The Eviction Crisis and Steps Toward Solutions
or Don't Yell "Fire" in a Crowded UCSD Bureaucracy!
C.H.E. Cafe Collective Statement to ASUCSD and GSAUCSD
In anticipation of committee reports to both the Associated Student Council (AS) and to the Graduate
Student Association Council (GSA), we want to present our perspective, the relevant history, and
clarify what we are asking of both councils. We hope this will enhance the discussions
We are presenting this in two parts. Part 1 is "in a nutshell" what we are asking of the ASUCSD and
the GSAUCSD. Part 2 is discussion of our perspective, analysis, and some historical background.
PART ONE
What the C.H.E. wants:
The C.H.E. wants the university administration to vacate their eviction lawsuit, withdraw the notice of
termination of the lease, and to allow the C.H.E. the full use and enjoyment of the facility in the usual
and customary manner that the C.H.E. has enjoyed said space for the past 35 years. In return, the
C.H.E. pledges to work in good faith with the AS and the GSA and the administration both to work out
a mutually agreeable (and fundable) schedule for undertaking building repairs and safety
improvements and to develop a framework that maximizes the student and educational benefits derived
from the C.H.E. Cafe facility space.
What the C.H.E. Requests from the AS and the GSA
1) That you formally call on the university administration to withdraw their eviction lawsuit, withdraw
the notice of termination of the lease, and to allow the C.H.E. the full use and enjoyment of the facility
in the usual and customary manner that the C.H.E. has enjoyed said space for the past 35 years; and
2) That you formally find that the co-ops (expressly including the C.H.E. Cafe) are of benefit to UCSD
students (i.e., certification).
3) That you formally create a task force, in accord with the dispute provisions of the Master Space
Agreement (MSA), that will work with all parties to: a) develop and implement a plan for needed
capital and safety improvements, b) develop a framework to maximize the student and educational
benefits of the C.H.E. Cafe facility space; c) formalize the findings in the MSA and lease agreements
for the future. We (and all the co-ops) need the AS and GSA to enforce Dispute Resolution, per the
terms of the lease, we need you to have our backs and to DEMAND the administration honor that
process.
1
The Eviction Crisis and Steps Toward Solutions
or Don't Yell "Fire" in a Crowded UCSD Bureaucracy!
C.H.E. Cafe Collective Statement to ASUCSD and GSAUCSD
PART TWO
Discussion and Analysis
(1) Some of the Reasoning for our Requests
(2) a summary of the current eviction crisis
(3) a brief review of the history of conflicts between the co-ops and the administration
(1) Some of the Reasoning for our Requests
1) That you formally call on the university administration to withdraw their eviction lawsuit, withdraw
the notice of termination of the lease, and to allow the C.H.E. the full use and enjoyment of the facility
in the usual and customary manner that the C.H.E. has enjoyed said space for the past 35 years.
Given the complex history of the MSA -- and of the previous Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
-- as documents reflecting the many conflicts and the hard negotiations for compromises between
the UCSD administration and students, the administration was wrong to issue a notice of
termination of the lease, without both the AS and the GSA agreeing and telling the administration to do
it, in writing. The administration was wrong to ignore the Dispute Resolution procedure required by
the MSA. It was inconsistent with the UC San Diego Principles of Community that the administration
chose to issue the notice of termination of the lease on June 13, 2014, while many students and faculty
members were leaving for the summer break.
It is UCSD policy, consistent with UC-wide policy regarding self-assessed student fees and facilities
funded with those fees, that the University Centers Advisory Board (UCAB) has jurisdiction on the
allocation of space to student organizations and others, in the University Centers facilities, which
include the C.H.E. Cafe facility. It was wrong for the administration to bypass UCAB's jurisdiction on
space allocation by filing the eviction lawsuit. The administration was wrong to ignore the Dispute
Resolution procedure required by the MSA. It was inconsistent with the UC San Diego Principles of
Community that the administration chose to file the eviction lawsuit (unlawful detainer) in August of
2014, while many students and faculty members were gone for the summer break.
Is Fire Safety a Legitimate Basis for Immediately Shutting Down the C.H.E.?
It was inconsistent with the UC San Diego Principles of Community that the administration chose to
make several public statements that "safety" was the main motivation for termination of the lease and
for seeking an eviction order from a court. "Safety" has become the mantra of the administration in its
2
public relations campaign to win over the sympathy and support of the student body, and of the
campus and San Diego communities. "Safety" has been held up as the reason for demanding that the
C.H.E. Cafe Collective cease all programming and meetings in the facility.
The undisputed facts tell an entirely different story. The C.H.E. Cafe facility has never been "red
tagged" as unsafe or uninhabitable. Our insurance policy, which we maintain at our own expense
separate from the University's insurance, would have been cancelled if the building was unsafe. Our
insurance remains in full effect. Our Safe Space Policy --guaranteeing everyone fair and equal
treatment and respect at all C.H.E. events, regardless of race, sex, gender, orientation, etc. -- makes the
C.H.E. one of the few places on campus providing an all ages, sober and SAFE space for events.
Our research has uncovered the fact that the California Fire Code section (903.2.1.2) mentioned in the
Campus Fire Marshal's 2012 site inspection report does not apply at all to our type of building! (see
sections 903.2 and 1103.5) It is the UC system-wide policy, as adopted by the UC Office of the
President, that the state Fire Code is the policy of the University (see
http://www.ucop.edu/construction-services/facilities-manual/volume-3/vol-3-chapter-4.html#4-1) .
UCSD is bound by the Fire Code. The state code was amended to follow the 2003 amendment of the
International Code Council's model code. That amendment requires NEW buildings similar to the
C.H.E. Cafe facility, and which have occupancy loads of 100 people or more, to have an automatic fire
sprinkler system. The change was that the occupancy load was previously set at 300 people or more.
(See http://media.iccsafe.org/news/eNews/073008/codeupdate.html).. It is this new code change which
the Campus Fire Marshal cited in his 2012 report. He failed to explain that elsewhere in the new code
sections, adopted at the same time, all EXISTING buildings of the type of the C.H.E. Cafe facility are
expressly exempted from any requirement of retrofitting to install these automatic fire sprinkler
systems. This goes a long way toward explaining why the Fire Marshal never ordered the C.H.E. Cafe
to close and why he said that a new sprinkler system would be "strongly recommended" and why he
never said it is required by law. It is not. [See California Fire Code Chapters 9 and 11 at
http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/2013California/13Fire/13Fire_main.html]
Did this plain omission of the fact of the Code exemption ever get communicated to all the relevant
UCSD administrators? Have UCSD administrators been aggressively demanding immediate "safety"
upgrades to the facility in the belief that they were acting in good faith and according to sound legal
advice from the Fire Marshal? It would be good to know.
What we do know now, at least, is that there is absolutely no legal basis in the Fire Code for requiring
that the C.H.E. Cafe facility be shut down. There is no legal and industry expert consensus that any
urgent safety problem exists if a building of our type does not have an automatic sprinkler system -providing that all other Code requirements for fire extinguishers, exits, exit signage, etc., are met.
The C.H.E. Cafe Collective might indeed say that adding an automatic fire sprinkler system to the
building seems to be a fine idea -- if we ever see a specific proposal with costs we can afford. Or, we
could welcome the addition if the university agreed to pay for their installation. However, it is an
outrage that the UCSD administration has misrepresented the law and has sought to convince everyone
that "safety" forces them to NOT negotiate and to BULLY us into shutting down our business.
3
2) That you formally find that the co-ops (expressly including the C.H.E. Cafe) are of benefit to UCSD
students (i.e., certification).
