The lawsuit is settled, the DA has made his decision, Kroll and Reynoso have long since completed their investigations, and yet with the university leaking like a sieve – documents and reports leaked left and right to the SacramentoBee – the university steadfastly refuses to do what is in their power to do, and that is waive attorney-client privilege.
Back in November, one of the critical questions was whether Kroll would be granted subpoena power. Andy Fell of the UC Davis News Service told the Vanguard on November 30, 2011: “Both campus and UC will cooperate fully with them and make available to them any documents they need, subject only to legal restrictions such as those governing student records, personnel files etc. As a private contractor, Kroll doesn’t actually have subpoena power. But they are going to get whatever they want.”
On Wednesday, we finally learned the terms of the pepper-spray settlement. I was covering the federal civil rights trial of Luis Gutierréz so I missed the press conference. However, I was quickly able to speak with two attorneys and a protester, and the articles appeared on Thursday and Friday.
I will not mince words about my initial reaction – I actually felt physically ill. They did not get much and we the community did not get much. $1 million spread out turned out to be about $30,000 per student. They got an apology that was rendered useless by the fact that the officers did not admit wrongdoing. Finally, the ACLU gets to help shape policy – which is probably the only real redeeming aspect of this settlement.
In the press conference at the Quad on Wednesday, Ian Lee spoke. He was a first-year student, two months into college, when he got involved in the protest that would ultimately alter his life.
“By now, the pepper-spray incident is almost a bit cliché: students protested, the University sent in riot police, and then the police brutalized us with pepper spray,” he said in his speech Wednesday. “But I urge people interested in this case to think about the pepper-spray incident more complexly. The reason we were protesting was that the University had proposed unfair and unreasonable tuition hikes.”
On Wednesday, the terms of the settlement of the lawsuit filed by students pepper sprayed on the UC Davis Quad, November 18, 2011, was announced. Among other things, the students would receive around one million dollars, amounting to 30 thousand dollars each.
In addition, Chancellor Katehi would be required to write a written apology to each student and the ACLU would play a role in the development of new practices.
UC Davis Agrees to Formally Apologize to Students and Implement Reforms
Ten months after the November 18, 2011, pepper spray incident, attorneys for 21 UC Davis students and recent alumni announced the details of their settlement with the university over a federal class-action lawsuit. The announcement comes two weeks after UC Regents approved the agreement and after the agreement was certified in US Federal Court.
The lawsuit charged that the police violated state and federal constitutional protections, including the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, when they arrested and used excessive force against these non-violent demonstrators. The UC Regents approved the settlement in a September 13 meeting, and the settlement documents were filed with the court today, according to a release from American Civil Liberties Union this morning.
For the second time in a month, the SacramentoBee beat everyone to the punch, publishing what seemed to be internal emails. This time highlights, among other things, documents the university has attempted to keep under wraps, even from Kroll, about the legal authority under which the university acted.
This is not a small matter, for there are questions about the legal authority under which the university acted. Questions that now only grow stronger.
Agreement Expected to Be Publicly Released in Two Weeks –
The Vanguard has confirmed that the UC Board of Regents in closed session approved the financial details of a settlement agreement with the protesters who were arrested or pepper sprayed on the UC Davis Quad on November 18, 2012.
Steve Montiel, the Media Relations Director for the UC Office of the President, told the Vanguard that a federal court is expected to certify the agreement in roughly two weeks. At that time, the details will be released to the public.
After the Vanguard broke the story about the pepper-spray suit’s settlement on Tuesday, we were taken aback by some of comments, and not just on the Vanguard, that assumed that this suit was just about money.
The comment that surprised me the most was made by Supervisor Matt Rexroad, who said that the protesters “do not deserve a dime” even though he admitted that he had not spoken with or met any of the protesters, nor was it likely that he read the complaint itself.
The Vanguard has learned that a settlement agreement is in place for the pepper spray lawsuit that was filed in late February following the November 18, 2011 incident on the Quad at UC Davis. However, the deal will not be finalized until the UC Regents meet next week and until the federal court certifies the agreement.
Steve Montiel, the Media Relations Director for the UC Office of the President, told the Vanguard on Tuesday morning, “Lawyers for the University of California and the 21 plaintiffs in a case related to the pepper spray incident at UC Davis in November 2011 are involved in a confidential mediation and settlement process, which includes obtaining approval from the individual plaintiffs, the Board of Regents and the federal court. “
Vanguard Finds UCD Internal Investigation Decisions Coming Back to Bite Them
While the open letter from the Executive Board of UC Davis Police Officers Association (UCDPOA) is mainly self-serving and indefensible, they do have one reasonable point that we have raised a number of times – the fact that, while the administration was hammered in the Kroll and Reynoso reports almost as hard as the police officers, it is only Chief Annette Spicuzza, Lt. John Pike and Officer Alexander Lee who have lost their jobs over the actions that occurred on November 18 at the UC Davis Quad.
