Some time ago, sometime between the time that the pepper-spray incident occurred on November 18, now nearly six months ago, and the time that the Kroll/Reynoso reports cited “administrative failures,” someone warned me this is going to be a sleight-of-hand trick, and if you watch the cards, you’ll miss what they are doing.
So when the Bee reports this morning that Chancellor Linda Katehi lists her mistakes in the pepper-spray incident, they miss the card trick when they write, “Though she took ‘full responsibility’ months ago, UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi detailed for lawmakers Tuesday specific mistakes she made in a campus pepper-spraying incident that sparked national headlines and outrage.”
The Bee continues, “Katehi said she erred by setting a deadline to crack down on protesters camping at UCD and by having officers intervene in late afternoon.”
“My senior administrators and I made mistakes of judgment and mistakes of execution,” Katehi told a joint hearing of the Senate Education Committee and the Assembly Higher Education Committee in discussing UCD’s handling of the tuition protest. “So did our campus police.”
She continued, “I never wanted force used, but with 20-20 hindsight, I know the actions we took that day were wrong… Well- intended, but wrong.”
Sounds good even if it does not completely square with her immediate account and statement right after the pepper-spray incident.
However, not everyone was fooled by this dog and pony show.
The Enterprise, in fact, saw right through it. They note that several members of the legislature asked pointed questions and, more importantly, that you cannot simply listen to the words that are spoken – actions themselves have meaning.
So far, despite four reports that cast deep doubts on the administration’s planning and handling of this event, only one person has lost their job, two officers remain on leave, and everything else has been tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
As the Enterprise noted, the new chief has brought in some outside consultants to review the department, while the chancellor has moved the police department from the control of Vice Chancellor John Meyer to the control of Provost Hexter.
“Otherwise, discussions about administrators have largely focused more on changes in organization and decision-making practices,” the Enterprise reports.
If one person saw through the charade, it was Assemblymember Marty Block, whom the Enterprise and not the Bee quoted, saying he was worried “that the police have now become a scapegoat for the administration.”
The Enterprise reported, “Katehi responded that procedures that had been in place for years – like talking through crisis responses by phone and administrators not signing off on police operational plans – ‘failed us, totally.’ “
But Marty Block was not fooled by the rhetoric and looked to the substance: “What I’m hearing is, despite the damning statements in the Reynoso report and the other reports, your conclusion is that everyone in your administration, but police officers, is doing a good job, given the process they had in place.”
The chancellor would defend the administration: “I think they tried to do the best they could, given the processes… I have tremendous confidence in John Meyer. He is an excellent person. It’s just that the organization we had was not the one that would make him successful, or anybody else for that matter.”
Moreover, we also have the exchange between Assemblymember Paul Fong and UCD Academic Senate Chair Linda Bisson.
Assemblymember Fong asked Professor Bisson why they had not called for Chancellor Katehi’s resignation.
The professor responded, saying that they saw censure as sending a message that mistakes had been made but that they believed the chancellor was capable of correcting these mistakes.
But part of the problem, as we now know, is that the faculty is divided. In February, before the reports were out and the mistakes were clear, the faculty voted against a no-confidence vote by a 2 to 1 measure, an outcome that would likely be much closer now.
Professor Bisson would say, as quoted in the Enterprise: “While things have changed, because of this (task force) report, most people felt that they had not changed enough, versus what they knew on Nov. 18, to make them lose confidence in the chancellor.”
While it is easy in hindsight to spot the errors on November 18, the fact is that all of the people who made those errors, except the police chief, are still there, though they may be in a slightly different role.
The Kroll report hammered Chancellor Katehi for having a diffused leadership structure, and the problem is that every single mistake that was made by the administration is something that the chancellor was part of.
She ordered the tents being taken down, she determined the timing of those tents, she made assumptions about the non-affiliates, she never asked for legal authority, etc.
On the other hand, one could argue that had they listened to their on the ground intelligence from Griselda Castro and listened to the police on the timing of the operation…but the problem is how can anyone have confidence that a group of people who completely failed in their assessment, planning, and carry-out of the operation will be better the next time around?
Defenders will argue that she has done things better since then. Certainly they avoided one problem – the over-aggressive use of force and likely illegal use of force by the police.
But, the administration has really had one test of that. That was in the bank blocking operation.
If you ask the administration, they will tell you it was a success and certainly it did not, as one professor put it, turn into another YouTube-fueled police disaster.
However, it is hard to argue that their handling worked. They attempted to talk, then they talked some more, then they talked some more and added threats.
The only thing that ended the bank blocking operation was the fact that the bank gave up and closed their doors. And when the bank did that, the DA’s office filed charges against the protesters and the university turned around and sued the bank for breach of contract.
If that is an example of a well-run operation and response, I think most people would disagree.