Per the terms of the MSA, it was supposed to be done in 2014. We should act as though the lease is
still in effect and follow it (even though it is a question mark as long as our appeal of the unlawful
detainer ruling is pending). It has always (previously) been the position of the administration and all
parties to the MSA that lack of a two-year extension of the lease resulted in holdover status, month-tomonth, with ALL of the other terms of the lease in full effect. Over the more than four decades that
hundreds of students have worked at one or more of the UCSD co-ops (and thousands have used the
products and services of the co-ops) the hands-on 'laboratory' type education people have had from this
experience is of incalculable value. We need to sustain and strengthen the co-ops.
3) That you formally create a task force, in accord with the dispute provisions of the Master Space
Agreement (MSA), that will work with all parties to: a) develop and implement a plan for needed
capital and safety improvements, b) develop a framework to maximize the student and educational
benefits of the C.H.E. Cafe facility space; c) formalize the findings in the MSA and lease agreements
for the future. We (and all the co-ops) need the AS and GSA to enforce Dispute Resolution, per the
terms of the lease, we need you to have our backs and to DEMAND the administration honor that
process.
We ask the AS and the GSA to endorse our Settlement Proposal, as a framework for negotiations with
the administration. [We note that language therein which refers to restoration of our IRS tax-exempt
non-profit organization status is moot. Our non-profit status has been reinstated by the IRS.]
(2 ) A summary of the current eviction crisis
[ Press reports should be integrated into this chronology to provide a fuller picture of the unfolding of
the crisis. A compilation of links to these numerous press reports can be found at
http://checafe.ucsd.edu/?page_id=58 ]
A. Inception to 2008
The C.H.E. Cafe Collective began approximately 34 years ago, on or about May 1, 1980. Since that
time, the C.H.E. Facility, 1000 Scholars Drive South, has been leased continuously by Plaintiff from
Defendant, the Regents of the University of California. It has been and currently is used to operate a
cafe, library, and a music-and-theater programming space, and to host other student organizations and
events.
As one of the original buildings of Camp Matthews, the C.H.E. Facility was originally used by the
University of California, San Diego ("University") as a diner and cafe in the 1960's, called "The Coffee
Hut." It is known as the original student center. When there was an attempt to turn it into a faculty
club, students argued that since student fees had paid for the building and its maintenance for many
years, students should rightly take possession and operate it from that time forward. Thus, all students
of the University have an ownership interest in the C.H.E. Facility as their referendum-based fees and
other student fee revenue directly maintain the building and have since before the C.H.E. Collective
even inhabited the Facility. See University Centers' website ("UCEN" site) www.ucen.ucsd.edu.
Pursuant the Lease, the C.H.E. Facility's maintenance is paid for by student fee funding. All fixtures,
alterations and tenant improvements are the financial responsibility of The C.H.E. Cafe Collective as a
tenant. (Space Agreement, §9). Unlike other facilities that the University Centers directly manages,
4
The C.H.E. Facility is unique in that it is leased independently to the nonprofit and student
organization The C.H.E. Cafe Collective under the Space Agreement lease.
In 1992-1993 there was an unlawful detainer lawsuit with the University during which the Co-ops,
namely the General Store, sought and obtained an injunction against the University. (Burnett v.
Regents, San Diego Superior Ct. (1992) Case no. 658358 [unpublished]). A resulting memorandum of
understanding ("MOU") was negotiated to settle the dispute and keep the Collective in possession of
the C.H.E. Facility. Ibid In 2006, the MOU was renegotiated and superseded by a Space Agreement
with all four Coops. It is the current commercial lease contract known as the "2006 Space Agreement
Lease" ("Space Agreement" or "Lease") ("Exhibit A").
In June 2008, when the original two-year lease term under the Space Agreement expired, all four
Coops, including the C.H.E. Cafe, continued to seek a lease extension and new terms. Pursuant to the
Lease, the "2016 Extension" provisions ("Extension"), and other relevant sections, the University and
Coops were obligated to exchange new terms for an extension and obtain a renewed certification from
the student government bodies, the Associated Students ("AS") and the Graduate Student ("GSA").
See, Space Agreement, §1, 2.4, 2.5.
Repeated assurances and conduct of the University administrators, led students to believe an Extension
was still realizable and "missed" preconditions would be waived. (Aronson Decl.). This was not
unprecedented in the course and dealing of the parties and was done with respect to another matter,
namely, changed terms for rents related to a rent dispute and amendments that were made to the lease
and made retroactive for 5 years from 2013 to 2008. A true and correct copy of said Rent Amendment
is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
The University's waiver of the timeline for certifications encouraged AS and GSA to pass certification
in June 2008 though outside of the required timeframe in the lease (January to April 2008), so that an
Extension could still be completed. (Aronson Decl., Vera Decl., Morales Decl.). Therefore, on June 2,
2008 the GSA certified the Cooperatives as in the best interest of students. On June 4, 2008, AS
certified the four cooperatives as in the best interest of students. These certifications were not passed
within the time frame described in Section 2.2 of the Space Agreement (which would have been
between January 31, 2008 and April 30, 2008). See: University Centers website ("UCEN" site)
www.ucen.ucsd.edu and Space Agreement, §2.
B. 2009-2012
The Co-ops and the Plaintiff diligently continue to pursue an Extension containing various lease
amendments from 2010 through present, relying on assurances that they had an Holdover because of
Extension negotiations through 2010. (Aronson Decl.). In 2010 all four Cooperatives were eventually
in rent disputes and renegotiations with the University. (Id., Morales Decl., and Rent Credit
Agreement, A true and correct copy of said agreement and is attached hereto as "Exhibit D)." There
was an agreement between the University Centers Director Paul Terzino and the Co-ops that no default
action would be taken as a result of rent non-payment (Aronson Decl.) .. The Co-ops relied on these
representations (Ibid.). Paul Terzino left in mid-2011, stalling the process (Ibid.) .. A settlement and
lease amendments as to rent were finalized in March 2013 (Rent Credit Agreement, Exhibit D). A
further agreement on the credits owed the Co-ops and their distribution was signed in October of 2013
(Rent Credit Agreement, Exhibit D).
C. 2012
5
From 2010 to 2013, The Co-ops and the C.H.E. Cafe made tireless and strident attempts to achieve
Extensions and reach agreements on changed lease terms therein (Aronson Decl.). The Co-ops and
thus the Plaintiff as a member, was unsuccessful due to the University's delays, avoidance and conduct
that not only prevented a grant of an Extension but did so while communicating the opposite and
giving explicit reassurances to Plaintiff as to them enjoying Holdover status until the Extensions were
agreed to, signed and in place. (Ibid).
In 2012, the AS and GSA certified the Cooperatives, acting with the understanding that it was needed
to realize another two-year Extension (Aronson Decl. at ¶ 37-39). Director Van Bruggen, reassured the
Plaintiff once more and agreed that the Co-ops did enjoy holdover status for negotiations and seeking
an extension or renewal under Section 2.5 and 2.5 and that the University's position was, as a result,
the terms of the Space Agreement still applied (Aronson Decl. at ¶ 37-39).
D. 2013
In late 2012 and into 2013, with the University Centers (UCEN) closing the Craft Center and
implementing other austerity measures to compensate for its budget crisis resulting from financing and
overspending on a new student center, "The Price Center," the University's attitude in negotiations and
dealings with the Co-ops began to change and become more oppositional. (Aronson Decl. at ¶ 9-40,
and UCSD Craft Center Website on Closure http:// crafts.ucsd.edu/),
Throughout 2013, the University violations increased markedly as to Plaintiff. In late Summer 2013,
Despite some progress with student bodies and the UCAB board to finalize amendments and a lease
Extension, University staff avoided meetings and only wished to discuss rent issues that had already
been settled and other issues Van Bruggen thought to be violations of the lease. (Vera Decl.) Van
Bruggen further assured Vera that the University would not be issuing any notices of default if proof
and sufficient progress was made towards these matters and that the University did not want to find
cause to close down the Ch6 Cafe Facility. (Ibid.) C.H.E. Cafe representative Vera relied to his
detriment on these assurances of good faith and proceeded to trust in the Co-ops status under the Space
Agreement and that the University would proceed with renegotiations to realize an Extension or
renewal of the agreement (Ibid). Therefore, the Co-ops continued to negotiate in good faith. (Aronson
Decl. at ¶ 35-36).
