In Contrast to Katehi Letter, Regent De La Peña’s Investigation Kept Secret For Over a Year

UC Regent William De La Pena
UC Regent William De La Pena

On April 27, 2016, a personnel letter from UC President Janet Napolitano to UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi spelled out the UC President’s decision to place Ms. Katehi on administrative leave and hire Melinda Haag, a former federal prosecutor, to conduct an internal investigation into the allegations laid out by Ms. Napolitano against UC Davis’ Chancellor.

A few days after the release of the letter from UC President Napolitano, on May 2, 2016, ProPublica published a story that has been overshadowed by the Katehi matter, as well as by the UC Berkeley sexual harassment scandal.

In what ProPublica characterizes as a “secret 2015 report,” UC Regent William De La Peña, a medical doctor, “tried to negotiate a deal between his eye clinics and UCLA, and engaged in discussions in which he had a financial interest. He denied wrongdoing but resigned as chair of the regents’ health committee.”

However, he was allowed to keep his seat on the Board of Regents “despite a secret investigation that concluded he violated ethics rules by trying to strike a financially beneficial deal between his eye clinics and UCLA, part of the university system the regents oversee.”

ProPublica posted a May 3 update, noting, “After this story ran, the University of California responded to our Public Records Act request, filed in January, and released the investigative report and exhibits related to Regent William De La Peña. They were redacted by the university and can be found here.”

A letter dated March 25, 2015, was sent from Daniel M. Dooley, Special Acting Systemwide Locally Designated Official, who copied among others UC Regent Chair Bruce D. Varner and President Napolitano, and who was appointed to oversee the investigation of whistleblower complaints against De La Peña.

In the letter he summarized the findings of Keith Rohman, of Public Interest Investigations, who agreed with the findings which found “Regent De La Pena’s conduct to be a substantial violation of Regents Policy 1110 regarding conflicts of interest. Pursuant to the University’s Whistleblower Policy, this clearly constitutes an improper governmental activity.”

As Mr. Dooley notes in his letter, “The complaints raised a number of questions about Regent De La Pena’ s conduct related to the potential acquisition by UCLA of Regent De La Pena’s ophthalmology clinics.”

The specific questions raised by the complaints were:

  • Did Regent De La Peña repeatedly request that Dr. Feinberg find a way to purchase his clinics outside of the Regental process?
  • Did these alleged efforts by Regent De La Peña include a suggestion to orchestrate a sale of his clinics to the Doheny Eye Institute weeks before the UCLA Doheny deal to avoid a conflict of interest on his part?
  • Did Regent De La Peña retaliate in any manner against Dr. Feinberg as a consequence of his refusal to involve UCLA in the purchase of his clinics?

Mr. Dooley in his summary writes, “Based upon findings in the report, I find that Regent De La Pena continued to engage in discussions regarding the Doheny deal after Regent De La Pena had been recused from participating in the matter. I also find that Regent De La Pena continued to pursue alternative scenarios by which Regent De La Pena’s clinics could be turned over to UCLA, up to the time of the January 2014 Regents meeting. I accept the investigator’s finding that Regent De La Pena did not retaliate against Dr. Feinberg and UCLA for Dr. Feinberg’s refusal to involve UCLA in the purchase of Regent De La Pena’ s ophthalmology clinics.”

He adds, “The facts are clear that Regent De La Pena engaged in a series of discussions about a potential transaction in which he had a financial interest, from October 14, 2013 through and including the January 2014 Regents meeting.”

Of course, in a May 10, 2015, letter to President Napolitano and Board of Regents Chair Bruce Varner, Dr. De La Peña writes that he had “serious concerns about the version of the facts set forth in the memorandum dated March 3, 2015 from Keith Rohman to Daniel Dooley dealing with supposed retaliation against Dr. Feinberg and conflicts of interest.”

In the letter, De La Peña notes that when he was approached about leasing space from his eye clinics, he contacted UC General Counsel Charles Robinson, telling him, “I did not want to do anything that was wrong or inappropriate under UC’s policies and that I wanted everything to be ‘completely above board.’”

Dr. De La Peña writes, “Despite my request during the call of October 30, 2013, Mr. Robinson does not claim to have ever sent me his conclusions or advice.”

He adds, “From my standpoint, no one ever told me that UCLA was not interested in pursuing, after the Doheny deal would close, an opportunity with me. Many months later, after the so-called whistleblower complaint was received, Mr. Robinson told both me and Chairman Varner that I should not worry about the complaint.”

