Proposed action plan
This page summarizes proposed actions and reforms as well as interim efforts already underway at UC Davis to improve and enhance protest management policies and practices, police operations, and administrative coordination and communication.
All action steps have been or are being reviewed with multiple campus stakeholders. Continued systematic consultation will inform the campus’s ongoing plans and actions. This site will be regularly updated.
Information presented is a preliminary response to input and recommendations from a Task Force appointed by UC President Mark Yudof to investigate the pepper-spraying of students by UC police on November 18 during a demonstration on the campus’s Main Quad.
That inquiry, requested by Chancellor Linda Katehi, was led by UC Davis law professor and former California Supreme Court Associate Justice Cruz Reynoso. The task force’s efforts and conclusions were informed by a fact-finding report from Kroll & Associates, which offered its own suggestions (and which are separately referenced in this website.)
The campus's proposed actions and other input referenced here are iterative; plans will evolve as other anticipated reports (including one commissioned by the campus’s Academic Senate and another co-led by UC General Counsel Charles Robinson and Boalt School of Law Dean Christopher Edley, examining police policies on all ten UC campuses) become available.
Summary of Reynoso task force recommendations
Expectations: Implement recommendations through a consultative process with campus community stakeholders. Develop interim actions until all stakeholder groups are consulted. Pursue recommendations vigorously and evaluate as to effectiveness and intended objective.
A. For the Administration and Leadership Response
Recommendation 1 — Agreement on policies regulating protests and civil disobedience
The Task Force recommends the campus develop a broadly accepted agreement on rules and policies that regulate campus protests and instances of civil disobedience. This broadly accepted agreement should be grounded in our campus culture and regularly communicated to students. These rules and policies should be subject to regular review and should:
- Be consistent with free speech doctrine;
- Recognize importance of debate to institutional function and identity;
- Respect rights and interests of non-protesting students, faculty and staff;
- Respect needs of the university to operate without undue interference;
- Recognize that purpose of protest is to inform and persuade, not to coerce;
- Define "non-violent" vs. "active resistance" and "violent" protests and clarify use of force;
- Communicate legal basis for university’s response;
- Identify consequences for breaches of rules and policies.
UC Davis proposed action
A-1. Charge a campus task force to review and revise campus policies concerning protest activity and civil disobedience, consistent with campus culture and free-speech doctrine, and make recommendations as to their implementation.
Responsibility: Office of the Chancellor, Office of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, Office of the Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs
Timeline: February 1, 2013
Members of the proposed task force will include representatives of the following:
- UC Davis faculty members with expertise in specific policy areas
- UC Davis staff members with experience addressing past campus protest activity and knowledge about the needs of campus constituencies
- UC Davis undergraduate, graduate and professional students
- External subject-matter expert(s) as needed
- Collect and evaluate existing systemwide and campus policies and procedures concerning free expression; time, place and manner regulations; protocols for response to protest activity, including legal bases for such response; and available remedies for conduct found in violation of university policies or the law.
- Collect and evaluate best practices from other universities.
- Develop recommendations for revised and/or new campus policies concerning the recommendations of the Task Force in a manner that is clearly articulated, regularly communicated, readily understood, easily accessible, and capable of being consistently practiced.
- Provide robust opportunities for input from the campus community.
Recommendation 2 — Improve communication between leadership and campus
The Task Force recommends the Leadership Team engage in (1) proactive communication and consultation with the Academic Senate, Academic Federation, Staff Assembly, Graduate Student Association, Associated Students of UC Davis, and student governments of professional schools to build relationships and identify issues early; (2) invest in prevention through engagement in community dialogue and community building; and (3) develop a structure for campus constituents to raise issues (such as holding regular office hours).
UC Davis proposed action
A-2. A Campus Community Council has been formed, with broad student, academic, staff, emeriti, alumni, community and administrative representation. The Council is imagined as one of the key venues for communication between leadership and campus constituencies on strategic issues facing the campus and the campus community.
Responsibility: Office of the Chancellor, Office of Campus Community Relations
Timeline: The group will meet at least once per month throughout the academic year. For more information about the Council, including a list of founding members by name, view the Council's charge letter (PDF).
