By Scott B. Wong
Daily Bruin Staff
An executive response that university officials issued Nov. 17
regarding student complaints of police misconduct largely ignored
pleas from student leaders and administrators that the
investigation was biased and unfair.
Complaints against university police surfaced Feb. 29 when a
verbal altercation arose between Student Affairs/Center for Student
Programming staff member Tim Ngubeni and UCPD officer Brian
Washburn.
The officer allegedly drove his motorcycle into the path of
student protesters on Westwood Boulevard.
Student leaders said the administrative review of the incident
was highly subjective.
“It clearly favored the perspective of the police and was
not balanced in presenting the perspective of students or
SA/CSP,” read a statement issued to the university by 14
students, including members of the Undergraduate Students
Association Council and various campus groups.
Rather than addressing the incidents, student leaders said UCLA
officials created a process to officially exonerate UCPD and the
university from the students’ charges.
Although university officials admitted that the administrative
response had flaws, they said the report’s primary concern
was the issue at large ““ the communication lapse between
students and police.
“Our decision was that the report would not focus on the
individual incidents, but rather the full array of information of
the underlying issue that needed to be addressed,” said
Winston Doby, vice chancellor of student affairs.
Doby spearheaded the Executive Review Committee with Peter
Blackman, administrative vice chancellor and Allen Solomon,
associate vice chancellor of administrative services.
The committee found the Administrative Review Panel, which
included the UCSF police chief and a lawyer, conducted a review
that expanded beyond individual incidents with police.
But many student and campus life administrators said the report
overlooked testimonial contributions they had provided to the
panel.
“For any report to have credibility, a sense of
objectivity must be generated,” stated Berky Nelson, director
of CSP, in a letter to the executive committee last fall.
“To say that the report was inaccurate, devoid of
objectivity, and insulting would be a gross understatement,”
he continued in the letter.
Nelson said that rather than addressing the Feb. 29 altercation,
the report demeaned Ngubeni’s reputation and defamed him as a
professional.
“I offered praiseworthy comments regarding Mr. Ngubeni,
but none of my comments were referenced,” Nelson wrote.
Robert Naples, assistant vice chancellor of Student and Campus
Life and dean of students, said he was shocked the incident
concerning Lyle Timmerman, executive officer of student and campus
life who testified before the panel that he was forcefully struck
by one UCPD officer at the protest, was not referenced in the
report.
Timmerman discussed the incident in a detailed e-mail to Solomon
shortly after it occurred, but the e-mail was “neither
answered nor acknowledged,” according to Naples.
“I believe it to be a professional affront to Lyle
Timmerman, a 30-year university employee,” Naples said in a
statement.
Timmerman declined to comment, but Solomon said he asked
Timmerman if he wanted the information included in a formal
complaint.
“Given our discussion and reinforced by our subsequent
collegial and continuing work in the joint UCLA/Student Affairs-CSP
group, I believe we had reached a reconciliation,” Solomon
said.
Last summer, UCLA officials established a Joint UCLAPD/SA-CSP
Management Team to address elements of students’ complaints
that could be resolved quickly, according to Solomon.
The committee charged the joint team with developing a set of
guidelines defining organizational roles and responsibilities
between UCPD and SA/CSP during campus events; and reviewing
policies guiding security for events put on by student
organizations.
The committee said the joint team satisfied the first charge
through a plan which outlined that during demonstrations CSP staff
will serve as point persons and accompany marchers , while UCPD
will serve as back-up and support for staff.
The plan recommended debriefing meetings between police and
staff to take place after demonstrations to resolve any
misunderstandings.
The joint team also devised the “Security Arrangements for
Campus Programs and Events,” which reintroduced the
UCPD’s Police Risk Assessment Matrix, used to systematically
determine how much police presence is required for events, based on
estimated turnout and type of event.
Last spring, UCPD Chief Clarence Chapman charged the African
Student Union $13,000 for the dispatchment of 33 officers to the
organization’s 2000 Hip-Hop Xplosion.
The panel found the number exceeded the necessary staffing
called for by the matrix.
In response, the executive committee committed a total of
$20,000 per academic year for the support of UCPD security presence
at student events, to be distributed by CSP.
The figure would not insure all costs incurred, but only
incremental costs over and above what the matrix calls for,
according to Doby.
“The incremental cost was the matter of
disagreement,” he said. “Now, the organization does not
have to bear that cost and if the police feel they need that cost,
they can have it.”
University police said they are satisfied with the executive
response.
“We want to be team players and participants,” said
Nancy Greenstein, UCPD director of community services.
“We’re supportive of their recommendations.”
Doby stressed the importance of sufficient change coming out of
a review of police and student relations.
“It’s not a good thing that you would have to
confront such issues,” Doby said. “But it’s a
good thing to say that these events result in change.”