But at issue here is the UC President’s handling of the matter involving Regent De La Peña versus the handling of Chancellor Katehi’s matter.

When the Vanguard asked UC Spokesperson Dianne Klein about that letter, she stated that its release “did not violate personnel confidentiality policies.”

She also suggested this was a routine release, writing, “As a general matter, when media request University documents that could affect the privacy rights of individuals, California law requires us to balance the public’s interest in the disclosure of records relating to public business against an individual’s interest in non-disclosure.”

“One factor that influences this balance is the nature of an individual’s position. The higher the level of one’s position, the greater likelihood that the balance tips in favor of the public interest in disclosure,” she explained.

She added, “In light of the many weeks of media attention arising from Chancellor Katehi’s leadership, UCOP determined that, in this case, the balance favored disclosure when the letter was requested.”

However, the handling of a potentially criminal conflict of interest case involving UC Regent William De La Peña and an allegation of a potential conflict of interest suggests something altogether different.

In contrast to her response to our question about the Linda Katehi matter, when ProPublica asked why this report had been kept confidential, Ms. Klein wrote, “The outcomes of whistleblower investigations are not routinely announced publicly.”

“The investigation was carried out according to UC policy,” she wrote. “His resignation [from the committee] was consistent with what sanction the investigation recommended.”

The results of the matter involving Regent De La Peña were kept secret for over a year, only released after a report by ProPublica and then only in redacted form.  The letter from President Napolitano to Chancellor Katehi was released the same day to the Sacramento Bee without even the need for a formal Public Records Request.

—David M. Greenwald reporting


About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

60 thoughts on “In Contrast to Katehi Letter, Regent De La Peña’s Investigation Kept Secret For Over a Year”

  1. PhillipColeman

    “Special Acting Systemwide Locally Designated Official”

    Tell me–please, please, tell me this is a gag. This column is actually a draft of a Saturday Night Live skit and this is not really happening. Nobody would deliberately create a position with such a preposterous title. Going along with the gag, what does this person earn? Make it really funny and closer to reality and say it’s in the 6-figure range.



    1. Biddlin

      I’d like to know the pay, too, Phil. I’m on a board, with a nice title, Director of Disinformation Dissemination, and wonder if I’m undervalued. I took the title for the free coffee and snacks at the meetings, but may want to renegotiate.

        1. PhillipColeman

          So a lawyer who is an expert in water (?) is given close to a  half-million dollars in compensation because of his unique investigative skills in ferreting  out university personnel issues. His job was to say his report agrees with another report.He’s finished the report, so it all just water over the dam (sorry).

          Now I’m certain this is actually a Saturday Night Live script mocking the UC Administrative System. Tina Fey plays Chancellor Katehi. And her friend, Amy Whats-her-name, is cast as the UC President.

  2. Marina Kalugin

    LOL.    is it April Fool’s day?

    Laughter is rejection and therefore there is always some truth that someone wants to reject.

    However, the infamous Napolitano letter to our Chancellor Linda Katehi, was leaked by someone  (likely a lower level union represented person)…..

    in the “extremely confidential”  office of the Chancellor and Provost,

    to the media before the Chancellor had even seen it…

    Earlier that day, the Chancellor had her composure around noon,  after being abused by the Napo the day before, while the Napo screamed and yelled at her to “resign” …..all in plain sight and sound of many others,

    with the Chancellor declining, as the Chancellor knew the trumped up charges would not hold up.

    Now, that is truth…and that is why I spoke out when I did with my first posting….on April 27th, I believe.

    Truth is always way stranger and scarier than fiction……




    1. David Greenwald Post author

      You are incorrect. The letter on April 27 was not leaked it was actually released by the University. There is a big difference.

      1. Marina Kalugin

        are you sure David…. who told you that it was released, and not leaked?   I heard otherwise from those who should know and are intimately involved……

        David, I totally get your point and share the outrage…

        and, yes, I get that point….but I was also making my own point…

        do you truly think the fact that the paid protestors up and walked out on the friday before Sat picnic day and then the incident happened on the very following monday had nothing to do with anything?

        if so, I have some properties I would love to sell to you…   LOL




        1. David Greenwald Post author

          Yes, UC has confirmed the release from Napolitano. They have withheld tons of other documents in requests, but released that the day of.