The Council, along with the Office of Campus Community Relations, intends to proactively engage in community dialogue and community building. Steps under consideration include:
- Increasing the number of inclusive campus community programming activities, such as the Campus Community Book Project and Dialogues on Diversity professional development, and extending such initiatives to staff and students.
- Establishing a critical race and gender institute with a mission of encouraging faculty to engage in research at the intersections of race, gender, ethnicity and such public policy issues as access to affordable education, health care, diversity, economic development/disparities, internationalization of higher education, etc.
- Leverage faculty expertise to sponsor campus lectures or forums on current topics of importance, including free speech, freedom of expression and civil disobedience.
- Hold annual meetings between the Chancellor and/or Provost and administrative advisory committees — such as the Status of Women at Davis, the Staff Affirmative Action and Diversity Committee, the Disability Issues Advisory Committee, and the Campus Council on Community and Diversity.
- Encourage the administrative advisory committees to hold campus forums on topical issues, and engage in year-round efforts to help foster dialogue, discussion and recommendations for action in real time
Recommendation 3 — Develop standardized policies for managing campus events and incidents
The Task Force recommends that campus leadership develop National Incident Management System/Standardized Emergency Management System compliant procedures and protocols in order to achieve standardized procedures for planning, managing, communicating, and collaborating to manage a large scale event or incident.
- Delineate engagement of administrative procedures vs. law enforcement; define thresholds for activating and leadership roles in Incident Command System; rehearse emergency preparedness; familiarize Leadership Team with NIMS/SEMS.
- Designate senior administration official to manage all matters related to such incidents including protocols and procedures for collecting and validating information.
- Establish procedures that delineate policy decision-making from tactical implementation and train both administrators and police.
UC Davis proposed action
A-3. The Davis Campus Emergency Operations plan is being updated to ensure full compliance with the National Incident Management System/Standardized Emergency Management System and standardized procedures for planning, managing, communicating, and collaborating to manage any size event or incident.
Responsibility: Police Department, Office of the Vice Chancellor for Administrative and Resource Management, Department of Emergency Management/Mission Continuity
Timeline: July 30, 2012
The Davis Campus Emergency Operations Plan is being updated with procedures and protocols to clearly delineate:
- Thresholds for activating the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and leadership roles;
- The role of the Campus Emergency & Crisis Management Team;
- Coordination and communication between field operations and policy makers.
In addition, efforts are underway to increase familiarly with NIMS/SEMS procedures and protocols. For example:
- The campus Emergency Manager will provide an overview of NIMS/SEMS to policy makers;
- Campus leadership will participate in at least one tabletop and one full-scale emergency exercise annually.
Recommendation 4 — Heal the campus and apply Principles of Community in a practical fashion
The Task Force recommends the Leadership Team devote itself to healing processes for the university community, including steps to operationalize the Principles of Community, and that the administration consider Restorative Justice among other tools to address behavior that negatively impacts the campus climate.
UC Davis proposed action
A-4. Under the guidance of the Office of Campus Community Relations, campus leaders will carefully review the Principles of Community and develop concrete steps to make certain that these principles inform their work going forward.
Responsibility: Office of Student Affairs, Office of Campus Community Relations, Office of Human Resources
Healing steps to include:
- Campus community participation in the response to other recommendations of the Reynoso task force, including development of new policies concerning free speech and civil disobedience
- Faculty and staff will be encouraged to take part in training related to the Principles of Community, and a special version of the Principles of Community training will be developed for students
- Consideration will be given to increasing the number of campus community events to further the understanding and value of the Principles of Community
B. For the UC Davis Police
Recommendation 1 — External review of UC Davis police department protocols and procedures
The Task Force recommends the Chancellor employ outside assistance to review UC Davis police department protocols and procedures. Once the review is completed, specialized training should occur with all members of the police department to assure compliance with modern and contemporary practices for a campus-based police department. This review should include:
- all manner of police department operations including levels of oversight and review;
- an evaluation of how campus police requirements can be fulfilled including an analysis of the number of officers required and ratio to other personnel;
- command structure, how incident command is managed, coordination for mutual aid, and use of force consistent with campus culture;
- a review of the job description of the Chief of Police for scope of practice and campus needs;
- a review of staffing and skill mix;
- annual competency trainings and annual performance evaluations.