Cruz Reynoso, despite his expressed support for Chancellor Katehi right after the report came out, seems to understand the most.
He told the Committee yesterday, “The difficult part is that we have laid out what the issues are, I think sufficiently well, so probably good procedures and regulations will come out of our report. At the same time, though, folk have to use good judgment – and good judgment can’t be regulated.”
That is exactly right. Good judgment cannot be regulated and what we saw on November 18 was the antithesis of good judgment at every single turn. And I am just not convinced that good judgment is something you can just learn.
Certainly we have not seen it yet.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
David
When deciding whether or not an individual should lose their job, I think it is important to consider the totality of their performance, not one or two examples of error, even if they turn out to be dramatic or widely publicized. By the divided nature of the faculty response, there are clearly some who feel that, on balance, Katehi’s performance has been strong enough to warrant keeping her position. Since her performance had not hit my radar screen at all until the November incident, I do not have a good feel for the rest of her performance that goes beyond sound bites.
What I would actually like to see is a simplified “ledger sheet” of sorts with her accomplishments on one side, and the handling of campus protest
which I think we all can agree was suboptimal on the other. Do you, or anyone else, know if such a more dispassionate view of her performance exists?
The protestors have not taken any responsibility for their conduct:not the incidents in the sodexho protests, not the I-80 incident, not the peppespray incident, not the uc riverside incident, not the bank blocking – nothing. We are still waiting on those.
where is accountability and justice there?
BTw: medwoman just gave me a great Idea.
Scorecard:
Katehi -1.
Protestors: -4
“Good judgment cannot be regulated and what we saw on November 18 was the antithesis of good judgment at every single turn. And I am just not convinced that good judgment is something you can just learn.”
What are you calling for?
91 Octane
An interesting distinction that you are not making. An individual is responsible for his or her own actions, not the actions of others. The chancellor is an individual and has the ability and duty to take full responsibility for her individual actions. Plese sow me your evidence that “the protesters “
Present at each of the events you have named were precisely the same individuals. then show me what position of power or authority they were
In that should place them in a position of higher accountability since they are being well compensated to behave in a responsible manner.
Or do you not believe that those being paid to be in positions of power have the greater responsibility to set a good example and behave both ethically and with the sound judgement that presumably comes with experience?
Octane: Your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous. As Medwoman rightly points out, the protesters are different across those different protests.
JustSaying: I’m calling for nothing, the decision has been made. These comments are for posterity and so I can say I warned you when things go awry again, as they invariably will.
This is a protection policy for those at the top and the mess will be dumped on the officers.
David: Your comment that,”But part of the problem, as we now know, is that the faculty is divided” takes me back. The faculty of UCD have gone through of full cycle being divided. Severe division began during Larry’s golden years. His tenure as chancellor seemed endless, state contribution to the UCD budget plummeted, class size soared, and lots of faculty were very disturbed. When Larry appeared to make serious mistakes (there are opposite faculty opinions on all of these incidents), the divisions increased and were more obvious. The faculty was rent in multiple directions. With Linda’s arrival, the divisions seemed to disappear, but grumbling in the arts and letters faculty was not easy to miss. The pepper spray debacle opened up new divisions in the faculty, along some different lines from those of the late Larry years. The titer against Linda of arts and letters faculty exploded with Pepperspraygate, and some science faculty joined her detractors. It would be a guess, but I would say that Linda Bisson represents the sentiments of the largest fraction of faculty. UCD has the largest proportion of science faculty in the UC system, and Linda K’s support is greatest with this faction.
“However, not everyone was fooled by this dog and pony show. The Enterprise, in fact, saw right through it.”
Please provide links* to your references. Just read Jim Saunders’ Enterprise on-line story. It appears this might be the one to which you might be referring. But, both this one and the Bee story on the hearing are very straight-forward reports on the legislators’ questions and comments and responses from those they called.
Neither paper or their reporters made any judgments about Katehi’s performance either during the events or during the hearing.
Neither report that I read even mentioned the bank blockade. It looks as though you’ve just used another news peg for the same old talking points attempting to ignore the blockaders’ own role in the bank’s decision to give up their campus branch.
Here you are yet again claiming “most people…would disagree” that the university actions (“they attempted to talk, then they talked some more….”) reflect significant improvements in UCD’s response to demonstrations.
After months, protesters eventually proved that they had no intention of discontinuing the blockade until they were successful at their objective of forcing the bank’s departure. “Most people” would agree about the dilemma in which the blockaders put UCD and the bank.
The Vanguard is the ONLY place where I’ve seen the contention that “arrest and release” could have transformed the blockade into a “well-run operation and response.” You claim here that UCD officials “talked some more, then added threats.” What threats?
