Former UC Davis Officer Claims Violation of Settlement Agreement

Documentary Evidence Suggests University Failed to Adhere to Their Terms of Agreement

On Monday the Vanguard ran a story on the lawsuit filed by former UC Davis police Officer Calvin Chang. The story has since been covered in detail in the California Aggie and mentioned briefly on the Davis Enterprise website. At this point, one of the hang ups has been that the university has not been served and thus not officially notified with the complaint. So at this point they cannot respond.

The Vanguard spoke briefly to UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza and Julia Ann Easley, Senior Public Information Representative at UC Davis News Service.

The Vanguard has now received a copy of the settlement agreement between Officer Chang and the university since in February of 2008. In that agreement, Officer Chang was to be paid by the Regents a sum of $240,000 of which $66,000 would go to his attorney.

"In exchange for the promises and warranties of CHANG as set forth below the REGENTS shall pay the total sum of $240,000 (two hundred forty thousand dollars). The $240,000 will be paid in two separate checks - one payable to Calvin Chang in the amount of $174,000 and the other check payable to James McGlamery in the amount of $66,000."

In addition to the monetary terms there were several key non-monetary provisions including the removal of identified negative documents from Calvin Chang's personnel file.

“To remove certain identified negative documents from CHANG's official personnel file and place them in a separate confidential file (''unsanitized file”) that will be maintained in the office of Campus Counsel, Steve Drown. CHANG, his attorney, and the attorney for the REGENTS will meet to cull through the official personnel file to determine which documents constitute such “negative” documents. A list of the documents that are removed from his personnel file and placed in the separate '''unsanitized file'' will be compile and attached hereto as Exhibit A.”

Moreover, for future employers, information would be limited to dates of his employment, title, and the fact that he has voluntarily resigned.

Specifically it authorizes that the regents will keep the "currently pending laundry-room Internal Affairs investigation open as "not completed." The University will expunge from Officer Chang's personnel file all letters or reprimand older than six months.

Here is the full listing of the items specifically agreed upon by both parties to be removed:




The complaint alleges a breach of contract stemming from the university not adhering to the terms of this agreement.

According to the complaint:

“A fundamental obligation of the settlement was to also preserve Plaintiff's peace officer career and coveted public safety retirement. As such, the settlement imposed a fundamental and material obligation on Regents as established by paragraph 2 of the settlement, that certain negative documents, that were the product of discrimination, be expunged or removed from his personnel file, and otherwise to comply with his rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Govt. Code § 3300 et seq., hereinafter "POBR").”

It continues:

Specifically, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Spicuzza met with Plaintiff and counsel in open session, to review and agree on the removal of documents according to the obligations stated above as outlined in paragraph 2 and "Exhibit A" of the settlement. As a result of this obligation, pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the parties generated "Exhibit A," that delineated the documents to be placed in or removed from Plaintiff's personnel files.

This allegedly did not happen.

“However, defendant Regents unlawfully placed into Plaintiff's personnel file, adverse documents that negated the purpose and effect of the terms of the agreement. These documents have irreparably harmed Plaintiff's ability to successfully obtain other employment as a peace officer and have effectively denied him the ability to continue in his career.”

Instead the complaint alleges that a number of items were placed into Mr. Chang’s personnel file.

“Regents placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's police department personnel file, a letter dated January 18, 2008, authored by Spicuzza that placed Plaintiff on "administrative leave."

Regents also placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's police department personnel file two additional letters referring to and revealing the "Settlement" and to his "resignation."

Regents also placed over one hundred pages of negative documents into Plaintiff's peace officer personnel file located at the Office of Campus Counsel. Said documents consist of the most inflammatory and derogatory material, false allegations against Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's complaints against other peace officers, as contained in the full bound unredacted Seyfarth Shaw workplace investigation report.

Regents also placed into and failed to remove from Plaintiff's peace officer personnel file, two versions of a Kilday & Kilduff report adverse to Plaintiff's interests - regarding internal affairs investigations that Regents launched against Plaintiff immediately after Plaintiff was reinstated in 2004. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that said documents include, a yet to be fully disclosed, unwarranted internal affairs investigation against him by Regents in 2003 for alleged "insubordination" that consisted of "talking about his discrimination complaint."

According to the complaint, Officer Chang only became aware of these breaches after he was denied an employment position by several law enforcement agencies including the city of Davis. Recall that according to the settlement agreement, the university had very specific provisions about how requests for information were to be treated and what information they were to give out.



Instead according to the complaint:

“On July 22,2008, Campus Counsel Steve Drown told Plaintiff that REGENTS showed to the background investigator the above breaching documents, including the Seyfarth Shaw report as well as two versions of the Kilday Kilduff reports. Drown declined Plaintiff's request to read the documents, and declined to show Plaintiff the documents that were contained in his peace officer personnel file.

Plaintiff informed Drown that the documents were not to be in his personnel file, were in violation of the settlement, and that he requested to read them, that REGENTS must remove them, and allow him to provide a response to them after he has read them.”

According to the settlement agreement, the “laundry-room” investigation would be classified as open and “not completed.”



In fact, the complaint alleges that agreement was entered in based on fraudulent information and even then the defendants did not adhere to those provisions.

“As a direct and material obligation of the Settlement, Regents represented that the Laundry Room IA was still pending, had not been concluded, and would be maintained indefinitely as an "open investigation."

On or about February 4, 2008, in the presence of counsel for Regents, Spicuzza, a peace officer, verbally stated to Plaintiff that the Laundry Room IA had no finding, and further represented to Plaintiff that Regents would never disclose the existence or any information regarding the investigation to any party, including to any prospective employer - because it was an "open investigation." This obligation was material and conclusive in that the disclosure of the existence and the "open status" of an IA would substantially foreclose on the ability of a peace officer to obtain other police employment with a prospective employer.