UC Davis proposed action
B-1. The Police Department has engaged the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) to conduct a thorough review of Police Department operations.
Responsibility: Office of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, Police Department
Timeline: December 1, 2012
The Police Department plans a three-pronged approach to ensure that its protocols and procedures are fully in compliance with modern and contemporary practices for a campus-based, community-oriented police department:
- The Police Department, at the direction of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, will work directly with the California Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) to conduct a thorough review and analysis of Police Department operations. This effort will entail:
- A review and update of all department policies conducted by an independent expert, who will meet with campus community members as a part of the process.
- Implementation of LEXIPOL, widely used in university law enforcement, to provide policy templates and a structured program for policy implementation consistent with state law and POST guidelines.
- Review of all department job descriptions.
- Review of current training and training needs.
- The Police Chief, at the direction of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, will develop a long-range strategic department plan. This effort will involve:
- Community input solicited through community-based workgroups and partnerships, with a goal of ensuring that Police Department philosophy and mission are consistent with campus community expectations.
- A review of the Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics special report on Campus Law Enforcement, 2004-05. This report details campus law enforcement staffing levels and trends across the country, offering a benchmark against which to evaluate current UC Davis Police Department staffing.
- A complete review of weapons and tools, policies related to the appropriate use of these tools, and the needs and use of these tools within the campus community.
- An evaluation of the accountability and oversight measures that best suit the needs of UC Davis, including the potential of a police review board/commission on campus. The evaluation will be conducted by an independent expert in the area of police accountability; this consultant will work directly with campus community members.
Recommendation 2 — Police Chief should evaluate role of students in police functions
The Task Force recommends the Chief of Police evaluate the appropriate role of student involvement in police functions such as increasing the size and utilization of the Aggie Hosts. The focus should be on fostering a deeper sense of community.
UC Davis proposed action
B-2. At the direction of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, the Police Chief will direct the Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS) program coordinator to seek increased student involvement by working directly with the Office of Student Affairs and other student groups on campus.
Responsibility: Office of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, Police Department, Office of Student Affairs
Timeline: Ongoing with annual assessment
The VIPS program partners students with police officers in the spirit of community policing. VIPS provide citizen patrols on campus, supplementing the services provided by the Aggie Host Program, which currently employs about 80 students to provide security on campus for special events, athletics and various other campus functions.
Recommendation 3 — UC Davis police department should strive to be a model of policing
The Task Force recommends the UC Davis police department should strive to be a model of policing for a university campus and ensure best practices are followed.
UC Davis proposed action
B-3. UC Davis will strive to become a model for campus law enforcement and regain its position as a respected and trusted member of the community.
Responsibility: Office of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, Police Department
Timeline: Ongoing with annual assessment
By accomplishing the aforementioned goals, and under the direction of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, the Police Chief will evaluate the success of the strategic plan on an ongoing basis, while continuing to foster community involvement. Formalized department policy that is regularly reviewed and updated utilizing LEXIPOL and POST guidelines will ensure best practices are implemented and followed. The department will actively seek formal input from community stakeholders and use that feedback to drive continuous improvement.
C. For System-Wide consideration
Recommendation 1 — Adopt UC campus-specific policies regarding the UC Police Departments
The Task Force recommends the University of California study, evaluate, and adopt policies involving the training, organization, and the operation of UC Police Departments to ensure that they reflect the distinct needs of a university community and utilize best practices and policing adapted to the characteristics of university communities.
Recommendation 2 — Create a system-wide inter-agency support system
The Task Force recommends the University of California adopt a system-wide policy for inter-agency support that requires responding agencies to respect the local campus’ rules and procedures, including specifically those for the use of force.
Recommendation 3 — UCOP should review Police Officers' Bill of Rights
The Task Force recommends The Office of the President should review provisions of the Police Officers' Bill of Rights that appear to limit independent public review of police conduct and make appropriate recommendations to the Legislature.
D. For the Campus Community
Recommendation 1 — All members of the campus community adhere to the Principles of Community
D-1. Please refer to response A-4.
Responsibility: Office of the Chancellor, Office of Student Affairs, Office of Campus Community Relations, Office of Human Resources
Summary of Kroll report recommendations
Kroll has identified recommendations for both the UC Davis Administration and for policing at the University of California system-wide. On the civilian side, improved institutional decision-making processes and culture are critical. On the law enforcement side, systemic policing improvements are [sic] also called for.