    2. ryankelly

      Marina,  I really have to respond to your repeated and demeaning comments about UCD union-represented staff – mainly clerical, janitorial, electricians, grounds people, librarians and lab techs, etc.  As a mid-level manager, it is really out of line for you to be posting such comments, especially when unions are in the middle of negotiations for a new contract.  The University wants to move clerical staff over to pure merit pay with managers such as yourself deciding on whether staff should receive merit pay raises and how much.  You apparently hold staff and their union representation in contempt and therefore cannot be trusted to perform that task equitably.   This should be brought to the attention of the negotiators, because the University is claiming that there is no favoritism or bias among managers on campus.

  3. Tia Will

    Perhaps it is because I have closely followed the situation surrounding Chancellor Katehi, and am only very cursorily aware of the De La Pena circumstances, but I fail to see much in common about the two cases and thus do not see the overall circumstances surrounding the university’s handling of information as comparable.

    In the De La Pena case we seem to have at most two issues neither of which involved widespread public awareness and discussion prior to any information provided by the university. However, in the Kathei case, there was already large amounts of public information and debate over the activities and choices of the Chancellor over a period of years involving many aspects of her decision making from the pepper spray incident, through her various board activities ( some involving rule breaking, some not, and some like KAU just sleazy ), through the social media PR stunt, to the perhaps valid, perhaps not, charges of nepotism. Perhaps there were multiple student protests and calls for Dr. De La Pena’s resignation of  which I am unaware ?

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      Ms Tia

      Investigation is investigation and should be  confidential  does not matter what is being investigated .Neapolitan never should release suspension /administrative leave letter to the press . The  Investigation against Chancellor Katehi is not investigation but as I  pointed many times  it is a ruthless  and despicable witch hunt against Chancellor and her family , involving  media and two WHITE COLLAR CRIME  top notch defense attorneys Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott .   Only God , Janet Napolitano , UC Regents and UC General Counsel Charles Robinson  know what  Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott are investigating .  This investigation does not looks  the whistle blowing investigation.

      Neapolitan should only release to the press that Chancellor was placed on investigatory leave to prevent any interference with the ongoing investigation . That it.

    2. DavidSmith

      However, in the Kathei case, there was already large amounts of public information and debate over the activities and choices of the Chancellor over a period of years involving many aspects of her decision making from the pepper spray incident, through her various board activities ( some involving rule breaking, some not, and some like KAU just sleazy ), through the social media PR stunt, to the perhaps valid, perhaps not, charges of nepotism. 

      Wrong. Tia Will, the letter states that there are three issues that need to be investigated (can you tell us what they are?). I can tell you that pepper spray, external board positions, social media campaign, are not among them. And please don’t sneak in nepotism, you yourself acknowledged in one previous post that you were not aware of the issue. In fact, it was indeed not covered by public media before the letter was released and for a good reason: there is nothing to find there.

      Chancellors don’t get investigated because there are some students calling for resignation. I’m calling for Napolitano to be fired. Should she be investigated?

      Too much hate and no reasoning.

  4. MAli

    The facts of these cases are so different the only thing in common is that they both happened within UC. It seems that the Vanguard is now an ex-officio part of the Katehi legal team public relations campaign to secure Katehi the largest possible settlement. I hope they are paying the Vanguard well for these endless articles supporting the disgraced and soon to be, if not already, ex-Chancellor.

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      You’re missing the point – the point is that UC chose to hide and keep one secret and release the other the same day. It’s not whether the cases have common ground other than they involved alleged wrongdoing by a high up official. The Vanguard doesn’t get money for its coverage. Not supporting the ex-chancellor, but also not supporting the way UC has conducted itself.

      1. Marina Kalugin

        yes, David, unfortunately the same posters miss the same points over and over…unless it is a point they share….

        I share the irony of the point, and yet, many others only ever see what they already see….instead of real analyses….

        I understand they try to teach those skills these days in schools and college, but I find that some hold on to ancient beliefs and never see the round earth in front of them…only the “flat” ground which everyone knows is flat

      2. MAli

        I get the point but think you miss the bigger picture that the problem is not the release of the Katehi letter but the holding of information in other cases. These cases are so different comparing them isn’t even apples and oranges. Its more like apples and zebra.If this thing ever gets to court we will find out about the balance between the public right to know and Katehi’s right to privacy. Still I don’t see this ever getting to court. This is Katehi’s legal team trying to get advantage to gain the largest settlement possible. Still perhaps Katehi is so self deluded at this point about her importance to UCD that she will be unable to settle and all these issues will be adjudicated. If so we can count on an endless stream of planted stories from her legal team to her PR team at the Davis Vanguard. I just wonder David how did you got this story. Did Guzman send it to you herself?