In addition to fraudulently misrepresenting to Plaintiff that the IA had no finding, and would remain open as pending, when in fact this was untrue, Regents and Spicuzza concealed this fact from Plaintiff, in order to further its fraud, duress, and misrepresentation to support constructively discharging Plaintiff's employment through a fraudulent settlement agreement.

Among other things, Plaintiff was induced by Defendants' misrepresentations to enter into the settlement agreement and release certain claims and his pending discrimination lawsuit, and would not have done so if the Defendants had not made false representations, or concealed and failed to disclose the material information alleged above. This further denied Plaintiff his statutory rights under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 3300 et. seq.).”

Finally:

“Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Regents have disclosed to the news media that the IA was in fact closed as "sustained" against Plaintiff and that Plaintiff "resigned" as a result of the IA. Plaintiff discovered this fraud when he was contacted and questioned by the news media about what misconduct he had engaged in to be terminated from his position as a police officer.”

Brief Commentary:

Based on a reading of the settlement agreement, it would appear that Officer Calvin Chang would have a case against the University for breach of their settlement agreement. This is particularly damaging if true because the university would have interfered with his ability to receive new employment.

As originally mentioned, the university has not received a copy of the complaint and we have not heard their side of the story. The Vanguard will continue to follow this case as more developments occur.

UPDATE AT 4:30 PM WEDNESDAY

Julia Ann Easley, spokesperson for UC Davis emailed the Vanguard Wednesday afternoon with an official statement from the University:

Although the university has not been served, a lawyer representing the University has reviewed the complaint filed by Calvin Chang.

The university believes the case has no merit.

The university entered into a settlement agreement with Mr. Chang in 2008 to resolve all of his employment-related claims and secure his resignation from the police department.

As a term of the settlement agreement, Mr. Chang agreed that anytime he signed a waiver authorizing a prospective employer to review his personnel file, the potential employer or its agent would be given access to Mr. Chang¹s entire personnel file. The university believes that it has complied with these and all other terms of the agreement.

Once the lawsuit is served on the university, the university will have 30 days to file a response with the court.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

Former Officer Files Suit Against UC Davis Charging Racial and Sexual Orientation Discrimination

Former UC Davis Police Officer Calvin Chang has filed a lawsuit against the UC Regents and UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza alleging complaints of racial and sexual orientation discrimination, housing discrimination, and retaliation.

In the lawsuit, Officer Chang, who is openly gay, alleges that he was subject to harassment including homophobic slurs and a death threat while serving as a police officer for the UC Davis Police Department.

Officer Chang was at the time of his hire the only Asian-American officer on the campus and the first openly gay officer. According to the complaint:

“During the relevant times, Plaintiff was subjected to a pattern of harassment and discrimination because of his race and sexual orientation, including but not limited to the following: a racial slur broadcasted to Plaintiff over the police radio by his supervisor, superiors referred to Plaintiff as "Mr. Chang" instead of by his earned title of "Officer Chang," repeatedly referred to by the name of the agency's previous Asian-American officer, denied timely backup, subjected to a derogatory slur ("fag") by a probationary police officer (whom Regents passed on probation) in the presence of his supervisor, offensive homosexual innuendos from a supervisor, referred to as a "****ing fag" by his supervisor (whom Spicuzza promoted and assigned to the "professional standards unit" in command of internal affairs), subjected to numerous false internal affairs investigations.”

In July of 2003, Officer Chang was terminated from the UC Davis Police Department. By September 2003, he filed complaints of discrimination and harassment in connection with his termination.

“After Plaintiff's mistreatment and termination was reported in the news media beginning on or about October 29, 2003, Regents ordered Plaintiff summarily reinstated on October 31, 2003 and agreed with the DFEH [Department of Fair Employment and Housing] to provide all sworn staff with discrimination prevention training. As of Plaintiff's last termination in 2008, despite repeated reassurances, Regents have failed to provide agreed upon training.”

The suit alleges that the

“Defendants initiated, directed, encouraged, and subjecting Plaintiff to a malicious, severe, and unrelenting pattern of retaliation.”

These complaints included an alleged death threat. However according to a press release:

“UC Davis Police Chief Annette Spicuzza concluded she ‘could not identify’ which officer wrote the threat, even though the threat was written in the officer’s own handwriting.”

Moreover, Officer Chang alleges that in response to a complaint about discrimination, Chief Spicuzza stated to Officer Chang, “Why don’t you leave?”

The suit alleges a long list of various incidents of harassment and retaliations including a punitive transfer, failure to properly protect Officer Chang, and soliciting complaints against Officer Chang. Officer Chang claims that the Police Chief initiated several “malicious and false” internal affairs investigations against the Officer.

According to the press release by attorney Anthony Luti representing Officer Calvin Chang:

“These actions culminated in a lawsuit filed [today]… Chang alleges that in 2008, he was unlawfully terminated for the second time, after the UC Davis Police Department fabricated an internal affairs alleging that he “failed to have a backup officer” when he searched a laundry room at the Segundo Residence Hall. Chang’s lawsuit alleges that Spicuzza intentionally misrepresented that the internal affairs investigation had “no finding.” However, UC Davis concealed and intentionally misrepresented that it had sustained the allegation and then falsely and maliciously reported that he had resigned as a result of the internal affairs complaint.”

UC Davis has also attempted retaliation, according to the plaintiff, by

“unlawfully threatening [to] take his home of ten years—located in Aggie Village on the UC Davis campus. As a result of a complaint Chang filed with the CA Department of Fair Employment and Housing, the University agreed that it would cease any further actions, again choosing to explain its actions as based on “miscommunication.”

