Chancellor Linda Katehi perhaps has a brief window of time to act in order to save her job and in order to take advantage of the consensus for change, despite the vote of confidence she received from Cruz Reynoso on Thursday.
On Friday, Chancellor Katehi acknowledged the problems that the campus faces in a statement, “The Reynoso task force report illuminated clearly and sharply the need for major reform of campus police operations and better coordination, collaboration and communication within the UC Davis administration and with the broader university community.”
“We are moving swiftly to address these issues and any others that need attention. In fact, we began addressing several areas of need prior to the release of the Task Force report,” she said.
One of the next steps is the internal review processes that could lead to personnel decisions. The task force was specifically precluded from making personnel recommendations, but it seems fairly obvious that at least Chief Annette Spicuzza and Lt. John Pike will be dismissed, based on the report from Kroll.
The statement by the chancellor notes, “While the Reynoso task force addresses many areas for broad improvement, parallel but wholly independent internal affairs inquiries (so-called ‘I. A.’s’) into officer conduct have been ongoing and are nearing completion. These inquiries will inform personnel decisions.”
At the same time, Acting Police Chief Matt Carmichael has, in consultation with campus leadership, asked independent experts to audit department policies and training records, and propose needed changes.
Acting Chief Carmichael also has invited an internationally recognized expert in police accountability to lead a campus forum on this topic.
“This is envisioned as a possible step toward establishing a campus police review commission. If adopted, it would be just the second in the UC system. He will provide details soon,” the chancellor said.
“We will also commission an independent, top-to-bottom audit of campus police operations, as the Task Force recommends,” Chancellor Katehi continued. “And, we await a report from the Special Committee of the Davis Division of the UC Academic Senate, and results of a system-wide analysis of police practices led by UC Berkeley Law School Dean Christopher Edley and UC Office of the President General Counsel Charles Robinson. We will seek ways to utilize both reports in our planning.”
“Efforts to improve administrative coordination, collaboration and communication are also underway. On April 6, I announced the creation of a Campus Community Council, with broad student, academic, staff, emeriti, alumni, community and administrative representatives,” she said noting, “This council will meet for the first time next week. It will be an additional venue for receiving campus input on strategic campus issues, including those raised by the Task Force.”
Chancellor Katehi said, “Effective collaboration, of course, extends beyond our campus. Since the report’s release, I have met with several state lawmakers and other external community members. I will meet next week with Justice Reynoso and several task force members.”
Police Officer’s Bill of Rights
One of the key frustrations for former Justice Cruz Reynoso was the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act, California Government Code sections 3300-3311, known commonly by different variations of that name.
“Some of the delays were caused by the negotiations with the policemen’s union to see whether the Kroll Investigators could meet with some of the police officers – that got resolved,” Justice Reynoso said on Thursday.
He continued, “The greatest delay happened because of the lawsuit.”
Mr. Reynoso did not blame the lawyers who brought the lawsuit, but rather the law. “They brought it based on some legislation that has come from Sacramento. So my blame is on the legislators who have passed legislation that sometimes is referred to as the policeman’s bill of rights.”
‘The reality is, as you can see in this case, that it does not permit the community to know exactly what happened, who’s responsible for it, what can be done to correct it,” he continued. “I think that that’s a great disservice to the communities that deal with police officers who, after all, are public servants. And I personally think it’s a disservice to the police.”
He would later raise the issue several times and call on Sacramento to address it.
One of the obvious possible Senators to carry forth such an effort would be Senator Leland Yee, an ardent critic of the University of California and defender of the public’s right to know.
His spokesperson told the Vanguard that, while they would look into it, the California Newspaper Publishers Association (CNPA) attempted to make changes a few years ago following the Copley Press decision, and made no headway.
Senator Lois Wolk told the Vanguard on Friday, “I support the Task Force recommendation that the ‘Office of the President (UCOP) should review provisions of the Police Officers Bill of Rights that appear to limit independent public review of police conduct and make appropriate recommendations to the Legislature.'”
The Senator continued, “I look forward to receiving the recommendations from the UCOP and making the appropriate changes so that any future investigations of similar events, at any campus, can be conducted in a more thorough, transparent, and timely manner.”
However, she added that her primary concern was making sure the internal changes are made to avoid repeating mistakes in the future.
“My primary concern, however, is that UC Davis make the necessary changes recommended by the Reynoso Task Force so that an event like this never happens again,” Senator Wolk said.
