Below are some articles on the UC Davis Pepper Spray Report. Not good news for the adminsitration. The report finds that the incident should not have happened and is described as scathing (links to report in articles below). The chancellor, police chief and individual police officers are all blamed in this independent review. The LA Times editorialized for accountability and disciplinary action.
Remember the Pepper-Spraying Cop? UC Davis Releases a Powerful Report
If you are looking for something to read today, I highly recommend the “Reynoso Task Force Report,” with its accompanying “Kroll Report” appendix. These are the findings of the panel chaired by Cruz Reynoso, a well-known former Justice of the California Supreme Court, charged with looking into the causes and consequences of the pepper-spraying episode at UC Davis last November.
The report is relatively short, and is also direct, non-mealy-mouthed, and very much worth reading in its entirety.
If anything, the lengthy accompanying “Kroll Report,” from private investigators retained by the U.C. system president Mark Yudof to look into the event, is more startling and dramatic. According to its cover page, it was originally considered “Confidential – Do Not Distribute,” and you can see why. It includes a lot of raw testimony from people involved in the decisions about when and how to disperse the demonstrators.
Campus police and others come in for their share of criticism, including specifically the police lieutenant who has become notorious from the picture above. Both he and the UC Davis police chief remain on paid administrative leave. But at face value its findings are also very damaging to the still-serving Chancellor of UC Davis, Linda Katehi. For instance, the Kroll report says about a letter asking the demonstrators to disperse:
In case that’s illegible, it says:
“Chancellor Katehi told Kroll investigators that Student Affairs wrote the letter and that she did not review it before it went out. The record contradicts both of these statements, as detailed below. Katehi did review the letter, provided an editorial change and approved it. Student Affairs did not write the letter…”
The Kroll report offers email and other evidence to back up this claim. Similarly, from the main Reynoso report:
And if that is illegible:
“When explaining their decisions on Nov. 17 and 18, UC Davis administrators repeatedly referenced this concern about individuals not affiliated with the university at Occupy movement protests and encampments on campus, and the security risks created by their presence. Indeed, in Chancellor Katehi’s letter distributed to campus protesters on Nov. 18, the day of the pepper spray incident, the Chancellor wrote “We are aware that many of those involved in the recent demonstrations on campus are not members of the UC Davis community. This requires us to be even more vigilant about the safety of our students, faculty and staff.” As our report will indicate these concerns were not supported by any evidence obtained by Kroll.”
This last point is important because the heavy-handed police response was initially justified by the need to remove “outside agitators” — non-students — from the campus. The chancellor might well have convincing responses to these and similar findings, but the report certainly shows that responses are needed.
There is much more in the report. The episode is off the front pages, but the UC system will show important things about itself with its long-term response and steps toward internal accountability. In its clarity and directness this first step is encouraging.
Pepper-spraying of UC Davis protesters should not have happened, panel says
A scathing report on UC Davis police pepper spraying seated, peaceful Occupy protesters in November harshly criticizes everyone involved from the UC Davis chancellor and campus police chief down to individual police officers.
Ineffective leadership, poor planning, failure to follow plans, faulty decisions and lack of communication all figured in the confrontation that sent around the world a video of a campus police officer streaming pepper spray into the faces of passive protesters, according to the 34-page report released Wednesday.
The incident raised alarming questions about campus and police leadership, said a UC task force led by former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso.
Among the problems noted: Campus police were not authorized to carry the pepper-spray device used on demonstrators and it was not even needed.
“Our overriding conclusion can be stated briefly and explicitly,” the report states. “The pepper spraying incident that took place on Nov. 18, 2011, should and could have been prevented.”
The panel directly criticized police brass and administrators, including Chancellor Linda Katehi and police Chief Annette Spicuzza, for their lack of leadership.
Panelists also singled out police Lt. John Pike for spraying protesters from much closer than the six-foot distance recommended by the MK-9 device’s manufacturer. Officers were authorized to use less powerful spray cans, but not the MK-9, which
produces a stream of irritant chemical rather than a spray.
The panel generally recommended better training of police, university wide policies governing them, and Davis campus rules and policies on protests and use of force.
