The twice pushed-back report will finally be released at noon on March 6. Downloadable task force findings, recommendations and background documents will be available on the UC Davis home page.
Former California Supreme Court Associate Justice Cruz Reynoso, chair of the task force investigating the pepper-spray incident on Nov. 18, said today (March 2) that the group will outline its findings and recommendations to the UC Davis community – students, faculty and staff – on Tuesday (March 6) from 3 to 4:30 p.m. in the UC Davis Conference Center Ballroom.
The report had been twice delayed, and recently revised from a February 21 release date to March 6.
In February, Cruz Reynoso reported, in a letter, difficulty in getting police officers to speak to the panel. The investigating firm Kroll was never able to speak with the officers directly involved.
In a letter to President Yudof he indicated, “Through several rounds of negotiation the General Counsel’s office has made an agreement with FUPOA [Federated University Police Officers Association] for access to non subject officers. Interviews with non subject officers are taking place this week.”
He added, “In early March, the Task Force and I will outline our recommendations to the UC Davis community, the students, faculty and staff, and engage in an open dialogue on the deliberative process.”
In his letter he reported: “I am writing to report to you that the Task Force continues to work diligently towards the release of the final report outlining recommendations to Chancellor Katehi and you. These recommendations, assisted by the fact finding report from Kroll, will include improvements to police procedures, command protocols, and campus policies and oversight structures that will help ensure that the rights and safety of nonviolent protestors and the entire campus community are protected.”
“As I previously indicated to you, the Task Force believes that it is imperative to have a complete understanding of the events that took place on that afternoon,” Justice Reynoso continued.
“To that end, the Task Force has maintained an aggressive schedule, having met as a group on five separate occasions to review a considerable amount of information surrounding the details of the event. As members of the UC Davis community, we are mindful of and share the intense desire of faculty, staff, and students to have trust and confidence restored,” he added. “Therefore, while we are trying to be swift in releasing the report, we have an obligation to the campus community not to be hurried.”
In an email sent out Thursday to the campus community, Provost Ralph J. Hexter and Vice Chancellor John Meyer laid out their revised approach to managing campus protests which, to be quite frank, have been mismanaged for as long as the Vanguard has been covering them. That goes back to 2007 when protesters were illegally arrested at Mrak Hall for trespassing during business hours.
They write, “We’re writing to update you on this and the anticipated release of a report from the Reynoso task force, which has been conducting an inquiry into the pepper spraying of students last Nov. 18 during a demonstration on the Quad.”
“Meanwhile, since classes resumed in January there has been a brief occupation of the former Cross Cultural Center; placement of tents on the Quad; sustained efforts by a small group of demonstrators to deny access to employees and customers to the U.S. Bank office in Memorial Union; and, most recently, disruption of a lecture featuring Israeli soldiers,” they continue.
They lay forth a number of “principles underlying our efforts to protect lawful freedom of expression.”
First, “The campus’s efforts to manage these situations have been, and are, guided by patience and restraint.”
Second, “When protesters’ actions exceed established guidelines for protected free speech, we are seeking to engage and listen to them while explaining the potential implications of their actions. At the former Cross Cultural Center, for example, this approach facilitated a peaceful end to a potentially divisive situation. The established guidelines for protected free speech are available online.”
Third, “We have formed engagement teams to visit protest sites and communicate directly with protesters. At the bank, we have consistently and persistently conveyed to demonstrators that they are violating campus and state regulations by denying access to customers and bank staff, and that they are subject to campus disciplinary and criminal misdemeanor sanctions.”
Fourth, “We will communicate similarly with any individuals participating in occupation activities on the Quad or elsewhere on campus, recognizing that campus police may be required to help respond to or resolve emergency situations.”
Finally, “We will continue to monitor these situations and will take action as necessary to ensure that all members of our campus community can practice their First Amendment rights while also permitting the ongoing operations of the university’s teaching, research and public service functions.”
Last week, the campus released a report on the process for legal pursuit of the bank blockers.
“In response to demonstrations that have interrupted service at the U.S. Bank branch in the Memorial Union in recent weeks, UC Davis has begun notifying the campus community of the ramifications of blocking the bank,” the February 24, 2012 report reads, “Approximately 2,000 customers have accounts at the campus branch under an agreement that last year provided $167,000 in funding for student programs at UC Davis. Members of the campus’s protest Engagement Team have been providing protesters with verbal and written information about the responsibilities of all UC Davis students, faculty and staff to abide by campus conduct standards and the law.”
According to the report, the Engagement Team was formed after the Nov. 18 pepper spraying incident on the Quad, “as a way to help ensure that conflicts on the campus are handled peacefully.”