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          The problem is the strategic release of helpful information and withholding of other information. I don’t reveal sources, but it was not Ms. Guzman.

        2. DavidSmith

          I don’t think you get the point Mali. You are in fact misleading the audience here. Everything David wrote was fact based. What are the ” planted stories ” you are referring to? Can you give some examples? I don’t see anything that is made up or fabricated. They all happened in plain sight. The fact that you fail to see them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Time to wake up.

    2. Barack Palin

      I have a different assessment of the Vanguard’s coverage of Katehi.  At first I felt the Vanguard was out to get Katehi just as the many others involved in this witch hunt.  But I feel the Vanguard has evolved and now sees that some of the actions of Napolitano and UC are unethical and is calling them on it.  I give credit to the Vanguard for being willing to adjust its coverage as this all plays out.

      1. Marina Kalugin

        I agree…the DV was out to lynch and yet they are now changing their tune…not easy for many of us who have been feeding docs and sharing emails and such….and unfortunately, it is too little too late for our Dean search….I see they removed my posts on that topic.

        I have started, on occasion, keeping copies of posts within my emails…didn’t on that topic…oh well…

        1. Tia Will

          I agree…the DV was out to lynch”

          Talk about clinging to one’s unfounded beliefs.

          The way I see this is that David has consistently presented information on the unfolding events as he has seen them. The point is not “oh, my gosh, he is on a witch hunt against Chancellor Katehi”, nor, “oh my goodness, now he has seen the light and is on the side of truth”. Can we not simply accept that perhaps David believes that the issues are more nuanced than you would like to portray them, and that perhaps neither side here is either angelic nor demonic, but perhaps there have been grave errors in judgment all the way around ?

        2. David Greenwald Post author

          There are a few points that I think need to be made.

          First, the Vanguard seeks first and foremost to disseminate information some of which is not getting reported in the mainstream news and second to facilitate a community conversation.

          Second, I may have strong views expressed in op-eds but they actually are not set views.  My thinking changes over time, it evolves and it evolves based on new information.

          I cannot really condone Linda Katehi’s conduct and when she was put on leave, I felt it was the right move (and perhaps it should have been more permanent), however, I am not biased against.  Personally, I actually like her even if I disagree with some of her decisions.

          However, as information has come out on the UC handling of this, I’m rather appalled by the abuse of power.  The Chancellor didn’t murder people and she’s entitled to a fair process.

          I personally believe that both sides can be the in the wrong.

          So I hope that explains my thinking.  But the next story that I right will be on the current assessment of the facts and information, not the thoughts I put down here.

  5. Tia Will


    the point is that UC chose to hide and keep one secret and release the other the same day.”

    I agree that this is one point. But it is certainly not the only point. The two cases varied vastly in the amount of publicity that each had drawn prior to the release of information by the university. I do not believe that this critical difference can be ignored in judging the actions of any of those involved.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      Ms. Tia

      This not  the reality TV  show with Judge Tia  Will. This a real stuff where people lives  being destroyed by  ruthless UCOP Gestapo which does not follow Geneva convention and take no prisoners .  The decision about the Chancellor Katehi’s and her family fate  was made long long time ago as same as my fate was decided in December 2006 and the final solution was exercised by  UCOP Gestapo  six years later on December 5, 2012.  However  it is not over yet.  If I will not die than fight will be continued .


    2. DavidSmith

      Tia Will, we have all moved on in our discussion whereas you were still clinging on to the “misstep” argument. I think we have debated enough about it. Yes there are some missteps done by the Chancellor but I think her contributions to UC Davis far outweighs these missteps. I don’t know it’s just me or what. In science and technology, it’s just so common to make mistakes. You never learn unless you make mistakes. I think the same can be said for a leader. Chancellor Katehi has the vision and experience to transform UCD into a better university. It’s very much acceptable to me that she makes some mistakes along the way. She has and will become a better leader by going through these “missteps”

      I think David has a very valid point here. The two cases are very different, but the way UCOP is handling information release speaks out loud what they have in mind. I think I understand why, but I’ll just refrain from speaking because it’s all deduction no facts.