Assemblymember Yamada was on the road Friday and unavailable. Her spokesperson told the Vanguard, “She does hope that the Higher Education and Public Safety committees in the legislature will convene hearings to discuss this issue.”
—David M. Greenwald reporting
“The Task Force was specifically precluded from making personnel recommendations . . .”
Is Justice Reynoso, as head of the Task Force report, been relieved of that constraint? He made a widely publicized timely declaration that Chancellor Katehi should not be terminated as a result of his report.
It would seem that the Justice has inserted himself into the decision-making process of accountability for which he has no authority and rightly belongs to the University.
However much her fundraising abilities may yield and whatever she says in the future, Katehi has lost the moral authority to be an effective leader.
[quote][b]”Chancellor Katehi’s Brief Window to Act”[/b]
“Chancellor Linda Katehi has a brief window of time to act in order to save her job, despite the vote of confidence she received from Cruz Reynoso….”[/quote]So, I’ve read the article four times and have yet to see a single word justifying that Katehi has to act in any specific manner “in order to save her job.”
Furthermore, there’s no basis for the “brief window” contention. The only discussion about “moving swiftly” comes from Katehi herself in reporting how quickly university officials have acted to make reforms.
Was there more to the article that didn’t get posted? Is this an attempt to start a new drumbeat for the chancellor’s resignation or firing? Or, just an preemptive strike to discredit any positive action she undertakes as simply an effort she’s made “in order to save her job”?
Everything I’ve read so far, including the statement you quote from Justice Reynoso, suggests those who have influence over her job are looking to Katehi to led the implementation of changes at UCD. What has convinced you otherwise?
[i]Chancellor Linda Katehi has a brief window of time to act in order to save her job[/i]
No, this is a fabrication. Katehi’s job isn’t in jeopardy, because she has the confidence of both Yudof, her superior, and the faculty of UC Davis, her principal subordinates. She is in the middle of a window of time to act and there have already been many actions. She obviously doesn’t have the confidence of the Fox News of Davis, but then, she never did. Before she even showed up, she had blood on her hands, she made the mistakes of Nixon, the works.
“It would seem that the Justice has inserted himself into the decision-making process of accountability for which he has no authority and rightly belongs to the University.”
I agree.
“Katehi’s job isn’t in jeopardy, because she has the confidence of both Yudof, her superior, and the faculty of UC Davis, her principal subordinates. “
That sounds good, but we’ll see how it all shakes out. Part of how that shakes out will depend on how quickly she can move to shore up the problems.
The report makes her look incompetent, so it’s a change disconnect going on right now.
“She obviously doesn’t have the confidence of the Fox News of Davis, but then, she never did. Before she even showed up, she had blood on her hands, she made the mistakes of Nixon, the works,”
How I’ve missed the misrepresentations of Greg Kuperberg.
“Furthermore, there’s no basis for the “brief window” contention. “
There is a lot of basis, institutions have inertia and there is a very limited window when the guard is down to make huge and whole sale changes, whether you think her job is in jeopardy or not, she has a narrow window to enact reforms.
Greg K. I don’t know if you are familiar with Katehi’s background but not taking responsibility for her actions seems to be her m.o. Michael Harrington mentioned University of Illinois (yesterday and the day before) and I agree that they should have reviewed her involvement in the “pay to play (attend) U of I scandal” and stayed away from her. I don’t trust her to lead UCD. Bad leadership and poor judgment. She sounded incompetent when she addressed the 8,000+ people at UCD after the pepper spray incident too.
I was hoping you say something to explain why you wrote this headline and lede, then didn’t even attempt to support it. There must a reason that you wrote that Katehi has a limited window [b]”to act in order to save her job”[/b]: [quote]”Was there more to the article that didn’t get posted? Is this an attempt to start a new drumbeat for the chancellor’s resignation or firing? Or, just an preemptive strike to discredit any positive action she undertakes as simply an effort she’s made “in order to save her job”?[/quote]It sounds as though you now saying all of that commentary is inoperative. You were just trying to make some general observation about the natural law of institutional inertia.
You’re simply advising her to move quickly–while the iron is hot and while the institutional guard is down–to make the changes she wants to carry out to make UCD a better institution. The revised view certainly allows the rest of the story to make a lot of sense.
