Katehi Fighting Back against Allegations from UC President Napolitano

Chancellor Katehi in February
Chancellor Katehi in February

It has been a month and a half since UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi was put on paid administrative leave after she refused to resign in late April at the request of UC President Janet Napolitano. Ms. Katehi is fighting back against allegations and a seemingly immovable UC bureaucracy.

She has retained attorney Melinda Guzman, herself a graduate of UC Davis and a former candidate for Davis City Council.  On Wednesday, the Vanguard spoke to Ms. Guzman by phone.

“The April 27 letter (has) the allegations that supposedly supported this so-called independent and neutral investigation,” she said.  “Each instance, we are contesting these allegations.”

She called the allegations, as laid out in the letter, “baseless,” calling them “issues that either already have been dealt with or were known.”  She said, “The alleged whistleblower complaint was a whistleblower complaint that had existed for several years and had been dealt with not only at the campus level but by the UCOP that resulted in a November 2014 letter to the whistleblower informing him that there (was) no merit to his claim.”

“So for all this to be pasted into this letter as the basis for this paid administrative leave and then broadcast to the world in the manner in which it was – yes – we’re contesting that,” Ms. Guzman told the Vanguard.

Ms. Guzman also pointed out that, for an employee, this letter was “unprecedented” and breached her right to confidentiality. “In California, there are rights of privacy,” she stated.  “The timing of the release is also unfortunate.”  She noted that UC Davis faculty were hearing from UC Berkeley faculty “about the rumors that she had been placed on leave,” as were people in the Capital being told that she was being forced to leave.

She noted that the April 27 Sacramento Bee article that reported the administrative leave was stamped 2:47 a.m. online and that she didn’t get a call notifying her about this until 8:31 p.m. that evening.  These leaks, Guzman said, “violate her right of privacy.”

Linda Katehi is now moving to file a grievance.  “I served a grievance letter on May 26 to Charlie Robinson, General Counsel of the University of California.  It complains in essence about Janet Napolitano and how she handled this entire personnel matter.”

The two spoke by phone last week. The grievance, according to this conversation, goes to her supervisor, Janet Napolitano, and she will review it.  Guzman was told that the president would not do anything prior to the conclusion of the investigation.  She responded, “In all instances when an employee complains about a supervisor, the grievance doesn’t go to the supervisor that you’re complaining about.  It goes to the next level and here it should have gone to the Board of Regents.”

“The process with regards to that grievance is flawed from the very beginning,” she said.  “I think it is time for the Board of Regents to step in.”

Melinda Guzman explained that she has had two sets of communications with UC about the investigation.  One has been directed to the investigator.  She said that she has had some communication with investigator Melinda Haag, where she “raised the question of conflict with regard to the Orrick firm.”  According to Ms. Guzman, Ms. Haag never responded to those concerns.

The rest of the communications have been with regard to scheduling of an interview for Linda Katehi, where they have confirmed a couple days for an interview.

She has also had communications with the general counsel’s office.  She attempted to get a copy of Ms. Katehi’s personnel file, which took three weeks.  “I think it was a reasonable request,” she said, but “I had to contact the general counsel directly in order to get it.”  She added, “I’m not sure I have the entire file, to be honest.”

Melinda Guzman questions whether Ms. Haag and Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe are “independent and neutral.”  “In this case, because Janet Napolitano, herself, has made herself a witness, and she has basically claimed that Linda Katehi has maybe misrepresented statements to her – she’s a witness.”

“So when the university announced that they have selected an independent and neutral investigator, they should have done what they said they were doing,” she said.  Instead, they hired a law firm which has been a partner with them for years and they hired an attorney who has represented Ms. Napolitano when she headed up the Department of Homeland Security.

She clarified that they are not asking to be able to select an investigator agreeable to both sides.  “I am asking for fairness and due process,” she said, by selecting someone without a preexisting relationship to the president.  She said she wants “a fair investigation of the facts.”

Melinda Guzman told the Vanguard claims that the lack of cooperation on their part “is absolutely incorrect.”  She reiterated their attempts to communicate with UC.  She noted they identified two dates for Linda Katehi to be interviewed.  “There’s no issue there,” she stated.

She argued that delays have been evident on the part of UC as well, noting again that it should not have taken three weeks to get Chancellor Katehi’s personnel file.  There have also been exchanges on the conflict of interest issue that have not been resolved either – and they have not received a response to their most recent letter.