      From the beginning, we have been calling out UCOP’s bogus actions against Chancellor Katehi. It’s really not hard to see if you actually go through and study the evidence that I and many others provided here. Just need to open your eyes.

  6. Marina Kalugin

    yeah yeah we get your old and tired points, but truly, are your points the only points?  if only they would be the most important points, or even accurate, then I might actually stop to say, good point…

    mostly however they are to play devils advocate and that is getting more and more “old”

    1. Tia Will


      Very telling post given that I did not bring up any “old points” at all except as illustration of the difference between the two cases, an issue that I have never addressed previously.

  7. nameless

    Here is an interesting article that purports to explain why the De La Pena situation was kept under wraps whereas the Katehi affair was not:

    From the article: “When asked by the Sacramento Bee why Dooley’s conclusions — and the investigation for that matter — had been kept secret, UC spokeswoman Dianne Klein wrote in an email, “The outcomes of whistle-blower investigations are not routinely announced publicly. The investigation was carried out according to UC policy.”

    And there you have it: Releasing the findings would deviate from UC policy, which of course is set by the board on which the ethically challenged doctor sits. Gee, hard to see any conflict there.

    The truth is that UC didn’t make the findings public because, as always, it hoped the issue would go away…

    This case is reflective of the overarching policy that UC seems to have borrowed from Las Vegas: What happens at UC stays at UC, unless you happen to find out about it and force us tell you.”

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      You realize I posted the exact same quote from Dianne Klein. But it’s not clear the difference between that and the Katehi situation (which btw, also involved whistleblowers). They release the report eventually by redacting the names, that’s the proper way to handle it. Klein’s response is a non-answer. It’s a distinction without a difference.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk


        Yesterday after I studied all material in regards to investigation on UC Davis Academic Senate website , i found out that the UC  Senior Vice President Sheryl Vacca’s office is involved in the investigation and is handling it as a whistle blowing  investigation and it should entirely confidential according to UC policies and procedures . This is a “witch hunt” not investigation .

        I sent yesterday  a short e-mail letter in this matter to 120 members and leaders of the UC Academic  Senate with links to the Davis Vanguard articles  about this  one of many witch huntings by the UCOP’s Gestapo.

    2. DavidSmith

      nameless, I think you are on the right track. If UCOP’s common tactic is to keep things secret in hope that it goes away, then why are they so actively releasing the letter to the public regarding Chancellor Katehi’s investigation?

  8. Jerry Waszczuk

    “The results of the matter involving Regent De La Peña were kept secret for over a year, only released after a report by ProPublica and then only in redacted form.  The letter from President Napolitano to Chancellor Katehi was released the same day to the Sacramento Bee without even the need for a formal Public Records Request.” 

    To:                Jaroslaw Waszczuk
    Associate Development Engineer
    Plant Operations and Maintenance

    From:                Charles Witcher
    Plant Operations and Maintenance

    Subject:        Access to University Email Account

    Dear Jerry:

    Recently you have sent multiple emails from your University email account to several individuals in Human Resources, Office of the President and the UC Davis Campus.

    ”.  The content of the email included inappropriate and confidential information related to the ongoing investigation.

     Due to your failure to abide by my directives, your access to your University email account has been suspended for the duration of your leave.  If you wish to communicate regarding work related or leave matters, you must direct all communications to me.  You may continue to communicate with Human Resources or the Compliance Officer on the Davis campus, Wendi Delmendo, about whistleblower and retaliation matters.  Failure to comply with this directive to cease and desist sending unsolicited inappropriate communications to University employees, will result in discipline up to and including dismissal. 

    Attachment:        Proof of Service

    Charles Witcher, Manager
    Plant Operations & Maintenance
    UC Davis Health System
    Phone:  916-734-5508
    Fax:       916-734-2773

    I spent over one year on the investigatory  leave not knowing why . In 2011-2012  I did not know that the whole deal  was about the  misappropriation of $ 65, 000,000 of public funds by the UC  Regents and the   UC Davis administrators prior Chancellor Katehi was hired . The scheme of fraud invented  by the UCOP rotten by corruption administration  cost the UC Davis alt least half a billion dollars . Lets wait and see what Ms. Melinda Haag and  Mr. McGregor Scott will come up with in theirs “witch hunt”  against  Greek born  Chancellor Katehi and her Greek  family which is residing in Davis, California

      1. Jerry Waszczuk


        Ask moderator or David. David is educated in political science that he will explain you scientifically what is slur and what is not and what is the political correctness and what is not.  Normally David or Don removing the slurs from posts than I believe that you are enough intelligent to answer your question without my help.