However, concerned with the lack of progress representatives of each Co-op reached out to and met
with the UCSD ombudsman in their offices to discuss the Space Agreement amendment negotiations.
Nothing further came of this process. Following it, the University did not make any proactive attempts
to effectuate extensions or renewals. Further the University would not meet or cooperate with students
in their attempts to effectuate Extensions or renewals. (Aronson Decl. at ¶ 27-29).
In November 2013, the Co-ops again met with Van Bruggen for the last time before the C.H.E. Cafe
Collective was given a notice of a health and safety violation, requiring the Cafe to install a fire
suppression system under the hood in the kitchen. Though at this time Van Bruggen further
communicated and gave assurances that the University had no intent to terminate the agreement or
evict the C.H.E. Cafe Collective from the current facility, and that the C.H.E. Cafe was still on
holdover for negotiations under the Space Agreement under Section 2.4 of the Agreement. (Aronson
Decl. at ¶ 30-32).
Then again December 17,2013, despite repeated assurances the University would not hold the Co-ops
in default given the Co-ops progress, University Director Van Bruggen sent a formal written notice of
6
default of the lease for insufficient progress made to cure the default based on the C.H.E. losing and
needing to reinstate its nonprofit status. (Vera Dec1 at ¶ 4).
E. 2014
This prompted the Plaintiff to hire an attorney and reply as of January 2014, to the University as to
Plaintiffs progress made on reinstating its tax-exempt status and now just waiting for an IRS reply, and
that the default should be cured if requires longer than 30-days under the lease section 17.1(e). (See
Exhibit A, Space Agreement)
On April 17, 2014, at the request of the University, the Campus Fire Marshal conducted a second
follow up inspection and walkthrough of the Facility with Assistant Director John Payne. That same
day, John Payne writes the C.H.E. Cafe Collective and email thanking the C.H.E. Cafe and signing off
on all fire and fire code related issues until next year's inspection. A true and correct copy of said email
is attached hereto as "Exhibit E" (See Exhibit D, Payne Fire Marshal Email).
On April 28, 2014, Van Bruggen sent an email with documents attached from the UCAB Budget
committee meeting of April 11, 2014 to UCEN staff, AS, GSA, and UCAB but not to the Co-ops. The
email and attachments are all regarding the planning for the relocation of the C.H.E. Cafe Facility.
These were given to the Plaintiff on May 1, 2014. The non-negotiable proposal was to terminate the
C.H.E. Facility and listed the terms and plans that would govern the Collective's ouster and move from
the C.H.E. Facility to operate out of either the UCEN-run Facility, The Loft or Porter's Pub, which is
leased by another commercial tenant, subject to their already-existing programming and calendars.
A true and correct copy of the proposal is attached as "Exhibit H" (See Exhibit E, C.H.E. Relocation).
As a result, Plaintiff retained counsel.
The University on multiple occasions over time, made incorrect statements and gave misleading
information to students and C.H.E. Collective members regarding requested fire sprinkler upgrades,
inter alia, that it said were necessary and that it said were University "deferred maintenance"
obligations but ones for which the University did not have adequate funds to allocate either now or in
the foreseeable future. (Party Admission of Sharon Van Bruggen, UCAB Meetings, May 10, 23 and
private May 20, 2014, meeting with Co-ops and UCAB Chairs).
Lack of University funds for necessary fire sprinkler and other upgrades was the first reason given for
why it was necessary that the C.H.E. Facility be shut down. All throughout May, the Collective
Members were frantically trying to convince the University Centers Advisory Board (UCAB), who
controls the allocation of student fee funding, that Plaintiff was worth allocating funding to and
keeping open. This was a distraction from the University's plan and already made decision to issue a
30-day Notice of Termination, which they did on June 13,2014. (See Exhibit B) Defendants, however,
maintained for the entire time prior to June 13,2014 (when it gave Plaintiff a "Notice of Termination")
that it was UCSD's obligation to make fire sprinkler and alarm upgrades that were recommended by
the campus Fire Marshal in 2012. On June 13th the Defendants changed their stated position and
claimed that it was the Plaintiff's (i.e., the tenant's) obligation to make the fire sprinkler and alarm
upgrades. (Campus counsel admission in June 13,2014 meeting). In the Notice of Termination, there is
no mention of any fire upgrades or health-and-safety reasons, which the University later asserted as
reason for termination and which for the entire month of May, the University told Plaintiff was the
reason for closure. (See Exhibit B).
On May 20, 2014, formal notice was sent to all necessary parties: the Director of Facilities, to UCSD
legal counsel, to GSA and AS, as well as the other Co-ops, to request and initiate informal dispute
7
resolution (attached as "Exhibit F"). Dispute resolution was requested to address issues of disputed
amounts of rent owed, clarifying the resolution of the C.H.E.'s nonprofit status, addressing Defendant's
denial of approval for fire hood upgrades the tenant's requested, and the many University breaches of
their own obligations of good faith and fair dealing. (See Exhibit F, Notice of Dispute Resolution)
During the first UCAB meeting, Van Bruggen directed UCAB Chair Sammy Chang when many
people showed up to their meeting, that only 16 people could be in the room and all others could not
attend the meeting except to cycle in when they wanted to give their two minutes of comment. Upon
vocal protest from dozens of C.H.E. supporters the board relented and moved to a larger room and
allowed the many people to be in the room. The second UCAB meeting tried to restrict public
comment in various ways. The last UCAB meeting went into Executive Session for their vote.
At this third UCAB meeting on May 23, 2014 at l pm, the UCAB Board like in other meetings where
people were excluded from the room voted to first to restrict public comment to students only and then
voted to go into executive session. Then the UCAB Board voted on the annual budget and passed it 9-4
(See website http://ucab.ucsd.edu/ for May 23, 2014 meeting minutes)
University legal counsel Park did not attend any of the UCAB meetings but did attend to assist the
GSA Council president in editing and drafting the June 2, 2014 GSA resolution in the meeting to
reflect what campus counsel advised. A true and correct copy of said minutes are attached as "Exhibit
c." (See Exhibit C, GSA June 2, 2014 Minutes)
The administration constantly directed these "independent" representative student bodies as well by:
(1) advising them in and out of meetings; (2) directing them as to who they may and may not
communicate with; (3) stating the University is representing them; (4) assisting them in drafting
resolutions; (5) restricting them from communicating with the Cooperatives and Cooperative legal
counsel; and (6) restricting the passing along of information the Coops sought to provide these student
"independent" representatives.
On June 4, 2014, University administrators, the AS and GSA presidents and campus counsel emailed
C.H.E. Cafe students and principal core members asking for a meeting, without including Plaintiff's
counsel. It, according to the University Campus Counsel was to be "a productive opportunity for
University administrators and the C.H.E. Cafe student leaders to have a frank and candid conversation
about the future of the C.H.E. Cafe facility. Finally, we hope to be able to answer at this meeting at
least some of the questions raised in your email. As I said earlier, we will also be interested in the
students and your thoughts, ideas, and perspectives." (Fwd: The C.H.E. Cafe Meeting, Email from
Campus Counsel to Plaintiff's Attorney, June 6,2014)
On June 13, 2014, the University, served upon Plaintiff a 30-day Notice of Termination (attached as
"Exhibit B") of the 2006 Space Agreement lease (hereinafter also referred to as "Agreement" or
"lease"), maintaining that no lease Extension was in effect, and ignoring that Plaintiff had been trying
to seek and effectuate an Extension since the original term expired, and refusing to stay the notice or
acknowledge Plaintiff's holdover status under Section 2.4 and 2.5 of the Agreement ("Exhibit A").