Writes the UCDPOA, “We, the Board, agree with the Reynoso report; the KROLL Report and the Edley Robinson Report, as it relates to findings concerning Chancellor Katehi and her leadership team’s decisions surrounding the events of November 18th, 2011. There were indeed, “substantive mistakes at the administrative level.” The decisions made by Katehi’s leadership team during the days leading up to and on November 18th have caused long-term damage to the University of California and the UC Davis Police Department.”
In late July, we finally learned the fates of Lt. John Pike and Officer Alexander Lee, as the university acknowledged that they were no longer on payroll. A week later, we learned that in fact, as suspected, Chief Matt Carmichael fired Lt. Pike.
In was only due to a report in the SacramentoBee, after the paper was leaked documents surrounding the campus’ internal investigation, that the public learned for the first time that the internal investigation, conducted for the university by two outside firms, had actually largely cleared Lt. Pike, and that a separate panel was concerned about the handling of the incident and recommended the demotion and suspension of the infamous John Pike.
The Davis Enterprise last week reported that the internal investigators were paid over a quarter million dollars to conduct the internal review that was leaked to the Sacramento Bee a few weeks ago.
Unlike the public reviews by Kroll Associates and the Task Force led by Former Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso, the internal reports largely vindicated the actions of Lt. John Pike in his use of pepper spray on seated protesters during the infamous tent clearing operation at the UC Davis Quad on November 18, 2011.
The Vanguard has learned that UC Davis is investigating the source of the recent leak regarding the status of UC Davis Police Department personnel, to determine if the leak came from the UC Davis side of the equation.
“An investigation of this disclosure has been initiated under our Whistleblower Policy,” Claudia Morain, from the UC Davis News Service told the Vanguard this morning via email. “If such confidential personnel documents are disclosed to the public by anyone other than the individual who is the subject of these documents, such a disclosure would be a violation of University policy and state privacy laws. “
For those of you who do not like speculation, this is your warning, this column is partly about speculation, but that is almost by design and indeed part of the problem. Last spring, as we attempted to find out the identities of UC Davis police officers involved in the November 18 clearing operation of the Quad, that ended with the pepper spraying of students, and multiple investigations, we were constantly questioned about why it was important to know the names of the officers.
The answer both was then and now is that we needed to be able to find out what happened to the officers involved, and without access to names that would prove very difficult.
When UC President Mark Yudof named former LA Police Chief William Bratton to head up the public portion of the investigation into the pepper-spray incident that occurred November 18, 2011 at the UC Davis Quad, it was greeted by loud criticism both in the student as well as the academic community. That criticism was blunted by the announcement of Cruz Reynoso, the former Supreme Court Justice to head up the task force comprised of UC Davis administrators, professors, students and community members.
It was further blunted by the extent of the report that came out finally in April, showing vast problems, mistakes and wrong-doing by the police and the UCD Administration.
University sources, citing privacy and personnel issues, are declining to comment on a report in the Sacramento Bee this morning that the UC Davis Police Chief overruled two internal investigations in order to fire Lt. John Pike. The report is based on a leaked confidential 76-page internal affairs investigation report and emails.
Sacramento Bee reporter Sam Stanton declined to divulge the source of the leak, stating, “I do not reveal or discuss sources.”
It has been over 8 months since the November 18 incident at the UC Davis Quad made national news when seated protesters were pepper sprayed by the UC Davis police. The officers at the center of the controversy are no longer with the university.
The Vanguard confirmed that Lt. John Pike and Officer Alexander Lee are no longer with the police force. What we do not know, and probably never will know, is whether they resigned, were fired, or simply did not have their contracts renewed.
A federal judge sentenced former Desert Hot Springs Police Sgt. Anthony Sclafani to four years behind bars for abusing his powers by using a stun gun and pepper spray on “essentially helpless” suspects in custody.
The incidents occurred a day apart in February 2005. Seven years later, he was convicted in February of using force and violating the civil rights of two inmates under the color of law, in separate incidents a day apart.
Is the FBI performing espionage against Occupy UC Davis students? That is the question that the ACLU of Northern California wants answers to, as they have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI to find out whether and to what extent the feds have been spying on members of the Occupy movement.
One of the big questions is the extent to which the FBI might be involved in UC Davis, where last fall on November 18 local law enforcement engaged in the controversial crackdown of peaceful protesters, following an effort to clear the UC Davis Quad of tents. The resultant operation led to the arrest and pepper spraying of a number of students and subsequent local investigations.
The Vanguard turned some eyes this week when it announced that the students pepper sprayed and arrested on the UC Davis Quad on November 18, 2011 would be honored with a Vanguard Award. The announcement earned the dismissive comment as though the students were being honored simply for being at the receiving end of the UC Davis Police’s overreaction to student protests.
That is, in our view, neither an adequate depiction of what happened nor a proper understanding of its significance.