UC President Tells Katehi She Has No Right to Attorney-Client Privilege

Share:
Chancellor Katehi in February
Chancellor Katehi in February

(From Press Release from Katehi’s Legal Team)  – The University of California Office of the President (UCOP) has made a controversial determination that UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi does not have the right of privileged communication with her attorney during the course of an already compromised investigation launched in late April.

As reported in the Sacramento Bee this morning, the UCOP has now demanded that Chancellor Katehi turn over attorney-client privileged and confidential information contained in her work phones and computers.  Citing “university policy” that says UC owns the devices and therefore can confiscate them at any time, UCOP now seeks to violate California laws protecting privileged communications between a citizen and her attorney.

According to Chancellor Katehi’s attorney Melinda Guzman, “The attorney client privilege is a fundamental right in California law that protects communications between attorneys and clients. By seizing all data in these devices, UC is demanding that we waive that privilege.”

Guzman continued:  “Californians also have the protection of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act enacted in January 2016.  That law clearly protects authorized users – and not just owners – of devices.”

Melinda Guzman expressed her concern.

“Why should a Chancellor have fewer privacy rights than a private citizen under investigation for a crime? Should a court decide that there is reasonable doubt of illegal behavior and issues a warrant, and then she will comply with the law. Until then, she has her legal right to privacy like anyone else,” Guzman said.

The UCOP, as it has often done since the beginning of this compromised “investigation,” took to the media and characterized the call for legal due process as somehow a bad thing.  Yesterday’s Bee story said:

UC officials said Katehi asked to choose the vendor that would decide which messages are privileged. “They would hire the person to take out what they want to take out and give it back to us, and that is not acceptable, nor is it in any way independent,”[UCOP spokesperson Dianne] Klein said.

Chancellor Katehi’s spokesperson Larry Kamer said:   “Wrong. This is the usual process used in any litigation matter. It must be followed here.”

Guzman further states:  “To be clear:  our proposal is to allow us to use a respected vendor, and to allow us to review the data to identify privileged and confidential information and to then remove that from the report. It would be preserved in a log if it ever needed to be produced, if ordered by a judge.”

Another problem pointed out by Kamer is:  “UCOP isn’t even following its own rules and stated policy.

“These require UCOP to identify what it is seeking and why, and to follow a process to obtain access the information. UCOP’s approach amounts to little more than a fishing expedition.”

Finally, Kamer points out:  “As with all unjustified overreach, there is the inevitable spin that makes it sound all-so-reasonable.  Recall this investigation was launched via press release, before Chancellor Katehi was formally informed.  UCOP’s media office has been busy characterizing everything from Chancellor Katehi’s motives to her level of cooperation while coyly suggesting that it’s not commenting at all.

“It’s time for this investigation to be scrapped, started over, and conducted in a way that protects both Chancellor Katehi’s legal rights, and her right to a fair hearing,” Kamer said.

(Correction: the original version of this article misattributed a quote by Melinda Guzman to Senator Mark Leno).

Share:

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

111 thoughts on “UC President Tells Katehi She Has No Right to Attorney-Client Privilege”

  1. ryankelly

    I can tell you with certainty that if a regular staff member at UCD was under investigation the University would have these University owned devices immediately.  Katehi shouldn’t have used University owned computers for private conversations. Every staff members is aware of this.

    1. Who Knew

      Attorney-Client privilege aside, she used a taxpayer-bought phone to further her commercial activities.

      How does she think this will turn out? Employee of the year?

      All she wants is a fat severance.

      Conversion of public assets for personal gain is “moral turpitude” which is the reason to take away her robe of tenure.

      And yes, Ryan, exactly true.

       

      1. DavidSmith

        Read down a little more and you will find that UC policy allows its employers to use university owned device for personal activities.

        You seem very certain about Chancellor Katehi using the university devices “to further her commercial activities”. Do you have access to the contents in these devices? Do you have evidence that we haven’t seen? If not, then your accusations are simply unfounded. If yes, care to share them? 

        Conversion of public assets for personal gain is “moral turpitude” which is the reason to take away her robe of tenure.

        I don’t think you know what you are talking about. All hate and no reasoning.

  2. nlgunther

    This article is badly in error.  Attorney-client privilege is never absolute and must be carefully preserved or it will be deemed to be waived.  If Ms. Katehi shouted a communication to her attorney across a public space, the communication would not be privileged.  Similarly if she communicates with her lawyer through UC-owned devices.  It is characteristic of Ms. Katehi’s actions that she treats University property as her own.  It is not.  The UC’s position on this is at the least reasonable, whether or not upheld on adjudication.

    The Vanguard seems to have developed an inappropriate, and unfortunate, pro-Katehi bias.  I hope it corrects this quickly.

    1. David Greenwald

      That’s an interesting point – can you cite the case law that suggests that attorney client privilege is waived through communicating on a UC-owned device? How far do we extend that – a conversation on a land-line can be tapped? I’m skeptical.

      In terms of the pro-Katehi bias – it’s not even our article, it’s a press release from her legal team.

      I’ve been accused of having a pro-Katehi bias now and previously it was an anti-Katehi bias. The realty is that I don’t have a bias either way, we provide a site to disseminate information and in our own pieces, I call it as I see it and that changes from issue to issue.

      1. SODA

        And the beat certainly goes on in this unfortunate situation. If ryankelly’s citation of the policy is correct, why don’t they just take the devices, oh right she refuses! As he points out no other employee could do this. They should have escorted her out of Mrak Hall and taken her devices the day she was put on leave. Am sure UC regrets that now.
        I do not think the DV is biased one way or another; this case is so messy, I believe many of us have gone back and forth as t has unfolded.

        1. Jerry Waszczuk

          SODA

          They should have escorted her out of Mrak Hall and taken her devices the day she was put on leave.”