      2. ryankelly

        I’m not the one describing Katehi as Greek born or referring to her family as a Greek family. I don’t see anyone else doing that either.  Made me wonder why you thought this was an important descriptive for her and her family.

    1. ryankelly

      Jerry,  Is it important to note that Katehi is Greek born or her family has a Greek heritage?  It appears that it is a slur, but I’m not sure.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk


        Very important and I know why  because I went through such hell as Greek Born Chancellor Katehi is going through . Beside me it was mentioned many times by media  beside myself.  It must be important factor. You have to know that  Greeks , Poles , Italians and Jews were classified for quite long in this country as  the different  races.  Chancellor was not welcomed in UC Davis and Davis from the beginning of her tenure as a Chancellor . When I will find more time I will write article about.  I almost gathered all information.

        1. ryankelly

          You have to know that  Greeks , Poles , Italians and Jews were classified for quite long in this country as  the different  races.

          So were other immigrant groups, including Irish, Chinese, Japanese, Chicano/Latino…don’t forget the treatment of African/black and Native Americans.   I think because of your own heritage you may be sensitive to racial and cultural bias concerning Katehi’s Greek heritage, but I don’t believe there was broad concern about her being Greek born or that this is the basis for her present predicament.

        2. Jerry Waszczuk


          I am  not forgetting anything,  Negros or  Black status was changed to African _Americans and Poles , Greeks , Jews and Italians became Caucasians.  In this case we don’t have  African -Americans or Native Americans as a victims .  We have Greek born Chancellor and her Greek  family as a victims. Your statement is pointless in this matter.

        3. Tia Will


          So is it your opinion that the Chancellor is being accused because she is Greek , or because she is a woman as others have suggested, or because she is personally disliked by Ms. Napolitano, or what other reason other than her own actions ?

        4. Jerry Waszczuk


          What you think is does not matter to me and most likely vice versa . We  have our  different opinions and different life experiences  .  I read many negative  comments about Chancellor heritage , her heavy accent etc . (not on Vanguard )  For quite long I had  negative opinion about the Greek Born Chancellor myself  because I thought she participated in destruction of my life by following the  UCOP orders. I wrote about previously in my letter to Melinda Guzman posted on the  Vanguard. This is not a  secret . I was lashing my anger  at Chancellor  because and Hextler she did not stop the  assault aimed  against me.  If  you would find out that the  supervisor  of the  UCDMC Trauma  Unit  # 11  Karen Kouertas will be waiting for you with the  expectation that you will be shot by UCDPD  crooked cop Lt. James Barbour bribed by $ 35 K salary increase than I am  sure that you would view the case differently .  On top of this I basing my opinion here on  thousands of documents I have .

          Also , if your UCDMC manager would tell you “Somebody will give this Polack bad evaluation and fire him ”  and I will send Gestapo on your ass ” than you would have different picture. AI never got a bad evaluation in 13 years of service for UCDMC but I got UCOP Gestapo on my ass and my life and my livelihood  was completely destroyed exactly as it happening to Greek born Chancellor  Linda Katehi and her Greek family up front of your and other eyes on this forum.
          German Theologian Martin Niemmoler wrote long time ago.
          First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out–
          because I was not a communist;
          Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–
          because I was not a socialist;
          Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out–
          because I was not a trade unionist;
          Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
          because I was not a Jew;
          Then they came for me–
          and there was no one left to speak out for me

        5. ryankelly

          I still believe that the fact that Katehi is Greek born and has a Greek family is no part of the equation here.  I don’t think that UCOP has Gestapo.  Your equation with your situation and Katehi’s situation with Nazi Germany is over the top – really, there is no comparison.  What I hear you saying is that you feel that you were treated poorly and ended up losing your job and this is similar to what Katehi is dealing with.

        6. Jerry Waszczuk


          I am not trying to convince you or change your believes . I am just providing my different opinion about the case .  Most likely you never represented any  UC employees with their complaints against UC  management , most likely you never was interrogated  by  UC Gestapo, most likely you never spent over one year on investigatory leave , most likely  you never experienced finding that UC Gestapo filed workers compensation claim on your behalf and you was not disabled or sick , most likely  you never was denied by UC Gestapo your health insurance in attempt to force you you quit , you  was denied short term disability to force you to dispersed , you never was a subject of UC Gestapo’s  psychological terror like I was  and many of my coworkers experienced .  You never was a subject of orchestrated by UC Gestapo  provocation to physically harm.

