisclosed amount in stock. However, it is not the absolute quantity of the compensation that is troublesome to me. It is the fact that she chose to accept this for her personal benefit when she could have chosen initially to do what she ultimately did for appearance sake which was to fund student education with this additional compensation which came to her solely because of her university leadership position.
I honestly do not care if keeping these additional monies is common practice or not. I do not care if all of the other Chancellor’s do it. The possibility for real leadership in the form of donation of these funds directly to student education was available, and Ms. Katehi did not choose that route voluntarily, but only under duress.To me, this is not an exemplification of true leadership which should always be about what is best for your institution, not just yourself.
Well you are calling again for her to share wealth. The same questions to you again then. Why don’t you share your wealth with those who couldn’t afford their medical bills? Why don’t you share your wealth with those starving and suffering in other parts of the world?
I think this summarizes your stance pretty well. You don’t care. Many of us are infuriated by the singling out of our Chancellor by SacBee and the UCOP. I consider it nothing less than gender discrimination. Yet you don’t care.
Once again, in my opinion, the Chancellor has worked tireless to improve UCD’s status quo. Having her stay as the Chancellor would truly beneficial to UCD (before the UCOP nonsense broke out).
Someone commented to me recently that Nicholas Dirks must be thrilled to see the UC president’s attention diverted to Chancellor Katehi instead of him. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-Berkeley-chancellor-faces-skeptical-Academic-7391798.php
Don Shor
I tend to agree with you. Napolitano picked on our Chancellor because UCD is a weak campus in the UC system. Napolitano couldn’t touch Berkeley so she chose to wield her power against Davis. What makes me angry is that she did this without considering the well being of the Davis campus and it seems that she’s doing it just to divert the pressure on UCOP on a number of issues (sex harassment scandal at Berkeley, and a call to examine external board positions of all top UC executives, and UC’s polices on that)
And I don’t need to remind everyone here that during the 2011 occupy movement, the UC Berkeley police actually beat the students with batons, which in my opinion makes the UCD police look benign. Do you see their Chancellor taking as much heat as our Chancellor?
DavidSmith… you (and Jerry and others) make pretty compelling arguments that the Chancellor was working within ‘acceptable bounds’, compared to others in the UC system.
Thank you all for that…
Time to flush the toilet… professors ‘contributing’ to textbooks, then made by them as “required”, often costing $100 a pop (even in the 70’s), and then reaping ‘royalties’… if Jerry’s list is true, suggest a highly efficient toilet to flush all the abuses down, across the board… and, if the Chancellor is even the least offensive ‘crap’, the toilet still needs to be flushed…
hpierce
We can start a new thread on expensive textbooks. I share your concern and in fact when I teach, I intentionally use a much older version (and therefore much less expensive) of the textbook. The textbook is still required because most students can’t learn the materials effectively without a textbook.
Why are textbooks so expensive? My simple answer is that the publishers and the distributors took all the profits. If I write a textbook that sells for $100 a copy, I will perhaps make $1-2 for each copy that sells. You don’t ever make a fortune by writing a textbook.
“the Sac Bee makes millions, if not billions, off the UC establishment, the Gov Brown, the legislators.”
If this were true McClatchy wouldn’t be in such a financial mess. Its total value is only $130 million and its assets include: The Miami Herald, The Sacramento Bee, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Kansas City Star, The Charlotte Observer and The Raleigh News and Observer.
I wonder do you believe what you write or do you simply make it up as you go along?
Also includes the Fresno Bee…
Jerry
“What is your understanding ?”
I agree that Chancellor was doubtless seeking the best in digital communications. I do not believe that it is necessary to spend $17000 dollars on a trip to find the best digital technology since if the technology is indeed top of the line, it would be able to itself be communicated digitally. No need for personnel to make a long expensive trip for something that could have been communicated virtually. So, in my opinion this is not a wise use of resources. It is fine to bring in large amounts of money. But if those monies are not spent wisely, what is gained ?