“If we could resolve those issues, (it) would trigger what might or might not happen with regards to the Orrick and Haag team,” she said.

There are also issues involving access to things like Katehi’s Apple iPhone, and Ms. Guzman alleges that there are attorney-client privilege and privacy issues there.  She said that she sent a letter and the general counsel has not responded in 15 days to that communication.

“I absolutely challenge the notion that we have not been cooperative,” she stated.  “No, there has not be a lack of cooperation at all.”

The question became what Ms. Katehi’s goal is in this process. Ms. Guzman responded, “The most important thing for Linda Katehi is her integrity.”

She explained, “I think everyone would agree, including the folks in Davis, that she brought many good things to the campus.  Her reputation in the STEM sciences and in science and engineering, she raised the billion dollars or more two years in advance, (and) she’s a very reputable researcher with the 19 patents that she’s been involved in.”

“More so than anything else, she will tell you, ‘I can be poor,’ as she was in Greece, ‘but if I don’t have my integrity, I have nothing,’” she said.  “Number one, our goal is to be sure that this investigation gets conducted in a fair and impartial manner.  I strongly believe that all of these investigations are baseless and that they should be resolved so that she can then determine what is in store for her in the future.”

Until the investigation is resolved, there can be no determination as to the future.  Ms. Guzman noted, “She loves UC Davis, it is her home.  She has many friends there.”  She added, “It is not our first choice to threaten a lawsuit and to in fact sue the university.  But she does have to protect her rights.”

Melinda Guzman clarified that, under Katehi’s contract with the university, “she is an at-will employee with regard to her status as a chancellor of the University of California.”  She also, under the contract, “has faculty rights as a member of the faculty.”  She is also a member of the Academic Senate.  She is a tenured faculty member, appointed with the department of Engineering.  “She holds those two positions,” she said.

Ms. Guzman explained that, when the president met with Chancellor Katehi on April 25, “she told her to resign from the university.”  She said that “there was a very specific discussion regarding ‘what about my faculty rights’…”

“It was very clear that the president was asking her to resign from both positions, which would violate the terms of her agreement, would violate her faculty rights,” she said.

Melinda Guzman said it was theoretically possible that Ms. Katehi could resign as chancellor but remain as faculty. She explained that this was similar to what happened with Chancellors Larry Vanderhoef and Ted Hullar, as they transitioned out of their chancellor positions.

Ms. Guzman also clarified what happened in the days immediately leading up to the paid administrative leave, where the president “demanded that she go to Oakland for a meeting,” which Ms. Katehi did.  “During that meeting, she demanded that she resign from the university.”

“The chancellor was shocked,” she said.  “It was not expected.”  She asked the president to provide some basis for this decision and also questioned her faculty rights.  “She refused to resign that day,” Ms. Guzman explained.

Not only was she shocked by the request, but Ms. Guzman maintains, “No prior chancellor had ever been treated that way.”

While Ms Guzman would not speculate as to the mindset of the president, she called her behavior “rash” and “emotional” and also “abrupt.”

“On that Tuesday,” she explained, she got involved in this matter.  She talked with the general counsel and there was an agreement to have a meeting on that Thursday “to talk about the future.”  But rumors began to surface between Tuesday and Wednesday about resignation demands.

On Wednesday, April 27, at 8:31 p.m., Ms. Guzman said she received a call from the general counsel’s office and then the letter confirming that Linda Katehi had been placed on paid administrative leave.  She was told that the meeting for the next day was off.

“The bottom line from my end is that Janet (Napolitano)’s actions were consistent with a person whose decisions were based on emotion, it was abrupt, and quite frankly it was not well thought out,” she explained, and highlighted again the differences in the treatment that Ms. Katehi received compared to former Chancellors Ted Hullar and Larry Vanderhoef – both of whom left in their own clouds but were allowed time to resign on their own terms.

The key question now is how is this going to play out.

Ms. Guzman called this “an assault on the academic environment, the notion of shared governance, the notion that there is now a police state at UC Davis, the notion that anyone would seize anyone’s computers in violation of their faculty rights.”

“Let me be clear, I’m not just talking about Linda Katehi,” she said, pointing out that she was talking about others as well.  “There are a whole host of issues that are problematic to the fundamental principles of the university.  The danger here is much greater to the university system than it is to simply one individual in terms of Linda Katehi.”