The team consists of a representative from Student Affairs, a mediator from Human Resources and a negotiator from the Police Department.
Last week, the Engagement Team provided “bank occupiers with verbal and written information explaining that violations of student conduct standards may be referred to the Student Judicial Affairs office. Such cases may be resolved informally or through a formal hearing process, with potential penalties ranging from counseling to dismissal.”
So, the solution to unlawful protest is either “counseling” or “dismissal?”
The report continues, “In addition, the Engagement Team has been providing protesters with verbal and written notification that blocking the entrance to the bank branch is a violation of Section 647C of the California Penal Code, which makes it a misdemeanor to ‘willfully and maliciously’ obstruct the free movement of any person on a street, sidewalk or other public place.”
They add: “Signs were also posted on Monday, Feb. 13, in the branch windows, explaining that blocking the bank or any other public place is a misdemeanor violation of Section 647c.”
“We hope to be able to resolve this issue without conflict,” said Fred Wood, vice chancellor for student affairs. “We encourage and support expressions of free speech on this campus, and make every effort to ensure that students’ voices can be heard on a range of issues. At the same time, we have an obligation to honor our contract with U.S. Bank and a responsibility to ensure that members of the campus community, who have business to conduct at the bank, or have jobs at the bank, can safely enter and exit the branch.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’m thinking that the police organization should change their name to Eully United Brother(/sister)hood Against Revelation [FUBAR].
Seems backward. Why would campus introduce new policies before report is in?
Is the event on Tues open to all?
I think the report is released at noon and the event follows that up and is open to the public.
David, my comment was the email you noted from John Meyer is preceding the report? Isn’t that cart before horse, seems quite arrogant.
That report I think comes out mid-March or something.
We must be on different wavelengths this am. I am referring to the ’email from Ralph Hexler and John Meyer’ you quoted. That has come out and seems arrogant to distribute before the Tues report which should be assessing and making recommendations. Yes?
[quote]These recommendations, assisted by the fact finding report from Kroll, will include improvements to police procedures, command protocols, and campus policies and oversight structures that will help ensure that the rights and safety of nonviolent protestors and the entire campus community are protected.”[/quote]
So IMO the lawsuit filed by the ACLU was grossly premature, and nothing but grandstanding.
[quote]”Meanwhile, since classes resumed in January there has been a brief occupation of the former Cross Cultural Center; placement of tents on the Quad; sustained efforts by a small group of demonstrators to deny access to employees and customers to the U.S. Bank office in Memorial Union; and, most recently, disruption of a lecture featuring Israeli soldiers,” they continue.[/quote]
This continues to show that students are not blameless. Infringing on others’ rights is not acceptable, just to make your own points. There are time/place/manner restrictions on the freedom of speech, and many of the students are continuing to be unreasonable, and are angering other members of the student body. Secondly, it is interesting how these protesters are perfectly willing to cut off speech they don’t like – what gives them that right?
[quote]”In response to demonstrations that have interrupted service at the U.S. Bank branch in the Memorial Union in recent weeks, UC Davis has begun notifying the campus community of the ramifications of blocking the bank,” the February 24, 2012 report reads, “Approximately 2,000 customers have accounts at the campus branch under an agreement that last year provided $167,000 in funding for student programs at UC Davis. Members of the campus’s protest Engagement Team have been providing protesters with verbal and written information about the responsibilities of all UC Davis students, faculty and staff to abide by campus conduct standards and the law.”[/quote]
And at times these protesting students are hurting themselves, but interfering with programs that end up providing funding to student programs.
[quote]So, the solution to unlawful protest is either “counseling” or “dismissal?”[/quote]
Let’s see, you don’t want these students pepper-sprayed or forcefully removed. You seem to indicate you don’t want them counseled or dismissed. So what would you suggest is the solution – allow them to indefinitely interfere with other students rights to be able to have access to banking services on campus? What gives them that right to decide for others what they can/can’t do? What right will they trample on next, to get their way?
[quote]Seems backward. Why would campus introduce new policies before report is in? [/quote]
Because they have had ongoing problems with demonstrating students interfering w campus operations – BEFORE THE REPORT HAS COME OUT. They have had to deal with it immediately – they could not wait for the report to come out, and they did not want any repeats of the pepper spraying incident. I don’t see anything nefarious about that – it seems like the eminently sensible things to do…
SODA,
I think that Ralph Hexler and John Meyer, the two Vice Chancellors who will no doubt absorb most of the criticism from Cruz Reynoso’s task force, are playing C.Y.O.A. by attempting to suggest that they have already implemented the changes recommended by the task force, thus blunting the force of Reynoso’s criticisms, and attempting to save their jobs.