Furthermore, the plaintiff reports:

“In a letter responding to Chang’s complaint, [UC Davis Chancellor Larry] Vanderhoef described the University’s action as “a result of administrative error” and that there was no “evidence that these actions were intended to be retaliatory.”

Officer Calvin Chang is seeking a reinstatement of his position and general damages for the loss of his career and public safety pension valued at over $3 million. Moreover he is also seeking damages for emotional distress and punitive damages against Chief Spicuzza for failure to prevent harassment, fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The Vanguard at time of publication has not had an opportunity to speak to UC Davis, however, will follow up if when there is an official response.

In the fall of 2007, the Vanguard received an anonymous mailing through the US Postal service depicting a series of complaints against Chief Spicuzza, Captain Joyce Souza, and now former Captain Leslie Brown. That was followed up in the spring of 2008 with an anonymous email detailing further events and abuses. Both of these communications appear to have merit and the Vanguard has been conducting a long investigation of the UC Davis Police Department and the upper management. As a result, the Vanguard has discovered reason to believe that Officer Chang’s complaint is not an isolated incident but rather part of a long and sustained pattern of alleged discrimination, retaliation, and abuse. The Vanguard will be following up on these allegations and will have a full report in the future.

---David M. Greenwald reporting

2007 Year in Review--10 Biggest Vanguard Stories of 2007

As the first full year of the People's Vanguard of Davis comes to completion, we will countdown the top 10 stories from year. This is the second year we have done this.

Last year we counted down the 10 Biggest Stories in Davis.

This year we countdown the 10 biggest stories that we followed on the People's Vanguard of Davis.

We continue with the 4th biggest story: Sodexho Foodworkers Organize to Become UC Employees.

On May 1, 2007 protesters seeking university pay and benefits for food service workers held the first of a number of well-organized events. The main issues are ability over over 550 food service workers, custodians, and cooks to get university jobs which would entitle them to higher pay. An outsourced worker gets around $10.35 an hour versus a starting minimum over over $12 hour and a max of up to $15.50 for a university employee. However, even more important are health care benefits. One of the workers told me she was paying over $100 for her health care package where a UC Davis employed worker would only pay about 5% of that.

Police placed the number of protesters at 150, but the number appeared to be at least 400, and possibly more.

They held a rally at the MU for about half an hour. Then marched around the quad, down to Freeborn and held a brief rally there before heading down Howard to Russell and then down Russell to the corner of Russell and Anderson.

"The event was well organized. The police did a good job of blocking traffic, diverting it away from the protest and also did not engage with the protesters.

It was only when the larger group left the street to stand on the sidewalks, then a group of perhaps 24 to 30 people sat down in the middle of the intersection."

"At this point, Lt. Dorothy Pearson gave the order to disperse. When they did not disperse, officers read the protesters their rights and arrested them, one-by-one leading them into a bus.

When this was done, the protesters peacefully dispersed and there appeared to be no incidents. It was well handled by both the police and the organizers to make a point. Although you can see from one of the photos above, the police were ready with riot gear (or two of them were) if the crowd got out of hand."

Three weeks later, there was another large protest this one going directly to Mrak Hallthe main issues are ability over over 550 food service workers, custodians, and cooks to get university jobs which would entitle them to higher pay. An outsourced worker gets around $10.35 an hour versus a starting minimum over over $12 hour and a max of up to $15.50 for a university employee. However, even more important are health care benefits. One of the workers told me she was paying over $100 for her health care package where a UC Davis employed worker would only pay about 5% of that..

"A small contingent of 15 protesters had gotten inside the building prior to the protest and spoke to the crowd from second story windows. According to later reports, 15 of these people were arrested when they refused to leave the building.

The building was eventually locked down out of concern for public safety and the safety of the employees working in the building, although the crowd was largely well organized and did not seem to present a tremendous danger. The doors locked and protesters outside demanding action."

The lockdown of the building appeared to be an overreaction by the police and the university administration. The small but vocal crowd was of no threat to the safety of anyone.

We spoke with labor organizer Bill Camp who is the director of the Sacramento Central Labor Council. He described in detail the organizing efforts, some of the complaints about treatment by the police, and some other interesting details of protesting and being arrested at UC Davis and in Yolo County.

"Last Wednesday Bill Camp, 63, was one of several protesters who entered Mrak Hall, sat down on the first floor and was arrested for failure to disperse. And in fact, the protesters including Camp, were charged with not only failure to disperse but also trespassing.

The protesters went into the building in advance to see how to enter the building. They tried to see Chancellor Vanderhoef, but access to his office was blocked, and he was not there. Camp, wearing a tie and slacks, appeared as though he was some “old professor,” to use his words. The protesters went up to the second floor because they couldn’t get up to the fifth floor where the chancellor’s office is located. So, they went to the fourth floor and were going to walk up to the fifth floor."

The university began to receive pressure from a number of elected officials most notably however, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk.

The response by the university was disappointing. First they attempted to pit the Sodexho workers against the students, by suggesting to the students that they would raise student rates if the workers were granted university status and paid commensurate with what a university employee would get rather than an outsourced contract laborer.

"In an article in Dateline UC Davis, the university said that it wanted to hear from the students "who pay the bills" regarding the demands of food workers efforts to become university employees.

On the one hand, according to the article,

"Sodexho already announced that it has established an independent third-party grievance system, introduced the UC Davis Principles of Community to employees and boosted wages consistent with UC's recent pay increases for its lowest-paid workers."

Furthermore:

In a Sodexho letter dated May 18 and posted online with [Interim Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Janet] Gong's, the company's senior vice president, Bill Lacey, pointed out that the company in 2003 voluntarily elected to follow the Sacramento Living Wage policy, and that the company believes "our compensation is competitive within our industry."

