Wells Fargo faces fraud, predatory lending charges, other controversies

The University of California (UC) will retract a $300 million line of credit and a $150 million interest reset contract with Wells Fargo by April of this year. $200 million has already been retracted, and the remaining $100 million will be divested after a replacement bank is found. This follows the termination of the $25 million commercial paper contract with Wells Fargo by the UC in November of 2016.

In September of 2016, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) fined Wells Fargo $100 million for secretly opening unauthorized banking accounts for existing customers. Federal investigators discovered that Wells Fargo employees had created two million fraudulent bank and credit accounts under the names of existing customers since 2011, prompting the California state treasury to suspend its Wells Fargo investment. The national bank was fined $185 million for these violations.

Wells Fargo is currently part of a banking conglomerate that provides a $900 million line of revolving credit to The GEO Group, the private prison and immigration detention company, and a $135 million line of credit to the private prison group CoreCivic. In August of 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed its intention to withdraw from privately-operated prison contracts.

Last year, the Afrikan Black Coalition (ABC) successfully pushed the UC to divest $30 million from private prison companies.

Wells Fargo has also faced accusations, lawsuits and settlements regarding racially discriminatory and predatory lending to African Americans and Latinos — it settled with the Justice Department for $184.3 million in 2012.

Recently, Wells Fargo received negative press for helping fund the North Dakota Access Pipeline. Wells Fargo is one of several large banks providing loans and support for the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Francisco Ferreyra, a third-year community and regional development major at UC Davis and the environmental sustainability officer of the UC Student Association, said that Davis residents and several student groups asked the Davis City Council to also take action against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

“We came to the city council and we asked them to stand in solidarity with Standing Rock and oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline,” Ferreyra said. “These oppressive forces of the fossil fuel industry, the finance industry, they don’t care about you or I. They care about two things: their profits and their reputations. The strategy for us on the ground is to hit them where it hurts, in those two spots. Divestment is a historically successful tactic.”

On Feb. 7, the City of Davis also ended its contract with Wells Fargo. It will be moving $124 million in banking services to another institution by the end of this year. Davis marks the second city embarking on this process, after Seattle finalized its divestment of $3 billion from  Wells Fargo on the same day.

“Over the years, a couple of councils ago before I was on, there has been a desire to move more of our banking services to local or regional banks as opposed to large national banks that may or may not have real tight links to our community,” Mayor Robb Davis said.

Davis believes that these unethical practices do not constitute socially responsible banking — they are another factor in the council’s decision to divest.

Claire Doan, a member of UC media relations, explained the university’s rationale for severing ties with Wells Fargo.

“UC believes unwinding some of our credit relationships and suspending our investment banking relationships in tandem with the state treasurer were appropriate actions taken in light of the unauthorized bank and credit card accounts opened by Wells Fargo,” Doan wrote via email. “However, we value our long-standing relationship with the bank, and moving forward we want to continue to engage with new leadership as they reform their business practices.”

Connor Gorman, a UC student workers’ union organizer within the local Davis chapter, said that the ABC was “the school’s driving force” in a push to divest from Wells Fargo.  

The ABC announced the divestment on its website and celebrated the victory.

“By taking a stand against the amoral practices of an enormous corporation like Wells Fargo, the Afrikan Black Coalition is pushing the UC to exhibit the kind of leadership necessary for the survival of communities unfairly targeted by a criminal financial system,” a post on the ABC website read. “We dedicate this small victory to the hundreds and thousands of our people who are trapped in America’s gulags. Through the organized struggle of our masses, we believe our liberation is inevitable.”

Ruben Pulido, the vice president and communications manager of corporate communications for Wells Fargo, wrote over email that the bank will continue to support the UC despite the divestment. Pulido said that Wells Fargo does not deny lines of credit with private prisons.