You failed to recognize the Bee notation about something for which you’ve been demanding:
“Katehi’s comments were her most specific public mea culpa since the Nov. 18 incident in which about a dozen protesters were treated for effects of pepper spray.”
You also failed to mention the Enterprise reporting of Senator Wolk’s strong endorsement for Chancellor Katehi.
By picking just the negative implications of legislator questions, ignoring the listings of changes that have been made and mischaracterizing the Enterprise’s report (not fooled…saw right through Katehi’s comments), suggest that you’ve already set aside the impressive standards you established for the Vanguard last week. How disappointing.
————
*If your links reflect different Bee and Enterprise stories than I was able to locate on-line, I might need to revise my views here.
Present at each of the events you have named were precisely the same individuals.
the banker’s dozen.
Octane: Your arguments are getting more and more ridiculous. As Medwoman rightly points out, the protesters are different across those different protests.
same circus, different clowns.
so at the very least, a revised scorecard would say….
Katehi, -1
banker’s dozen: -2….
who should be held accountable more? hee!
but lets go back, I’ll throw a bone. even taking each protest individually, in each of those instances
1. I-80 incident
2. sodexho protests
3. pepperspray
4. UC Riverside
5. US Bank….
what disciplinary action did any of those brats face? not one of them was expelled I’ll bet…….
and yet when the administration makes a mistake…. “ohhhh godddd off with their heads!!” “this is an outrage!” waaaahhhhhh waahhhhhh
I also have a problem with your other point medwoman. You and the vanguard have consistently argued you place a higher standard on the administrations behavior because they are in charge.
my argument: It depends on how you look at that. The protestors (as I’ve said multiple times) came to the campus to cause trouble, the administration tried its best and failed at preventing trouble. So putting behavior in that context, I have less sympathy and am more inclined to hold the protestors more accountable as such because simply they came to campus with “up to no good” motives. THat’s the key difference.
I mean come on, why put tents up in the first place?
you can make political statements in numerous other constructive ways.
[quote]JustSaying: I’m calling for nothing, the decision has been made. These comments are for posterity and so I can say I warned you when things go awry again, as they invariably will. [/quote]
Raise the bar to a demand for perfection, and when it isn’t met, you can say I told you so? To err is human…
[quote]After months, protesters eventually proved that they had no intention of discontinuing the blockade until they were successful at their objective of forcing the bank’s departure. “Most people” would agree about the dilemma in which the blockaders put UCD and the bank.
The Vanguard is the ONLY place where I’ve seen the contention that “arrest and release” could have transformed the blockade into a “well-run operation and response.” [/quote]
Well said!
[quote]So when the Bee reports this morning that Chancellor Linda Katehi lists her mistakes in the pepper-spray incident, they miss the card trick when they write, “Though she took ‘full responsibility’ months ago, UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi detailed for lawmakers Tuesday specific mistakes she made in a campus pepper-spraying incident that sparked national headlines and outrage.”[/quote]
Seems to me the Vanguard asked Katehi to “own up” to her mistakes. Now she has, but that isn’t good enough apparently. Are you calling for her resignation? If not, what?
“Raise the bar to a demand for perfection, and when it isn’t met, you can say I told you so? To err is human…”
I’m not demanding perfection, I’m demanding at least basic competency.
“Seems to me the Vanguard asked Katehi to “own up” to her mistakes. Now she has, but that isn’t good enough apparently. Are you calling for her resignation? If not, what?”
Owning up to mistakes also requires personnel changes. If your team goes 0-16 in football, and you want to bring back the coach and GM, you had better have some new players or the next year, you’ll be just as bad, no matter how many strategic changes you make.
in other words she has to fire pike and other officers?
No that’s the whole point of the article, this can’t be just about blaming the police officers.
then what? changing who?
So far the chief has left. They switched Hexter and Meyer, but Hexter appears to have been just as involved in the decision making as Meyer was, so how does that create change? The biggest mistakes above Spicuzza were made by Katehi. So as I think through the sequence of events, I do come back to, Katehi should be gone. If she’s not, then they need a completely new structure with someone not involved in November 18 leading it. Actually they did it right by installing Carmichael as chief because he was not involved.
lol, so lets dispense with the bs about how “Katehi needs to own up to mistakes” when what the vanguard is really after is her head on a silver platter.
if not her head, everyone beneath her that was in any shape manner or form regarding the decision on Nov 18th?
I was trying to figure out how to do it without Katehi leaving and I couldn’t. It wasn’t bs, I just ran back through it in my mind and realized I was wrong.
The bad decisions outside of the police were made by Katehi. Who else in the administration do you think is responsible enough that they should actually be fired?
lol, I don’t know, so basically, Katehi needs to be fired,and so does pike is what you are saying.