Subsequent to receiving the notice of termination, a renewed request for dispute resolution and/or
mediation of disputes was made by the Plaintiff's counsel to the University's counsel and to
administration. Campus counsel again in an email dated June 20, 2014 responded that the University
was not interested in any dispute resolution (Re: University Notice, Email from Campus Counsel to
Plaintiff's Attorney, June 20, 2014)
8
July 10, 2014
In a hearing on a temporary restraining order, a judge ruled to keep the C.H.E. in possession of the
space and preserve the status quo until a more full hearing on the merits can be held. This preliminary
injunction hearing is scheduled for August 1, 2014. If the C.H.E. prevails in the injunction hearing, it
will maintain possession of the space until a final resolution is reached in the breach of contract lawsuit
filed by C.H.E.’s legal counsel, Andrea Carter, against the University Regents and by extension, the
University of California San Diego (UCSD) on July 7, 2014.
The lawsuit takes issue with University breaches of the Space Agreement lease signed in 2006 and
whether the University is able to give a Notice of Termination pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
It also contests the University’s actions in denying dispute resolution and avoiding the grant of an
extension to the C.H.E.. It further alleges the University has acted in bad faith by seeking or
instigating lease violations or other reasons to displace the Café.
The University officially gave its Notice of Termination for the lease due to the failure of the Graduate
Student Association (GSA), one of two representative student government bodies charged with
certifying that the all the campus cooperatives are financially sound and in the best interests of
students, to certify the C.H.E.. These determinations are to be used for extending the lease and as
measures for determining student support for the venue’s continued functioning. However only the
GSA Board passed a resolution not to endorse the C.H.E.’s continued operation. The Associated
Students (AS), the representative undergraduate student governance body did not pronounce on the
matter. The GSA decision was arrived at after considerable involvement and influence from
University administrators and legal counsel, who helped draft the resolution.
The University also continues to avoid full disclosure of its rationale for seeking the closure and
displacement of the Café, which so many view as a legendary jewel and valuable asset to the
University. It has offered many pretextual reasons and concerns that defy common sense or are matters
that cannot be quickly addressed and remedied without terminating the Café’s possession and lease.
In public statements, UCSD administrators have alleged that the decision to terminate and close the
Facility involves matters of health and safety, citing a 2012 Fire Marshal recommendation that
upgrades be made to the building. These include an overhead fire sprinkler and fire alarm system. If
these upgrades were actually vital, they would have been deemed mandatory rather than recommended,
and the Fire Marshal would have ordered the venue closed. Instead, the Fire Marshal signed off on the
cafe for the year in a follow up inspection of April 17, 2014. Further, the building has been in use by
the C.H.E. Café and other university affiliates before it for nearly fifty years without any safety
incident or any expression of safety concerns by UCSD administrators. As well, the C.H.E. Café has
insurance and a full indemnification agreement with the University.
The C.H.E. Café points to a long history of UCSD administrators falsifying estimates for building
maintenance costs and purposely misleading student government and student centers’ boards which
oversee the annual operating budgets. UCSD currently estimates that over $700,000 of repairs are
needed. However, independent estimates amount to less than ten percent of that amount.
9
UCSD waited to give termination notice until the end of the Spring term, as students were leaving
campus for the summer. Despite UCSD's underhanded tactics, students continue to campaign on behalf
of the C.H.E. Café. To date, it has amassed huge support from its attendees and musicians. This is
evidenced by the outpouring of public comment and letters of support addressed to the University, not
to mention the over 11,500 signatures on an online petition. The online comments posted by petition
signers show a broad base of students, alumni, campus staff and faculty and the surrounding
community in strong support of the C.H.E.. The C.H.E. Cafe is one of the few affordable entertainment
and live music venues not to serve alcohol. It promotes a safe, respectful space that all people can
enjoy and often offers local and independent or student-programming. All this is extremely rare in San
Diego and increasingly everywhere in the U.S.
July 29, 2014
The C.H.E. Cafe Collective approved a Settlement Proposal written by C.H.E. Cafe Support Network
attorney, Cecilia Brennan. The proposal was sent to the UCSD administration. With initial favorable
response from the UCSD administration's lawyers and to encourage an atmosphere of negotiation, the
collective withdraws its lawsuit against UCSD. The UCSD administration then refused to negotiate
and filed an unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit against the C.H.E. Cafe Collective.
August 26, 2014
The Collective has filed a new lawsuit to challenge the basis for the eviction. The lawsuit alleges that
the University colluded with key members of the Graduate Student Association (GSA) to secretly push
through a flawed resolution "decertifying" the Collective so the University could bypass the space
agreement negotiated in 2006.
"If the University wishes to decertify the C.H.E. as a student organization, it should do so in a fair and
open hearing and give proper notice of the hearing so members of the campus community can
participate," states Bryan Pease, attorney for the C.H.E.. "Instead, this hearing was held with basically
no notice, and only one student could give public comment."
The one student who was able to find out about the hearing in time to give public comment is also a
petitioner in the lawsuit, which alleges that the GSA abused its discretion by failing to support its
decision with substantial evidence, and failing to proceed in a manner authorized by law.
Meanwhile, support for the C.H.E. grows, with over 11,000 signing the online petition in support of
the C.H.E., and dozens of emails, letters, and other comments pouring into
the University. Organized labor has taken a stand, including the statewide UC Council of the American
Federation of Teachers (AFT), who sent a critical letter to the
Chancellor and the Regents urging that they reconsider their decision to try to remove the C.H.E. Cafe
from its current space. Two UCSD Campus unions, the graduate student teaching assistants (UAW
Local 2865) and the University Professional and Technical Employees (UPTE-CW A 9119), have also
sent letters to UC officials in support of the C.H.E. Cafe.
In the midst of the dispute, the C.H.E. continues to operate as it has for the past 34 years as a studentcontrolled, democratically-run space on campus for students to have a safe and alcohol-free
atmosphere for entertainment and meetings. Although the University shut the gas off at the Cafe,
without its consent, and blocked a grant that the Cafe received to upgrade cooking and refrigeration
equipment, the Collective continues to provide healthy
vegan food to its guests utilizing the limited resources it now has.
10
Friday, October 10, 2014
At the trial call for the eviction lawsuit, over 50 C.H.E. Café supporters and media packed the
courtroom. Trial is set to begin on Wednesday October 15.
The University argues that the 2006 Space Agreement between the University and the UCSD
student/worker cooperatives, including the C.H.E., should be ignored. The agreement was intended to
last through 2016, when the parties could then re-negotiate it. Instead, in late May when students were
leaving for the summer, the University, along with members of the UCSD Graduate Student
Association (“GSA”), secretly pushed through a flawed resolution "decertifying" the Collective, so the
University could bypass the agreement.
Despite receiving hundreds of emails, calls, and letters of support from UCSD students, alumni,
faculty, staff, organized labor, and community members, as well as petitions signed by over 14,000
supporters, the University refuses to negotiate with the Collective to preserve the space. In fact, the
University rebuffed several good faith attempts to negotiate the issues and a proposed resolution, and
instead continues to sink valuable public and student funds in pursuing the unfounded eviction.
It is estimated that the University has likely spent at least $70,000 in public and student funds on its
high-paid outside attorneys, including the firm Kimball, Tirey, and St. John, who was recently replaced
by the firm of Paul, Plevin, Sullivan & Connaughton LLP (“Paul, Plevin”). Paul, Plevin specializes in
the aggressive defense of employers when sued by workers over discrimination, harassment, wrongful
termination, and wage & hour claims.