“Since the 1970’s, Wells Fargo has proudly supported the University of California’s mission to be a world-class public research university system,” Pulido said. “And we stand ready to provide that vital support in the future. While we respect the seriousness of our country’s ongoing debate about the criminal justice system, we do not as a corporation take positions on public policy issues that do not directly affect our company’s ability to serve customers and support our team members. Due to chronic prison overcrowding, federal and state governments have for the past 30 years been contracting out detention services. People who want to change that should address their concerns with the appropriate government officials.”

Pulido added that the bank wields no influence in private prison policies and conduct.

“Wells Fargo is a bank,” Pulido said. “We do not set U.S. detention system policy; we have nothing to do with the setting or enforcement of laws; we don’t tell judges where to place people accused of or found guilty of violating the law; and we don’t tell the federal and state governments which companies should be awarded contracts. Wells Fargo holds no shares of either The GEO Group or CoreCivic. We have no seat on either company’s board of directors, and we do not dictate their policies or business models.”

Written by: Aaron Liss and Raul Castellanos  — campus@theaggie.org

Faculty, students recount personal tales of immigration; highlight value of diversity

UC Davis students, faculty and members of the Davis community gathered on the Quad on Feb. 9 to display their solidarity with those directly affected by President Donald Trump’s immigration ban.

In light of the recent executive order, universities across the country have organized similar rallies with the uniting objective of “Academics United — No Visa and Immigration Ban.” Nazanin Akrami and Ellie White — both graduate students at UC Davis in cooperation with SEDAD, the Iranian graduate student association — were the organizers of this peaceful rally.

The event was approximately an hour long, d

uring which participants were prepared with rain ponchos, umbrellas and signs that displayed slogans such as “Love not hate makes the nation great” and “No ban, No wall, No Trump, No fear.” It received publicity on multiple news platforms, including Fox 40 and CBS Sacramento.

Akrami said that her goal for the event was “to start a conversation about diversity in order to feel more connected and help people going through these issues.”

The rally showcased many speakers ranging from graduate students, to faculty members, to Mayor Robb Davis, whose speech was titled “My Home Towns Are Home to the World.”

In his speech the mayor stressed the importance of “proclaiming ourselves a sanctuary city” and  “welcoming people from all over the world.”

“They have an order that capriciously excludes people from seven nations at the stroke of a pen, including the victims of wars that have grown in the soil where our nation soiled the seeds of societal destruction in the name of freedom,” Davis said. “This affects all of us because it fundamentally puts into question what feels real and natural and beautiful to us. It offends our cultural values.”

Dr. Banafsheh Sadeghi, an assistant professor at the UC Davis School of Medicine, delivered an emotionally-charged speech about her personal experience with the executive order.

Sadeghi discussed the fear of entering the unknown as a result of immigration, in addition to the psychological and emotional tolls of making sacrifices for “following a path that leads to a better world.”

Furthermore, she expressed the grief she felt when she was forced to choose between staying with her children in America or visiting her mother in her home country of Iran the week the executive order was put into effect. She went on to discuss how crucial it is to maintain “love and compassion” in such politically turbulent and tense times.

Additionally, Koen Van Rompay, a recipient of the Chancellor’s Achievement Award for Diversity and Community, and Wesley Young, director of services for international students and scholars, both delivered talks on the priceless value of international ties.

Akrami and graduate students Hossein Karimi and Abdolhossein Edalati also shared stories of both triumph and struggle as a result of immigration and the consequences of the ban.

White read a statement on behalf of physics professor, Mohammad H. Hamidian, who was unable to be present at the rally.

In his statement Hamidian recounted the story of his immigration to Canada as a war refugee during his childhood and later to the U.S. as a student. His statement expressed his concerns for the “fading opportunities of future immigrant professors, artists, musicians, engineers and teachers” and how they may not have the chance to “be safe and reach their potential in a society with so many opportunities.”

On a lighter note, he concluded with having “immense hope in the outpouring support and generosity of the people in this country.”

UC Davis Yassi Mostafavi, a second-year political science and English double major, and Ariana Abedifard, a second-year environmental policy analysis and planning major, both felt closely connected with the speeches given at the rally.