What difference does it make why UCD made the preemptive move, if it is the right one?
SODA,
“I think that Ralph Hexler and John Meyer, the two Vice Chancellors who will no doubt absorb most of the criticism from Cruz Reynoso’s task force, are playing C.Y.O.A. by attempting to suggest that they have already implemented the changes recommended by the task force, thus blunting the force of Reynoso’s criticisms, and attempting to save their jobs.”
Or perhaps we could give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that they truly do want to prevent further episodes of excessive force and recognize that the best way to do so may be too recognize that there were excesses on both sides of this conflict ( disruptive actions on the part of the students and over reaction on the part of the police) and enact policies designed to prevent this sequence of events in the future.
With regard to Elaine’s comments, as you are so fond of saying, I don’t think you can have this both ways. Either the university is correct in taking action to deal with the ongoing problems before the Reynoso task force report is issued and the ACLU is appropriate in filing a lawsuit with intent to deter future such events before the report is out, or both sides should have awaited the report. I think your assessment in this case is biased by your anti protestor stance.
“So IMO the lawsuit filed by the ACLU was grossly premature, and nothing but grandstanding.”
I very much disagree. Do you realize how long it will take the lawsuit to come to any kind of resolution? The Buzayan lawsuit is going on six years now. They can always withdraw it if it is not needed, but after reading through the response to the bank protest, I really question how much they have learned.
“Let’s see, you don’t want these students pepper-sprayed or forcefully removed. You seem to indicate you don’t want them counseled or dismissed.”
So you are going to counsel a protestor on what exactly? That notion is preposterous to me and the idea that they would get kicked out of school or potentially for protesting real sends chills down my spine.
“What difference does it make why UCD made the preemptive move, if it is the right one?”
For one thing it undermines the public’s confidence that the task force’s report will be anything more than window dressing.
So you are going to counsel a protestor on what exactly? That notion is preposterous to me and the idea that they would get kicked out of school or potentially for protesting real sends chills down my spine.
not protesting: obstruction of justice, infringing on the rights of other students or faculty, threatening a police officer, “i.e. if you let them go, we will let you leave…..”
For one thing it undermines the public’s confidence that the task force’s report will be anything more than window dressing.
yes, but that is the fault of the protestors, by making the university believe they will strike anywhere at any time for any reason, whether the report is released or not, means the university needs to take precautionary measures in the interim….
[quote]the idea that they would get kicked out of school or potentially for protesting real sends chills down my spine.[/quote]
Let’s be honest. Nobody is objecting to students protesting. This statement is based on a false premise. There are numerous opportunities to demonstrate, protest, and to exercise free speech on campus without breaking the law.
Students should be kicked out of school in extreme circumstances if they violate laws or violate established campus regulations.
The fact that this sends a chill down your spine indicates that it is an effective solution that would work. If only the campus administrators had some backbone.
Unless the extreme circumstances go well beyond what has been described to date, I have real problem with that policy.
To dmg: I will repeat bc you didn’t rally answer:
[quote]Let’s see, you don’t want these students pepper-sprayed or forcefully removed. You seem to indicate you don’t want them counseled or dismissed. So what would you suggest is the solution – allow them to indefinitely interfere with other students rights to be able to have access to banking services on campus? What gives them that right to decide for others what they can/can’t do? What right will they trample on next, to get their way?[/quote]
Your solution is to continue allowing the protesters to shut down banking on campus?
[quote]With regard to Elaine’s comments, as you are so fond of saying, I don’t think you can have this both ways. Either the university is correct in taking action to deal with the ongoing problems before the Reynoso task force report is issued and the ACLU is appropriate in filing a lawsuit with intent to deter future such events before the report is out, or both sides should have awaited the report. I think your assessment in this case is biased by your anti protestor stance.[/quote]
I could not disagree w you more. The university has a responsibility for the safety of all students, so needs to be proactive. As dmg has pointed out, the ACLU has plenty of time to file its case, and could have easily waited until after the results of the investigation – but chose not to my guess is bc it would have stolen their thunder/prevented them from grandstanding…
I wish people would stop condemning the students who are just trying to keep issues alive – increasing costs of education along with the deterioration of the quality of that education, etc. The protestors actions are not that big of a deal on campus and are, in fact, an appreciated activity on campus where it is getting harder and harder for students to remain in school and complete their degrees. Homelessness and hunger is a growing element on campus amongst students. Petty responses about “grandstanding” and proper “timing and place of protests” makes me think that commenters have no clue about what’s happening or they just don’t care. The promise of higher education that these older people enjoyed is being broken for the generation that is following them.