The eviction is the latest in the ongoing historical attack on the Collective by the University, which not
only refused to meet with students to discuss any issues related to the Café, but actively interfered with
the C.H.E.’s ability to operate as a café, including blocking a $35,000 grant to the C.H.E. by another
student organization and cutting off the gas lines at the Café so it could no longer cook and sell food (a
large part of its revenue). Despite these attacks, the Collective repeatedly requested meetings with the
University administrators, but the University continued to ignore and/or rebuff attempts to work
together.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal issued a ruling in favor of UCSD in the eviction
lawsuit filed by the Regents of the University of California/UCSD at the behest of a select core of
administrators (“Administration”) against the C.H.E. Café Collective over the use of the iconic 34-year
old, vegan, student-controlled venue and creative space, the C.H.E. Café.
Upholding the Collective’s main legal theory, Judge Bacal rejected the Administration's claim that the
dispute resolution provisions of the lease did not apply to the termination at issue in this case.
However, she also found there was insufficient evidence that a formal request for dispute resolution
had been made by the Collective, thus permitting the Administration to terminate the lease at will. Yet,
the Administration had acknowledged a request for dispute resolution had been made but had argued it
was mooted by a previous lawsuit filed by the Collective that was later dismissed. In addition, the
Collective was reassured in various conversations that it was protected by a ‘holdover status’ provision
in the lease and that it did not need to worry about an eviction. Completely disregarding these earlier
reassurances, the University filed its eviction lawsuit and argued in court that dispute resolution was
never formally requested by the Collective. Ignoring the true facts and history of negotiations, the
Administration was able to convince the Judge that the formal requirements for invoking dispute
11
resolution had not been followed by the Collective, and the Court ultimately held that thus the
Administration had a right to terminate the lease with the Collective.
"I am glad the judge sided with our position that the dispute resolution provision portion of the lease
applied to this termination," stated Bryan Pease, attorney for the Collective. "I am just a bit perplexed
that the basis for ruling in favor of the University was lack of evidence that dispute resolution had been
requested, when there was evidence before the Court that it had been, and when both parties addressed
it in closing arguments. The University misled its own students throughout the last several years by
consistently asserting that dispute resolution did not apply, and that the Collective did not need to
formally request dispute resolution as part of the lease terms. Unfortunately, apparently applying the
same tactics, the University was able to convince the Court that it had the right to evict the Collective
at will.”
The Collective and its supporters are disappointed by the ruling which upholds the Administration’s
unfounded attack on the San Diego artistic landmark, but vow to continue to maintain its existence and
legacy. Preparation for a possible appeal of the ruling and other legal action will continue. Organizing
protest activity and lobbying will also continue. The C.H.E. Cafe and supporters believe the student
government councils and boards will do the right thing, once the true facts and history are laid bare.
Likewise we believe that the Academic Senate and the State Legislature will be strongly opposed to
the UCSD administration's abuse of power, once they are fully familiar with the facts.
The Collective and its current supporters renew their request that the Administration return to the
negotiating table toward a mutually-beneficial resolution to this dispute. The Collective invites any and
all supporters to join it in DEMANDING that the Administration cease its attack and roll back the
eviction process. We note that this is not the first time that the UCSD Co-ops have been threatened
with completely unjustified evictions. On more than one occasion students have been compelled to
physically occupy and sit-in at the Co-ops to block eviction attempts by the University.
Monday, October 27, 2014
UCSD Chancellor Khosla met with a delegation of concerned faculty to discuss the administration's
eviction actions against the C.H.E. Cafe.
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
A protest rally and march is held from the C.H.E. Café to the UCSD Chancellor’s office to personally
deliver 14,000-signature petitions and open letters* demanding that UCSD stop the eviction actions
against the C.H.E. Cafe, restore basic building maintenance funding, and that he order his
administration to return to the negotiation table. Students and alumni are seeing the UCSD
administration's attack upon the C.H.E. Cafe as the opening salvo in a new war against all of the
student-run campus cooperatives. The four campus co-ops share the same Master Space Agreement
lease terms with UCSD. All four co-ops have been unable to get the administration to negotiate terms
for an extension of the lease, since 2008. In the courtroom, lawyers for UCSD painted the picture that
the lease negotiation problems were just about the C.H.E. Café, when in reality they followed years of
refusal by the administration to meet with students and supporters regarding the lease at issue.
Students and alumni are alarmed that the UCSD administration took the eviction action into court
without the consent of the student body. The C.H.E. Cafe building is one of the complex of facilities
on the campus which are funded by self-assessed student body fees, not UC Regents' funds. Because of
this distinct status as student-fee funded facilities, it is the policy of the UC Regents and of the UCSD
administration that a student-controlled board has jurisdiction over space allocations to student
12
organizations housed in the Student Center, the Price Center and the C.H.E. Cafe building. That board
is the University Centers Advisory Board (UCAB), comprised of student representatives and nonvoting representatives from the faculty and campus staff. The UCSD administration completely
bypassed UCAB's jurisdiction by filing the eviction lawsuit against the C.H.E. Cafe. The alleged “decertification” action by the Graduate Student Association (“GSA”) that the Administration also relies
on was equally flawed and is being challenged by the Collective in court.
Built in 1942, the C.H.E. Cafe building is one of the last of the original Camp Matthews, World War II
era buildings still in use on the campus and also became the first student center on the new UCSD
campus in 1966. UCSD administrators have claimed the building is "too old" to be worth maintaining
and have stated in writing that they "may" save the murals on the building, if it is not "too expensive".
The muralists include a number of highly-respected local artists. Supporters want the building to have
protected historic site designation.
Members of the University, San Diego, and art/music communities are also outraged that the entire
public relations campaign the UCSD administration has waged against the C.H.E. Cafe has been based
upon demonstrably false premises. There is no urgent fire safety issue. There is no repair or upgrade to
the building which requires completion this year. There is no funding crisis because the Cafe generates
most of its own essential operational revenues. One alumni, Monty Kroopkin, observed that "The
UCSD administration has chosen the aggressive abandonment of reason and the sort of anticollaborative, non-negotiation tactics we sometimes see when corporations engage in illegal unionbusting campaigns." Kroopkin is a former co-chair of the UCSD student government and a union shop
steward.
The C.H.E. Cafe, for over 34 years, has been one of the only (some say the only) Safe Space for
campus events. Rather than recognizing the invaluable contribution the Cafe's Safe Space Policy has
made to the lives of women, LGBTQ and other minority students, faculty, staff and community
members - especially high school students -- the UCSD administration is arrogantly threatening to
destroy it.
"We Shall Not Be Moved!" is echoed in the views of hundreds of supporters of the C.H.E. Cafe. To
voluntarily vacate the building and to comply with an immoral and totally unjustified eviction order is
regarded by many as the wrong thing to do. A number of legal rights trainings have been conducted for
prospective demonstrators and more trainings may be scheduled.
October 29, 2014
The ASUCSD Council adopts a resolution to form an ad hoc committee to investigate the status of the
C.H.E. Cafe Collective and the C.H.E. Facility, and calls upon the University to refrain from
immediate action regarding the C.H.E. Cafe Collective and C.H.E. Facility until this Ad Hoc
Committee has issued its final report.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
When the new Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, Juan Gonzalez, addressed the UCSD Associated
Students Council (AS) on November 5, he told them that the eviction would go forward because the
administration had no choice because the court has a concern about the "safety" of the building. The
issue of "safety" was not raised in the eviction trial and was not the basis for the court ruling. The
administration has not cited any specific legal code to support its public claims of a "safety" problem at
13
the C.H.E. building. The Fire Marshall did the annual C.H.E. Cafe building inspection on April 17,
2014 and wrote up his findings that the building is safe.