8.1 UC Davis Leadership Team
Establish a clearly defined structure and set of operating rules for the leadership team.
- Develop a statement of membership and designate chair to guide meetings.
- Schedule and communicate meeting times; identify if meetings are mandatory or can be attended by substitute.
- Summarize decisions at conclusion and ensure decision-makers have opportunity to state opinion.
- Create “listserv” for team-wide communications.
- Provide Leadership Team with tailored training in California Standardized Emergency Management especially relating to public protest.
- Review legal options including administrative violations and criminal violations.
- (UC should) provide policy guidance on what is acceptable protest behavior and what is not.
UC Davis proposed action
8-1. UC Davis has developed and implemented an integrated, multi-level emergency management team with clear delineation of roles and responsibilities; arranged for executive-level police training; identified senior administrators to be present at major events or incidents where direct police involvement is contemplated; and begun a systematic weekly review by a policy-level team of emerging (potential crisis) issues.
Responsibility: Office of the Chancellor, Office of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, Police Department
Refer to A-3 for details on emergency management plans. In addition, the campus has initiated the following:
- Systematic Policy Guidance: Under the direction of the Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, a team of policy-level senior administrators, supported by other key university functions including Communications and Legal Counsel, meets twice weekly to discuss campus-level policies for issue and crisis management, assess their applicability to current issues and events, and debrief after significant incidents to identify areas for improvement.
- Incident Management: Leadership Presence. Protocols have been implemented ensuring that designated campus officials – principally Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter and Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Fred Wood or specific designees – are present at any events that have reached a point where direct police involvement with be contemplated.
- Executive Education on Policing: Campus leaders are receiving executive-level training from POST (Peace Officers Standards and Training), specifically oriented to the challenges facing policy-level university administrators.
8.2 Systemwide Policing at the University of California
- Institute policing changes systemwide, and not just at UC Davis.
- Transition from 10 police departments to unified, standardized police force.
- Create position of Chief Safety Administrator with functional authority over 10 police chiefs and authority to audit core functions.
- create, implement, review and establish standardized “public safety” policies
- develop an annual statewide training plan on critical policing issues/skills for the UC campus police
- UC policing apparatus should strive to be leader in constitutional policing of public protest.
UC Davis is awaiting the Robinson/Edley report and recommendations on systemwide policing policies and best practices. See http://demonstrationreviews.ucdavis.edu/index.html.
8.3 Additional Recommendations for UC Policing
Conduct a review or gap analysis of UC system’s approach to policing.
- Provide standardized training involving 21st Century Crowd Management strategies and develop supervisory and executive level crowd management training.
- Provide Incident Command System training for Student Activities, Public Information, EH&S, Care and Shelter, Food Services, Financial, Office of Technology, Risk Management, Human Resources and Emergency Management personnel.
- Ensure campus emergency personnel comply with state mandated standards for Incident Command SEMS, especially for documentation.
- Conduct and evaluate periodic Emergency Operations Center exercises with sworn and civilian personnel according to SEMS and NIMS standards.
- Train all UC police officers in alternative force applications (passive arrest team tactics); include command approval authority for use of specialized munitions and OC (Oleoresin Capsicum or pepper spray) dispersal methods.
- Review UC Davis protocols for use of force reporting and investigation; include supervisory review of force reports with command and executive review; include threshold triggers to identify employees prone to multiple use of force applications and training and/or remediation.
Monitor UC progress in meeting above-stated objectives and report progress to the public regularly.
Summary of the UC Systemwide recommendations
In developing this prospective framework for responding to protests and civil disobedience, the authors examined existing university policies and practices on speech, demonstrations, and use of force by police; the opinions of students, faculty, administrators, staff, and police on all ten campuses; and the views of academics and other experts on speech, civil liberties, and law enforcement. The objective has been to be as broad and fair as possible in collecting information in order to develop a thoughtful and fact-based Report.
Ultimately, the report arrives at 50 recommendations in nine areas:
I. Civil disobedience
Although the university already has policies regarding free expression, we recommend that it amend those policies in order to recognize explicitly the important and historic role of civil disobedience as a protest tactic. Such a discussion will remind administrators and police that civil disobedience is not generally something to be feared and will not necessarily require force in response. Those policies should also make clear, however, that civil disobedience by definition involves violating laws or regulations, and that because of the impact it can have on the rest of the campus community, civil disobedience will generally have consequences for those engaging in it.