“As an Iranian, it’s heartwarming to see that people are coming out to support those affected by this terrible executive order, these are not the principles this country was founded on,” Mostafavi said.

Abedifard said Sadeghi’s speech resonated with her in the sense that “you have two homes, and it is hard to decide between the two and pick an identity, and things like [the immigration ban] make it even harder.”
Written by: Kimia Akbari — campus@theaggie.org

Veto included revision abandoning creation of oversight committee for judicial council

Last month ASUCD President Alex Lee issued a series of vetoes on legislation passed by the student Senate, including a revision veto on a constitutional amendment to create a Judicial Council and a Judicial Council Oversight Committee (JCOC).

Constitutional Amendment #50, authored by the Internal Affairs Commission (IAC) chair Nick Flores, was passed on Jan. 26 with a vote of 9-1-1. Senator Sofia Molodanof voted against the measure while Senator Shaitaj Dhaliwal abstained.

“ASUCD Constitutional Amendment #49 was placed on the Fall 2016 ASUCD ballot and passed with an 86.49% affirmative vote, effectively dissolving the ASUCD Court,” Flores wrote in the amendment. “Given the necessity for an adjudicating body in student government, this Amendment seeks to create a new, functioning Judicial Council in ASUCD. Additionally, this Amendment creates a Judicial Council Oversight Committee. This Committee, comprised of ASUCD officials from each branch of government, would maintain the power to either concur with or overrule the Judicial Council’s ruling.”

The JCOC, which would have the power to overturn decisions by the Judicial Court by a two-thirds majority, would have consisted of three voting members, the ASUCD vice president, the chair of the Judicial Council and the chair of the IAC.

Lee’s revision of the amendment removed the proposition of the JCOC, saying that the Judicial Council should have final say on any ASUCD decision.

“I am returning CA#50 with a veto and recommending deletion of JCOC because I believe an appellate jurisdiction for the appellate jurisdiction is redundant,” Lee said in a statement regarding his veto. “If it is for this new Council to make judicial decisions under the Constitution, it does not make sense for another body to overturn their decisions. Especially as 2/3 of the JCOC are members of the Executive and Legislative Branches, who both historically have been opposed to judicial rulings.”

In an email interview, Lee described the unnecessary nature of having the final word be given to the branches who originally write the legislation before sending them to a judicial board.
“Allowing members of the Legislative and Executive to overturn Judicial rulings as the last appellate power is not only redundant but defeats the very purpose of Judicial Review,” Lee said. “What is the point of having another branch to check the other two if the original two (who first saw the legislation [IAC] and later at the vote and signing [VP]) can just reinforce their original will? It makes no sense to me that there is a mechanism for which the two other branches can just reassert their will. JCOC is the highest appellate power and thus the last word. So it makes no sense for the two branches to have the first and last word if you are seeking to have judicial checks. There definitely is an imbalance of power and renders the Judicial Council a useless piece of our already over-bloated ASUCD bureaucracy. If Judicial Council is to be created, it needs to be able to stand on its own two feet and not be rendered useless from the get go.”
Molodanof, who voted against the amendment, said that the significant inclusion of members from the other ASUCD branches in the JCOC did not create adequate representation for the student body.

“Basically, I didn’t agree with the JCOC portion of the bill, which is an appeals committee,” Molodanof said via email. “I wanted more student representation from the judicial board to be a part of the appeals team or to not have one at all. I didn’t like how other branches would have a say in appealing a vote by the judicial board (especially since the judicial board’s job is to act as a check). It didn’t really make sense to me that it could just be overturned by the majority of people from another ASUCD branch (exec and legislative).”
Lee said that since the dissolution of ASUCD’s judicial branch in the fall of 2016, concerns have been expressed to the Senate and administration over the need for judicial review. Since the Senate did not convene on Feb. 16, in solidarity with A Day Without Immigrants, the amendment will not be up for a vote on the winter ballot. According to Lee, Flores has stated that he will urge the next president to call for a special election in an effort to create a new judicial branch.

Written by: Ivan Valenzuela — campus@theaggie.org