She added that, as a long-time resident of Davis, “This story is about what has not been stated, the many facts that have not been stated.”  The UC Office of the President (UCOP), she said, on April 27 “released incomplete and inaccurate information to the media and therefore to the public in an effort to allow people to reach erroneous conclusions based upon incomplete information.”

—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

61 thoughts on “Katehi Fighting Back against Allegations from UC President Napolitano”

  1. SODA

    Please clarify whistleblower reference in beginning of article?

    Integrity? That is an interesting word to use in this story.

    Will Ms Katehi’s suit delay the 120 day investigation and continue her paid leave?

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      This is from the Napolitano letter on April 27:

      “Finally, a complaint has been made under the Whistleblower Policy that certain student fee revenues were misused by the campus specifically by being directed to unapproved instructional purposes. Again, this would constitute a serious violation of University policy. See Regents Policies 3101, 3102 and related requirements.”

      Will it delay the investigation? Not sure.

      1. SODA

        Thanks David; the link in this article takes one back to an earlier DV article which summarizes the investigative leave but does not mention whistleblower; you may want to link to the complete letter?
        Another thought: Ms Guzmann refers to the ‘cloud’ that previous chancellors left to return to their faculty status. I am not familiar with Ted Hullar’s tenure but would argue there was no cloud for Chancellor Vanderhoef. Can you elaborate?

      2. Jerry Waszczuk

        No lawsuit yet ? If President Napolitano refuse to remove Malinda Haag and Orrick law firm from the “independent” investigation and will not assign somebody who is not  related to the  Napolitano’s  former job as the  Homeland Security Secretary  than  it  will cost university lot of money. This is  a bad faith on part of university  to resolve the conflict out of court and it would be  unacceptable bias for the Court if the  lawsuit will take place . Napolitano got herself into the business she probably never wanted to be  in University of California . Most likely former Campus Counsel Steven Drown who was removed from the UC Davis campus by Chancellor  created this mess with the UC General Counsel Charles Robinson.

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          I’m no lawyer, but it does sound like a conflict of interest and impossible for the “independent” investigator to be unbiased while they sustain a years-long business relationship.

        2. The Pugilist

          It’s not a conflict of interest.  There is no legal conflict.  What it is a group that has a pre-existing relationship with UC and therefore there are questions about their ability to be impartial.  But any group that UC hires to do this will have the same problem – so unless an impartial body appoints the investigator there is no way out of it.

        3. Jerry Waszczuk

          It is a total conflict of interest , Beside this it was no needed for Napolitano to hire Haag for internal investigation and pay tons of money , This the Senior Vice President Vacca  job . Ms. Vacca reports directly to Regents not Napolitano who is ex -officio regent. Investigation conducted by University never would  completely    independent and unbiased. Is no oath there  or declarations under penalty of perjury and such investigations have no much weight in court of law . Any testimonies during the internal investigations have to be repeated and confirmed by depositions under oath or on the stand in court room . Haag was hand  picked by Napolitano and it is the problem . major problem .

        4. DavidSmith

          Indeed. A lawsuit is needed to be impartial. A lawsuit is also needed to reveal to the public how the university operates. An “independent” investigation orchestrated by the UCOP will in no way be impartial.

    2. Jerry Waszczuk

      “Linda Katehi is now moving to file a grievance.  “I served a grievance letter on May 26 to Charlie Robinson, General Counsel of the University of California.  It complains in essence about Janet Napolitano and how she handled this entire personnel matter.”


      Mr. Vanguard .

      It would be nice if  Mr. Vanguard  would  insert into article the  Chancellor Katehi’s Grievance Letter submitted on May 26, 2016 by Melinda Guzman to UC General Counsel  Charles Robinson .  The Grievance letter is or was  accessible to print on http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/ucd/katehis-team-files-a-grievance-sets-stage-for-a-lawsuit/

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          Interesting letter. Guzman claims the only possibility was that Chancellor Katehi’s treatment was sexism … isn’t a second possibility incompetence by senior UC leaders?

          I agree, this should have been handled confidentially, it gets tricky.

          I’m also not sure that the campus disclosed this confidential whistleblower compliant. If this is the Paul Medved complaint, he may have published this in an article in a national swimmer’s magazine, so I’m not sure if that thus makes it a public matter.