Add to current “Free Speech” policies language formally recognizing that civil disobedience has had an historic role in our democracy, that it is not protected speech under the Constitution, and that it may have consequences for those engaging in it.
Consolidate campus police policies concerning civil disobedience in one location within each department’s regulations, and make them publicly available.
II. Relationship building
Protests are an inevitable reality for any modern university. But some protests can be avoided if there are effective lines of communication between would-be protesters and administrative officials and robust opportunities to raise substantive concerns with the administration and to obtain a meaningful response. The university’s response to protests can also be handled better and more efficiently by building strong working relationships between police officials and administrators. Interactions between protesters and police in the midst of a demonstration will be less fraught if these groups have an opportunity to interact and learn about each other before the demonstration. We recommend ways to build each of these relationships in advance of protests or civil disobedience
A. Increasing regular avenues for communication with the administration
Recommendation 3 — Increase and better publicize opportunities for students, faculty, staff and others to engage with senior administrators, particularly on issues likely to trigger protest or civil disobedience events.
B. Building familiarity with the campus police and with rules governing protest activity
Recommendation 4 — Develop a comprehensive set of policies governing the response to events of civil disobedience—as well as written materials describing conduct that is or could be perceived as threatening to safety and thus trigger a police use of force—and publicize by posting on system and campus websites and distributing at least annually during student orientations, along with user-friendly summaries of those policies.
Recommendation 5 — Offer opportunities for the campus community to become acquainted with the campus police agency.
Recommendation 6 — Offer opportunities for the campus community to become acquainted with the applicable rules for campus protests— including rights and responsibilities, triggers for an administration or police response, the response option framework, and alternate modes for engaging with authorities.
Recommendation 7 — Increase opportunities for routine interaction between police and students and between the chancellor and the police chief.
III. Role definition and coordination
In order to ensure an effective university response to protests involving civil disobedience, there must be an established system for coordination between police and administrators, with well-defined roles and a shared understanding that ultimate responsibility for the campus’s response rests with the chancellor. We offer recommendations aimed at improving the coordination between administrators and police and at implementing a consistent approach across our campuses. We also advance recommendations regarding coordinating with outside law enforcement agencies who may provide assistance during large demonstrations.
A. Administrator and police coordination
Recommendation 8 — Establish a standing event response team on each campus to plan and oversee the campus response to demonstrations—include on the team faculty members and/or administrators recognized by students and faculty to be sensitive to the university’s academic mission and values.
Recommendation 9 — To the extent necessary, modify police policies to require the participation of senior administrators in decision-making about any police response to civil disobedience—clearly define the respective roles of administrators (objectives) and police (tactics) in this process.
Recommendation 10 — Develop principles to guide the event response team in determining whether particular acts of civil disobedience merit a response—when a response is necessary, specify use of lower levels of force (e.g., persuasion, hands-on compliance), before resorting to higher levels of force (e.g., pepper spray, batons), barring exigent circumstances.
Recommendation 11 — When faced with protesters who are non-aggressively linking arms, and when the event response team has determined that a physical response is required, principles should specify that administrators should authorize the police to use hands-on pain compliance techniques rather than higher levels of force (e.g., pepper spray, batons), unless the situation renders pain compliance unsafe or unreasonable.
Recommendation 12 — Place a senior administrator on-site within viewing distance of the event and with instant communication to the police incident commander—that administrator must (Edley) or may (Robinson) be a member of the Academic Senate.
Recommendation 13 — During the course of an event, continuously re-assess objectives, and the wisdom of pursuing them, in light of necessary police tactics—seek to pursue only important goals with the minimum force necessary.
Recommendation 14 — Absent exigent circumstances, bar commencement or escalation of force by police unless the chancellor or the chancellor’s designee approves it immediately before the action is taken.
B. Assistance from other police departments
Recommendation 15 — Coordinate in advance of planned demonstrations with other police departments likely to provide assistance.
Recommendation 16 — Require each campus police agency to seek aid first from other UC campuses before calling on outside law enforcement agencies, except where there is good cause for seeking aid from an outside agency.