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Clare M. Kristofco, UCSD Associate Chancellor told concerned alumni that Chancellor Khosla would
not meet with them to discuss the situation. A newly formed alumni group, UCSD Co-ops and
Collectives Alumni, seeks the meeting. The alumni group represents the thousands of former students
who either worked at one of the UCSD student cooperatives or used their services. Kristofco told the
group's representative that Khosla was not interested in talking with alumni. Kristofco was told to tell
Chancellor Khosla that "not meeting with alumni is not acceptable."
An open letter from alumni to the UCSD administration and to the UCSD Regents has called for a
public meeting on the campus to discuss the issues. The letter also raises the threat of an organized
alumni boycott of donations to the University if the C.H.E. Cafe is destroyed by Khosla's
administration.
Alumni and other supporters of the C.H.E. Cafe are now calling on the public to make phone calls to
Governor Brown's office, state assembly and state senate representatives, and state Assembly Speaker
Toni Atkins office. Callers are asked to have the governor and representatives immediately call
Chancellor Khosla and UC statewide President Napolitano to press them to:
-- stop the eviction
-- respect the ASUCSD resolution calling on the administration to NOT go ahead with eviction.
ASUCSD represents 20,000 UCSD students and the building is funded by self-assessed student fees.
-- stop the false statements about the "safety" situation, to the press and public, and admit the Fire
Marshall's annual inspection found the building safe;
-- stop threatening students with the use of armed UC police officers and forcible removal from the
student fee-funded C.H.E. Cafe building
-- return to the bargaining table and sign new lease agreements with the C.H.E. and the 3 other studentrun campus cooperatives
November 12, 2014
Vice Chancellor Juan Gonzalez issues a press release about the C.H.E. Cafe and the co-ops. He claims
UCSD supports the co-ops and has no plans to do away with them. He repeats the claim that the
C.H.E. Cafe must be shut down pending "safety" upgrades. He offers no citation of any legal statute or
regulation to support his claim. The building has never been "red tagged" (as uninhabitable) and the
Co-op's insurance policy remains in full effect.
November 12, 2014
ASUCSD Council amends its 10/29/14 resolution, calling, in part, for the UCSD administration to
issue a written guarantee that the eviction will not go forward pending the production of the ASUCSD
committee's investigative report, provided that the C.H.E. collective stop all programming and
meetings during this time, and, in part, calling on the C.H.E. collective to stop all programming and
meetings during this time. (As of 1/4/15, the administration has not issued any such public written
guarantee.)
14
November 14, 2014
UCSD Founder's Day gathering of the current and past Chancellors is protested by supporters of the
C.H.E. Cafe.
November 19, 2014
C.H.E. Cafe Collective responds to 11/12/14 ASUCSD Council resolution. The collective explains that
it cannot agree with the need for the immediate shut down of vital functions of the Cafe; that the
building has never been "red tagged" as unsafe for human occupancy; that our insurance policy has
never been cancelled. The collective asks ASUCSD to endorse our August 2014 Settlement Proposal
and assist to get the UCSD administration to adopt it also.
November 20, 2014
UCSD Public Records officials told the C.H.E. Cafe Collective that there is no Fire Marshal Report
from the April 17, 2014 inspection of the C.H.E. facility that was performed by the Fire Marshal under
the supervision of University Center Assistant Facility Director, John Payne. C.H.E. Cafe members
were at the UCSD public records office earlier this week to pay for the copies of a large release of
UCSD records regarding the Cafe. They say the official told them almost all of the records were ready
to hand over, with the exception of the 2014 Fire Marshall's report, which she was still "working on".
The C.H.E. members say the official had the Fire Marshall's report up on her computer screen, and that
they should have taken a picture of the screen when they saw it!
In Payne’s email to the C.H.E. after the inspection he stated: “I wanted to Thank you for all your
efforts in keeping the C.H.E. Cafe facility safe. The Fire Marshal was extremely pleased at all the
efforts that have been made and has signed off on the inspection. Other than 1 minor item in the
Darkstar [non-C.H.E.] space the facility is looking good in terms of safety. He will return annually to
inspect the facility based on my conversation with him this morning. Once again thank you for all your
efforts in keeping a safe facility."
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Attorneys for UCSD decided to seek a writ of possession to enforce the earlier unlawful detainer
judgment and evict the C.H.E. Cafe Cooperative and any students from the cafe space it has
continuously occupied for over 34 years. Despite a resolution by the UCSD Associated Students
Council (AS) asking the Chancellor to not proceed with posting a 5-day notice to vacate, and 14,000signature petitions and open letters demanding that UCSD stop the eviction actions against the C.H.E.
Cafe, delivered to the Chancellor earlier this month, action by the administration to evict the C.H.E.
Cafe continues rather than negotiations for a new lease agreement with the Co-op. The Clerk of the
Court rejects UCSD's application for the writ due to incorrect address information on the application.
November 21, 2014
Students occupy Peterson Hall. The sit-in demands No Tuition Hikes and Hands Off the C.H.E. Cafe.
December 3, 2014
Vice Chancellor Juan Gonzalez sends an email to the C.H.E. Cafe Collective. He presents the fire
sprinklers question as though it is a legal requirement, rather than the "recommendation" made by the
Campus Fire Marshal in 2012. He flatly claims, without providing any substantiation, that "Continued
programming of activities at the Che Facility poses a life safety concern." He writes "...you are
15
requested to cease immediately programming events and meetings at the Che Facility." He concludes
with familiar bullying language "I urge you to not take this appeal lightly..."
December 5, 2014
Vice Chancellor Juan Gonzalez sends a proposed agreement to the C.H.E. Cafe Collective. It states the
administration will refrain from serving the writ of possession pending the ASUCSD report, but adds a
deadline of early January 2014, provided that the C.H.E. Cafe Collective cease all programming and
meetings in the building. It goes on to state that this agreement would not waive UCSD's right to
proceed with the eviction. The proposed agreement does not commit the administration to relenting on
the eviction process if the ASUCSD's Final Report requests it.
December 5, 2014
C.H.E. Cafe Collective attorney Bryan Pease filed an appeal of the unlawful detainer (eviction) lawsuit
ruling of October 21, 2014. The appeal is based upon the court's finding that the collective had not
requested dispute resolution, per the terms of the lease agreement, and that therefore the UCSD
administration was not obligated to go through the dispute resolution process specified in the lease.
The appeal points to the documents which were actually part of the trial record and which show that
the collective had in fact requested dispute resolution per the lease terms.
December 11, 2014
C.H.E. Cafe Support Network attends the Holiday Event sponsored by state legislators Shirley Weber,
Toni Atkins, and Lorena Gonzalez, to lobby them to take action to support the C.H.E. Cafe and stop
the eviction.
Dec. 15, 2014.
Members of the performing arts community have called a boycott of all artistic engagements on the
U.C.S.D. campus. While the student cooperative and non-profit organization, the C.H.E. Café
Collective, is waiting on a legal resolution to their lease and repair issues with the University of
California San Diego, local, national, and international artists and performers continue to rally to show
support to allow the C.H.E. Café to continue to operate in the same building and space it has for the
past 35 years.
To demonstrate just how far and wide-reaching the support/impact the C.H.E. Café is in the
performing arts community, a letter is circulating asking for a concerted effort to boycott all artistic
endeavors in any way associated with U.C.S.D. and demand that the U.C.S.D. administration:
1. Stop all attacks on the C.H.E. Café and reverse its eviction efforts.
2. Refrain from enforcing a lockout of the C.H.E. Café and refrain from using any form of violence,
force, law enforcement, or other drastic and coercive tactics against members of the C.H.E. Café
Collective and its supporters.