[quote]”It would seem that the Justice has inserted himself into the decision-making process of accountability for which he has no authority and rightly belongs to the University.” [/quote]
Yes, Reynoso’s biases are showing…
JS: I’ll just say sometimes the intent of what I write doesn’t make it into the text. As such I revised the article to make it better reflect my intent. I’ll offer an apology but remind you it’s been a long week as well.
David, here is what Greg was referring to: [url]https://davisvanguard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2795:commentary-new-chancellors-tenure-already-stained-with-the-fee-hikes-of-students&catid=64:students&Itemid=118[/url]
Yes, that and a lot of other propaganda between then and now.
[quote] How I’ve missed the misrepresentations of Greg Kuperberg[/quote]
This is a rather mean spirited response to a comment. Can you give a couple of examples of a misrepresentation?
My view on Davis Vanguard:
I started discussing about Nov18 five months ago and Davis Vanguard is the only place I know where I could have a discussion with opposing views without being verbally attacked. Therefore in terms of adhering to the intention of conflict resolution, Davis Vanguard is irreplaceable.
As for the “Brief Window”
As the Reynoso report has revealed, not voicing one’s concern and not communicating one’s vision clearly are irresponsible to a community. I hope that the Reynoso report had reset everyone’s attention to the discussion stage on the conflict resolution continuum that I explain below, and that everyone in the community would work together to sustain this attitude to resolve the current conflict and conflicts in the future.
——
[b]The Conflict Resolution Continuum[/b]
In terms of long term stability, I think people need to have a better understanding on the ethical basis of civil disobedience. Similar to the Use of Force continuum of the Police, civilians should also follow a a continuum regarding expressions and discourse, and choose only the least obtrusive method given a situation.
If everyone understand and adhere to such continuum, then the every member in the community will understand what actions are needed to deescalate a conflict.
The following is my view of such a continuum, starting from the least obtrusive. For each one I tried to describe the condition that makes that level of disturbance permissible or necessary:
1) Tolerance: You see something is wrong, but you have faith that the wrongdoer also knows it and will correct it on their own.
2) Inform: The problem is not resolving on its own, but you believe that it will be resolved if the wrongdoer is informed that he is causing a problem.
3) Discuss: You try to reason it with the offender and try to understand their perspective to find a mutually beneficial solution. For this to work, the offender needs to be rational and have the integrity to admit faults. These qualities should be acquired before a person graduates from high school because true democracy requires these skills.
4) Decision Protocols: A solution that would satisfy everyone was deemed unachievable. A community then resorts to decision methods aimed to maximize the overall goodness. Majority rule and elections fall into this category. When the discussion stage is skipped, a democracy would degenerate into a power struggle, or a mob rule.
5) Lawful Action: This level is reached when decision protocols fail due to a biased concentration of decision power. These actions are intended to bound the power, to harm, or to cause loss, and are done within the common law. The actions include verbal attacks, boycott and lawsuit.
6) Unlawful Action: When even lawful means are exhausted this is the only category left. Civil disobedience falls into this category. The actors of unlawful actions should justify why lawful means are exhausted.
In the aftermath of Nov18, the Protesters were mainly stuck in the Legal Action, Illegal Action realm. The Reynoso report reset the situation and brought the attention back to the Inform/Discuss realm. This is a moment where the conflicts could be resolved through discussion. The main obstacle for the community to sustain this cooperation is the animosity toward the Admin and the Police.
A person who adheres to the principle of a conflict resolution continuum would become incapable of feeling anger. This is because in the face of animosity, they are constantly thinking about ways to deescalate the situation. The focus on problem solving makes them calm. Therefore anger is an indicator that the person with such emotion should address their own deviation from the principle. The self-control of this type of emotion should be acquired before a person graduates from a university because that age and education level coincides with the level of occupations in our society that holds power and authority.
In the course of events related to Nov18, the police and the Admin had both demonstrated their self-controls in that regard. The Protesters did not, but that is expected, because according to our education system, they had barely learned how to think logically. Our education system does not have a focus in K-12 to use discussion to resolve differences intellectually, but has a focus on election as a signature practice of democracy. That omission causes a systemic failure in our K-12 education because it distorted the continuum of conflict resolution.
Regardless whether the lesson is learned from school, from the media, or from one’s family, the use of discussion, not as a debate, but as a mean of problem solving within the context of conflict resolution continuum, must be learned to sustain stability of a community.