IV. Hiring and training
The most effective way to avoid violent confrontations between police and protesters is to ensure that the police and administrators on the ground have the knowledge and the temperament to help resolve the situation in a peaceful way. We advance recommendations regarding our policies for hiring police officers and for training them about how to respond to civil disobedience. We also recommend that the university require the civilian administrators responsible for responding to civil disobedience to attend regular trainings, in order to educate them about methods to de-escalate protest situations and to help them understand police policies and practices.
A. Police hiring
Recommendation 17 — Require the chief of police on each campus to personally interview and approve all newly hired sworn officers.
Recommendation 18 — Recommendation 18 — Review UC police compensation practices to ensure that compensation is sufficiently competitive to attract and retain highly qualified officers and police leaders.
Recommendation 19 — Recommendation 19 — Obtain input from members of the campus community (e.g., students, faculty, staff) in the process for hiring campus police officers and promoting or hiring officers for command-level positions within the department.
B. Police training
Recommendation 20 — Increase training of campus police officers in the areas of crowd management, mediation and de-escalation of volatile crowd situations.
Recommendation 21 — Create specialized response teams with additional training in crowd management, mediation and de-escalation techniques at the systemwide level.
Recommendation 22 — Establish a regular program for joint trainings, briefings and scenario planning with law enforcement agencies on which each campus police department is likely to call for assistance or mutual aid.
C. Administrator training
Recommendation 23 — Implement formal training of administrators, at the system and campus levels, in the areas of crowd management, mediation, de-escalation techniques, the incident command system and police force options, to be refreshed annually.
Recommendation 24 — Conduct simulations jointly with campus administrators and campus police to rehearse responses to civil disobedience scenarios.
V. Communications with protesters
Violent confrontations between police and protesters often result from a breakdown in communications. With strong communications, civil disobedience can sometimes be avoided—or, at least, can take place peacefully without any use of force by police. We offer recommendations regarding communication and coordination with protesters in advance of a planned event, as well as during an ongoing demonstration.
A. Coordination and communication with protesters in advance of planned protests
Recommendation 25 — Identify and contact members of the demonstration group — preferably one or more group leaders—in advance of the demonstration to establish lines for communication.
Recommendation 26 — Inform protesters, in advance of the event, of the availability of alternative avenues for communication of their concerns or proposals.
Recommendation 27 — Pursue a dialogue between administration officials and the demonstration group about protest objectives and applicable rules for campus protest.
B. Communicating with demonstrators during protest events
Recommendation 28 — Absent special circumstances, assign administrators or faculty members, rather than police, to serve as the primary university spokesperson during a demonstration.
Recommendation 29 — Establish senior administrators as a visible presence during protests, absent good cause.
Recommendation 30 — Establish a communication link with identified leaders or sponsors of the event—for leaderless groups, communicate broadly to the group as a whole (through social media and otherwise) until relationships form.
C. Communications with the broader campus community
Recommendation 31 — Establish a communication mechanism for promptly informing the campus community at large about ongoing protests.
VI. Response during events
Once a protest is underway and individual protesters begin to engage in civil disobedience, the decisions made by administrators can directly affect whether the protest ends peacefully rather than with violence. We propose various strategies for reaching a peaceful accord with protesters without resorting to the use of force by police, including employing trained mediators and using administrative citations in place of arrests. We also recommend policies to guide our campus police departments if the administration decides that a police response to the protest is necessary. These include developing a framework to provide detailed guidance on appropriate responses to different types of resistance, adopting consistent policies across our campuses regarding which weapons may be carried by UC police, and devising procedures for improving coordination with outside law enforcement agencies if they are needed to provide assistance.
A. Alternatives to arrest or force
Recommendation 32 — Establish an internal mediation function at the campus or regional level to assist in resolving issues likely to trigger protests or civil disobedience.
Recommendation 33 — Consider deploying this mediation function as an alternative to force, before and during a protest event.
Recommendation 34 — Beware of police tactics likely to increase tensions and where possible, avoid them – pursue instead tactics designed to diffuse the tensions.
Recommendation 35 — Develop or modify existing student discipline processes as an alternative to arrests and the criminal justice system.