          It was damn and stupid but technically  it was difficult to do to send  UCD cops to Chancellor office and try to escort Chancellor out of campus in lights of  video phone cameras. I don’t believe that regents would go for and let Napolitano to exercise her power this way. If she would do it on her own than she would be done and regents would fire her on spot for such unwanted publicity .

      2. Jerry Waszczuk

        David

        You have to be controversial and to be criticized as a owner of the Vanguard and the Vanguard writer and it nothing to do with bias . Otherwise Vanguard would became  the “In and Out” menu.   I don’t like myself some stuff on Vanguard but I am writing some stuff others don’t like as well and vice versa . This is a whole point with the freedom of expression .

      3. Eric Gelber

        can you cite the case law that suggests that attorney client privilege is waived through communicating on a UC-owned device?

        As with most matters involving privileges, it’s complicated and based on the circumstances. But there is California case law holding the attorney-client privilege can be waived in some instances in which employer-owned devices are used: E.g., Holmes v. Petrovich Development Co.

        1. DavidSmith

          Eric

          If you read the article carefully, all Katehi’s team is asking for is an impartial third party to catalog the contents in these devices so that private contents cannot be used out of context by UCOP to incriminate the Chancellor. And they specifically said that they are willing to let a judge to examine the content in court. In other words, they are not insisting on the client-attorney privilege, they are questioning the objectivity of UCOP.

          In this case, the UCOP is using lawyers they hired to carry out an investigation against a employer that their president (Napolitano) accused. In regard to the content of these devices, UCOP is insisting on using their designated vendors to catalog the messages. How impartial is that? I see a huge conflict of interest.

      4. The Pugilist

        For weeks David was attacked as anti-Katehi.  The pendulum has swung a bit, but I think the word bias here is misused.  There appears to be no animus for or against.  Circumstances are important.

    2. Jerry Waszczuk

      nlgunther

      First, this is  the internal investigation  not the court case . Second, ask the  California State Bar about than you will know.  The complaint against Guzman will in State Bar already if she violate bar rules and law in this matter. This is so simple to understand . Chancellor is represented by an attorney.

       

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      ryankelly

      You have to read this policy through out and  to understand how this policy works in UC system.

      If Napolitano in her April 27, 2016 suspension letter  served to Chancellor wrote the following statement : You are to immediately return all University property, including but not limited to: ID badge, keys, equipment (computers, books, cell phones, disks/manuals), uniforms and work product (electronic/paper files), etc.  than maybe she would have some  legal ground  for her threats . 

      The above pasted notice are given to terminated employees  upon termination . I received such notice after I spent over one year on investigatory leave and I had a lot information. As TrueBlueDevil pointed in his post the case must be very week against Chancellor if Napolitano screaming for old ipad and old cell phone. What kind Chief of the  Homeland  Security she was ? No wonder that Obama dumped her and she landed in UC.  

       

      1. ryankelly

        The property legally belongs to the University.  It doesn’t need a reason to get them from an employee.  They could have asked you to return the equipment at any time.

        1. Jerry Waszczuk

          ryankelly

          If so,  than what Napolitano is waiting for ? Go and get it or fire Chancellor for insubordination . This is a  very simple solution . Is  it not true?

        2. ryankelly

          Because if Katehi is fired from her job as chancellor as an at-will employee, she is entitled to a tenured position as a professor, with all of the protections and benefits.  If she is fired for cause or resigns from the University (as Napolitano wanted her to), she has to just leave.  Thus the investigation and the battle that is going on.

           

        3. Jerry Waszczuk

          she is entitled to a tenured position as a professor, with all of the protections and benefits”

          ryankelly

          If it would be true what  you  stated than Chancellor is not employee at will as Napolitano’s  spokeswomen announced than Chancellor  can not to be fire without the cause .  How did you come up  to such conclusion ?  Please share you information you have . This is important information which I missed on this forum .

        4. Roberta Millstein

          That is correct.  In terms of being Chancellor, LK is an at-will employee.  In terms of being a faculty member, she is not.  If she were to be fired as Chancellor, she would still be a UCD faculty member.  To fire her as a member of the faculty would require going through the same procedures it would take to fire any other faculty member with tenure.

        5. Jerry Waszczuk

          David

          What is going on ?  According to SacBee Klein stated that Naploitano and regents can fire Kathi any time because she is employee at will?  It is getting very interesting .

          Looks like Napolitano is trying to criminalize the case?  UC  General Counsel and Haag are looking for something they don’t know and they don’t have . It is exactly like in my situation when I was held hostage on investigatory leave over one year because General Counsel Charles Robinson wanted to find out what kind  information I have about UCOP fraud in relation to illegal power sale.

          Chancellor has a lot of information about  the corruption in upper circle . They are dancing scared in Oakland  and Melinda Guzman knows this . She is good and not afraid .

          1. David Greenwald

            They can fire her as chancellor. But she’s also tenured faculty and they can’t just fire here from that position. That’s what Melinda told me very clearly.

        6. Roberta Millstein

          Pugilist, how so?  How would firing her as Chancellor not have served the purpose at hand?  Even if you suppose that LK did things that justified her removal as Chancellor (and I am not going to weigh in on that one way or the other), those things would not necessarily mean that she couldn’t be a productive faculty member.  Why would UCOP need to have her separated from UCD entirely?  I think a lot of people (myself included) find this a bit puzzling.

        7. DavidSmith

          ryankelly

          Because if Katehi is fired from her job as chancellor as an at-will employee, she is entitled to a tenured position as a professor, with all of the protections and benefits.  If she is fired for cause or resigns from the University (as Napolitano wanted her to), she has to just leave.  Thus the investigation and the battle that is going on.

          What you said is wrong. Napolitano does NOT have the power to fire Chancellor Katehi as a tenured faculty member.  Such a decision has to go through the academic senate and a bunch of other committees. Chancellor Katehi has to commit serious academic dishonesty or illegal crime to be removed from a tenured position. With the academic senate, i.e. the aggregate of the faculty, so overwhelmingly in support of the Chancellor, there is zero possibility that Napolitano will be able to fire the Chancellor from her tenured position.

