The Vanguard has not completed its person-by-person analysis just yet. On Tuesday, Chancellor Katehi made her first public comment on the release of the report.
Once again, she said she accepted “full responsibility” for the pepper spray incident and she made promises about changes to ensure “something like this does not happen again.”
“The report illuminated very clearly and critiqued sharply the missteps within the administration and the police which led us to a very unfortunate and regrettable event,” she said.
“As I said in November and I repeat now, I take full responsibility for the event and I consider myself accountable for all of the actions that have to be taken to ensure our campus is safe,” she said.
Never mind, perhaps, that it is unclear what “responsibility” means in this context. After all, the chancellor continues to insist that, while she approved the police operation which was to remove the tent, and this was to take place during the day, which was also her call, she insists that she wanted no force used.
The report, as we will analyze more fully later, shows a good deal of ambiguity if not naiveté about the use of force.
The November 15 Operations Plan argues, “The use of force is highly likely in this type of situation based on past events.”
According to the report, Chancellor Katehi said, “It was clear in my mind and others … that we wanted to remove the tents … and we wanted to do it without any violence – safely.”
However, Kroll adds, “Chancellor Katehi’s understanding that ‘no violence’ would be employed in the removal of the tents was not clear in the mind of Vice Chancellor Meyer, however. Meyer’s interpretation of the Berkeley guidance was that some use of force by police would be acceptable in taking down the tents. When the Berkeley reference was mentioned, Meyer understood that to mean that the Leadership Team did not want the police to use batons.”
Kroll writes, “According to Meyer, he understood that ‘there’s an escalation of uses of force’ and that ‘if I’m trying to bring someone out of the tent or … break a line physically by grabbing your arm and moving you apart … I think I understand that that was still allowable.’ “
Moreover, “According to Meyer, he did not understand that Chancellor Katehi believed that no force at all would be employed in taking down the tents until her comments following the November 18 police action.”
On Tuesday, Chancellor Katehi acknowledged the need for a full review of the police department actions and the dysfunction that the report found in that department.
Meanwhile, as the Davis Enterprise reports, the costs keep mounting for the university. The cost just for the Kroll report is $445,879.40.
The paper reports, “Kroll’s fee – about $300 per hour for the six investigators and three supervisors – is one more indication of how costly those mistakes will turn out to be, in dollars and cents alone.”
The paper also reports that that money comes from insurance reserves.
That figure does not include the legal costs, the paper adds.
They write, “The Federated University Police Officers Association also forced UC into a monthlong legal fight over the Kroll and Reynoso reports. UCOP did not immediately provide a cost estimate for the legal work done by staff and outside attorneys.”
It also does not include the $100,000 the university spent on a PR firm to help the campus deal with negative imagery that had arisen in the aftermath of the pepper-spray incident.
The Enterprise reports further, “The costliest bill may be yet to come: Protesters have filed suit in federal court against the university, its leadership and the Police Department.”
The university has had to re-think as to how to approach these incidents. The Kroll report quotes Associate Vice Chancellor Griselda Castro, who had argued for another approach, only to be met with complaints about how much her approach might have cost the university.
She told them, “It’d be cheaper to put two porta-potties and have the police patrol, than if something goes wrong, the months of litigation that could follow … it’s going to be Thanksgiving, it’s going to rain, the finals are coming. It’ll blow over.”
Those remarks were reportedly received by silence, and were unacted upon.
In the meantime, the university has shifted tactics. Now instead of confrontations on the scene, they will simply be monitoring the events and forwarding possible complaints to the District Attorney’s office.
It is unclear that this was the actual plan that occurred in the bank blocking incident. After all, that incident and the lack of perhaps more forceful law enforcement may end up costing the university, as well.
One thing that is clear is that the university for years has mishandled police incidents which have spiraled out of control. There were the illegal arrests at Mrak in mid-May of 2007, and the operation at I-80 where the police successfully kept students from entering the highway, but were dishonest in the fact that they tasered a student. There was the Brienna Holmes incident at Mrak later that same year, and now this incident which was by far the worst and most publicizied.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The City of Davis, for instance, keeps Ombudsman Robert Aaronson on as a consultant for precisely that reason. Prior to his hiring and prior to the hiring of Chief Landy Black to head the department, the city was regularly paying out tens of thousands in claims.
In fact, the city still is wrapped in litigation from an incident in a parking lot involving a bumper bender that could have easily been prevented with a less heavy-handed approach.
Now the UC Davis Police Department is looking into the formation of a police review commission with Interim Police Chief Matt Carmichael apparently seeking out independent experts to suggest changes and improvements.