3. Work alongside representatives of the student body to recognize the C.H.E. Café for the historical
landmark and unique creative venue that it is.
4. Restore funding to the C.H.E. Café and allow students and supporters to fulfill a dynamic and
creative vision for the use of the space.
These artists, labels, bands, and musicians have committed to the boycott:
16
Bob ‘Barley’ Beyerle -Vinyl Communications Records/ Titwrench/ Neighborhood Watch, Rob Crow Pinback, Collin Corrigan - Rockfish, Jello Biafra - Alternative Tentacles Records/ Guantanamo School
Of Medicine/ Dead Kennedys/ LARD, Spinach Williams - The Last Barfighter, Mar Moreno –
Diatribe/ Outlaw Bastards, Justin Pearson – The Locust/ All Leather/ Retox/ Head Wound City, John
‘Swami’ Reis – Night Marchers/ Drive Like Jehu/ Rocket From The Crypt/ Pitchfork, Jason Soares –
Physics, Mauro Coddelupi – Raw Power (Italy), Mark Wilson – The Mob (UK), Brandon Cruz – Dr.
Know/ The Courtship Of Eddie’s Father/ The Bad News Bears, Zack De La Rocha – Rage Against The
Machine, Armistice (Los Angeles), Dan Faughdner – Sledding With Tigers/ Grim Luck, Anachronism,
Days Of Light And Gravity, Glow And The Dark, Filthy Flamingos, Atticus And The Boo Radleys,
Ghetto Blaster, Death Eyes, Ben Ziff – Di Nigunim/ Thieves Lineage, Man Vs. Man, Trash Axis,
Cryptic Languages, Age Of Collapse, Jose Palafox – Struggle/ Swing Kids/ Bread & Circuits/ Yaphet
Kotto/ Baader Brains, Gregg Paiva – XHostageX/ YourEnemy, Eskera, Per Thunnel – Sex Dwarf/
Raped Teenagers (Sweden). The letter is online at
https://m.facebook.com/profile.php?id=381173525380791
Members of the arts community wishing to publicly state their support of the UCSD boycott are asked
to contact Mar Moreno.
December 16, 2014
C.H.E. Cafe Collective responds to 12/5/14 VC Gonzalez' proposed agreement. The collective explains
that it cannot agree with the need for the immediate shut down of vital functions of the Cafe; that the
building has never been "red tagged" as unsafe for human occupancy; that our insurance policy has
never been cancelled. The collective asks Gonzalez to consider our August 2014 Settlement Proposal
and to assist to get the UCSD Chancellor to agree to implement it. The collective asks "as a show of
good faith" that Gonzalez make a public retraction of the "safety" statements he made in his 11/12/14
press release.
December 19, 2014
Gonzalez replies to C.H.E.'s 12/16/14 response. He declines to meet to negotiate. He defers to the
ASUCSD and GSAUCSD deliberations. He claims the collective is taking the 4/17/14 administration
email (about the Fire Marshal inspection concluding the building is safe) "out of context". He claims
that the state Fire Code is only a "minimum standard" and that UCSD administration "believes" [all]
student facilities "should" have automatic fire sprinklers -- implying that the UCSD administration can
make up its own (higher than legal code) standards.
[Source for most of the above is the complaint for breach of contract and other causes, filed by
attorney Andrea Carter on behalf of the C.H.E. Cafe Collective. ]
(3) A brief review of the history of conflicts between the co-ops and the UCSD
administration;
• 1974 -- Student Center opens. Groundwork one of first tenants, early in 1975.
1980 -- UCSD Police officer caught burglarizing Groundwork Books using a University key. This is
the fifth series of unforced entries traced to University keys. Groundwork removes University locks
and installs its own.
17
• 1981 -- Roland Buck (Student Center Director) writes Ray Dye (Assoc. VC Undergrad Affairs)
requesting that the roles of the Student Center Director and the Student Center Board be reversed,
making the Board advisory to the Director. He cites the transitory nature of the student board and the
frustration inherent to the Director's position as having to implement the decisions of the Student
board.
• 1984 -- Aug. 7 Shortly after entering into negotiations with the Campus Bookstore to add it to the
University Center, Tom Tucker (then Student Center Director) tells Groundwork to stop selling
textbooks or he will shut it down. Threatens audit. The audit is completed 2 years later, and makes
only suggestions to improve co-op accounting procedures. Tucker threatens to close Groundwork
unless the suggestions are implemented (see letter from Tucker of June 27,1986).
• 1985 -- Nov. General Store Co-op promised various benefits if they turn over their resources to the
University and become an auxiliary enterprise (a staff position, investment money, computer, lifting of
the prohibition of sales to univ. depts, space in the University Center). Also they are told that
University Policy would not allow them to have a full time staff position, which is necessary to their
operation, unless they became an auxiliary enterprise (untrue, they later got the staff position without
becoming an enterprise).
• 1987 -- Jim Carruthers fails to renew co op leases which expire in June. Security guard informs
Groundwork that it has no lease & they must sign a form if they are in bookstore after Student Center
doses at 5pm (Groundwork is open til 8pm.). This leads Groundworkers to conclude that Carruthers is
implementing his belief that the co-ops are 'owned' by the University.
• 1987 -- Sept. Jim Carruthers decides not to renew co-op leases: "Co-ops don't need leases, they're
owned by the University" (they're not), University Centers Board (UCB, aka, the renamed Student
Center Board) mandates him to offer the co-ops "space agreements."
• 1987 -- Fall General Store Co-op tries to fill its staff position with a co-op member. Carruthers
objects saying she is not qualified. Gen Store insists that 3 years co-op experience qualifies her rather
than an MBA in Human Resource Management. Carruthers finally accepts their choice, but insists she
must be directed by and responsible to him rather than to the co-op.
• 1987 -- Oct 8 Carruthers states "students are incapable of making business decisions" after UCB
meeting to Food Coop (David Zipin) & Groundwork (SR Jones & Kathleen Kennedy).
• 1987 -- Nov. Lynn Peterson (director Student Affairs & Univ Events), Jim Carruthers and Tom
Tucker meet and decide to hold up Groundwork's student organization registration on the basis of the
existence of the Groundwork Resource Center, a non-profit corporation which functions as a support
group for the Collective -- despite the fact that the GRC and relationship has existed with knowledge
of the University for at least 5 years. Tucker directs Peterson to write a letter to UCB Chair Evan
Weisenfield who will ask Jim Carruthers to "investigate" the GRC and its relationship to Groundwork
Collective.(no carbon copies to Tucker)
• 1988 -- March Groundwork's Student Org status is still on hold while the Business Office and the
office of Student Affairs "investigate" the Groundwork Resource Center. In an effort to help GW end
this problem, David Antin (Vis Arts) has a meeting with Watson to discuss the Groundwork Resource
Center Problem. Watson says he'll pay GW a visit sometime soon (he never did).
• 1988 -- May 14 Carruthers closes C.H.E. Cafe because of the lack of maintenance by University
Center Staff, violating an oral agreement with C.H.E. members to allow the work to be completed. In
subsequent efforts to deal with the securing of the facility, C.H.E. workers must complete most of the
work supposedly the responsibility of his department.
• 1988 -- UCB decides to develop new co-op leases by forming a space allocation committee. By the
end of the year. the committee is disbanded and Carruthers creates his own lease. This new lease is a
11 page document (the previous leases were 2 pages) and worded in such a way that the co-ops feel the
need to seek legal advice.
• 1988 -- Spring Food Co-op purchase of a fruit cart (for use in Revelle plaza, etc) results in Carruthers
18
insisting that capital purchases must be approved by the Director (untrue). He contacts Business
Affairs and the Food Co-op is informed that they cannot take the fruit cart anywhere on campus until
Business Affairs has finished "studying" the problem of Fruit Carts.
