The 5 Missteps That Toppled Linda Katehi

The University of California system released an investigative report on Tuesday that found that Linda P.B. Katehi, the UC-Davis chancellor, had acted inappropriately in five of the seven circumstances reviewed.

Ms. Katehi resigned her position as chancellor on Tuesday but will remain on the faculty.

The report marks the end of a three-month battle between the president of the UC system, Janet Napolitano, and Ms. Katehi.

An investigation that began in April aimed to determine whether Ms. Katehi had violated university policies related to her service on corporate boards, her family members’ employment at Davis, and the hiring of public-relations companies to improve the campus’s online image and perhaps the chancellor’s own reputation in the wake of a notorious 2011 incident in which student protesters were pepper sprayed by the campus police.

Here are the seven findings on Ms. Katehi based on a report by Melinda Haag, a former U.S attorney who conducted the investigation:

Ms. Katehi did not show favoritism to members of her family, but they failed to make some necessary disclosures.

With respect to her family members’ employment at Davis, the report clears Ms. Katehi of any major wrongdoing. Investigators, however, did cite a policy violation related to disclosure of the Katehi family’s intertwined personal and professional relationships. Emily Prieto-Tseregounis, Ms. Katehi’s daughter-in-law, works in the Division of Student Affairs and is chief of staff to Adela de la Torre, the vice chancellor for student affairs, who reports to the chancellor. In March 2015, following Ms. Prieto’s engagement to Erik Tseregounis, Ms. Katehi’s son and a graduate-student research assistant, the parties filed “near relative agreements” to insulate Ms. Katehi from employment-related decisions regarding her son and future daughter-in-law. But in January 2016, the unit where Erik Tseregounis works was moved into the Division of Student Affairs, where Ms. Prieto works, which required a new agreement shielding Ms. Prieto from employment decisions related to her husband. “No such agreement was ever signed,” according to investigators. Another previous disclosure involving Mr. Tseregounis was filed late, a violation of university policy. Despite concerns that Ms. Napolitano has aired about raises given to Ms. Katehi’s family members, the report concludes that the chancellor “has not exercised improper influence over or offered favorable treatment” to her son or daughter-in-law.

The chancellor was not candid about her role in Davis’s controversial social-media strategy.

The report strongly disputes Linda Katehi’s repeated assertions that she was not involved in contracting with private companies to improve Davis’s online image and her own, both of which had been badly damaged by the pepper-spray incident five years ago. In conversations with Ms. Napolitano and interviews with the news media, the report states, Ms. Katehi “minimized her knowledge of and role in” the process. When Davis’s social-media efforts received negative attention from the news media, which suggested that the chancellor hoped to scrub from the internet information that was personally damaging to her reputation, Ms. Katehi told the president she “had nothing to do with the contracts, and that they were all handled by the UC Davis communications,” the report states. She made similar statements to The Sacramento Bee and The Chronicle of Higher Education. “The chancellor’s statements,” the report concludes, “were misleading, at best, or untruthful, at worst.”

The Katehi Years at UC-Davis

Linda P.B. Katehi served as chancellor of the University of California at Davis from 2009 to 2016, a period marked by controversy and conflict. Here’s a look at her record.

• A Year After Her Ouster, Linda Katehi Still Can’t Resist a Fight
• The Slow-Motion Downfall of Linda Katehi
• In Fight Over UC-Davis Chancellor’s Future, Where Does the Faculty Stand?

Investigators found that Ms. Katehi had played a significant background role in the hiring of Nevins & Associates and ID Media, which is also known as IDMLOCO. “In reality,” the report states, “Chancellor Katehi initiated UC Davis’ relationship with Nevins by unilaterally contacting an executive recruiter to find a social media consultant to help repair reputational damage caused by the 2011 pepper spray incident.” Ms. Katehi, the report continues, approved replacing Nevins with another company, Purple Strategies, and later directed her chief of staff to find yet another company, which led to the contract with IDMLOCO. “Although Chancellor Katehi did not negotiate the contracts or oversee the day-to-day work of the consultants, she advocated for or approved the hiring of each company, participated in meetings with each, and was aware of and reviewed their work product from time to time.”

The social-media story has raised concerns about whether Ms. Katehi was just as motivated to repair her own online image as that of the campus, and the investigators weighed in on this issue. “The evidence indicates that Chancellor Katehi was acutely concerned with damage to her personal reputation following the 2011 pepper spray incident,” the report states, “and that she was interested in the consultants working to improve her own online reputation as well as the reputation of UC Davis.” Investigators added, however, that it is “fair to say” that the chancellor’s reputation is intertwined with Davis’s, so any restoration of her reputation stands to benefit the university.