It is as much a lesson for the City of Davis, as they consistently look to save money, that sometimes cutting money in some areas actually end up costing the community and the bottom line more in the long run.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I have a thought about what form”taking responsibility” could take in the case of Chancellor Katehi. Since when she was hired, she was offered a substantial pay raise over that of her predecessor ostensibly because she was felt to be of unique value, and since a large part of the reason the protest that she and others mishandled was over increases in student tuition and fees, perhaps a fitting response would be for her to voluntarily decrease her own salary say by $50 -100,000 and designate that this money go to programs directly benefitting students.
Wouldn’t that be a refreshing assumption of responsibility ? And what a model of leadership.!
I am unable to correct the caption under the photo to reflect that it is from a Monday in November.
[quote]and the operation at I-80 where the police successfully kept students from entering the highway, but were dishonest in the fact that they tasered a student. [/quote]
I’m not familiar w the tasering incident, but would you have preferred the police to allow the tasered student to go out on I-80 and get killed or get a motorist killed?
[quote]An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The City of Davis, for instance, keeps Ombudsman Robert Aaronson on as a consultant for precisely that reason. Prior to his hiring and prior to the hiring of Chief Landy Black to head the department, the city was regularly paying out tens of thousands in claims.[/quote]
Fair point. It will be interesting to see what comes of the Reynoso report and what changes are made at UCD to handle student protests…
“I’m not familiar w the tasering incident, but would you have preferred the police to allow the tasered student to go out on I-80 and get killed or get a motorist killed?”
I would have preferred the police not to have lied about it until a videotape came forward showing unequivocally that they had tased her.
[quote]I would have preferred the police not to have lied about it until a videotape came forward showing unequivocally that they had tased her.[/quote]
Sigh… so it was okay to taser the students, just not to lie about having done it? If the tasering was legit, what difference does it make whether the police were forthcoming about it or not? Can you blame them for not wanting to have to argue about it? If it took a taser to prevent a student from going out onto I-80, that student ought to be grateful to the police – I’ll bet the student’s parents are…
” If the tasering was legit, what difference does it make whether the police were forthcoming about it or not? “
Are you kidding me?
Compare this report of Katehi’s statement with the report of the mysterious news release. One provides two complete sentences of statement of the “first public comment” with a skeptical headline and far more verbiage observing that truth is absent in the statement. The other runs verbatim and without question a serious of untruths from an unnamed source, parroting earlier talking points.
I’m not sure we need to wait for the [i]Vanguard[/i]’s “person-by-person analysis” since you keep tipping your hand this way. Just continue to run a series of Clover’s and Brown’s rants, and we’ll get the picture.
“If the tasering was legit, what difference does it make whether the police were forthcoming about it or not?”
Does that statement, coming from Elaine, surprise you David? Shouldn’t.
Spicuzza just resigned.
Probably the best thing. No matter how the internal investigation turns out, there’d be no recovering as UCD police chief. Apparently she’d lost her ability to command even before the pepper spray event.
Davis Enterprise, 4/18/12: Embattled UCD police chief is retiring ([url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/crime-fire-courts/ucd-police-chief-to-resign/[/url])
She lost control of her Lt.s, she fell on her sword . She just gained a ton of respect in my book .
I don’t think she fell on her sword, I think she saw the writing on the wall and figured it was better to try to resign quietly than to try to defend the undefendable. When you go quietly, sometimes they stop kicking you and look to kick someone else. Spicuzza doesn’t get any respect from me for that action.
vanguard: ” If the tasering was legit, what difference does it make whether the police were forthcoming about it or not? ”
Are you kidding me?
no, she isn’t. What requirement do the police have to openly discuss tactics as long as they are legal?
They have no obligation to discuss tactics legal OR illegal. However, the appropriate response to a question would be “no comment” not saying, “no we didn’t taser anyone” when in fact that they did. That is not okay and I suspect against department policies.
[quote]They have no obligation to discuss tactics legal OR illegal. However, the appropriate response to a question would be “no comment” not saying, “no we didn’t taser anyone” when in fact that they did. That is not okay and I suspect against department policies.[/quote]
Perhaps the person asked thought there was no tasering, no?
” That is not okay and I suspect against department policies.”
I would look it up first before making that claim.
“I would look it up first before making that claim.”
I figured that would be your response. I could call up the CHP PIO and ask them their policy, but it would take some work on my part, and the last two times I have done so for you, you have not even given me the courtesy of responding even in your typical glib and often outright rude manner. So I have better things to do, if you want to want find out, call them yourself.
So I have better things to do, if you want to want find out, call them yourself.
I didn’t make the charge, you did. as far as the “better things to do” goes, what might that be? trying to dig up more dirt on the police or da? trying to get certain people fired? I suppose you consider those a public service.