Seemingly Fraudulent and Discriminatory Grievance Hearing Procedures (SFDGHP)

943.39 Fraudulent writings. Whoever, with intent to injure or defraud, does any of the following is guilty of a Class H felony:
(1) Being a director, officer, manager, agent or employee of any corporation or limited liability company falsifies any record, account or other document belonging to that corporation or limited liability company by alteration, false entry or omission, or makes, circulates or publishes any written statement regarding the corporation or limited liability company which he or she knows is false; or
(2) By means of deceit obtains a signature to a writing which is the subject of forgery under s. 943.38 (1); or
(3) Makes a false written statement with knowledge that it is false and with intent that it shall ultimately appear to have been signed under oath.

943.38 Forgery.
(1) Whoever with intent to defraud falsely makes or alters a writing or object of any of the following kinds so that it purports to have been made by another, or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority, is guilty of a Class H felony:

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Index:

 

Chapter 1:      A suspect webpage  is presented as an official grievance policy on uwplatt.edu as though it is a current and enforceable policy.  The seemingly official policy derives its authority from a policy that does not exist.

 

Chapter 2:      The policy from which the suspect webpage derives its authority is proven to be non-existent.

 

Chapter 3:      A new seemingly fraudulent and discriminatory grievance hearing procedure (SFDGHP) was created based on a misinterpretation of the non-existent policy from which the suspect webpage derives its authority.

 

Chapter 4:      The SFDGHP was not authorized by the Faculty Senate, in violation of policy.

 

Chapter 5:      A UW System Operational Policy prohibits the grievance committee from producing procedures such as the SFDGHP.

 

 

Chapter 6:      The suspect webpage and the new SFDGHP were used to violate Dr. Burton’s due process rights.

 

Chapter 7:      The policy that seems legitimate.

 

Chapter 8:     Chancellor Shields is responsible for the SFDGHP.

 

Chapter 9:   How to win an argument about this without getting mixed up in the spaghetti

 

 

Appendix:     

Section 1:  Archives of the suspect webpage

Section 2:  Archives of existing policy conflicts with the suspect webpage

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Chapter 1:              A suspect webpage  is presented as an official grievance policy on uwplatt.edu as though it is a current and enforceable policy.  The seemingly official policy derives its authority from a policy that does not exist.

The uwplatt.edu website has a suspect webpage that bears scrutiny.  This suspect webpage does not seem to have been changed since 2003 but the Faculty Bylaws appear to have changed and invalidated this old policy that has never been removed from the website.   Or perhaps it was never actually part of official policy? 

(Employee Handbook Part 5 online) states “the UWP rule or procedure is in boldface and identified as UWP. Each UW-Platteville rule or procedure is followed by a reference to its source in the Faculty Constitution and Bylaws or Academic Staff Constitution and Bylaws as printed elsewhere in this handbook.”    Archived: (EmpHbk-Pt5-bold-is-policy)

On the suspect webpage, at the bottom of the “Grievances” section there is a note saying “See Faculty Bylaws, Part III, Aritcle XIII, Section 3.”   However, Part III, Article XIII of the Faculty Bylaws does not exist anywhere in the Employee Handbook.  

If this reference does not exist then the suspect webpage is not a valid policy.

If the suspect webpage is not valid policy: any use of the authority in the suspect webpage is fraudulent misrepresentation that evinces pretext.

Roger Burton did research looking for the reference and found the following versions of the Faculty Bylaws:

Faculty Bylaws   -  A header in this version of the Faculty Bylaws says that this policy included only the sections relevant under Wis Admin Code 2.02 that were revised or deleted.  It may not include Part II, Article XIII, section III because it is not a complete copy of the Faculty Bylaws so Roger kept looking. 

 

4/5/2017 11:23 AM -  Lisa A Merkes-Kress sent Roger an email saying “Part III in the bylaws is the amendments only, meaning there are no articles or sections. I have attached the bylaws for you, if you have any trouble opening this document let me know”  (FacBylaws-4-5-17).  Attached was (4.2 Faculty Bylaws as of January 2017.pdf)

 

How long ago was Article XIII taken out of the Faculty Bylaws?  Clearly the suspect webpage  no longer applies if it references a bylaw that has been removed.  So, why is the suspect webpage still on the uwplatt.edu website?  And why did Dr. Balachandran use it to create the new SFDGHPs?  And why did Dr. Fairchild use it to deny Dr. Burton her grievance hearings?  Why are long ago discarded policies being applied to Dr. Burton?  I think the administration wants to keep it on the website so it can use it to squash and harass anyone who files a grievance.  Most people would assume it is the actual policy if the grievance committee chair gives it to them and says it is the actual policy. 