          As you probably aware  the Neo- Nazis organizations and other hate groups are not prohibited in USA and under the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression . These folks  can demonstrate and spread their hate  ideology legally  with protection  of law and police force if needed

          In contrary, the  communists organisations are prohibited in this country and many communists changed their color and attached themselves to Democratic Party left wing liberals or atheists.

          Do you have idea why the nazis ale legal and communists are not ? Nazis caused the Holocaust and exterminated  six  million Jews ? Right?


        7. Jerry Waszczuk


          “It is perfectly legal to be a Communist in the USA.”


          I would not recommend to anybody include you to sympathize with  commies  party which claims that has  2000 members nation wide .
           SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1THE COMMUNIST CONTROL ACT (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT DWIGHT EISENHOWER ON 24 AUGUST 1954, WHICH OUTLAWS THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CRIMINALIZES MEMBERSHIP in, or support for the Party or “Communist-action” organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations.


          After a ten-month trial at the Foley Square Courthouse in Manhattan, eleven leaders of the Communist Party were convicted under the Smith Act in 1949. Ten defendants received sentences of five years and $10,000 fines. An eleventh defendant, Robert G. Thompson, a distinguished hero of the Second World War, was sentenced to three years in consideration of his military record. The five defense attorneys were cited for contempt of court and given prison sentences. Those convicted appealed the verdicts, and the Supreme Court upheld their convictions in 1951 in Dennis v. United States in a 6-2 decision.

          Following that decision, the DOJ prosecuted dozens of cases. In total, by May 1956, another 131 communists were indicted, of whom 98 were convicted, nine acquitted, while juries brought no verdict in the other cases. Other party leaders indicted included Claudia Jones and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a founding member of the ACLU who had been expelled in 1940 for being a Communist.


          Appeals from other trials reached the Supreme Court with varying results. On June 17, 1957, Yates v. United States held unconstitutional the convictions of numerous party leaders in a ruling that distinguished between advocacy of an idea for incitement and the teaching of an idea as a concept. The same day, the Court ruled 6-1 in Watkins v. United States that defendants could use the First Amendment as a defense against “abuses of the legislative process.” On June 5, 1961, the Supreme Court upheld by 5-4 the conviction of Junius Scales under the “membership clause” of THE SMITH ACT. Scales began serving a six-year sentence on October 2, 1961. He was released after serving fifteen months when President John F. Kennedy commuted his sentence in 1962.


          1. Don Shor

            Vestige of McCarthyism, but:

            In 1973 a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional and Arizona could not keep the party off the ballot in the 1972 general election (Blawis v. Bolin). In 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the act did not bar the party from participating in New York’s unemployment insurance system (Communist Party v. Catherwood)

            However, the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act’s constitutionality. Despite that, no administration has tried to enforce it. The provisions of the act “outlawing” the party have not been repealed. Nevertheless, the Communist Party of the USA continues to exist in the 21st century.

            For all intents and purposes, it is not illegal to be a Communist in the USA.

        8. hpierce

          Jerry… I know English is a second language to you, but there is a huge difference between believing in ‘communism’ and being a member of the ‘Communist Party’…

          Are you a “McCarthy-ist”?

          There are some (am not one of them) who believe “from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs”… some post here… the early Christian Church was “communistic”… but it was a “call”, not a mandate…

          Your point?


      2. DavidSmith


        I am an immigrant to this country and I can see why Jerry is bring up Chancellor Katehi’s nationality. You don’t have to believe me but I think that her being Greek, with a strong accent, and being a woman, and a very successful woman, definitely played a role in the public’s opinion. I can very clearly see it.

        The United States is a great country. But don’t underestimate the unspoken and the unspeakable.

  9. SODA

    Agree different cases although would need more info before commenting on the regent’s case. To me, Chancellor is an employee, Regent is a board position (similar to her board positions)….that is a differences.

    1. The Pugilist

      Interesting point SODA, but that actually drives at the conclusion that the Regent’s investigation should have been open and the Chancellor’s closed.

  10. Jerry Waszczuk


    “For all intents and purposes, it is not illegal to be a Communist in the USA.”

    Go for .  2000 members you calling party? . Let them be legal. US COMMUNIST PARTY JURASSIC PARK 

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
Sign up for