On the other hand,

"The university estimates the cost of providing improved wages and more affordable benefits to Sodexho workers at $2.1 million annually."

Janet Gong, the interim head of Student Affairs suggests the following:

"This is a significant recurring cost that cannot readily be absorbed within the existing university budget."

She added that the burden of paying the extra cost would likely fall on students who rely on Sodexho service in the dining halls and elsewhere on campus. "Being mindful of the additional costs our students would face and consistent with the chancellor's commitment to address these issues, we are exploring a variety of strategies to improve wages and benefits.""

The students and workers decided to use Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef's annual event as a means to protest, particularly since food service workers were being used to serve the guests their meal.

A large number of prominent public officials entered the Chancellor's university residence and ignored the protesters outside.

"More interesting was perhaps the reaction of leaders in this community--some of whom have expressed open support for the food service workers. For instance, Assemblywoman Lois Wolk had sent a letter to the chancellor in March urging him to negotiate with the students in good faith. She was also supposed to be meeting with the Chancellor in hopes of pressuring him to resolve the meeting. Given that, it was surprising to see the Assemblywoman walk right past the protesters, along with her husband Bruce Wolk, and say nary a word.

Davis City Councilmember Don Saylor exchanged pleasantries with me, however, he did not attempt to talk to the students despite his earlier letter of support. Nor did Councilmember Ruth Asmundson. Nor did former Mayor and current Judge Dave Rosenberg. Nor did Congressman Mike Thompson's representative Eli Faircloth."

All but one public official, that would be County Supervisor Mariko Yamada:

"There was but one exception to that list--County Supervisor Mariko Yamada. Ms. Yamada walked up to the protesters, offered words of support and hugs, and made the determination that she should not go in, in light of the protest. The students talked her into going inside, however, it was clear from the student's reaction that her support was very meaningful to them. Nor was the fact that several other leaders in the community had walked right past them without a word lost upon them."

Chancellor Dennis Shimek, whose hardball tactics have at times angered the organizers and workers intentionally showed his disdain for the group.

"Vice Chancellor Dennis Shimek at one point intentionally and deliberately walked right through the marching picketers--and for really no apparent reason as he walked through some grass in some open space and then returned to the Chancellor's residence. I caught up to him at the park, and told him that my mother had taught me never to walk through a picket line.

He asked me, "why is that?"

I responded, "it is the ultimate sign of disrespect."

He said, "they were in the path, I had the right to walk there, so I did."

He could have easily walked around them. He was attempting to intimidate them and bully them, just as he had up in his office during negotiations. This is a university employee's disdain for students who were exercising their lawful right to assembly.

Finally, what perhaps disturbed me the most was the treatment of the protesters by the UC Davis police. There were at least six police officers there for a pretty small protest. But that's understandable given the size of previous protests. What concerned me was that the police were taking pictures of the protesters."

Meanwhile the university has continued with their attempts to break the will of the protesters. In August, announcing that a deal had been made with the workers. In fact, it was a deal deal that was cut with the company itself.

"According to UC Davis Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef in the release:

"We have listened to a wide range of sometimes-conflicting concerns, and I believe we are responding in a principled way to balance the cost of improved benefits and wages for our food service workers with the need to maintain access and affordability for our students... And, very important to me because I believe a contract is one's word, we are doing so without breaking our contract with Sodexho. Sodexho is being responsive to our requests and is committed to strengthening its overall compensation competitiveness and workplace environment."

The release further claims:

"According to the agreement, Sodexho will augment its existing medical benefits plan by increasing the employer contribution level, effective January 1. The specific employer contribution will be determined by Sodexho prior to its employee health plan open-enrollment period in October.

The changes to the Sodexho contract are expected to add additional annual costs of approximately $2 million -- an estimated $1.5 million per year in additional costs to Student Housing and $500,000 per year to the Student Union operating services."

However, the news was met with caution and suspicion by the workers themselves.

"Dan Cole is the lead cook at Segundo and in charge of the station at the Segundo Dining Commons. He has been an employee there for five years. He makes a marginal income and feels he pays a lot for his health care benefits even though they are not great benefits.

According to him, this agreement is a good start.

"Everyone’s initial reaction was kind of to get excited, but they doing it for the wrong reasons, why now? They are doing this to get around the union. I don’t see why if they can get us the two-thirds, why can’t they go the whole way."

That is a point that he kept emphasizing, the University was willing to go two-thirds of the way there in terms of wages and benefits, but that's not the end of the story. There is no reason that they cannot go all the way and give them university employee status.

He views the University's tactic however as a "tactic to get around the union issue. They want to keep us as minimally happy as possible to keep things the way they are."

He described many of the workers now as being more resolved.

"Absolutely, everyone’s reaction is quite excited."

If anything this has made them in even stronger support for the union and their goals of becoming university employees.

"Without the union, this would not happen at all. A lot of people recognize what the union brings us—whether you agree or disagree with the union here, it is clear that this would not have happened if the union weren’t here.""

As the year comes to a close, the student protesters from the May 1 event have charges pending before them and their case will work through the court system. Meanwhile, the organizers are planning more actions in an attempt to gain university status and a livable wage with good and affordable benefits for these workers.

For all this, the Sodexho Food Service organizing is the fourth biggest Vanguard story for 2007.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

UCLA Incident Demonstrates Need for Independent Review and Policy Changes

The recent ruling on last fall's Tasering of a UCLA student gives us the unusual opportunity to review and scrutinize the police review system in addition to discuss policies on use of force by police departments.

In August of 2006, the fledgling Vanguard, took on a seven-part series of review of the Davis Police Oversight system--evaluating each part and making recommendations for changing it.