B. Response options
Recommendation 36 — Establish and implement a systemwide response option framework for use on each campus.
Recommendation 37 — Require that campus police and other authorities (to the extent controlled by the university) act in accordance with the response option framework, absent exigency or good cause.
Recommendation 38 — Develop a systemwide process for determining which “less lethal” weapons may be utilized by UC police officers.
Recommendation 39 — Require each campus police chief to personally approve the specific types of less lethal weapons available to officers in their department.
Recommendation 40 — Require each campus police department to include the list of weapons approved for use in response to demonstrations and civil disobedience in its use-of-force policies, and to make the list available to the public.
Recommendation 41 — Commission further studies on the effects of pepper spray on resisters as compared to the effects of other force options.
VII. Documenting activity during demonstrations
A consistent problem in the area of police response to civil disobedience is determining, after the fact, what actually happened. We recommend several parallel methods for recording the actions of demonstrators and police: the use of neutral observers, a policy of videotaping activity at the demonstration, and the creation of police after-action reports following both successful and unsuccessful police responses to demonstrations.
Recommendation 42 — Establish at each campus a formal program to allow designated observers to gain access to the protest site for purposes of observing, documenting and reporting on the event.
B. Video recording events
Recommendation 43 — Establish a program for video recording protest events designed to develop a fair and complete record of event activity solely for evidentiary or training purposes.
C. Reporting by police
Recommendation 44 — Amend existing police department policies to require after-action reports for all protest events involving a police response, regardless of whether the response resulted in force, injury, or civilian complaint.
Recommendation 45 — Coordinate review of after-action reports on a periodic basis with campus event response teams, and with the Office of the President.
VIII. Post-event review
In the wake of any civil disobedience incident involving the use of force, the conduct of the police and the protesters should be the subject of a close and careful review. Although one of our campuses has a dedicated police review board composed of civilians, the other campuses do not have any established form of post-event review outside of the police department. We recommend that the university adopt a systemwide structure located outside of the police department for reviewing the police response to civil disobedience.
Establish a structure and process at the system level for discretionary review of campus responses to protest activity, consistent with existing legal limitations.
Finally, we suggest a process for implementing the recommendations in this Report. Most centrally, we propose that the president require each chancellor to take concrete action to implement our recommendations, and to report promptly to the president on his or her progress.
A. Post-event review
Recommendation 47 — Establish a systemwide implementation manager to develop specific policy language in those areas where recommendations call for common or system policies or practices, and to track campus-level measures.
Recommendation 48 — Require status reports from each campus six months following the president’s acceptance of this report’s recommendations concerning progress on implementation of the recommendations.
Recommendation 49 — Require a final report and certification from each chancellor one year following the president’s acceptance of this report’s recommendations confirming that all recommendations so accepted have been implemented.
Recommendation 50 — Establish similar reporting and certification requirements for future recommendations arising out of the event review process described above.
Summary of the UC Davis Academic Senate recommendations
The committee endorses the findings and recommendations of the Reynoso and Kroll reports as a minimum first step toward addressing the conditions that led to the incident on November 18. In some cases, we consider their recommendations to fall outside the scope and charge of this committee. With regard to system-wide recommendations, including NIMS-SEMS [National Incident Management System-Standardized Emergency Management System] compliance, we defer to the expertise of appropriate parties.
We recommend the following actions based on specific areas of concern to our committee. In some cases (indicated below), we recommend the creation of committees or task forces composed of administration, senate faculty, federation faculty, staff and student members. To address the problems that we have identified, and in the spirit of representative democracy, all representatives should be chosen by their respective groups.
I. Benchmarks and metrics
Recommendation 1 — Create benchmarks and metrics to assess progress
A major concern of our committee is the lack of substantive response by the administration at UC Davis and other UC campuses to findings and recommendations following comparable incidents. This troubling pattern of behavior and lack of accountability by administrators motivates the recommendations that follow in this report. To avoid this pattern, it is imperative that the following recommendations be coupled with benchmarks and metrics to assess progress. For each recommendation, we offer what we regard as a reasonable timeframe for implementation, but recognize that some adjustments may be necessary. We also recognize the need for oversight. Executive Council will be charged with constituting an oversight committee to monitor progress and comprehensively review the status of the recommendations made by this committee, and the Kroll and Reynoso reports. Each group described below should submit a quarterly report to this oversight committee, indicating progress in meeting charges and goals, as well as detailing activities. This oversight committee should issue public reports on Nov. 1, 2012 and June 1, 2013 assessing whether or not the groups are meeting the established metrics. In addition, the oversight committee should consider the full range of possible responses and whether the administration is making progress in building collaboration.