“First of all, the students had an opportunity to discuss the issue, and did not bother to show up.”
They did discuss the issue at the Student Liaison meeting, it likely became clear that this was the way it was going to be.
My suggestion here is to create a task force, set a definite period of time to come up with agreed upon solutions to a set range of problems that the city wants to address, and if they don’t start addressing those issues then you have a much stronger case to make your point.
“Your solution is to continue allowing the protesters to shut down banking on campus?”
Two points. One you have far from exhausted the list of possible responses other than pepper spraying, force, counseling which is a joke, and expulsion which is basically destroying a student’s future because they chose to protest. It seems to me there are other alternatives.
My preference would be a strategy of ignoring and finding a way to get the customers into the bank.
“but chose not to my guess is bc it would have stolen their thunder/prevented them from grandstanding”
You keep failing to consider the fact that the lawsuit may force the university to not attempt to whitewash the findings knowing that they will be held accountable in a court of law.
Justsaying: I disagree that they are barely related, I think it all underscores a fundamental distrust that exists.
[quote]Petty responses about “grandstanding” and proper “timing and place of protests” makes me think that commenters have no clue about what’s happening or they just don’t care. The promise of higher education that these older people enjoyed is being broken for the generation that is following them.[/quote]
When protesters keep other students from getting an education, or carrying on activities of daily living like going to the bank, that is a problem…
[quote]It seems to me there are other alternatives. My preference would be a strategy of ignoring and finding a way to get the customers into the bank.[/quote]
How, if entrance/exit to bank is blocked by protesters?
“
When protesters keep other students from getting an education, or carrying on activities of daily living like going to the bank, that is a problem…”
When the policies of the regents and the legislature do the same – it’s not?
“How, if entrance/exit to bank is blocked by protesters? “
I think intelligent people can figure out a way to resolve that without threatening the future of students because they block access to a bank.
Protestors often feel that they want/need to cause disruption to effectively protest, or to bring more attention to them and/or their message. However, the protestors need to take responsibility for their actions, which may include being arrested and or being expelled. Their actions do have consequences, just as the actions of the police and/or administration also have consequences. The protestors will keep pushing the edge until they get the response that they desire.
I strongly disagree with David’s statement that “intelligent people can figure out a way to resolve that without threatening the future of students because they block access to a bank”. The students are trying to create conflict and be disruptive. That is their point of blocking the bank! You either believe that they should be allowed to block access to the bank, or you don’t. If you don’t, and you tell the protestors they either cease or will be expelled, they can choose what they want to do with fair warning. One can argue that the penalty is too stiff, but if a student protestor can’t figure out what to do in that situation, then maybe they aren’t bright enough to attend UCD. You’ve got to draw a line somewhere, and clearly most were not happy with the use of pepper spray. How much resources should UCD have to spend out of their budget to “accommodate” these protestors by finding “work-arounds” for the fact that they are trying to block access to a bank?
[quote]@Elaine “When protesters keep other students from getting an education, or carrying on activities of daily living like going to the bank, that is a problem…”[/quote]
Protestors are not keeping students from getting an education. Petty…and really missing the real issues that are having an impact on students.
“I could not disagree w you more. The university has a responsibility for the safety of all students, so needs to be proactive. As dmg has pointed out, the ACLU has plenty of time to file its case, and could have easily waited until after the results of the investigation – but chose not to my guess is bc it would have stolen their thunder/prevented them from grandstanding…”
Perhaps some alternative explanations for the ACLUs decision to file when they did would be :
1) to prevent future police excesses which frankly could have occurred at any time, not just after the release of the Reynoso report, by impressing upon university officials the legal consequences of imprudent use of force.
2) To keep the issue in the forefront of public attention ( aka grandstanding if you like). I happen to see it as a potential more effective strategy
than allowing the issue to die out.
3) in representing students, I can see a place for a certain sense of urgency since some of them will doubtless be moving ov to other locations for jobs, graduate programs, professional schools and the like thus lessening the likelihood of their full participation in the case.
I don’t presume to know their exact reasoning, but I see no need to assume the worst simply because it is the ACLU.
“When protesters keep other students from getting an education”
I would say that the university with it’s dramatic increases in tuition and costs has done far more to ” keep students from getting an education”
Than the protesters have ever done.
Maybe the ACLU lawsuit will get somewhere.
http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/crime-fire-courts/task-force-holds-findings-due-to-union-legal-action/