• 1988 -- July 21 Tom Tucker shuts down the C.H.E. Cafe's programming and orders the trailer shared
by the C.H.E. and the Recycling Co-op dismantled. Written requests from the C.H.E. for an
explanation are ignored. The new tradition (since Tucker) of ignoring the UCB is continued.
• 1989 -- Feb. Carruthers, embarrassed by his inability to let a vendor into "his" Food Co-op, has
maintenance remove the dead bolt from Food Co-op doors. For 2 nights, they have no secure lock on
their door. He says he had it removed because the Policy & Procedure Manual forbids a dead bolt
(untrue).
• 1989 -- June 30 Co-op leases expire. Co-ops unable to reach agreement with Carruthers over new
leases.
• 1989 -- July 14 Carruthers arbitrarily (without stating reason) cancels a C.H.E. event. Harasses
patrons. Tucker, Carruthers and Lynn Peterson all claim that event is closed on orders of Joe Watson,
who was unreachable as he was absent on vacation. This is just one of a multitude of arbitrary
decisions which could be described & documented.
• 1989 --July 21 Lynne Peterson claims she can give material accounts of the reasoning behind the
closure of the C.H.E. event. At a meeting with the Collective, she fails to present any material
evidence.
• 1989 -- July 22 Under orders from Carruthers, C.H.E.workers and collective members told to leave
the facility by Rob the Night Manager.
• 1989 -- July 25 Lynn Peterson bans the C.H.E. from programming at any campus facility.
• 1989 -- July 28 Carruthers attempts to limit food production at the C.H.E. to hours of 6am to noon
and reiterates that the C.H.E. facility cannot be used for C.H.E. events. Provides no substantiating
evidence for the decision.
• 1989 -- Dee 5 Carruthers sends the co-ops a letter stating that if they fail to sign the administration's
lease by Dec. 11, the Administration will "assume ... you have chosen not to utilize the space ... " and
will reallocate the space (thus usurping the University Center Board's function). This is one of many
threats received from Tucker, Carruthers, and Watson.
• 1990 -- Feb 3 University Center Board sends a committee to negotiate with the co-ops after the year
long impasse. Negotiations result in an acceptable lease in 2 hours. This lease is formally approved by
the Board 2/12/90.
• 1990 -- Feb 14 Groundwork & General Store notified that UCSD Business Office forbids University
Departments from making purchases from the Co-ops. This ruling includes books for the library as
well as instructor desk copies. As of April, the Business Office refuses to change its policy, stating that
it is waiting for Undergraduate Affairs to resolve the problem with the co-ops. (force co-ops to become
auxiliary/university owned organizations?)
• 1990 -- Feb 23 University Center Director Carruthers sends co-ops a different lease than the one
approved by the UCB, demands that the co-ops sign it by March 9 or face eviction.
• 1990 -- Feb 26 University Center Board passes resolution stating that it recognizes only the UCB
lease as an option, that eviction of the co-ops is against its policy, and that it will not reallocate the
spaces held by the co-ops to another group.
• 1990 -- Feb 27 Joe Watson (Vice Chancellor: Undergraduate Affairs) writes to the co-ops stating that
the UCB lease is "not an option." In subsequent discussions with co-op members, he says that the 2000
signatures and numerous faculty letters are inconsequential.
• 1990 -- March 6 Co-ops sign and return for signature the UCB approved contract, requesting a
response on or before March 9. As of 4/11/90, no response.
• 1990 -- March 23 C.H.E. members find Physical Plant employee alone in the C.H.E. after hours.
Employee claims to be checking out electrical equipment.
19
• 1990 -- March 30 Co-ops informed that the lease offered by the administration is withdrawn as a
result of coop "disagreement and contention" and that instead the administration would initiate an
investigation of the co-ops and their accountability to "students" (codeword for administration, in this
case).
[Source: A Student Democracy Movement Close to Home Needs Your Help, by The Student
Cooperative Union's Student Rights Campaign . More complete information on several of these
episodes is available in that text.]
November 19, 1991: UCSD administration sends letter threatening Groundwork books with
“permanent elimination” if it does not agree to sign over all assets to the university within 30 days.
Other co-ops are given the same threat but given 90 days time.
•
• December
19, 1991: Co-op members remove all textbooks that had been stocked for over 100 winter
1992 classes off campus, occupy Groundwork Books store, and chain closed the building. UCSD
administration cuts off electricity.
December 20, 1991: UCSD administration agrees to 30-day extension for Groundwork in exchange
for Groundwork returning merchandise to campus, after faculty members respond to local television
news segment about the threatened closure.
•
December 1991- July 1992 -- the Co-ops filed formal non-academic grievances against the UCSD
Administration on December 24, 1991, February 3,1992, and July 2, 1992.
•
January 15, 1992, at about 1:30 am: UCSD Assistant Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Tom
Tucker, accompanied by campus police, use emergency key to enter the General Store and try to seize
accounting records (which, however, were being stored off campus since co-op members didn’t trust
the university after the December 19-20th incident at Groundwork. Tucker sets off the store’s alarm
while doing so and calls the alarm company, unsuccessfully impersonated a store employee. Locks are
changed so that store members are locked out of the store.
•
January 15, 1992, at around 3 am: General store co-op members and supporters from other co-ops
break a window and reenter the General Store. A window repair and locksmith are hired, the window
is repaired and the store is opened for business.
•
January 15, 1992, at around 10:30 am: UCSD Assistant Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Tom
Tucker, accompanied by campus police, re-enter the store and shut it down.
•
January 15, 1992, 12 noon-1 pm: More than 500 students gather for an emergency demonstration.
The General Store Co-op lead manager, who has the keys to the store, reopens the door: students
occupy the store and the police and Tucker exit out the back door.
•
January 15, 1992, afternoon -- General Store Co-op files lawsuit against UCSD/Regents for damages,
declaratory relief and injunctive relief.
•
January 16, 1992: Court orders a temporary restraining order (TRO) against UCSD administration.
This is the first time in the history of UCSD that a student organization has won a TRO against the
administration.
•
20
December 15, 1992 -- the UCSD Administration filed Student Conduct Code charges against the Coops and individual Co-op members.
•
May 3, 1993 -- C.H.E. Cafe and the other campus co-operatives enter into a Memorandum of
Understanding between themselves and the University administration. Co-ops' 3 grievances against
UCSD administrators withdrawn and UCSD Student Conduct Code charges against co-ops members
withdrawn as part of the agreement.
•
November 24, 1994 -- Co-ops, AS/GSA, and UCSD administration agree on revision of the 1993
MOU.
•
2000 -- Citing a 'fight between patrons' UCSD administration, in the middle of the night, changes the
locks on the C.H.E.. The C.H.E. collective responds by staging a 'lock-in': entering the space and
refusing to leave. The administration eventually caves and allows the locks to be changed back.
•
October, 2000 -- Co-ops together file a formal non-academic grievance against UCSD
administrators, for violation of University policies and violation of the Co-ops MOU. Most (not all) of
the charges concern administration actions toward the C.H.E. Cafe.
•
2002 -- In association with the Groundwork Bookstore Co-operative, the C.H.E. collective agrees to
help finance the BURN! collective website - a directory page for radical resources. UCSD
administration claims that C.H.E. is allocating funding for a terrorist organization and files charges
against members of the collective. The charges are quickly dropped after the administration realizes it
has no substantial basis for the charges.
•
2010-14 -- Between 2010 and 2014, the UCSD administration attempted to close the C.H.E. on a
number of occasions, even going so far as removing the gas line to the kitchen without the collective's
consent. Most recently, the administration has issued a report necessitating more repairs using an
astronomically inflated estimate, while refusing to allocate funding for them, and instead threatening to
shut the C.H.E. Cafe down.
•
21