Cal Poly Humboldt is beginning a series “of community conversations and reflections on the events of April,” the university announced in a schoolwide memo earlier this month.
The “events” in question were occupation of Siemens Hall in an effort to bring awareness to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza resulting from Israel’s offensive targeting Hamas, and the ensuing administration-ordered police response that divided campus and ultimately resulted in widespread vandalism of Siemens Hall, administrators’ moving courses online and shuttering the campus before bringing in hundreds of police officers to arrest several dozen people protesting peacefully.
The memo notes the university has formed a Campus Wellbeing and Stewardship Group — comprising Associated Students President Eduardo Cruz, Student Athlete Advisory Committee President Megan Janikowski, University Senate Chair Jim Woglom, Staff Council Chair Kathy Hudson and Provost Jenn Capps — to lead the conversations.
The group has been meeting regularly, according to the memo, and recently addressed the University Senate on its plans for “campus engagement” for the spring semester. Those plans include meetings with all the groups represented on the committee, as well as a two-hour open campus forum to be held Feb. 7 at a location to be determined.
“A campus communication will go out on Jan. 21, 2025, to all employees and students sharing the schedule as well as more detail with regard to the structure and scope of the meetings as well as additional campus companion activities designed to offer different ways to engage,” the memo states.
According to the University Senate’s minutes, Woglom and Hudson gave a brief presentation on the group’s plans Dec. 3, with Woglom noting a pair of after-action reports on the occupation of Siemens Hall would be publicly released. However, he said, the university has apparently refused the University Senate’s request to bring in an independent third-party to conduct a formal investigation into what transpired.
“Provost Capps suggested that, after these after-action reports are released, review them with various groups on campus to write responses to them and send these responses to the president,” minutes from the meeting read. “This could include how these events impacted people, and their recommendations. Senator [and Campus Diversity Officer Rosamel] Benavides-Garb said that [the Office of Diversity and Inclusion] has been leading similar listening groups, so has the capacity to lead or assist this.”
Sen. Stephanie Burkhalter, a politics professor, the pointed out that the after-action reports are legally mandated and “will likely say that the university’s actions were legal” but are “very unlikely to provide any answers that we’re looking for,” according to the minutes.
In response to a California Public Records Request seeking all documents generated from formal reviews of the April protests and the university’s response to them, the Journal received two formal reports. The first is focused on a review of “incident command’s” performance, while the second is focused on that of the Emergency Operations Center.
Both documents offer an identical “event summary” noting the demonstration began at approximately 4:30 p.m. on April 22, prompting “multiple people” to call the university police “to express concerns.” It says that protesters set up tents in front of the building’s entryways in “what appeared to be an attempt to block access to the building,” though body camera footage from responding officers obtained by the Journal through a public records request clearly shows protesters allowing passage for people to enter and exit the building.
The event summary says protesters were repeatedly asked to move to the university quad, which would be in compliance with the university’s protest policies, and declined.
“Over the next few hours, a group of approximately 60 protesters in Siemens Hall further obstructed entrances with tents, chairs and other furniture,” the summary says. “In the meantime, protesters in the building refused all attempts by administrators, faculty, staff and UPD to deescalate the situation and evacuate the building.”
The summary makes no mention of the growing law enforcement presence in view of the protesters — including many officers with shields, helmets and crowd-control gear — clearly seemed to escalate tensions among protesters.
“A crowd in support of protesters in the building grew to approximately 300 people on the University Quad adjacent to Siemens Hall,” the summary states. “Efforts by police to clear obstructions in the lobby entrance to Siemens Hall were met with assault on officers. Several people who were protesting and police officers were injured. Three arrests were made.”