The report, which redacts some names, cites an unnamed person’s recollection that the chancellor “voiced frequent concerns” about her personal Wikipedia page and asked, “Why can’t you get me ‘off the Google?’”

Ms. Katehi did not misuse student fees.

The report clears Ms. Katehi of wrongdoing and cites no policy violations related to Davis’s use of student fees for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 fiscal years. The campus’s student-fee revenues are earmarked for intercollegiate athletics, intramural and club sports, and recreational programs, but some of that money was steered toward physical-education instruction. The decision, which was later reversed, was “arguably inconsistent” with intent of the fees, investigators said. But Ms. Katehi “did not appear to have any involvement in this line-level budgetary decision.”

Ms. Katehi did not intentionally violate university policy with her travel reimbursements.

Between December 2010 and February 2016, Ms. Katehi made made 26 international trips and dozens of trips out of state, according to The Sacramento Bee. Records indicated Ms. Katehi’s international trips to conferences and donor visits cost the university $174,000 for the chancellor alone, not counting her staff.

Including her international trips and travels for her board service with the publisher John Wiley & Sons, the chancellor was reimbursed only for trips that fulfilled a university business purpose.

The investigation found, however, that Ms. Katehi did violate university policy in how she sought reimbursement. When Ms. Katehi and her staff’s travels combined campus business with outside activities, they filed two reimbursement claims — one to the university and another to the external organization in order to make credit-card payments on time. Ms. Katehi would repay UC-Davis with the money she received from the outside organization.

When the chancellor would combine trips for business and personal travel, her staff did not separate expenses, as called for by university policy.

“To the extent that Chancellor Katehi received UC Davis reimbursement for travel expenses. attributable to a third party,"the report states, “this would violate the policy, as compensated outside professional activities are considered ‘personal.’”

Although that made it difficult for the university to track reimbursements, the report stated that, Ms. Katehi did not personally profit from the violations and UC-Davis did not lose money.

Wavering on her scholarship pledge further damaged Ms. Katehi’s credibility.

When the chancellor was criticized for serving on a corporate board, she pledged some of her earnings to student scholarships, only to later suggest she might not honor the commitment.

After the chancellor faced backlash for serving on the board of John Wiley & Sons, which publishes textbooks, she apologized and said she would donate $200,000 of her board-service earnings to a scholarship fund for UC-Davis students.

When Ms. Napolitano came to Ms. Katehi’s defense for her board service in an interview with The Sacramento Bee, the system president also noted the chancellor’s planned donation.

Ms. Katehi subsequently stepped back from her promise, telling investigators that she and her husband would re-evaluate what to do with the money, given the investigation.

Ms. Katehi did not sufficiently evaluate concerns before joining boards of the DeVry Education Group and King Abdulaziz University.

According to the investigation, Ms. Katehi ignored government investigations of the for-profit DeVry University, which was accused of deceptive recruiting, before accepting a position on the Board of Directors of its parent company.

In 2012 she also joined an advisory board of King Abdulaziz University, in Saudi Arabia, knowing the institution was allegedly aiming to inflate research statistics by paying scholars to link their work with the university.

Before Ms. Napolitano could approve her position on the DeVry board, Ms. Katehi began her service. She did not get the president’s approval to serve on the KAU International Advisory Board either.

Ms. Katehi served on other boards, mostly unpaid for nonprofit groups, but she still failed to report her service to the system president and seek her approval, violating university policy.

After facing backlash for her position on the DeVry board, Ms. Katehi told Ms. Napolitano that she hadn’t started her service on the DeVry board when, in truth, she had already attended two meetings.

Before speaking with Ms. Napolitano, Ms. Katehi also learned about different investigations regarding DeVry University. Still, she kept any concerns quiet and did not seek approval for her service from the president.

Ms. Katehi did not retaliate against employees who cooperated with the probe.

Investigators were asked to look into claims that Ms. Katehi had either retaliated against employees for cooperating with the inquiry or had threatened to do so. Investigators found no evidence of that.

Jack Stripling covers college leadership, particularly presidents and governing boards. Follow him on Twitter @jackstripling, or email him at jack.stripling@chronicle.com.

Fernanda Zamudio-Suaréz is a web writer. Follow her on Twitter @FernandaZamudio, or email her at fzamudiosuarez@chronicle.com.