  2. ryankelly

    I was unaware that Larry Vanderhoff “left in (his) own cloud.”  Oh, great.  He is not around to defend himself, so let’s sully his reputation.

      1. Marina Kalugin

        yes….there have been many clouds on campus….and some are appropriate and some never were…

        PS>  This whole whistleblower thing was also addressed in the many reports on the DV, by the Academic Senate and etc…it was a non-issue and had already been cleared…that is why it is not being mentioned yet again….get up to speed folks…

        1. The Pugilist

          And that individual was represented by…. Melinda Guzman if I’m not mistaken.  Wasn’t she like a Vice Chancellor or some high position.

        2. Marina Kalugin

          why are your comments, Pugi not having a reply “button”…. I think Pugi you are mistaken on the attorney, see your comment…. but you can prove me wrong since you brought it up…. than I can mea culpa…a lot easier when I am trying to focus on some work…of course, I may have forgotten …there have been many other attorneys who have made their careers around UCD or UC>….and as the decades fly by, I could confuse a few of them….

          regardless…. the real point is that LV was not culpable, I believe, in the cloud and same as Chancellor Katehi is not…the circumstances are very different, but really it is all to just point that fact out….and how quickly the factions jump in and take sides……..


  3. Tia Will

    If it is true as stated that Chancellor Katehi does indeed love the university, and if what is of most importance to her is her own integrity, then the path forward seems quite clear. She should immediately resign her at will position as Chancellor as requested, and if need be fight to maintain her faculty position.

    What she should not do is to refuse to resign as Chancellor. This is causing an ongoing and needless conflict with serious consequences for the university she claims to love in order to bolster herself personally. Hardly a position of great integrity in my opinion.

    Whether the actions of Ms. Napolitano and or the Regents as a group desire investigation is clearly open for discussion, but is a red herring when considering the future of Chancellor Katehi.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      Ms. Tia

      Chancellor in this situation has no  problem to resign . Question is “How much “?  . This is  the bottom line . Would’t you like to have $ 10,000,000 on your account and retire in Greece Paradise .  I believe that you are not the person  with the  philosophy from the  the  Orwell’s novel ” Animal Farm ”  Money talk  b… walk .

      1. Tia Will


         Would’t you like to have $ 10,000,000 on your account and retire in Greece Paradise”

        No as that would clearly mean compromising my integrity.

        1. Jerry Waszczuk

          Ms. Tia

          You will be signing settlement faster than blink of your eye for 10 mills if see the check on the table up front of  eyes.   If  you will not than your family will kill you (maybe not literally ) but you will be banned by family and friends forever for stupidity .

    2. Marina Kalugin

      Tia, given your high and mighty stance above,  I am truly convinced that if someone filed a malpractice suit against you and it was trumped up charges, you would just accept the penalty and not speak out?    really?

      PS I have no idea what you do, but somehow I sense this may be a good example that perhaps even YOU might relate to…

      PS> who said the “regents” as a group? there are a few numnums on there and I believe that is all it took…you know, the same ones appointed in recent years by the same Gov who brought in the Napo and so on….

      1. Tia Will


        I am truly convinced that if someone filed a malpractice suit against you and it was trumped up charges, you would just accept the penalty and not speak out?    really?”

        Of course I would “speak out”. What I would not do is try to extract large amounts of money from an institution I claim to love and claim to be a “servant of” as is stated in Ms.Guzman’s letter.

    3. DavidSmith

      You (TW) are being ridiculous. No one would resign until the investigation result comes out. Try put yourself into Katehi’s position. Would you resign while people are still accusing you? Wouldn’t people point their fingers at her back and say “she resigned because she knew she would lose?” Nobody in their right mind would resign.

      Don’t be so occupied on the cost of the investigation and Katehi’s paid leave. It will be in the 100s of thousands. But it’s going to be peanut compared to the lawsuit that Napolitano will incur on this nonsense and the settlement that will result. All those will be the great gift that Napo leaves for UC and obviously all is going to come from tax payers money

      1. Barack Palin

        There are forces that have been out to get Katehi ever since the pepper spray incident.   It’s funny how the initial reason she had to go has now morphed into different problems.  It seems like they’re now throwing all kinds of sheeeet against the wall hoping something will stick.

        1. Marina Kalugin

          BP.. it ain’t sticking as there is no substance to stick to….and there never was…

          sour grapes by some of the most mediocre…and an attack by the Napo when the Chancellor wouldn’t bow down to her….

          We need Chancellor Katehi  back as who we have now won’t cut  it long term….and should return to Provost where he was a truly great provost….

          We don’t need good ole boys who placate the Napo and the gov in a way to just get ahead themselves…..

          Chancellor Katehi would not do that…. and that is the basis for her being under inappropriate attack.

    1. Alan Miller

      It’s starting to look like Katehi is going to get a very big settlement from a coming lawsuit.

      More, I’ll wager, than all the pepper sprayed protestors combined.

        1. Jerry Waszczuk


          What is your point . Do you have any points in this discussion . ?So far, I don’t see that you have any points.  You are completely pointless.  That it.

  4. Anon

    “…highlighted again the differences in the treatment that Ms. Katehi received and former Chancellor’s Ted Hullar and Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef – both of whom left in their own clouds but were allowed time to resign on their own terms.

    Vanderhoef did not leave the UCD campus under a cloud, as is being suggested here, but left for health reasons, as Katehi well knows.  From:http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/obituaries/article39380853.html

    A recurring theme among the outpouring of remembrances from friends and colleagues on Friday was Vanderhoef’s quiet yet firm leadership, occasionally in the face of crisis. Brice Harris, chancellor for California Community Colleges, called him a “gracious and elegant leader.” His successor at UC Davis, Linda P.B. Katehi, spoke of Vanderhoef’s “deep love and passion” as well as his “wisdom and leadership.” Ralph J. Hexter, the school’s provost, spoke of the “gracious presence” he exuded on campus, both as chancellor and in his emeritus years dealing with health issues, including several ischemic strokes, which ultimately led to his death.



    Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/obituaries/article39380853.html#storylink=cpy

  5. Marina Kalugin

    so anyone who doesn’t remember, just google Celeste Rose….jeesh…. speaking of clouds and no clouds and so forth….

    I liked Larry, he was a true good ole boy…..made a wonderful provost and had wonderful ideas back when there were really severe budget issues in the 90s….

    but, he kinda got lost when he became Chancellor and the good ole boy network was starting to crumble…

    And, I wanted to buy his book and get his autograph before he passed….

    I was always a fan of his also….but, he was no Chancellor Katehi  – his research was not of the level, his standing was never of the level and so on……and Chancellor Katehi did WAY more to move this campus forward than all the many years of LV….


    1. ryankelly

      Again, Larry Vanderhoff is not here to defend himself.  So just jump on the bandwagon, Marina, and start dragging his good name through the mud.  He doesn’t deserve public criticism of his tenure in any way.  He is dead and not, in any way, part of the current issue.   Katehi is trying to say that she is being treated differently because she is a woman and she again is unthinking and tactless in her management of PR issues, but lacks the meanness that you seem to have.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk


        Is nobody accusing Larry Vanderhoef  of anything . Why people are freaking out because Vanguard wrote word “cloud”

        Today cloud  is a common term and you have your music on the  iPhone in “cloud” . This  does not means that you have a  bad music on your iPhone.

      2. Marina Kalugin

        as I said, there is always mud and yes, he is not here and I wish he were…..

        it is just when idiots like some on this board don’t have a clue and are all mealy mouthed about things that are happening right now…and so much other garbage….it is all one can do to bite my tongue and sign off…

        acting like THEY somehow know anything about anything on this campus…and projecting their own “she should” on the Chancellor, well…..that is what happens….

        if some of the idiots would just shut up and go away, then perhaps I would not bring up docs….    jeez….I get nailed for not providing docs and I get censured when I do…


        [moderator] Please stop calling people idiots. I again urge you to read and adhere to the Vanguard Comments Policy.

        1. Tia Will


          acting like THEY somehow know anything about anything on this campus…and projecting their own “she should” on the Chancellor, well…..that is what happens….”

          I think that you are poorly positioned to know what others do and do not know. I can only speak for myself, but I know a number of people on campus whose names can not be shared because their employment is dependent upon anonymity who do not share your lofty opinion of Chancellor Katehi. Not every one who disagrees with you is ignorant and/or an idiot ( regardless of how benignly you may intend the term).

      3. Marina Kalugin

        PS>   I was asked ad infinitum in earlier threads why I thought Chancellor Katehi was the best Chancellor since 1970…..the above is part of my answer……. UCD is at a truly much higher level under the few short years  under her tenure, compared to prior longer tenures and there are many reasons why…..

        1. TrueBlueDevil

          There may have been lots of things put into place by LV that came to fruition after he left.

          I believe the same thing happened with Chancellor Hullar, who some feel woke us up in numerous areas, including adding fundraising operations to numerous departments. Facilities were also dismal in some regards (see the Vet School, which almost lost it’s accreditation!), hard to blame that on TH or LV.

          (I’m guessing that Chancellor Mrak is viewed with very high regards.)

  6. Alan Miller

    “More so than anything else, she will tell you, ‘I can be poor,’”

    Easy to say at $400K triple-plus.  I don’t think she’s ever going to have to prove she could really be Greece-poor again.

    ” . . . I don’t have my integrity, I have nothing,’ she said.”

    Sounds about right.  I’m sorry, was that out of context?

    1. Marina Kalugin

      Since you have nothing else Alan, you are a master of spending 24/7 here and continuing to take things out of context….ps …which union is paying YOU?


      1. Alan Miller

        ps …which union is paying YOU?

        I am paying a union, against my will, to support their political causes that I disagree with aprroximately 85%.

  7. Jerry Waszczuk

    “…highlighted again the differences in the treatment that Ms. Katehi received and former Chancellor’s Ted Hullar and Chancellor Larry Vanderhoef – both of whom left in their own clouds but were allowed time to resign on their own terms.”” 

    Mr. Vanguard

    You have inserted the controversial statement in your article  .Actually ,  I am not sure if  Melinda Guzman made  this  statement or you  just wanted to tweak ryankelly’s and Anon’s mind  to have opportunity to read  Larry Vanderhoef’s obituaries. Let Mr. Larry Vanderhoef Rest in Peace and God Bless Mr. Vanderhoef for what he had  done for the UC Davis and humanity. 

    I don’t see a word about  the Mr. Larry Vanderhoef’s cloud or his departure in Melinda Guzman May 26, 2016 grievance she submitted on the Chancellor Katehi’s behalf to Charles Robinson .  Some compassion please .

  8. Misanthrop

    I don’t know why Katehi is claiming damage to her reputation when the problem was her trying to improve her reputation by hiring people to manipulate  internet search engines. It seems that her reputation had already been damaged by her actions directing the UCD police to break up a peaceful protest in the middle of campus in the middle of the day. As for her future job prospects I imagine she could be a spokes person for the pepper industry or for selling crowd control tools to juntas around the world.

    Oh and how does Guzman expect to get Katehi to get compensated for the damage done to her reputation? Obviously the only way you can be compensated in a civil proceeding, with the money Katehi claims not to care about.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk


      I don’t know if you have read the Melinda  Guzman’s  May 26, 2016 Grievance she submitted on Chancellor’s behalf  to UC General Counsel Charles Robinson .

      If so,  than did you notice that Melinda Guzman did not mention by single word the November 18, 2011 peppers spray . Do you have any idea or thoughts  why she did not ?  Could  you please elaborate  a little about .  You are implying  by your post that  the Chancellor Katehi reputation’s  was damaged  by pepper spray because of her fault and the aftermath events related to.  I appreciate your feedback

  9. Misanthrop

    Jerry what damaged Katehi’s reputation the most?

    A. Pepper spray

    B. U of I admissions scandal

    C. Sitting on Wiley Board

    D. Attempt to manipulate internet search engines

    E. Being a woman

    F. Disclosures related to her personnel issues

    Answers will vary and other possibilities exist. For me its the Pepper Spray. For Katehi its E. and F. For the Regents and UCOP my guess is its D.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk


      Read the suspension April 2016 suspension letter . It does not correspondents with what you saying.  Nothing about pepper spray  and other stuff was already known for UCOP and was no problem .

      If I read correctly  the May 26, 2016  Melinda Guzman’s letter it looks like Napolitano  was ordered by regents to force Chancellor to resign than  Napolitano got free cold shower  from Chancellor. This is was  a major mistake to deal this way with Chancellor .  She got treatment like a disposable  piece of garbage .  You probably would  react and do same as Chancellor did.

      1. Misanthrop

        Actually I would have resigned if asked. I would have tried to stay on until the end of the school year and also negotiate some sort of severance. Of course that is easy for me to say since I’m not in her position. I thought she resigned from the wrong positions when the DeVry and Wiley story broke. She should have kept those gigs and given up UCD.

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