I don’t think there is much doubt that Pike will be fired. And while I think she should be fired, I know she won’t. So we are where we are, the only people that are going to get punished in this are the police and I don’t think that’s right.
here we are back to square one. Not about confessions, admissions of guilt, changes in policy, whether to ignore or impliment some or all of the recommendations by Reynoso or Kroll. None of that. Who should be first in line for the guillotine.
Katehi’s failure at the legislature was not speaking truth to power. She should have told them none of this would have happened if they hadn’t de-funded UC.
JustSaying, I finally got a response from the university, “I’m told by university counsel that the information you’ve requested is subject to attorney-client communication and work product privileges.”. There you have it.
David, thanks for following up on the UCD leadership’s decision not to help the Reynoso/Kroll commission understand the university’s position on the legality of Chancellor Katehi’s decision to move on the protestors.
This is a horrible decision that leaves everyone involved twisting slowly in the wind and leaves the public without critical information about what happened.
Pleading attorney-client privilege does no one a favor except the lawyers involved. It raises the question about whether their advice that day was flat-out wrong and that the “work product privileges” claim is just to cover up their incompetent performance.
People damaged by this decision: Justice Reynoso’s group who had to bring forth an incomplete report that questioned the legal understanding of officials and police, all responsible university participants who now look ignorant about legal aspects of their decisions and actions, the DA who has to prosecute another case involving some of the same defendants without confidence that the university counsel’s office knows the law about demonstrations on UCD property, and UCD students and other potential demonstrators who don’t know the ground rules for any upcoming protests.
Lots of folks are under the impression Katehi and the troops made illegal arrests (in addition to the two cops deciding to pull out their pepper spray). Some even have suggested that the fact the arrests were “illegal” led to the DA dropping the charges.
UCD officials have had several opportunities to “clarify” this very critical issue. Your information request gave them one more chance, and they blew it yet again.
It’s shocking that Katehi expressed confidence in Meyer. She trusted Meyer to use good judgment. He failed, and then blamed his failure on Katehi’s lack of clear direction. The buck stops with Meyer. Katehi should either fire Meyer, or resign to make way for competent leadership.
In reading these comments I had a thought about our overall outlook as a society. What both sides seem to focus on is who to blame and who to punish. Would we not be better off overall if instead we were to look at root causes ( in this case the withdrawal of state funding for education),
systems failures ( as in establishing effective processes for gathering accurate information, means for analyzing actual risk rather than acting out of fear), and re education on both sides? For the protesters, this might include seminars in alternative means to effect social change through
Political and social action and community service. For the police, intensive training in better in the field communication ( for instance awareness that there was demonstrably a safe route off the quad since one officer was using it), and in non violent methods of crowd control with appropriate equipment. For the administration, seminars in effective leadership skills, communication, effective delegation of responsibility, and clear and visible change in the systems and processes that contributed to the November fiasco. Perhaps if we were not so quick to demand “punishment” but were more willing to focus on improvement of performance, we would find that people would be more willing to work together to achieve change.
One protest gone wrong should not, in my opinion, be the cause of ruining any one’s life. Have we so lost the ability to have empathy for those with a point of view different from our own that all we are capable of doing is finger pointing , name calling, and demanding “punishment”.
Well said medwoman!
@medwoman: I might agree with you, but the ramifications of the whole incident are just too deep. This was the equivalent of The Big One, to use an earthquake analogy, and Katehi was woefully, woefully incompetent and underprepared at best, and complicit at worst. She didn’t even have the metaphorical equivalent of a wrench on hand to turn off the gas. She was winging it, and should have never been hired in the first place.
Nowhere along that spectrum of competency/culpability should there be any place for her to hang her administrative hat. I’m sorry, but that’s just the reality of the situation.
@Anonymous Pundit: That’s ridiculous to say the buck stops with Meyer. The line of responsibilty includes Meyer, but goes to Katehi *and* Yudof and the Regents as a whole. It goes further than that, too, to the governor and the state senate who appointed and confirmed the regents.
Wood bails out lands on feet as head of small college. Bad omen for Katehi. Huge loss for UCD.
Grad Student
“I’m sorry, but that’s just the reality of the situation.”
I realize that that is your reality. But I think it is important to acknowledge that there are many perceptions of “reality” and that mine and yours are not necessarily the same. I certainly am in agreement with your assessment of the poor performance of Chancellor Katehi in this situation. However, I would again state that a single episode does not a career or career failure make. Her performance needs to be assessed in its entirely,
especially in a situation in which she seems to have a significant amount of faculty support despite this episode. As a doctor, I would hate to be judged only by the outcome associated with the worst mistake of my 30 year career in which I have had many successful outcomes even if the individuals affected felt that it was the equivalent of “The Big One”.
Feelings? If everything boils down to how people “feel,” then why bother having universities at all? I’m sorry, but you have discredited yourself.