Ms. Tia
$17000 is the investment Chancellor decided to make and she had right to do it.
End of the story .
Tia
It seems pretty clear to me that the technology the staff members are try to learn about is on more effectively using social media whereas the technologies for enabling teleconferencing are those related to real-time digital transmission of videos and voices. They are two completely different categories.
Even with modern digital communication technologies, teleconferencing serves a mere role of reducing cost when possible. If teleconferencing is that convenient as you are implying, then most companies/organizations would have already abandoned offices and conference rooms and everyone would be working from home. We know we are not there yet and I think you know that very well too. You are simply distorting the facts to suit your argument which I find lacks logic.
Jerry
“Chancellor is an exceptional person and human being in her achievement an what she and her family experiencing today is a witch hunt”
My understanding of the term “witch hunt” is that it refers to situations in which there has been no wrong doing. According to the Chancellor’s own admissions, she did go against policy when she accepted the DeVry position without prior approval. She also stated that she had mishandled the pepper spray incident and made other “missteps”. If there have been, as in her own words, breeches of policy, then that does not constitute a “witch hunt” in my understanding of the term.
I am sure that all of us would have differing opinions about how many mistakes, or errors, or “missteps” are acceptable before we would expect a resignation. I met my limit. You apparently have not yet met yours. I do not know of anyone who is claiming that the Chancellor is a bad person. She is clearly a very exceptional person in some respects. In my opinion, being Chancellor was not one of them. My claim is that her own “missteps” have led to the adverse consequences she is now facing. I do see it as a shame that she did not choose the high road and resign when she could have done so without all the trauma that I am sure that she and her family are experiencing. However, this was as much in her hands as it ever has been in the hands of Ms. Napolitano, or the regents, or the governor, or anyone else one might like to blame.
tia
In many of our views, we believe that the Chancellor has done tremendous work on improving the status quo of UC Davis and the “missteps” you have cited are not comparable to her achievement. She worked relentlessly to correct the wrongs left over from Vanderhoef’s rule and the wrongs that the State is passing down to UC and UCD. Had it not been her fund raising efforts, and btw promoting UCD’s image and publicity is a very integral part of it, UCD would not have been to able to admit the most in-state students among all UC campuses without increasing the tuition in the last two years. In addition, she has worked on and was still working on streamlining the internal operations of UCD to save money for student support and other new initiatives. It would be tragic to see her leave.
Your comment above and mine here add nothing to the discussion. You are basically repeating what you have said for maybe the fifteenth time and I felt compelled to respond with that I have to say (for maybe the fifteenth time) so that people don’t see a one-sided, a sloppy, but very opinionated view.
Tia Will
I believe that Jerry is referring to the current investigation on Chancellor Katehi when he talks about the “witch hunt”. Serving on external boards and handling of the pepper spray incident are not part of the investigation. You could be more specific with “other missteps” that you referred to.
The accusations that Napolitano made against the Chancellor is extremely damaging to UCD, the Chancellor, and her family members. You mentioned that you served as a visiting faculty at UCDMC. I’m not sure if you belong to the academic senate. If you are, you must have received the email from the academic senate Chair on the nepotism claim. It literally took the academic senate a single day to gather the documents and show that no policies were violated in the hiring of the Chancellor’s family members. Can you believe that UCOP did absolutely no fact checking before accusing the Chancellor of wrong doings? Can you now see why many are calling it a “witch hunt”?
DavidSmith
One thing that I think is contributing to both misunderstanding and repetition is the need I feel to correct misconceptions about my position, my involvement, and the issues that are important to me. One example from your recent post.
“You mentioned that you served as a visiting faculty at UCDMC”
No, I never made this statement. What I said is that” I have served as volunteer faculty for UCDMC”. To some, this might be seen as a distinction without a difference. They would be wrong. Not since medical school have I been paid to teach at UCD. Not since medical school have I taught on a UCD campus. My teaching is all at the Medical Student and Intern/Resident level. I am not a member of the academic senate and have received no communications outside the public media about any charge of nepotism. I have made no comment on this issue beyond the hypothetical.