The summary makes no mention of officers ultimately being directed to stand down from what was an increasingly volatile scene, but notes the occupation extended another seven days, alleging that protesters continued to attempt to break into other locked campus buildings, and vandalized 12 others, “leading to a need for locking down the campus to prevent the occupation of other university buildings.” (Many on campus vocally questioned the “need” for administration to institute a hard closure, threatening anyone coming on campus with arrest, and some — including civil liberties groups — deemed it a legally dubious overreaction.) The review estimates the protests caused nearly $2 million in physical damage to the campus. (An itemized list provided to the Journal in response to a records request, however, lists the damage at just under $1.3 million, including $496,000 for exterior painting and graffiti removal, $28,000 to replace picnic tables, $11,000 for “exterior bench replacement,” $156,000 to repair restrooms in Nielsen Hall East, $128,000 to replace wood paneling in Siemens Hall and $107,000 for interior painting and door repairs and refinishing in Siemens Hall.)
The summary concludes by saying at around 2:30 a.m. on April 30, “law enforcement officers from various agencies regained control of the occupied buildings and restored order to the campus,” with the operation resulting in 32 arrests. (The Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office declined to file charges against any of those arrested.)
From here, the two documents diverge, looking at the Emergency Operations Center and incident command. Neither directly questions any of the guiding decisions of how the university should have responded to such a situation.
The incident command review lists three strengths and five “areas for improvement.”
On the strengths side, it touts the mutual aid response from around the state, noting the incident “overwhelmed local resources
“Coordination and implementation of the plan to regain control of the university property and restore order was completed without any injuries,” the review lists as the second strength, before identifying the third strength as “local law enforcement assistance.”
As to areas for improvement, the review states incident command could have better managed public relations, noting at least one law enforcement press conference should have occurred to “provide better transparency on the university’s goal of maintaining public order.”
“The press conference(s) could have reassured the public that the university was managing the situation responsibly, reducing tensions and preventing the spread of rumors,” the review says.
The second area for improvement is mutual aid, with the review noting many of the local agencies that initially responded “have since expressed concerns about their responsibilities, liability and risk during this incident. (The review makes no mention of the fact that an independent audit of the Eureka Police Department’s involvement in the response found that officers were put in a dangerous situation by the university, lacking a clear mission with obtainable goals and contingencies for officer safety.)
The third area for improvement identified is that incident command should have been established earlier, noting that the lack of a “disciplined decision-making process” led to “confusion, miscommunication and a lack of accountability.” The fourth and fifth areas for improvement were identified as a need for more training on “modern crowd management, which includes de-escalation,” and “issues with body worn cameras,” a number of which did not work during the incident.
Corrective actions to update mutual aid agreements, better manage public relations in “high-visibility events,” increase crowd control training and get functioning body worn cameras are “in progress,” the review says, while another university police staff has already completed additional training on the incident command system.
The Emergency Operations Center review, meanwhile, lists three strengths and six areas for improvement. On the strength side, the review lists the center’s employees and structure, noting employees were well-trained and the structure allowed “for efficient response.” Additionally, the EOC’s communication and coronation with the chancellor’s office was touted as a strength, as was its ability to leverage off-campus assistance through established local relationships.
As to areas for improvement, the review notes there were frequently two directors in the EOC at the same time, leading to some confusion. Additionally, there’s room to improve the EOC/incident command interface, noting that poor communication led to “information gaps,” “tactical errors” and “inadequate planning” on the night of April 22 in particular. The EOC should also clarify its procurement process, better staff its public information officer function, improve documentation and find a bigger physical space in which to gather.
The memo, sent by Capps and Vice President for Enrollment Management and Student Affairs Chrissy Holliday, concludes by noting the university has received $75,000 in funds from the chancellor’s office “to support educational programming on campus that supports enhanced understanding of the [Time, Place and Manner Policy], civil discourse/collegiality, elections and voter engagement, and effective organizing.” Some of those funds have been set aside for a grant program focused on “civil discourse and engagement, which is currently open for applications,” they note.
Thadeus Greenson (he/him) is the Journal’s news editor. Reach him at (707) 442-1400, extension 321, or thad@northcoastjournal.com.
This article appears in The Battle Over Bear River.