One of the key criticisms was the use of the Internal Affairs Department (IAD) as the agency with original jurisdiction over IAs. The chief problem that was cited at this time was a relatively low number of sustained complaints by the IAD in Davis. From 2003-2005 there were 74 complaints, only 5 of which were sustained.

These numbers were used by then Chief Jim Hyde and Davis Councilmember Don Saylor (among others) to demonstrate the lack of need for additional police oversight.

However, a 2002 report by the US Department of Justice warned that:

"[T]he meaning of a complaint rate is not entirely clear: a low force complaint rate could mean that police are performing well or that the complaint process is inaccessible; likewise, a high force complaint rate could mean that officers use force often or that the complaint process is more accessible."

Further statistics suggest that the low sustained complaint rate in Davis is actually not atypical. For instance one year in Los Angeles, there were 561 complaints against the LAPD and none of them were sustained.

The UCLA case provides us with another example as to why we cannot merely rely on IADs to provide oversight of police departments.

The initial review of the UCLA case

"cleared Officer Terrence Duren and two colleagues of wrongdoing. Details of the review are confidential but it concluded officers did not violate campus policies, according to a statement released by Norman Abrams, former acting chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles." (See Sacramento Bee, August 3, 2007).

Furthermore, as the Los Angeles Times reported, the officer involved has been involved in a number of other controversial incidents on the campus. This is a frequent problem in oversight, that you have officers often who are repeat offenders, who end up being involved in incidents over and over again. The people that these officers harm are not only the citizens, but their law abiding and dedicated colleagues.

Fortunately in this case, instead of settling for the IAD report, someone made a decision to bring in Merrick Bobb, a noted police accountability expert.

Bobb found that the officer's decision to use a taser here was "unnecessary, avoidable and excessive."

The student is by no means innocent here either and that should be noted and was noted by Mr. Bobb.

"This story has no heroes... While the student should have simply obeyed the order to produce the card ... the police response was substantially out of proportion to the provocation."

Citizens have the responsibility to cooperate with the police always. People ought to know their rights and when they can assert them, however, when push comes to shove, obey the police and dispute their conduct later. However, police are professionals and trained, and they need to respond to difficult situations appropriately, this was not a case where an officer was in danger and therefore the use of force here was clearly not justified.

This case also provides us with an opportunity to examine use of force. We have talked about it in the past as well, especially regarding an incident that did not escalate quite as far as the UCLA incident was, but that had to do with the actions against a UC Davis student involved in a bicycle stop sign incident which also grew out of hand. The key question is how should non-cooperative individuals be treated by the police.

In this case, Mr. Bobb makes specific recommendations for chaing policy on the use of Tasers on "passively or mildly resistant individuals." The main question is, when should officers use force against an individual? It is obvious that if an individual is violent or represents a physical threat to the officers or the public, that use of force is justified.

But if the individual is simply being non-compliant why are you using a taser three times? There have to be other means by which to handle a situation.

Merrick Bobb makes some very strong recommendations to "forbid their use against passively or mildly resistant individuals." Moreover he recommends:

"Restrict Taser use to violent, actively aggressive or imminently violent subjects -- and only after a warning. Discourage repeated shocks. Prohibit shocking of handcuffed prisoners."

Acting UCLA Chancellor Norman Abrams and UCLA Police Chief Karl Ross were both in agreement with the policy change. That is a good start.

But the secrecy of the internal investigation given state law protecting confidentiality of the police involved in citizen complaints led to the independent investigation by Merrick Bobb. The concern is that this was a very high profile case, how many other complaints have also been swept under the rug at UCLA and other UCs across California?

This is a very serious point in evaluating complaints against UC Davis police officers. We have heard of several in the last year and note that there is no Ombudsman or any sort of police oversight system on the UCLA campus.

The City of Davis does have an Ombudsman and they have a three member Police Advisory Committee (PAC) reviewing IAs. Some of my concerns about the Police Oversight system in Davis have been alleviated in the past year. However, a big one that remains is the lack of willingness of individuals to file IAs.

As the UCLA case attests however, a small minority of officers are repeat offenders in violations of the rights of citizens and it is those small number of officers who probably cause the majority of complaints. A system that can identify those officers, can protect the law abiding and dedicated majority of police officers from the type of adverse scrutiny that they do not deserve. Officers put their lives on the line every day and we need to put a system in place that protects them and the citizens.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Commentary: Police Photography of Protesters Butts up Against the Line

Following up on last week's report on UC Davis police taking photos of the protesters and also this blogger on public property outside of Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef's university owned home, during a function that involved the university marching band as well as involved some of the very food service workers seeking university jobs with higher wages and benefits. I spoke to a number of individuals about the incident and a consensus view grew about the practice.

First I spoke to the area ACLU about the incident, and they said while it is not illegal for them to take photos of protesters, it also depends on what they intend to do with the photos and how they dispose of the photos. Regardless the ACLU intends to send a letter to the UC Davis Police as a means to communicate their discomfort with the overall practice.

I also spoke with the scene commander for the UC Davis Police. The first thing that she told me was that it was legal, that the police have as much right to take a picture of me, as I do of them. I told her that I understood from my discussions that it was perfectly legal for the police to do this and furthermore there is no expectation of privacy in public, but I said that does not necessarily make it the right thing to do. I explained to her that the police represent the lawful power of the government to use force in order to maintain order. It is one thing for the police in their official duties paid for by the state of California and the students at UC Davis, to arrest and photograph individuals participating in lawbreaking, it is another thing for them to merely take photos of people who are otherwise obeying the law. There is a strong differential between me photographing an event in an attempt to tell a story and the police doing so for other reasons.

There is a clear intimidation factor behind that approach. Some of the students at the time said that while there were not overt threats toward them, the implication was that they were being watched very closely.