          The current investigation is on her alleged “wrongdoings” as an administrator and doesn’t relate in anyway her faculty position.

        8. The Pugilist

          Roberta – obviously not my call, but just going off what Guzman said in the Vanguard, it seems they wanted her out of the university not just out as chancellor which requires them to fire her for cause.   It seems they could have avoided this by just firing her as chancellor and letting her stay as faculty if she wanted.

        9. Roberta Millstein

          Pugilist, fair enough.  I wonder if UCOP regrets that decision.  This just seems to get messier and messier.  It isn’t good for anyone.

        10. ryankelly

          Napolitano does NOT have the power to fire Chancellor Katehi as a tenured faculty member.  Such a decision has to go through the academic senate and a bunch of other committees.

          Which is why there are administrators who can commit crimes, but still stay on the payroll for months/years after in tenured positions.  The Academic Senate is very slow to respond. http://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/UC-Berkeley-exec-booted-for-sex-harassment-got-to-8313976.php

          I don’t know why Katehi is not just allowed to remain as a professor, with an actual teaching schedule.  I’m sure she wouldn’t stay long.

      2. DavidSmith

        ryankelly

        Quite the contrary, the UCD academic senate acted very swiftly to support Chancellor Katehi because they see the positive changes Chancellor Katehi has brought to this campus and the damage of Napolitano’s ruthless actions to UCD.

        There is no accusations whatsoever against Katehi as a tenured faculty member and once again there is zero possibility that Napolitano will ever be able to remove Katehi from her tenured professor position.

        1. ryankelly

          I believe that there is zero chance of her returning to the chancellor’s office.  I don’t believe that that is her intention.  I believe that she has little interest in staying with UC Davis at this point.  I believe that she wants to clear her name enough to satisfy future employers and collect a large settlement.  In the meantime, this fight is just wasting a whole lot of money and time.

        2. DavidSmith

          ryankelly

          It’s very clear from the beginning that Katehi is not going to return as the Chancellor. I don’t think anyone ever debated over that one. Put in her position, anyone with the right mind would not come back.

          Chancellor Katehi has every right to defend herself. If UCOP is found guilty of wrongfully alleging Katehi, then of course Katehi should be entitled a settlement. What Napolitano did to her is enough to ruin her future career and she certainly has the right to claim damage of equivalent compensation for the next 5-10 years at least.

          It is going to be a large settlement. That’s the price you pay for hiring a mafia into the UCOP.

          And you are right. The fight is expensive. And do remember that Katehi is using her own money whereas Napolitano is using UC fund.

        3. Marina Kalugin

          I have already told Linda and her family, that should she decide to return, I would help her out and help her clean house of the disaffected in the Chancellor and Provost offices who breached protocol, lines and terminals, and security to try to hang the Chancellor for trumped up charges…

          who fed things to the media, even before the Chancellor saw the documents..  who created a rat’s nest and unworkable conditions for those who actually did their jobs…

          who did not forward my emails to the proper people, but redirected to others….like the Napo, the police chief, and others who turned out to not be in the Chancellor’s corner…

          who gave info to the unions to keep them paying the protestors….and so on…

          Let’s see what happens..    🙂

           

        4. The Pugilist

          That’s not a good thing in my view – purging UCD of people who are not yes people for Katehi.  That seems to go against academic and intellectual freedom.  I suggest you re-think that approach.

        5. DavidSmith

          Pugi

          I’m not sure that’s considered “purging”… Just expose the facts and let people decide.

          I’ve never heard of the things Marina referred to, leaking documents, feeding the union, etc. To me they represent important information and it sounds like there are a lot of rule breaking

          If they are true, I think the public deserves to know the details.

        6. Alan Miller

          the UCD academic senate acted very swiftly to support Chancellor Katehi because they see the positive changes Chancellor Katehi has brought to this campus

          Glad the academic senate could see that.  Some of my friends couldn’t see those positive changes, through the pepper spray burning their eyes.

    2. DavidSmith

      ryankelly

      I read through the document you provided above. Quite interestingly, I found no language saying the University has absolute right to all the content (i.e. private and public) in these devices. Here are some excerpt that I find relevant. Perhaps there are other policy documents that pertain to this issue that you could share.

      On Privacy:

      The University does not routinely inspect, monitor, or disclose electronic communications without the holder’s consent. Nonetheless, the University may deny access to its electronic communications resources and may inspect, monitor, or disclose electronic communications under certain limited circumstances, subject to the requirements for authorization, notification, and recourse in the UC and UC Davis Electronic Communications Policies.

      On Personal use:

      University users may use electronic communications resources for incidental personal purposes provided that such use does not: (a) directly or indirectly interfere with the University’s operation of electronic communications resources, (b) interfere with the user’s employment or other obligations to the University, (c) burden the University with noticeable incremental costs, or (d) violate the law or University policy.

       

  3. TrueBlueDevil

    Can’t she just pull a Hillary?

    Delete all of the alleged private email communications, back them up just in case, and then hand over the devices? In addition, if she wanted to pull a Hillary, print out the UC documents and communications – tens of thousands of pages – and then wipe the hard drives and memory. Even better, hire an attorney with an IT background to do this, and she covered by attorney / client privilege.

    Is it just me, or does their case look weak if they have to rely on her iPad to try to nail her?

    1. DavidSmith

      TrueBlueDevil

      What Chancellor Katehi’s team is proposing to do is to catalog the messages into private and public, and then return the devices to UCOP. It is clear to me that this is done to prevent UCOP to selectively use private messages out of context to incriminate the Chancellor or steer the public perception of the issue. Given UCOP’s track record, I think they are doing the right thing.