II. Freedom of Expression Group
Recommendation 2 — Create a Freedom of Expression Group
This newly constituted Freedom of Expression group should address the need for new policies and procedures that clearly define the appropriate time, place and manner of freedom of expression on campus. The group should help put into place guidelines that enable appropriate parties to recognize civil disobedience and student protest as specific categories of action (Kroll, 128). At the same time, we recognize the need for student responsibility. Administration and faculty must educate students to make clear the guidelines related to these activities and to specify the disciplinary consequences when they are violated. The group should be attentive to the needs that pertain to the special nature of a campus community. Freedom of expression in a campus environment should go far beyond the protections of the First Amendment.
Benchmark: This group should be established by fall 2012.
Recommendation 3 — Create a consultative process that welcomes dissenting opinions
The administration and its “leadership team” failed both in its judgment of the situation and to establish a management structure that would lead to sound and well-informed decisions. Decision-making entails multiple elements of communication and consultation. However, because of the complexity of the issue, we need to bring clarity to the different elements that contributed to the problem. Both reports emphasize that there were dissenting voices within the process, but clearly, they were ignored. The committee recommends the creation of a consultative process that welcomes dissenting opinions to be offered without fear of retaliation and to be heard without prejudgment. The outcome of such a process results in informed decisions and sense of inclusivity of all parties.
Benchmark: This concern should be addressed immediately.
Recommendation 4 — Create a “clearly defined structure and set of operating rules” for campus “leadership team.”
The campus's “inter-disciplinary” leadership team should include representatives from relevant constituencies: administration, Academic Senate, Academic Federation, staff and students. The membership of this team should be chosen by their respective groups so that members of the leadership team are not beholden to the chancellor. The leadership team should be an inclusive group that functions according to the principle of consultation outlined above. While we recognize that, on a variety of issues, it is advisable for the chancellor to seek the opinions of individuals outside this team, responsibility for critical consultation must rest with an officially constituted body.
Benchmark: This group should be established by fall 2012.
Recommendation 5 — Create guidelines that provide a framework for clear commands and communications for all parties.
We acknowledge and support the findings of Reynoso and Kroll reports that poor communication lies at the heart of the incident. While it is difficult to separate consultation and communication, we also recognize that language was used by the leadership team in ways that did not clearly convey intended meaning. To avoid these kinds of situations, the administration should establish a set of procedural guidelines that provide a framework for ensuring that all parties understand commands and other communications in the same way. This may entail procedures for the party receiving orders to restate and acknowledge comprehension of the orders.
Benchmark: Create these guidelines by fall 2012.
VI. Police and emergency management review board
Recommendation 6 — Create a police and emergency management review board for the Davis campus
We endorse the specific recommendations in Reynoso and Kroll reports and add our own concerns about appropriate and inappropriate uses of force. Mindful of the special nature of the campus community, we are concerned with the militarization of the police force on campus and the chilling effect that the use of force produces. We recommend that, whenever possible and appropriate, alternatives to police force should be used, such as Student Judicial Affairs (Kroll, 128). Indeed, the police should be the option of last resort. Finally, we strongly urge the administration to establish a clear structure that defines and delineates the limits of civilian and police authority.
Benchmarks: The Review Board should be established by fall 2012. An updated Emergency Plan (characterized by transparency, effectiveness and accessibility, consistent with NIMS/SEMS) should be established as soon as possible.
VII. Organizational and administrative structures
Recommendation 7 — Create an open dialogue between the administration and the campus community, consistent with the consultative process defined in recommendation 3.
“…We perceive the response to the [Nov.18] encampment as part of a larger pattern related to flawed organizational, decision-making and administrative structures.” Senate and federation faculty have a key role to play in providing guidance an alternative perspectives in such an open dialogue and the campus’s healing process.
Benchmark: Open forums for dialogue and real communication and consultation with evidence of attendance and impact by fall 2012.