The scene commander told me that given the history of these particular protesters that she made the call to have the officers under her command photograph them. I found that a very odd explanation. If anything, while some complained about noise and the banging on windows, this particular group of protesters has from what I've seen in several different events been extremely orderly and cooperative. When they have been arrested they have done so in a peaceful and organized manner. I do not see what photographing the protesters will aid in if they were to be arrested for failure to disperse or unlawful assembly. The police will either witness it or not.

I want to be clear that people who know this particular commander understand her to be a good and dedicated officer. However, given past activities by police with regards to protesters and the history of this country, I question the wisdom of photographing protesters.

From what I witnessed, there was not only an attempt to intimidate but a clear tension between those who were protesters and those who were attending the party and in charge of maintaining the peace. First, the protesters attempted to have one individual on each side of the chancellor's house, distribute fliers. The reaction from the party-goers was overwhelmingly negative and at times outright rude and hostile. This was clearly not a group of persuadables most of whom were high administrators and community leaders.

Second, there were the actions of Dennis Shimek, Associate Vice Chancellor of Human Resources. Shimek's actions were called into questions a week prior when he attempted to intimidate and got in the face of a student involved in negotiations. He continued his boorish behavior last week by intentionally walking through the marching protesters. Despite his assertions to the contrary, it was completely unnecessary. First, there was plenty of space to walk around the protesters, he certainly had no reason other than confrontation to walk through them. Second, as the pictures show, he went through looking for a fight. Third, it is not clear why he needed to go through to begin with, he went into an open green space lawn, turned around and came back. He was rude, belligerent, and in my opinion, clearly out to provoke something.

The actions of the police were more mixed. On the one hand, they did not get into a confrontation with the protesters and in fact did much to avoid a confrontation. On the other hand, it seemed more passive aggressive to be out taking photographs of otherwise law abiding citizens.

The scene commander informed me that no laws were broken on this occasion. When I asked what that meant for the photos, she was unsure. If a crime were committed, they were going to be downloaded onto a CD and booked as evidence. Other than a demonstration that the individuals were on the scene, I'm not sure what they would exactly prove. It is not like the individuals if they engaged in civil disobedience are going to deny they were there.

My opinion on this is pretty simple. First, if someone breaks the law, they ought to be arrested and pay the penalty for that crime. Civil disobedience is not performed with the expectation that the worthy cause negates the crime. Thoreau was perfectly willing to pay his price in jail for his failure to pay taxes. Second, the police represent the power of the government here. I have grown concerned that the UC Davis Police are acting on behest of the chancellor as a means to break and discourage the organizers rather than as a means to protect the peace.

As such, I think that photographing of protesters while legal represents an uncomfortable area in the law. It allows the police to attempt to intimidate rather than to enforce the law. It means that the government itself is watching one. And while there is no expectation of privacy, there should be an expectation that the government does not intrude in the lives of private citizens as long as they have not broken the law. This practice butts dangerously close to that principle.

To me this represents an erosion of civil liberties and the right to privacy from government interference in the face of 9/11 and the Patriot Act. Local law enforcement should act from one standpoint--to protect the peace and as long as that peace is protected, they should be passive rather than active participants.

We retain a right to speech, expression, and assembly in this country, rights that put even the notion of failure to disperse in question. Regardless, the question is whether the citizens of Davis wish to live in a community where the police are photographing individuals exercising their constitutional rights to free speech and free assembly? Because to be quite frank, it makes me nervous that people seem so willing to allow the encroachment on such rights and are so quick to excuse and explain it away.

I remain overall very troubled at the state of civil liberties in this country given the Bush administration's strong encroachment. I see this as just another extension of the Bush mentality whereby law enforcement is using their powers to monitor and observe lawful activities of dissenters rather than on people actually involved in law breaking.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting

Labor Leader Bill Camp Outraged at UC Davis for Treatment of Food Service Workers and Protesters

Bill Camp is an old-time, bare knuckles, labor organizer now with the Sacramento Central Labor Council. The Sacramento Central Labor Council is a council of the all of the unions in the six counties around Sacramento, including Yolo County. The workers and their unions send delegates to a council meeting each month, they select officers every three years, and those officers hire staff. Bill Camp is the chief executive officer selected by the elected board. Their job is to speak for working families, mobilize support for organizing, and mobilize political support to elect people for office who will support working families.

Last Wednesday Bill Camp, 63, was one of several protesters who entered Mrak Hall, sat down on the first floor and was arrested for failure to disperse. And in fact, the protesters including Camp, were charged with not only failure to disperse but also trespassing.

The protesters went into the building in advance to see how to enter the building. They tried to see Chancellor Vanderhoef, but access to his office was blocked, and he was not there. Camp, wearing a tie and slacks, appeared as though he was some “old professor,” to use his words. The protesters went up to the second floor because they couldn’t get up to the fifth floor where the chancellor’s office is located. So, they went to the fourth floor and were going to walk up to the fifth floor.

“What is different is everyone has text message, so we could text message all the time about where everybody was. So all of a sudden my phone gets a beep that says ‘cops in the stairwell be careful.’ You don’t even have to talk to each other, you just text message. ‘So meet you on the second floor.’ Text messaging was our secret,” said Camp.

So they all went into the conference room on the second floor and that’s where they hung out and hung out the window to rile up the crowd.

Mr. Camp felt that their approach really threw the university off in terms of what to expect and how to approach the protesters.

“The students were super, super nice to the university, nobody could complain about the students, but on the other hand they were very militant. So they were not going to get pushed around. So this was confusing to the university because they saw the militancy and they said, no this is a principle and we’re staying with the principle, we’re going to jail. But we’re not going to be jerks about it. We’re just going to go jail.”

The university let them have the conference room but they had to vacate at 5 pm. They went back inside and sat in a circle.

