Chancellor Katehi Survives Non-Binding No-Confidence Vote

Supporters of  the chancellor will point to the final vote on a motion of “non-confidence” in UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi’s leadership. 697 votes were against the motion with 312 votes for the motion – 69 percent support for the embattled but still alive and surviving UC Davis Chancellor.

The vote was non-binding, and no one is sure exactly what effect such a vote, had it succeeded, would have had on the chancellor, even as UC officials were unaware of a successful no-confidence vote at any of its campuses.

We can certainly see in that vote a strong vote of support for the chancellor, now more than three months after the November 18, 2011 incident that put UC Davis in the cross-hairs of national coverage and outrage over the use of police force in responding to Occupy protests.

But, of course, we have a very different view of all that has transpired in the past week.

While the more than two-to-one vote of those present seems a strong vote of confidence, it should be noted that the turn-out rate of faculty was around 37%, with barely 1000 out of 2693 eligible voters even casting a vote.

Through that light we can see, perhaps, indifference creeping into the entire scene.  It is not that the faculty is ready to revolt against the chancellor, but rather that most perhaps do not care one way or another.

And if the 69% favorable vote indicates support for Chancellor Katehi, then the vote on a competing motion which condemned the police use of excessive force and pepper-spray on student demonstrators becomes all the more powerful, because it passed overwhelming.

The message is clear – even those faculty who remain steadfast behind the chancellor strongly condemn the use of force on students.

There can be solace in that vote for the chancellor as things proceed.

They proceed slowly and unsurely.  For this week, we also learned that even the revised date of February 21, as a release date for the Task Force’s report on Kroll’s investigation, will not be met.

It was telling words from former Justice Cruz Reynoso, “I am writing to report to you that the Task Force continues to work diligently towards the release of the final report outlining recommendations to Chancellor Katehi and you. These recommendations, assisted by the fact finding report from Kroll, will include improvements to police procedures, command protocols, and campus policies and oversight structures that will help ensure that the rights and safety of nonviolent protestors and the entire campus community are protected.”

The words of Cruz Reynoso make it clear that, while the report has not been finalized yet, the group has already met on five occasions and has reviewed “a considerable amount of information surrounding the details of the event.”

He does not have final reports yet, but it becomes clear when he says that the recommendations will include “improvements to police procedures, command protocols, and campus policies and oversight structures” – the police’s actions will not be exonerated.  Whether it goes beyond that, who knows.

What is clear at this point is that, while attention is clearly waning, and while the faculty at least at this point is standing behind its chancellor, it does not stand behind the actions of the police.

The same faculty senate that voted to back the chancellor with 69% of the vote strongly condemned the actions of police that day.

Chancellor Katehi needs to recognize what these votes are telling her.  They are telling her that she is not going to be let off the hook if it turns out she ordered the use of force.  They are telling her that there is quite a bit of trepidation about the manner in which this was handled.

But the faculty is keeping an open mind and taking her at face value, when she says she did not order the use of force.

The chancellor clearly can survive this, but only if she manages the post-report reaction properly.  The chancellor’s office was clearly in disarray following the pepper-spray attack on students.  She issued a statement that appeared supportive of the police, calling it essentially unfortunate but necessary.

She clearly misread public sentiment and had to strongly backtrack into a position where she claimed no direct responsibility and expressed outrage and promised to do things better.  That marks the work of the $100,000 image consultant.

But what remains clear is that the support is limited.  If it turns out that the chancellor ordered these attacks, the veil of courtesy will wear off.  If the chancellor does not deal swiftly and unambiguously with whatever findings emerge, then the tolerance of the chancellor will wane.

—David M. Greenwald reporting