The university should implement the report’s recommendations to repair the physical and emotional damage done at the protest, said Fatima Sbeih, a UC Davis senior from Oakland who said she was sprayed by Pike on Nov. 18.
“The university really needs to rethink its policies on everything,” said Sbeih, who, along with 20 other students, has sued the university, police and administrators. “They continuously repress the free-speech rights of students.”
A consulting firm also recommended a major rethinking. Kroll, an investigative company contracted by the university, recommended several major changes to the way UC campuses plan for and respond to protests. Reynoso’s group used some of Kroll’s recommendations.
Among the 11 recommendations in the final report were that UC adopt a systemwide policy requiring outside police departments to follow UC rules regarding the use of force.
The panel also suggested UC ask the Legislature to change portions of the Police Officers’ Bill of Rights, a set of state laws, that prevented Kroll investigators from interviewing some officers.
The recommendations will be considered in a May 15 legislative hearing, said Assemblyman Marty Block, D-San Diego.
In a letter to the campus, Katehi said she and other university leaders would “study and assess” the report. UC system President Mark Yudof said in a news release that he would meet with Katehi to decide what to do next.
An attorney for Pike and other officers said the task force did not speak to the officers involved and thus did not have the information needed to reach conclusions. Police officers had every reason to be nervous while they were surrounded by chanting protesters, said John Bakhit.
“All it would take is one spark for a mob mentality to happen and for those officers to be flattened,” he said.
The UC Davis review contrasts significantly with a separate assessment of a protest nine days earlier at UC Berkeley. An assistant police chief at UCLA concluded that UC Berkeley officers, who used batons on protesters Nov. 9, should have been allowed to use pepper spray or tear gas but campus leaders prohibited that. However, that report also cited poor communication and oversight of the police.
The shortcomings on the Davis campus should result in severe punishment — including possible firings — for those involved, said Samuel Walker, a criminal justice professor at the University of Nebraska who the UC panel consulted. With Occupy and other protests more common on college campuses, the UC Davis incident should be a lesson, he said.
“It’s a terrible failure on the part of campus leadership,” Walker said. “I would say this is a wake-up call to campuses across the nation.”
The Reynoso report confirms what protesters have argued, said Mark Merin, a Sacramento attorney who represents the students who sued the university.
“There was no indication that police force was required at all,” he said.
Matt Krupnick covers higher education. Contact him at 510-208-6488. Follow him at Twitter.com/MattKrupnick.
UC Davis’ pepper spray fallout
Two reports make clear that the campus leadership and police force are in disarray. There ought to be disciplinary actions.
It Only Gets Worse From There. University Officials Had Ample Warning That Protesters Might Set Up A Tent City In The Quad, Yet Preparation Was Haphazard. Communication From Leaders Was Poor Or Nonexistent — Katehi Didn’t Make It Clear To Police Chief Annette Spicuzza That She Didn’t Want Officers To Use Force, And Spicuzza, Who Didn’t Attend The Operational Briefing Before The Incident, Had Little Control Over Her Lieutenants, Who Refused To Follow Her Orders. The Decision To Roust Protesters In The Afternoon Rather Than The Middle Of The Night As Previously Planned Increased The Risk Of Confrontation, And It’s Not Even Clear Whether The Police Had Any Legal Justification For Arresting Protesters Or Removing Their Tents. Police Didn’t Follow State Or National Rules On Incident Planning And Made Glaring Procedural Mistakes Such As Failing To Plan For The Transport Of Arrestees.
Law-And-Order Types Were Quick To Give Police The Benefit Of The Doubt In The Wake Of The Protest, With Celebrated Author Joseph Wambaugh Even Suggesting In A Times Op-Ed That The University Save The Cost Of Kroll’s Services And Simply Chalk Up The Mess To Tired Officers Confronting Spoiled Students. Yet The Reports By Kroll And The University Are A Valuable Portrait Of A Campus Police Department In Severe Disarray. Those Most Responsible — Pike, Spicuzza And An Unidentified Officer — Have Been Placed On Paid Administrative Leave During The Investigation; Demotions Or Other Disciplinary Measures Would Be Justified.