“But before we left we closed all the windows, put the chairs under the table, we picked up all the trash. You couldn’t ask for anybody to be more respectful. On the other hand, all of us were going to get arrested; there wasn’t any question about that.”

“It was an interesting mix, because it strategically really threw them off. They expect us to be jerks, but we’re not going to be jerks, but we’re not going to refuse not to get arrested, so they were very confused about that.”

So they were inside and could not see what was happening outside.

“I don’t know what happened, but my suspicion was that they freaked out about the students outside and they got scared. So they started arresting us guys. The reason they arrested us was to get us away from you [the protesters outside].”



The police officer came in and was sweating the whole time. He tells them it’s an unlawful assembly, they have to leave and if they don’t leave in three minutes they will get arrested. So of course, they all refuse to leave because it is their intent to get arrested. So one-by-one they arrest each of the protesters, read them their rights and asked them if they understand. It took over an hour to arrest all of the protesters including Camp—that is how methodically they did it.

“I’m sixty-three years old and it was clear I don’t move very fast, so I’m getting up and they ask me if I want a chair. I said yes. So they got me a chair. That’s about the funniest thing about it.”

They take them to the bus. They ask them if they would cooperate in the interest of good faith. Camp believes it was the city of Davis Police who took them to the bus.

As they take them to the bus, Bill Camp starts yelling “Si se puede!” “It freaked out the police officer, maybe she doesn’t know Spanish, I don’t know. But she got rattled. So she starts dragging me toward the bus. She was a UC Cop. She was mad that I was chanting. Maybe she didn’t know what I was saying. I almost fell down. I was kind of sorry that I didn’t fall, because she was in a hurry to get me onto the bus so I couldn’t chant anymore”

The bus was extremely hot, Camp felt that they had intentionally cut the AC to make it hotter. And they had the handcuffs on with their hands behind their back. They stretched the tendons in the arm and they left the handcuffs on for several hours. They didn’t take them off until about 6:00 pm. and they had put them around 1:30 or 2:00 pm. Even a week later Camp still complains about pain in his arm.

“That’s against procedure; you don’t put handcuffs on for that long. You simply put them on there to make sure I’m not going to do something bad.”

Mr. Camp was skeptical not only about the way they were treated after the arrest, but also he believes that the charges were being trumped up in order to punish and discourage the protesters.

“Normally you would simply cite and release, this is not a crime, it is simply a failure to disperse.” He believed that someone called the police and told them that they cannot put people in jail for a failure to disperse, that they therefore needed a stronger charge.

“Failure to disperse is nothing, this is a free speech thing, you don’t put people in jail for union organizing.”

What Camp argues now is that the nature of the police in this circumstance would change and that the police began to operate not as a civil authority that would protect the public from lawbreakers and moved into the realm of a more traditional role for the police in labor disputes and actively became the arm of the university as the employer who intended to break the labor dispute using heavy-handed tactics.

“At this point, the UC Davis police quit being police officers as a civil authority and became agents of the employers who were out to punish people for organizing the union. That is a classic characterization of what we call animus, animus meaning in my experience, meanness. When an employer gets real mean, about the way they treat the workers who are trying to unionize. The Davis University police officers quit being police officers and they became agents, anti-union agents of the chancellor [Chancellor Vanderhoef].”

They then took the protestors to the Davis Police Department and cited them for trespassing.

“I said ‘what the hell do you mean we were trespassing?’ We were sitting in a small circle; we weren’t blocking anybody’s egress and access. People were all doing business there in the building. We weren’t trespassing, this was public property at 2 pm in the afternoon, what the hell are you talking about, we weren’t trespassing. This is a government building, it’s 2:00 in the afternoon, we’re not trespassing.”

So why did they give them a trespassing charge—because it was the only excuse they had to put them in jail. Otherwise they really did not have any reason to put them in jail. That took a couple of hours; they took them from the Davis Police Department to the county jail in Woodland. The bus driver had turned off the air conditioning. It was a very hot day and they were extremely hot and uncomfortable on that bus. They did not get the handcuffs off until around 6:00 pm and they couldn’t call anyone until they were processed.

They processed others through and they let the protesters just sit there for quite awhile. They kept one guy in jail until 12:30 am.

“I know Ed Prieto, and Ed in my opinion is not an anti-union guy. So someone told those cops, someone told those officers in that jail to mess with us and to leave that guy in there until 12:30. That ain’t right. I think Ed needs to be asked about that because this is stupid, this is for a failure to quit. They are trying to punish people for trying to get a union contract.”

There is a principle involved here too. As Camp suggested, “We are not trying to get a contract for people making 50 bucks an hour, we are trying to get a contract for people making nine bucks an hour.”

One of the most interesting aspects of this to Camp was the tradition at UC Davis as an agricultural university that often relied on contract labor. “The most exploitative contract system in the world is the labor contract system. So this tradition of using labor contractors like Sodexho, to deny that there is a collective bargaining relation is nuts. It’s not nuts, but it should be embarrassing. It should be embarrassing that the university has adopted this old labor system that has been discredited by the entire state. When we wrote the labor law, we wrote that you can’t do that.”

He found it exciting to work with and be with the students. He found it a great group of students and they got to talk about the history of the labor movement--how it got organized before and civil rights. He found it a great experience personally and grew to have great respect for the students.

I asked Bill Camp to elaborate as to what this fight is about. Why they are fighting for fair wages and good benefits for the food service workers.

According to Camp there is a deep tradition going back to Lincoln where “everyone should have a chance to try to build a middle class life.” And the civil war was a battle as much over class as over race. The landowners in the south concentrated wealth at the expense of everyone else—not just the slaves. There were a few people super rich and everyone else was poor. Reagan came along and tried to destroy the unions, “he came up with the philosophy that Bush has, let’s make everyone super rich, if a few people become super rich, then somehow this money will trickle down, which is a lie. The only way you build a real healthy economy is if you build economic demand, and the only way you build economic demand is to give people enough money so that they go out and spend.”