      I think Chancellor Katehi’s team has been clear that they would return the devices and they are also willing to let a judge examine the devices and contents in court.

      If they delete messages, then UCOP will have an opportunity to accuse them of destroying evidence. A sane legal counsel would not do that.

      1. hpierce

        Yes, but appears Katehi’s team wants to choose her own “third party” rather than one of the two neutral third parties on UC’s approved list.

        1. DavidSmith

          hpierce

          Yes. A true third party doesn’t really exist. So I think the best solution is to go to court and let a judge decide, which Katehi’s team seems to be open to.

    2. Tia Will

      does their case look weak if they have to rely on her iPad to try to nail her? “

      Not if that is where she chooses to keep all of the communications that she does not want them to see.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        Ms. Tia

        Why  Diane Klein brraging about firing Chancellor and about  Napolitano’s and regents rights to let her go and they fighting with Chancellor .?

        Just let Chancellor go an get over with .  Don’t spent money on the  two very expensive lawyers Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott and their associates to fire Chancellor if you already know and stated that Chancellor  committed crime which justified the action against her. Pointless . psychological warfare , terror and power play . This is a real face of  the UCOP ruthless and corrupted regime .

         

  4. Jerry Waszczuk

    TrueBlueDevil

    “Is it just me, or does their case look weak if they have to rely on her iPad to try to nail her?”

    Perfect observation. I like it

  5. Alan Miller

    Guzeman’s press release should state:  “Our client, Linda Katehi, is so stupid that she used a publicly-owned work computer to communicate with her attorney.”

    1. DavidSmith

      AM

      Per UC’s electronic communication policy below. Before you start calling others stupid, perhaps you could do your homework before others call you the same.

      University users may use electronic communications resources for incidental personal purposes provided that such use does not: (a) directly or indirectly interfere with the University’s operation of electronic communications resources, (b) interfere with the user’s employment or other obligations to the University, (c) burden the University with noticeable incremental costs, or (d) violate the law or University policy.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        David

        People don’t understand or they don’t like to see that universities even the  private universes flowing the rules of liberty in communication and free speech . Universities are  self govern entities . Even in Communist Poland where  I lived , the  universities , students and faculties enjoyed a lot of freedom in comparison to regular folks .  Universities in Poland did not have armed police forces in campuses at all.  UC system is so big  with many faculty members an and students from other countries. The  invigilation of campuses communities would place USA in same place as North Korea is.

        1. DavidSmith

          People called for militarization of campus police after mass shootings. The same group of people then criticized the militarization of campus police after the kids are pepper sprayed. This is what happens in a democracy. People react to what they see now and here. Never are able to think long term.

      2. South of Davis

        Katehi should just hire Brian Pagliano to wipe her devices clean (you want a pro doing it in case there is a text in there that says some thing like “Go ahead and blast them Officer Pike”).

        1. Jerry Waszczuk

          South of Davis

          Pike got assurance from Steven Drown that he will get promotion for “Go ahead and blast them ”  She walking around and spraying like a primadonna up front of  the  hundreds  of video phone cameras . Unforgettable image . Protesters got $30k per head , ACLU lawyers got fat and university lost 2 mills and got Lt. Pike Mascot forever .

           

          1. David Greenwald

            ACLU Lawyers didn’t get fat. There was a settlement where the attorneys got modest fees split a number of ways, but ACLU lawyers are salaried not hourly or on a contingency, so they didn’t get anything out of it.

  6. Jerry Waszczuk

    “David Greenwald
    June 22, 2016 at 12:24 pm
    They can fire her as chancellor. But she’s also tenured faculty and they can’t just fire here from that position. That’s what Melinda told me very clearly.”
    David
    If it is true what Melinda Guzman is saying and I believe that it is true than basically UCOP has no case. Chancellor was basically was accused by Napolitano of white collar crime.  I don’t  see how possibly  Chancellor could  work as professor for  the university. She and her family  was already defaced and defamed by Napolitano.  Do you imagine yourself to work for university being labeled as white collar criminal .  I see this possible only if Napolitano would be fired by regents and blamed for creation of such mess. No other way.   What is your honest  opinion about ?

    1. Marina Kalugin

      Jerry,  we can hope that the Regents will do the correct thing and fire the Napo….She is not tenured faculty…..the Napo is truly at will

      PS>   Some of my posts over the months at UCD and since I found the DV at the end of April explain much of this highly technical stuff, which the peanut gallery still doesn’t get and keeps asking about on a near daily basis….

      And, my new friend David Smith:
      The UCOP is trying to change policy as fast as we post about it…  LOL…..trying to cover up the NSA like tactics that the Napo has pushed onto the UC>>..

      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        Marina

        Maybe Chancellor is the lure to end the  Napolitano’s  Senedero Luminoso carrier in the University of California.  We will see

    2. Tia Will

      Jerry

      Chancellor was basically was accused by Napolitano of white collar crime.”

      I am not seeing where anyone has accused the Chancellor of a “white collar crime”. I certainly may have missed something, but this does not appear to be a criminal accusation to me. Can you clarify your point ?

  7. Marina Kalugin

    geez, and to the stupid here who I used to call idiots and got censured….like the fellow who just called someone else stupid?

    yes, you…..

    I mentioned at my office the weekend after the Napo did the illegal actions that there was an “off -site” hacking day…

    during that time, the Napo did copy all documentation on all UCD computers and also backed up every bit of detail on the PPS site  (Payroll/Personnel) for those who may not know.

    The Academic Senate was already in an uproar about the Napo’s NSA tactics.

    And,  there is proof of the Napo’s stall tactics while gathering up all the info that Melinda Guzman asked for under the FIA….

    it is obvious to anyone in the know, that the Napo wanted to see what she  could use, while not releasing to the Chancellor’s attorney….

    Now, to the many attorneys who hang around here, isn’t that illegal?

    stalling on releasing info requested under the FIA?    what is the time frame again?

      1. Marina Kalugin

        yes,  my chair, directors and other faculty were appalled at the choice…but that was really the Governor’s choice,  not the faculty…..

        and, what we had predicted some years ago is being proved out daily, and especially in the last two years….since the illegal meeting of the “gang” err “committee” of two….

        for those who don’t really understand how things work these days, the best time for an inside job is when there is an outside attack..

        then the outside attack can be blamed…..

        I always use my real name….you can reach me on campus still, if you would like more info on any of the topics I bring up….

        I’ve got tons of docs, but I am very unorganized at the moment….piles everywhere and so on..

        once I retire, I will be organizing and sharing the “ancient history” on various websites…

        even my own …if only I have time to set one up….

      1. Marina Kalugin

        thanks DavidSmith…I just skimmed and didn’t even see it, but I knew it was in there….at my new place I don’t have decent wifi…and have to conserve my time for more worthwhile endeavors than hanging around here too much   🙂

         

         

  8. DavidSmith

    Marina Kalugin
    June 22, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    I have already told Linda and her family, that should she decide to return, I would help her out and help her clean house of the disaffected in the Chancellor and Provost offices who breached protocol, lines and terminals, and security to try to hang the Chancellor for trumped up charges…
    who fed things to the media, even before the Chancellor saw the documents..  who created a rat’s nest and unworkable conditions for those who actually did their jobs…
    who did not forward my emails to the proper people, but redirected to others….like the Napo, the police chief, and others who turned out to not be in the Chancellor’s corner…
    who gave info to the unions to keep them paying the protestors….and so on…
    Let’s see what happens..   

    I sincerely hope that you will preserve the evidence. Let me know if you need help with backing up the documents.

  9. Tia Will

    Jerry

    I do not see the accusation of acting against university policy as the same as “white collar crime”. Thus, the honest question of what accusations you see as being “the same” as criminal ?

    1. David Greenwald

      And in fact, Klein has gone out of her way to make it clear that this isn’t a criminal investigation, they are not subpoenaing the phone, etc.

    2. Jerry Waszczuk

      Ms. Tia

      It  is does not matter if it a white collar , missteps, nepotism,  misconduct, violation of  policies.  Napolitano  tried to force  Chancellor  to resign what means that if she not  resign  than she will be fired .  Yesterday or two day days ago the UCOP spokeswoman Diana Klein remained Chancellor that Napolitano and regents  have power  and can fire Chancelor at any time.

      My point is : Don’t make threats , don’t keep Chancellor on investigatory leave  but use your power you have and let her go. Don’t hesitate. Just do it. I went through such UCOP’s  hell . Chancellor will eventually will teach Napolitano and the UCOP thugs from UC General Counsel office a  lesson which they never forget

      1. DavidSmith

        Indeed. It doesn’t matter what it is, a misstep, a violation, or crime. It’s almost beside the point now.

        People are getting tired of all this dogfight. If UCOP thinks they can fire Chancellor Katehi, then simply go ahead and let Katehi sue.

        What’s the point of continuing with this compromised investigation? Haag will not come out with an investigation that says Napolitano was wrong and Katehi will sue anyway. Why waste money on the this BS investigation? Even if they are using money coming private sources, it is still UC money that could very well be used for building a better university.

        1. Jerry Waszczuk

          David

          I went through the same BS . Look this e-mail . I was backing up UC Davis Medical Center  servers on my private Hard Drives and when I was on investigatory leave ( I did not know why I am  on investigatory leave  I found out 3 years after termination ) I asked to give  me my HD back . I  never got the HD’s or money. After several back and for e-mails I gave up.  Melinda Guzman saying same same . Sensitive information.

           

          From: Gina Harwood [gina.harwood©ucdmc.ucdavis.edu]
          Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 5:34 PM

          To:       Jaroslaw Waszczuk
          Cc:       Charles Witcher
          Subject: Re: My Personal Stuff and meeting with Danesha Nichols
          Hi Jerry:
          All your personal belongings will be delivered to HR in the morning and available for your pick up at your appointment. However, the computers containing the hard drives you referenced as being your personal property are currently deployed outside of the HVAC shop. Due to the sensitive nature of the systems on those computers, the department is concerned about removing the hard drives at this time. Please provide receipts showing purchase of the two hard drives and the University will reimburse you for the cost.
          If you have any questions, please let me know.
          Gina
          Gina Harwood, SPHR
          Principal Employee and Labor Relations Consultant
          UC Davis Health System
          Human Resources

        2. DavidSmith

          hpierce

          I think that’s everyone’s wish, but in my opinion it’s just not possible with UCOP’s investigation. They’d need to go to court for us to see all the internals.

        3. hpierce

          Fine, DavidSmith… we should go to the Courts… ALL the way… better than confidential settlements, spin doctors… even knowing the court system will not necessarily find “truth”, but it may well expose “lies”/untruths…

        4. hpierce

          DavidSmith… was speaking to the specific issue of media that is available to UC to conduct the investigation, not as an alternative to the investigation itself… can see where that might not be fully apparent…

          For clarity, welcome the Courts to determine what records from Kaheti’s UC owned devices are “discoverable”, and vice versa, related directly to the investigation.  The devices should be returned to UC, in any event.  Precedent.

          If JW’s posting on widespread misconduct (justifying Katehi), am thinking a precedent should be set to “fire a shot over the bow” of ANY UC employee whose behavior is ‘marginal’ or worse.  Seems like there’s “something rotten in Denmark”.  Damn!

           

        5. DavidSmith

          hpierce

          Your response is a little difficult to read. I’m not sure I fully get your point, but here is what I think.

          On this specific issue of university-owned electronic devices, I think Katehi and UCOP are fighting over who should decide what content is considered private and what content is considered public. The fight is not over whether or not the devices should be returned to UC (even though when Klein brought the issue to the media, she made it sound like Katehi is not willing to return the devices at all, speaking of media manipulation tactics…)

          It seems to me that UC does not have a clear policy to determine how a case like this should be handled. ryankelly posted some policy above that actually seems to acknowledge that private use of university-own devices is allowed.

          Without a clear policy in place, you can’t really blame Katehi’s team for not returning the devices the way UCOP wants. On the contrary, I think they have some valid points and are doing the right thing.

          This fight probably will set a precedence or push UC to have a clearer policy.

        6. hpierce

          DavidSmith… your second paragraph  [6:42 post]…

          Katehi and UCOP are fighting over who should decide what content is considered private and what content is considered public.

          I agree that the Courts might be the only neutral third party on that… but if a “private” communication to DeVries, Wiley etc. is postulated by the Chancellor, I might disagree… communications regarding the investigation allegations, I do believe should be judged “public”, at least for the investigation by UC… same for appointments for family members… based on existence on UC owned equipment…

          But, the investigation is basically a personnel matter (have heard of no criminal charges alleged), so what is disclosed to UC may NOT be appropriate for a general (Vanguard) PRA request…

          I realize there are ‘nuances’… avail. to UC may NOT be appropriate to the general public, particularly as potential litigation is playing itself out…

          Does that help explaining my point?

        7. DavidSmith

          hpierce

          Yes I get your point and I don’t think we are in disagreement. I was not talking about the exact content of the messages in these devices. I was just saying that it’s difficult to find a truly impartial third party in this kind of investigation. I have no idea what is exactly in the those messages and it’s difficult to even make a guess

          I believe Katehi’s team’s concern is that if they give UCOP everything, UCOP may take something out of context and release it to the media in order to spin the public opinion.

          Think about the recent release of documents related to the Switzerland trip. Several on this forum pointed out that the expense seems quite reasonable and that no policies seem to be broken. Yet if you go to SacBee and read comments there (and also some comments here on DV), you see that the public view it very negatively. The UCOP folks are masters at manipulating people’s opinions. If you don’t think deep, it’s very easy to be fooled by them. On this specific point, the trip to Switzerland and the interactions with Nestle were not even in the scope of the investigation. Then you start wondering what UCOP’s intentions are. Why did they do this? Like David mentioned here, what games are they playing? I don’t know how you read it, but to me, it’s plain simple manipulation and trial by media. They have been consistently doing this from day 1.

          Katehi’s team is simply trying to prevent such things from happening again.

      2. DavidSmith

        Jerry, I think you should simply ask David to remove your comment of “white collar crime”. It’s becoming a pointless distraction to the discussion.

        1. Jerry Waszczuk

          DavidSmith

          He could replace it with different word like misconduct . Who cares .

          Frankly, who know what UCOP is trying to pull on Chancellor . As I see UCOP is trying to criminalize the case. I know them well and their way to deal with the  accessed employees .

      3. Tia Will

        Jerry

        It  is does not matter if it a white collar , missteps, nepotism,  misconduct, violation of  policies”

        Excuse the late response, but I believe that it matters a very great deal what one is actually accused of. As we have seen just from the comments here, there is a wide variety of views on just how serious some “missteps” were. Some called for the Chancellor to resign after the pepper spray incident, some, such as myself took much longer to come to the conclusion that she should resign, others such as you and some other posters here would still support her. If this were something as straight forward as “white collar crime” which she was admitting to, I would hope that no one would be supporting her. Yes the tactics matter, but so does the nature of the accusation. Especially since one can go to jail for “white collar crime”….not so for “missteps”.

        1. DavidSmith

          Tia

          I think you completely missed the point. Jerry is saying that the UCOP is using the same tactics as if they are investigation a white collar crime against Chancellor Katehi even though they name it an internal investigation. Under this DV article, the discussion is not, and has never been, what type of violation Chancellor Katehi committed. It will be determined by the investigation and probably a follow-on lawsuit; neither you nor Jerry get to make the call.

        2. Alan Miller

          Some called for the Chancellor to resign after the pepper spray incident

          I resemble that remark . . . actually I called for her to be fired.

    1. DavidSmith

      ryankelly

      Her team never said they wouldn’t return the devices. The dispute is on who decides what content is considered private and what public.

      1. ryankelly

        I wonder – if she is communicating using a University-owned iPad, laptop and cell phone over University servers, is there an expectation of privacy?  She should have been using her own electronic devices and via a private email address.

      2. DavidSmith

        ryankelly

        Yes there is. You posted a policy document above and it does seem that the university respect the user’s privacy. The university also allows personal use of university-owned devices. The language is nebulous and it seems to me that it’s difficult to use that policy to enforce one way or another.

        I replied to your message above and you can take a look yourself.

      3. Jerry Waszczuk

        DavidSmith

        Frankly,  at this point I have to agree with ryankelly in regards to university servers.I am not sure what is this battle about.  The Chancellor’s university phone provider  the AT&T or  Verizon  is paid by university and university has the  record of  the every  call Chancellor made from her university phone or iPad. Is no secret there . University has  no any right to get into  the private chancellor’s  e-mail even she used   the university cell phone or iPad for her private e-mail like the  gmail or yahoo or her home internet provider e-mail . The university e-mail is on the university server and university  has all chancellors  e-mails at glance.  It is really bizarre why university is harassing Chancellor  about  the old cell phone and ipad.  Very strange.  As I know all employees who were entitled or were provided cell phone , iPads or other electronic devices  are using it for private use . ( especially management and executives ).  This is their privilege because they have to be available any time when university needs them and it does not matter if they are in their office or at home  eating dinner with family . Days and nights working days and weekends . I hope this information will clarify  usage of the university phone and iPad by chancellor . No restrictions.

  10. Tia Will

    David

    neither you nor Jerry get to make the call.”

    I agree that neither Jerry not I get to make the call. But you are ignoring one major difference between our positions. Jerry has repeatedly claimed that the Chancellor did nothing wrong, although she has repeatedly stated that she did. I have never claimed that she did anything other than exactly what she states that she did. I just do not happen to personally agree with many of her actions. Do you really not see a difference in these positions ?

    1. DavidSmith

      Tia

      I absolutely see the difference as you stated. I don’t think I said anything otherwise. You have every right to disagree with the Chancellor’s actions and none of us said you don’t.

      I’ll simply repeat what I said in my previous comment. “Jerry is saying that the UCOP is using the same tactics as if they are investigation a white collar crime against Chancellor Katehi even though they name it an internal investigation. Under this DV article, the discussion is not, and has never been, what type of violation Chancellor Katehi committed. It will be determined by the investigation and probably a follow-on lawsuit; neither you nor Jerry get to make the call.”

      Is it that hard to understand what I mean? or is it really me not being clear?

    2. Jerry Waszczuk

      Ms. Tia
       
      Hypothetically, I agree with you that chancellor did what she did d that she stated the she did.
       Hypothetically, these violations of the  UC policies, nepotism and missteps is the undisputed ground for chancellor’s employment  termination due to her employment at will .
       
      My first question is : Why we have the investigation against Chancellor with involvement  of the  two former U.S Attorneys which are the  top notch very  expensive WHITE COLLAR CRIME defense attorney hired by the UC General Counsel Office ?
       
      My second question is :  What these two top notch  WHITE COLLAR CRIME defense attorneys  MELINDA HAAG and McGREGOR SCOTT are looking for if the allegations against Chancellor are not a “WHITE COLLAR CRIME” ?
       
      My third question is: Why Chancellor is not being investigated under the UC whistle blowing policy by UC Senior Vice Chancellor Sheryl Vacca investigation team as it was done in the UC Regent Robert De La Pena whistle blowing case?   The Chancellor case is typical whistle blowing case with allegation of misuse of university financial resources etc?   The case should be investigated by the Sheryl Vacca’s investigation team or independent from UC   the State of California Auditor Office instead of  the White Collar Crime defense attorneys.    
       
      If this case is not a  “WHITE COLLAR CRIME “  case but it is  the   whistle blowing   case than anybody , including you and me can make the  request  under the  Public Record Act provision to receive from the UCOP PRA office   the final investigation report and the  related documents to the investigation conducted against Chancellor Katehi.  ( Same way as  in the UC Regent Robert De La Pena whistle blowing case or other whistle blowing cases I am very familiar  with) https://www.propublica.org/documents/item/2823838-De-La-Pena-Pro-Publica-PDF.html
      I am not sure if other UC Regents were very supportive for the  Janet Napolitano’s  action against one of them and I don’t see  much support for Napolitano  from UC Regents against Chancellor Katehi .
       
      I don’t see that in Chancellor Katehi’s case the Public Record Act will apply having on one side two “White Collar Crime “private defense attorney which are providing representation to the University of California and on other side Melinda Guzman who is representing Chancellor Katehi .  (Attorney -Client privilege)
       
       
      Furthermore, I am 100 % sure that if it would be a different Chancellor than Chancellor Katehi and such allegations (if true) were reported to the UCOP by an employee under UC whistle blowing policy than the allegation would be ignored and dismissed and whistle blower would be fired from the job in retaliation as it is happened in many cases.  I have no any doubt about it. Nobody would have had a liberty to read about such allegations in Sacramento Bee or heard about on the TV news. This is a well-orchestrated and well planned “WITCH HUNT” against Chancellor and her family for quite some time.    
       
      Myself, I think that Melinda Guzman should take more aggressive approach in her defense of Chancellor Katehi.
       

      1. Tia Will

        Jerry

        It seems to me that what you have included in your post of 1:46 are a lot of “why didn’t someone do something differently ?” I get this question frequently from my patients in the form of “Why didn’t Dr. X explain this to me the way you are ?” Since I was not present at the visit with Dr. X and cannot read Dr. X’s thoughts, this is a question that I can never answer and frankly is a bit of a time waster.

        Any suggestion that I have ever made about the disposition of the Chancellor’s position at the university has been based on my opinion of actions that she has said that she has taken. I have never opined about the correctness of the actions of Ms. Napolitano nor the regents nor the governor and yet I keep getting comments implying that I have or that I should have an opinion  on their actions as well since I have opinions about the Chancellor’s actions. This would be the equivalent ( in my field) of my pointing out that a surgeon should no longer be operating because of frequent errors in judgment and then being questioned about why I wasn’t acknowledging errors of our Physician in Chief in managing the personnel issue involved which I have not observed. Since I do not have the knowledge, I have made no comment on these matters.

        It seems that what some posters here would have me do is to accept their version of what has occurred as fact without admission or proof. That, I cannot do. Especially in view of conversations with friends on campus who are more knowledgeable than I and have a differing view of matters. Would any of you really want me to pass judgement without factual information to go on just because you feel strongly about the matter?

        1. Jerry Waszczuk

           
          Ms. Tia
          This  is fine what you think and I understand your point of view because you don’t work for UC  Davis.  For long time I thought you are UC Davis current or former employee I apologize if I caused you any discomfort by some of my responses to your posts. This quite hot topic and we have a heated discussion once a while. 
          As you read my posts, I had to bring my own legal experience into discussion because I know very well how the UC whistle blowing policy works and how and who should investigate the allegations. Also I know results of many UC internal investigations in relation to misuse of university resources by management negligence to perform their duties, corruption, nepotism, violation of The policies, disregard of the state and federal law by high rank university officers’. I know this stuff .
          Here is the  point.  Why  Napolitano is spending thousand of dollars by hiring two enormously expensive two WHITE COLLAR CRIME defense attorneys MELINDA HAAG and McGREGOR SCOTT and their associates  having on hand and next to her office tens of super lawyers  with the annual  salaries  $ 200,000/per year and up  and having on hand the  UC Senior Vice President Sheryl Vacca Investigation Team which is being hired and paid by university to do such investigations 
          The expenses for these WHITE COLLAR CRIME defense attorneys MELINDA HAAG and McGREGOR SCOTT  and their associates will exceed or maybe already exceeded alleged by Naploliatono  the  losses caused by alleged misuse of university financial resources by  UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi . 
          As I understand you from your posts and arguments you are very against of wasting the financial resources by  the executive’s and management  missteps and wrong decisions. So I am as well especially if the funds could be used for needs of students in university or improving the working condition for UC employees: 

          I will give you one of many examples I have of UC employees suffering because of working condition.

          On July 7, 2012, in the e-mail entitled, “Dereck being awesome in Research III,” the scientist from the UCDMC Mac Lab wrote to the HVAC shop manager Patrick Putney and Department Head Charles Witcher:
          “Mr. Putney and Witcher,
          I am a scientist in Research III (Building 95). I have worked in this building since 2008. In that time, I had given up hope of ever being comfortable or maybe even safe in here. In the short time that Dereck has been working here, he has solved many of the issues that have been plaguing us for years. I can finally not FREEEZE to death every day or eat under dripping ceiling tiles where floods have happened over and over. He is such a welcome sight and a great guy. Everyone here is so thankful to have him around.
          Please tell Dereck thank you from everybody on the second floor of Research III. He is an awesome worker, and we really appreciate him. Please, please keep him here!
          Rebekah Tsai, MSSRAM, Mack Lab”
           
          “After writing the thank you letters, Associate Professor of Surgery Chief, Trauma & Emergency Surgery Services, Lynette A. Scherer, Professor Michael DeGeorgio from the Department of Internal Medicine and scientist Rebekah Tsai from the MSSRAM Lab did not know who Charles Witcher, Patrick Putney, Dorin Daniluc or HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott and other UCDMC administrators were and what they would do with their letter of appreciation for Dereck ending their suffering.”
           
          The authors of the thank you letters realized that the unrepaired equipment caused discomfort and serious safety problems for years for the UC Davis Medical Center patients and staff, and they were shocked that a new technician showed up in their offices one day and fixed all the problems that were unrepairable for years by other technicians.  
           
          However, the authors of the thank you letters and the relatively new UCDMC HVAC Technician Dereck Cole did not know what Charles Witcher, Patrick Putney and the HR Executive Director Stephen Chilcott would do with these letters.
           
          By repairing the equipment that was not repaired for years, Dereck Cole did not know that the unrepaired equipment was a generator of a significant amount of money in the form of bonuses and an increase in wages for all the directors and managers in the University of California campuses. Furthermore, the thank you letters, which showed that the equipment that was not repaired for many years could be quickly repaired by a skilled technician, also exposed the lack of Putney and Witcher’s managerial skill and knowledge.
           
          After the last thank you letter written for Dereck Cole by scientist Rebekah Tsai, who wrote that she was freezing to death for years, Charles Witcher turned Dereck over to the HR Labor Relation to end Dereck’s enthusiasm and pride for his outstanding service to professors, scientists and doctors in the UC Davis Medical Center.
           
          IN A COPYCAT SCENARIO, TWO HR ATTORNEYS LICENSED BY THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, STEPHEN CHILCOTT, WITH HIS NEWLY HIRED THUG TRAVIS LINDSEY FROM LABOR RELATION, ORCHESTRATED THE “WITCH HUNT” TO FIRE DERECK COLE FROM THE JOB IN A VERY SIMILAR SCENARIO AS MINE.
          In conclusion of this post I would to like say that the UC President Janet Napolitano should be investigated for misuse of university financial resources by hiring the two very expensive WITCH HUNTERS  ,Melinda Haag and McGregor Scott  for  orchestrating SAFARI  to  hunt  down UC Davis Greek born  Chancellor Linda Katehi  and her family under the  despicably false pretenses.
           
           

        2. DavidSmith

          Well written Jerry. Fascinating but sad story about Derek. I came to understand your view deeper. It is for the same reason that people want Katehi out: she exposed the incompetency of too many.

        3. Jerry Waszczuk

          David

          Exactly , Dereck as new hire technician who was  doing his job as  it was required by the job description  thought that he will  get good evaluation and will be entitle for the small  annual pay raise . Instead of he received  nasty letter of expectation akin closely to notice of termination. The letter was followed by Dose not meet expectation evaluation and Dereck was removed from his shop.

          Chancellor  Katehi  by doing her job brought over 1 billion dollars for the  UC Davis and she  got appreciation letter from Napolitano  in April 2016 and UCOP Gestapo on her back .

          In contrary UCDMC CEO Ann Madden Rise gave herself ( literally) $ 200,000 pay raise , increasing her salary from $800, 000 to $ 1,000,000 with threats that she will quit if Chancellor and regents will not approve her pay raise . How it is works when the UC Davis Medical Center back -log in the unpaired  equipment amounting in millions of dollars and tens of  the  medical malpractice lawsuits are pending in Sacramento County Superior Court and CEO giving herself $200, 000 /year pay raise like nothing has to be done.   She could probably leave comfortably with $ 50, 000 dollars pay raise .

          Mentioned UCDMC HR Director Stephen Chilcott is making more per year than  the State of California Chief Justice .  Another mentioned individual Charles Witcher with high school education is making $ 190, 000 per year . It is more the judge in superior court with 20 years on the bench. Is a lot  easier for the  university to buy  judge than for me to hire lawyer.

           

           

           

           

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      Alan

      I agree . Good idea.  My  little dog rat terrier yesterday killed big rat . Took him 10 seconds to do the job . No suffering . I never saw something like this before . I was trying to get this rat for several days with  rat’s trap .

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

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