I am belaboring these points for a reason. My perspective is as someone whose educational status, research opportunities, career, or financial future will never be affected by the fate of the Chancellor, Ms. Napolitano, or any of the regents. I speak entirely as an observer, not as a participant at any level in this ongoing drama. It is therefore not at all surprising to me that my perspective would be different from those who do stand to be affected.
For those who are interested in hearing an alternative perspective, I am more than happy to address your questions.And for those of you who are tiring of my posts, I would suggest a very simple action that you could take. Stop mentioning my name in your posts.
Tia
I think I understand your position very well.
My bad. I apologize for not making the distinction between a “visiting” professor and a “volunteer” professor. I understand that there could be implications on whether you get paid or not between the two titles. But getting paid or not is not the point here. I was pointing out new evidence to you from the perspective of an academic senate faculty member. It is your choice to believe it or not believe it. You have every right to stick to your original opinion based on whatever information you had and it’s perfect fine if you are not interested in taking in new information.
We have all heard your perspective over and over again. I am indeed tired of it because it’s the same stuff every time. But no I will not stop. As long as I see something from your post that needs to be addressed, I will keep responding to your posts.
Ms. Tia
Once again
Look chronologically what happened , especially how much support Napolitano got for her action .
Look who is attacking Chancellor today . Two reporters from the Sacramento Bee . Stanton and Lambert and Mia Will from the Davis Vanguard . That it . Chancellor is not coming back but it could be end for Napolitano.
Jerry
“Chancellor is not coming back but it could be end for Napolitano.”
And that just might be the best solution all around. It is just such a shame that so much time, energy , negative emotion and funds had to be spent in order to get to this outcome.
Tia
It’s certainly not the best solution. With the Chancellor leaving, many of the initiatives she started will not be carried forward and many of the capable people that have been hired over the recent years will leave. In fact, we are already seeing some of that happening. Money has stopped flowing on some projects and people are already leaving (remember the CFO resignation?) We have been on a great momentum under the Chancellor’s lead and we are looking ahead of us a dim set-back of perhaps 3-4 years at the least. This will in fact be the worst result for UCD and a big victory for the “old boys club” who could now continue enjoying their mediocrity.
Once again, it is easy for you to point fingers because you don’t belong to UCD. You don’t share the same passion as many of us here to the university. Your view is so distorted from the reality.
Sadly, DavidSmith, Tia appears to be an MD who works at UCDMC>…….
Since the Academic Senate is so lopsided in favor of the Chancellor, and opposed to many actions of the Napolitano, I have no idea why Tia is on the side of thinking UC is better off without Chancellor Katehi.
The most exceptional Dean candidate we could have hoped for is now having cold feet with the travesty the Napo has created….
The good ole boys club is chalking up some wins for their side as I type this….however, our college is suffering as a result.
Early on, I posted a few things, which have been removed and so on. But, truly, the only ones I have seen on the Academic Senate side who spoke out against the chancellor as the sit in started, were the most mediocre of the bunch….those stuck for a long time at the Ass. Prof. ranks….and/or who are not Academic Senate to start with and might have some sour grapes…
As I said, from the get-go, none of the NAS, HHMI and other high-ranking faculty at UCD who I have met and supported over the decades, are sitting around throwing pot-shots at the Chancellor….they do not have the time, nor the inclination, as they understand the challenges of someone of Chancellor Katehi’s caliber to lead, and research and teach, et al.
I’m pretty sure Tia works at Kaiser not UCDMC.
david, I was pretty sure she posted an affiliation with UCDMC on another thread, but mea culpa if I misread it…
Marina
Your comment above is a very accurate observation that captures my feelings toward this issue very well. Thank you.
The Bee’s article is indeed very biased. It fails to at least compare similar efforts at other UC campuses. This is very similar to the report on the Chancellor’s external board positions. The Bee never was able to compare what other UC Chancellor’s are doing on board positions. Is any of them sitting on boards of pro-fit entities? If yes, why is Chancellor Katehi being singled out? I believe that’s why the Chancellor’s team is calling out for sexist and gender discrimination.
Ms. Tia
When UC General Counsel Charles Robinson hired Malinda Haag and McGregor Scott to investigate Chancellor Katehi it is actually means that university hired lawyers for preparation for the lawsuit against university. This is how the California Appellate Courts interprets the outside attorneys which were hired for the internal employer’s investigation against an employee.
Something went terribly wrong for Napolitano with her plan to dismiss Chancellor if the General Counsel decided to hire two very expensive outside attorneys from very pricy law firm for the lawsuit preparation. I know this stuff a little by dealing with UC attorneys for last 10 years. Stupidity of the former UC Campus counsel Steven Drown and the General Counsel Charles Robinson cost UC Davis in my case around half a billion dollars and still costing thousands of dollars every day and my life devastation. This the mentality of the UCOP . The Unlimited financial resources for the litigations regardless of the result of litigations.
By monitoring the Napolitano’s feud with Chancellor Katehi I have an good idea that this a completely different problem than Napolitano’s allegations outlined in her April 2016 suspension letter. The allegations which Napolitano brought against Chancellor are qualified if real to be investigate by the UC Senior Vice President Sheryl Vacca and her investigation team instead of the very expensive outside law firm.
Beside the above ,the allegations which were brought against Chancellor have no legal ground for any disciplinary action.
I sincerely view Chancellor Katehi as an exceptional person , with exceptional achievement in her life and her exceptional dedication to show the UC Davis for the world as the University which deserve to be labeled the 21st Century Higher Education Facility.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/vanderhoef-she-superstar
Before this conflict broke out I had similar opinion about Chancellor like you and Sacramento Bee because of my similar experiences with the UCOP as Chancellor Katehi has today. I thought that the attacks are coming against me from UC Davis Chancellor’s office. I turn my view about Chancellor after l I received lot of documents due to my litigations against regents and after Chancellor and her family was attacked in similar way as I was. Attacks against me were carried out by the UCOP orders.
Before I filed lawsuit I was sending inquires to Napolitano and regents with accusations against Chancellor and the requests to give my job back I got by Settlement-Agreement I signed with UC Regents in 2009. I never got any response from Napolitano or Regents. I did now until June 2015 that regents misappropriated $ 65,000,000 and this misappropriation cost the UC Davis at least half a billion dollars. It is a lot more than other regents’ fraud of Medicaid and Medicare which resulted in $ 22,500,000 fine .
https://twitter.com/Vashchook1980/status/744624501107785728
Yesterday’s tweet to UC President .
The answer is a resounding yes, DavidSmith, in fact the Chancellor of UCSF got $1mil, I understand, from just one such board position last year…the man was under no attacks whatsoever….and yet, how much time was that taking away from his position?
Or, is it because, that is a company that UC is in bed with?
The fact that the Napo chose to keep those kinds of statistics hidden, does not bode well, for the supposed “transparency” of UC- simply points out what a joke it all is…..
I, however, and many colleagues are not laughing….as the Napo has already completed a number of “missteps” which are illegal per the bylaws of UC, a land grant institution…. since she came to “power”…
David Smith s not the chancellor of UCSF. I believe he is exec director of hospital.
she is the one who was talking about being a doctor and affiliated with the UCDMC>….read her posts and I am just responding.
I don’t even know if that is the real name….regardless…my point stands…
SODA
Marina addressed me but she was in fact talking about UCSF Chancellor’s external board compensation.
I’m not the director of the hospital. I’m a tenured faculty member from the Sciences. I don’t wish to reveal my identity in fear of retaliation from UCOP.
The information I posted here is pretty much common knowledge to any academic senate faculty member. You can corroborate with a faculty member you know, but he/she needs to be an academic senate member. The difference is that non-academic senate members, such as researchers, visiting professors, and adjunct professors, do not attend department/college faculty meetings or academic senate meetings, and therefore have a much weaker understanding of university operation. I can’t claim to know everything about how the university operates, but you also don’t need to be a top administrator to know it at a high level.
Some posts from me are also based on my own observations from working at the university.
I was not referring to you; was just trying to correct the inaccuracy of the UCSF Chancellor being misnamed. I realize you are not associated with UCSF from your posts and would think you would want to correct Marina from her statement using a name that is yours (and not the UCSF Chancellor) saying “David Smith accepted $1M in board(s) compensation. The inaccuracies and false references have abounded on this topic and in general recently and I think harms the DV. Don’t you?
SODA
Oh I see. I think there is a small misunderstanding
PS> Furthermore, the backlash at the Napo is now spreading throughout the other UC campuses…. watch and listen peanut gallery…..
Marina
I think Napolitano screwed herself by attacking regent De La Pena for what ever crime he committed . The other regents for sure did not like what Napolitano did and this maybe is the reason that regents are silent on Chancellor and Napolitano is not getting any support from them. Regents don’t like to have Police over their head and to be pushed around. . Maybe I am wrong but it is looks like .
Jerry, that is part of it but not the whole story either.
Over the decades, there were many self-made persons, some of color, and some women, on the Board of the Regents. Well-educated persons who gae their life and care about the UC.
Once the governor became jaded or whatever, he started attacking the UC.
Stopped funding the UC pension system more than 22 years ago and when it needed some help after decades of a “holiday”, he refused to give even a dime…. even though he paid into CalPers every year and to a much larger amount than ever in the history of the UC.
For some years, I have attended the ABOG UC-wide Academic Business Officers Group annual conferences and usually a Regent would be a featured speaker.
The governor started trying to push out the older Regents and used the opportunity to appoint some younger cronies who would push the gov’s agenda.
That was a recurring theme by the Regents who came in recent years. My health prevented me from attending this years meeting but the disappointment in the direction the Governor was taking was evident in each of the presentations for some years now.
The Napo was also appointed at the dismay of faculty and the Academic Senate, but she was who the Gov wanted…
I believe there is a combination of factors involved and we are still scratching the surface…
Unlike the UC system, PERS employers and employees were paying in for those years… bad analogy, and patently false as the current governor was NOT on “on-board”/in office for those years…
I would like to clarify not only my position but also my interest in the current situation.
I have practiced within the Kaiser system in Sacramento for the past 25 years. I am a UCDMC graduate of the class of 1983. For many years I have served as a volunteer faculty for UCDMC as do many Kaiser doctors since we train medical students and residents in the Kaiser / UCDMC affiliated programs.
I take exception to the false characterization of me being portrayed here as being on the “right or wrong” side of the issues surrounding the Chancellor. Again, I have never been a part of any “witch hunt”. Not once have I accused the Chancellor of doing anything that she has not admitted to doing. Where her actions have been beneficial to the university ( in my eyes) I have said so. However, where her actions have not been beneficial ( in my eyes) I have also said that.
My allegiance is to the well being of the university and its students, not to any one employee, no matter how highly placed. And that is to me, exactly what the Chancellor is, an employee and representative of the university. I believe that it is the role of the Chancellor to accomplish good for the university through positive leadership. As long as she was achieving that goal within the specified confines of her role ( following the rules) then she had my support. When she started accumulating “missteps”, initially trying to hide and cover them up, then minimize them, she started losing my support just as would a surgeon who instead of owning up to her errors and setting on a course of retraining, or self improvement, tried to hide, minimize and deflect responsibility.
I do not see this as the “good guys vs the bad guys”. I see it as a best fit for the position. I believe that the Chancellor, through her own stated actions, proved herself a poor fit to head a public institution. As for the downstream consequences of this mess in terms of funding and attraction of candidates for positions, I see plenty of responsibility all the way around. Ms. Napolitano could most certainly have handled the situation differently leading to less negative press. Chancellor Katehi could also have chosen to resign gracefully long before this became a public brawl. Better judgment on either side would likely have not drug the entirety of UCD into this very messy situation. And that is what this has always been about for me. What is best for the university as a whole ( not what is best for Ms. Napolitano, or the Chancellor, or the governor, or the Bee or Vanguard) but rather for the university. And whomever anyone thinks is to blame for what percentage of the problem, I think it is obvious that the current fiasco is not “the best” that could have been achieved by the university leadership.
“Chancellor Katehi could also have chosen to resign gracefully long before this became a public brawl.”
Ms. Tia
Gracefully for how much ? What country are you living? Graceful wrongful termination cost lot of money. You don’t trash people like Chancellor with such exception achievements and credentials. This is going to be very expensive . Why you don’t understand such simple things?
Jerry
“Why you don’t understand such simple things?”
I understand greed all too well. I consider it a very simple thing. I just do not happen to approve of it. Whether it is the Chancellor or anyone else who is displaying it. I have been accused of it. Most of us do not like that accusation. However, I find it very difficult to see how someone who is already earning upwards of $400,000 annually needs to pocket $75,000 more without calling it greed. Nor do I think that anyone should profit from the rightful resignation of their post.
[moderator] comment removed. Please read and adhere to the Vanguard Comment Policy.
Marina: Again, your first sentence is a personal comment that violates the user agreement. You certainly have the capacity to make the same point without the first sentence.
David
I read Marina’s comments. The first sentence is probably a little too much but the rest is pretty accurate. I think you shouldn’t remove the post entirely.
I encourage Marina to post it again less the first sentence.
My only problem was the first sentence and I didn’t remove the post.
David,
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Jerry, that is part of it but not the whole story either.”
Marina
Looks like Mr. Moderator slapped my Slavic sister. Cold war. Eastern Block.
Of course it is not all . I am also on the tweeter also and I see more what kind people and who is attacking Chancellor and who are they . It is a nasty stuff. Looks like Chancellor made a political mistake by accepting the position on the Advisory Board in King Abdulazzis University (KAU) in Jedda , Saudi Arabia where from the founder of the terror network Al-Queda, Osama Bin Laden graduated . The two quite famous UC Professors, Lior Pachter from the UC Berkeley and Jonathan Eisen turn down KAU’s offer . It happened before Janet Napolitano was hired as a UC President and looks it became the issues without saying that this the problem .
As I understood from the yesterday’s tweets with professor Eisen , he supported Chancellor Katehi but after the last Sacramento Bee Diane Lambert’s article about $17,000 trip to Switzerland, professor Eisen began poking on Chancellor Katehi following the Lambert from the Sacramento Bee . Chancellor was very generous to this professor by allowing him to make $ 322,455 in extra pay in the last five years in the contrary to UCD professor Bruce Rannala who lost a significant amount of money in extra pay ( he also tweeted about Chancellor ).
It seems to me that some forces pushing the KAU’s issue to frame Chancellor, taking into consideration fact that UC General Counsel Charles Robinson behalf hired against Chancellor the former U.S Attorney McGregor Scott who prosecuted Pakistani’s Al -Queda’s terrorists from Lodi ,CA. McGregor Scott was hired in addition to Melinda Haag . The presence of two U.S former prosecutors in the case with the background they have indicates that that is a very nasty game which is being played against Chancellor Katehi for long time under the umbrella of petty allegations and accusations.
Also if I look back to the 2011 pepper spray case where Chancellor was represented in the Federal Court by the same law firm which was hired in 2014 to represent university against myself than this case is so bizarre and most likely this the more politically and racially motivated case than any other motivation .
Jerry, I have no time for twitter….old school here and barely keep up…..
gotta get back to work…yeah, I know I am “on leave” until I retire, but…still way too much to do ….always… 🙂
And, Soda, I was addressing my comment as a response to David Smith..
learn your grammar rules or don’t they teach that anymore?
If my typing skills were remiss, then mea culpa…
Also, I don’t know who David Smith is and I certainly know he is not the UCSF Chancellor…as I DO know the guy’s name, but I was cautioned about using any names here….
the DV may be kinda gun shy…
at the same time, over the decades since 1970 at UCD, I have known many Dr. Smiths and even some Dr. David Smiths…one even lived down the street from my current Davis house….but he moved some years ago, and I believe he retired and wouldn’t be posting under a common pseudonym which would also be the real name … LOL
My apologies for misunderstanding. My grammar rules are just fine thank you!
I would just urge all to be respectful of private lives and be factual. We may be on opposite side of this and other issues yet this site offers a venue for dialogue we couldn’t get otherwise. Let’s keep it such!
Marina
This is unreal what is going on with Chancellor. It is blown out of proportion petty legally groundless stuff to make Chancellor looks like a criminal . This is a typical prosecutors tactics and we have two of them in this case . Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott. So far it did not work very well for Napolitano.
Jerry
This is why it’s important for the Chancellor to go to court with UCOP, even though it will cost a ton of money for both herself and the UC.
David
I agree and Chancellor can afford to do it . She has money .
DavidSmith
“I think I understand your position very well.”
I believe that you think this. And yet you and a couple of other posters here continue to make factual errors about statements that I have made. Since you find me too repetitive, my suggestion remains the same. Make whatever statements you want to express, but if you do not want to hear back from me, kindly just leave my name out of this.
Tia
I have apologized for not differentiating “visiting” and “volunteer” faculty positions. What other factual errors are there?
I very much like to hear back from you. I truly believe that the more discussion we have, the better we would be able to understand the issues that we are debating over. I hope that we could all put more facts and evidence on the table rather than just sharing opinions. I’m not saying that sharing opinions is a bad thing, but often times we need to dig a little deeper to understand what’s going on.
I don’t see it as a bad thing to change our opinion as more evidence emerge. Truly, nobody cares about what I think and nobody cares about what you think. The whole point of having a discussion like this is not to convince but to shed more light. And if you indeed care about the overall well being of the university, perhaps you could share your opinions on what we, as a community, should and could do to stand up to Napolitano who clearly has no interest in the well being of the university and who is in fact causing great harm not only to Chancellor Katehi but also our campus?
Well said DavidSmith….thank you
For those of less us involved in UCD could you list actions or issues that you think are a result of President Napolitano and negatively affect UCD? Not to include the current Chancellor investigation etc.
thanks.
Soda
Why the UC system needs a leader with a background in surveillance and terrorism rather than higher education?
Jerry, perhaps so, but as I asked, please make a list of actions which she has done which has negatively impacted UCD.
Soda, you seem to be simply badgering with the same demands, yet the answers have been given many a time, on this thread and other threads on this topic. Are you actually reading anything and attempting to comprehend and retain it, or?
Please no nasty comments. They have no place on our blog.
Yes I have been following but have not seen a list of grievances against the President except for the Chancellor debacle as they Impact UCD. No badgering just a simple request. Just list them and you can refer back to the link when we continue to ask.
There have been some serious innuendos as to nefarious actions; I would like to see a list so I can evidence for myself.
Respectfully,
Soda
I think that your question is a perfect question for Chancellor Katehi to answer how the UC Davis was negatively affected by the Napolitano’s leadership from 2013 to the present time . The Academic Senate leader Andre Knoesen probably partially could answer the question . This is a very complex question involving many variables . I think that nobody on this forum can answer this question .
TODAY’S THE SACRAMENTO BEE
KATEHI REFUSES TO TURN OVER CELLPHONE, iPAD TO UC INVESTIGATORS
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article84942317.html