“The fact of the matter is, the war that’s going on, this fight, is about you create jobs that pay enough money so that people can have a reasonable life, that’s what drives economic growth. The reason everybody in this state has a stake in the fight of these food service workers, is if we establish a principle, now the food service worker deserves to get a fair wage, that’s what this country is about, that’s what we’ve been about since the day we were founded...”

This fight is about good jobs and a healthy economy.

“You don’t build a healthy economy, without building healthy jobs. And you don’t have a healthy society without healthy jobs. If you keep everyone exploited and low wage, you create a set of values like the southern slave system.”

The fight is about taking these 500 food service workers and training them to get better jobs where they can get even better wages. We are losing out on an opportunity when we take the approach of trying to exploit the labor of these workers.

“George Bush represents a set of values to make a few people super rich and the rest of us slaves. We represent a set of values that says that everyone ought to have their work respected and they ought to have a chance at a middle class life.”

What does this mean for these particular workers?

“It means if they join a union, they will join a union of about 20,000 members statewide.” They will be members of AFSCME local 3299, “every other campus, those workers who do the same work as these workers, get paid about 12 bucks an hour, they get health care, as far as I know they work out some strategy for a pension.”

“Would they ever get paid enough? No, no one ever gets paid enough, but the fact of the matter is that they wouldn’t be vulnerable, they would have the same protections that other state workers have.”

He sees this as a way to empower the food service workers, make them part of a larger group with political power and leverage over bargaining. They would not be able to be fired indiscriminately, they would get health care, and they would gain real political power.

Some people have suggested that the way to go about this is by unionizing Sodexho workers rather than making the food service workers university employees. Camp very strongly disagrees with this.

“Sodexho is not an employer in the true sense of the word. Sodexho does not decide how much people get paid and whether they get health benefits. That’s decided by the university, so Sodexho would have a fake relationship.”

The key here is that there has to be an actual collective bargaining relationship and that requires a discussion with the entity that controls the purse strings. In this case, that is not Sodexho, who is a third party, but rather the university.

“You can’t have collective bargaining with someone who doesn’t have the power to make the decisions about wage and worker conditions. In all of the other bargaining that goes around in the country, you represent workers and I represent management, I have a pile of money and I get to decide what I do with that pile of money. You have to have a direct relationship with me, not through some third party that doesn’t control the money. It’s the university that collects the student fees and decides how much of that is going to go to food service. So it is the university who is the employer. You can’t have collective bargaining unless you have the real employer who has real power. It only can work within the confines of what the university wants to tell them.”

Vanderhoef sent a letter to the organizers, that was read last week, basically suggesting that the university has a contract with Sodexho until 2010 and that they intend to honor that contract. According to Camp, this does not matter. They have no obligation to honor a labor contract with Sodexho. “The university is the employer, so they cannot say they can disobey the law and not honor our contractual obligations to these employees.” As an entity of the State of California, the University has an obligation to bargain with their employees, and these are their employees regardless of whether or not there is a middle man. “They have admitted, though they’d never use these direct words, that these workers are their employees.”

There were complaints by people in the building about the behavior of the protests—loud banging on the windows, intimidation, and fear. I asked Mr. Camp if he saw any of that.

“I think someone gone and lied to those employees and told them this was dangerous. There wasn’t anything dangerous about that event.” You can feel if there is danger and Camp did not feel any danger or concern while he was in the building. He admitted that they made a loud racket, but that’s their free speech right. People have the right to complain about the exercise of free speech rights, but that doesn’t mean people do not have the right to express themselves. “People are angry about the exploitation and abuse of these workers.” He felt that the employees should be more upset that the university is treating fellow employees in that way.

According to an UCD employee who works in Mrak Hall and with whom I spoke some of the banging on the doors and windows was from students who wanted to get in because they had appointments and or had to get paperwork processed. They called stating that they couldn’t get in.

Camp said he never felt any fear, but he did see people acting as though they were afraid. “We told them, you have nothing to be afraid of, this is just a labor organizing demonstration. But somebody freaked them out, I guess they told them that someone would come in and hurt them. But I don’t know. Somebody freaked them out, it wasn’t us.”

I also asked him whether he thought they overreacted by locking down the building. He felt that they overreacted by the way they treated the protesters by keeping them in handcuffs as long as they did. He thought that was an overreaction.

“They could easily have left someone at the door; they were not going to get into a shoving match.” He was not outside and could not see outside. However, “everyone inside was sure super nice, I couldn’t imagine someone shoving people. So I don’t think they had to lock it down… They did and it kind of created a fortress mentality. And that’s behaving in a way that motivates us to even be more loud. I think there were other ways to do it.”

It is clear that this is a dispute that is not going to go away anytime soon. The protesters and the workers are committed to their cause, but unfortunately the university believes that they can break the will of the workers and the protesters by out-waiting them. This dispute is likely to carry into the summer. It is time that people put pressure on the administration and Chancellor Vanderhoef to put an end to this. The policies of the university are frankly an embarrassment in a liberal and progressive community such as Davis that cherishes the rights of protest and the rights of workers to organize. Serious questions must be asked about the role of the university police, the Sheriff’s Department, and Jeff Reisig’s District Attorney’s Office who made the decision to charge the protesters with trespassing as opposed to the more reasonable and moderate charge of failure to disperse. Are these law enforcement organizations acting on the behest of the university as an agent, as Bill Camp so eloquently states, in order to help crush the protest. If so, Davis and Yolo County residents must ask where the priorities of this Sheriff’s Department and District Attorney’s office lie.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting