The Vanguard Looks Further into Investigation That Found No Wrongdoing in UC Davis Sports Cuts –
Last year at this time, UC Davis announced it would discontinue 4 of 27 intercollegiate sports, and its athletics department would absorb another $400,000 in annual operational cuts as the campus continues to struggle through an unprecedented financial crisis.
The Vanguard questions the extent to which this investigation, carried out by Sue Ann Van Dermyden, was truly an independent investigation.
The Vanguard spoke with UC Office of the President spokesperson Steve Montiel on Thursday, who indicated that the investigation, which was 52 pages in length and contained over 2500 documents, will not be available for several more weeks as they have to go through by hand and redact information that is private or confidential.
Following the Davis Enterprise article, the Vanguard, acting on a tip, made a public records request into Sue Ann Van Dermyden’s record as an investigator with UC Davis.
This was the 8th investigation by Ms. Van Dermyden since 2008. In a little over 3 years, she received over $150,000 from the university, not including this latest investigation – the billing for which is not complete according to Lynette Temple at the UC Davis Office of the Campus Counsel.
The latest investigation would likely push that cash figure to near or at $200,000 over a little more than three years.
This record may actually understate her ties to UCOP, as she may have done similar investigations for other campuses or for UCOP itself.
In the eight investigations, most of them relating to allegations by employees against employers or supervisors, six were found unsubstantiated or were otherwise found to be without merit. Of the two remaining, there were limited substantiated findings in a 2009 case that allege improper governmental activities against an employee.
In that case, the university reports, “Several allegations found to be unsubstantiated; substantiated violations of contracting policy, grant charging policies, and reporting requirements related to outside professional activities.”
In a 2010 investigation involving allegations of unprofessional conduct and sexual harassment against an employee, she sustained the allegation of unprofessional conduct but not the more serious allegation of sexual harassment.
Given the ongoing relationship between UC and Ms. Van Dermyden, one may question how truly independent this investigation was.
The Enterprise in their March 12 article quoted Zach Hansen, a member of the men’s swimming and diving team, which was cut last April.
He told the Enterprise, “We had all hoped that this could be solved within the existing system, but we had to keep in mind that this was an internal review. Because of this, however disappointing this result may be, it wasn’t unexpected.”
He added, “It will be very interesting to see the details of the final report, when the UCOP does release it. As far as a suit goes, we are now examining our options and that is certainly on our list.”
In response to inquiries by the Vanguard, UC Spokesperson Claudia Morain, the Director of the UC Davis News Service, said “The university has retained her [Van Demyden] to investigate some of the more complicated and difficult cases due to her wealth of experience in conducting workplace investigations and her reputation for excellence in the legal community. We are unable to obtain unpaid volunteers who have the time or expertise to conduct these challenging investigations.”
She noted, “The university will often use campus employees — administrators, faculty and staff — to conduct less challenging reviews, based on their willingness to dedicate extra time to these efforts; university employees are, of course, also paid by the university.”
Furthermore, she suggested that UC Davis has its own compelling interest to learn of any misconduct that its employees may have engaged in, that would include “any inappropriate treatment of its students, staff or faculty — not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because the university is legally required to address certain allegations, and because identifying and correcting any employee misconduct as soon as possible permits the university to limit its possible future liability. It is in the university’s best interest to fairly and thoroughly investigate allegations of misconduct.”
Steve Montiel also provided the Vanguard with a copy of a letter from Judy K. Sakaki, UCOP Vice President-Student Affairs, regarding the findings.
She wrote on February 25, 2010, “The investigator concluded that the University did not violate PPM 280-05 [UC Davis Policy and Procedure Manual, Chapter 280] in its determination to discontinue 4 of its 27 Intercollegiate Athletic (ICA) sports teams. The investigator specifically found that the University had a rational basis for its decision and that decision did not constitute an abuse of discretion.”
There is the all-important note that the decision did not constitute an “abuse of discretion,” suggesting that UC Davis had broad discretion in making their decision, which imposes a high burden of proof on the moving parties.
She added, “Furthermore, the investigator concluded that the University did not commit any improper governmental activity in implementing the decision to discontinue the four ICA sports teams.”
“The scope of investigation was to determine if the actions leading to the decision to eliminate the four ICA sports teams either constituted “arbitrary treatment” in violation of PPM 280-05, or conduct that would rise to the level of improper governmental activity as proscribed by the University’s Whistleblower Policy,” she added.
Judy Sakaki concurs with the report. “Based on the report, I conclude that the investigation was thorough, objective and professionally conducted. The investigator provided an opportunity for the parties to present relevant information. In my official role in this matter, I concur with the investigator’s finding that University policy was not violated,” she wrote.
Fred Wood, vice chancellor for Student Affairs, at the time the decision to cut the programs was made, said the cuts have a human toll. “What’s happening here today,” Wood said, “is a very real, very significant and very personal impact of the budget crisis in California and the resulting financial position of UC Davis.
“Our Aggie coaches and student-athletes are proud, talented and dedicated,” he added. “Today, they are in mourning for teams and what those losses mean to them as individuals.”
“During my brief tenure as chancellor, I have come to appreciate the rich and unique athletic traditions at UC Davis,” Chancellor Linda Katehi wrote in accepting the recommendations to adopt the plan that drops the four sports. “I believe this budget model provides the best means of preserving and enhancing these athletic traditions for the future.”
Then Senator Dean Florez questioned the elimination of the sports programs.
“I think we need to better understand why certain teams were targeted for elimination and to ensure that these decisions were made for the right reasons,” wrote Senator Florez.
Students impacted by this decision argued that the timing was problematic.
“Solely because of the Respondents’ timing and lack of transparency, we students have an impossibly short window in which either to have UC Davis reinstate the teams for next year or to transfer to schools that will compete in our sports.”
“During that same short window, opportunities for scholarships at other schools are either already gone or disappearing, and we are first and foremost students who need to focus on our exams and papers for this semester,” a grievance filed by students in June continued.
They argued at that time, “Without interim reinstatement, we students will lose an irreplaceable opportunity to compete in our sports for the limited window of intercollegiate athletic eligibility that our college years provide.”
“By contrast, UC Davis will not suffer harm if forced to reinstate teams that it had no right to eliminate in the first place to save money that the UC Davis students agreed to pay only if UC Davis would maintain all of its intercollegiate teams,” the students said.
The Vanguard will continue to look into this matter and provide updates as warranted.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I’m not really seeing an issue here. The University essentially did an internal investigation, much as the police dept or any other gov’t agency would do, if there are allegations of wrongdoing by the University/gov’t agency. The University came up with their opinion, and now the ball is in the students’ court to decide whether they feel their grievances are worth suing the University over. In the current economic client, I doubt the students have much of a case. I understand their position, but as a member of the public, it would seem incumbent on me to step back and look at the bigger economic picture…