 

 

Chapter 2:  The policy from which the suspect webpage derives its authority is proven to be non-existent.

Roger Burton scoured the internet for years trying to find the policy that is referenced by the suspect webpage but despite his best efforts he was not able to find it.  So, on 4/5/17 he asked for it.

4/5/2017 11:23 AM -  Lisa A Merkes-Kress sent Roger an email saying “Part III in the bylaws is the amendments only, meaning there are no ar5cles or sec5ons. I have a&ached the bylaws for you, if you have any trouble opening this document let me know”  (FacBylaws-4-5-17).  Attached was (4.2 Faculty Bylaws as of January 2017.pdf)

This evidence proves that the suspect webpage derives its authority from a policy that does not exist.  Of course, this means it derives no authority whatsoever.  But that didn’t stop agents of the university from using it.

 

 

Chapter 3:  A new seemingly fraudulent and discriminatory grievance hearing procedure (SFDGHP) was created based on a misinterpretation of the non-existent policy from which the suspect webpage derives its authority.

 

To avoid confusing this bogus document with a legitimate university Grievance Procedure I will refer to the new bogus document as the “Seemingly Fraudulent and Discriminatory Grievance Procedure” or “SFDGHP.”

 

(Note: The below is written in the voice of Sabina Burton.  Later it will be changed to third person.)

 

I believe the SFDGHP was hastily drafted and sent to the Faculty Senate for approval in an effort to limit my due process rights.   My right to due process has already been violated repeatedly, without explanation, justification or mercy.  I have been harassed, intimidated, lied to, lied about, falsely accused, threatened, assaulted, discriminated against and retaliated against for my legitimate complaints and grievances.  I have received unfair evaluations and have suffered unfair roadblocks to my advancement as well as other abuses too numerous to include here.  I have officially requested investigations into my complaints but the administration has ignored my requests.  I submitted a grievance against Dean Throop on November 12, 2014 and no hearing date has yet been scheduled.  The current chair of the grievance commission, and chair of the grievance hearing panel seems to have left the country for a month so I have no prospect of being afforded my requested hearing.  Meanwhile, Dean Throop continues to make false accusations and threats against me.

 

 

November 3, 2014 11:17 AM (exhibit 581) Dr. Burton was contacted by Dr. Balachandran. Attached to his email were three files (exhibits 599a, 599b, 599c).    In (exhibit 599c) he wrote: see ‘UWS 6.02 Grievances’ in the attached documents and note that ‘The Commission is authorized to establish its own procedures to investigate a grievance that it is hearing.’”  Here he misquotes UWS 6.02.  He presents the text from the suspect webpage as though it is ‘UWS 6.02.’

 

Balachandran also wrote ”I am in the process of drafting the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for the Commission and the Hearing Panel. A draft of this SOP will be presented to the Commission at its next meeting. The SOP that is approved by the Commission will be made available to you in my next formal communication with you.” 

 

Dr. Balachandran quoted from this UWP section and claimed to be quoting from UWS 6.02.    He did not quote UWS 6.02 as he claimed.   As the chair of the Grievance Commission I believe Dr. Balachandran should know what UWS 6.02 says so it seems to me that he lied about where his quote came from.  I believe he used the perception of authority of that bogus quote to completely re-write my due process rights in a premeditated cloud of implied authenticity.

 

 

He was drafting the new SFDGHPs while Dr. Burton was waiting for a grievance hearing against Dr. Dalecki that was over a month late.  Policy requires the grievance to be heard within 20 days.

 

So, we know that Balachandran drafted the Seemingly Fraudulent and Discriminatory Grievance Hearing Procedures (exhibit 601b).    Note that on Oct 8, 2013 the Faculty Senate considered a Draft Chapter 6 which contained grievance procedures. The Grievance section of this draft 6.3.16.3, on page 122, does not contain the wording in Balachandran’s misquoted UWS 6.02 page of the suspect webpage

 

Balachandran also misquoted UWS 6.02 on December 5, 2014.     [UW-P 005852] (exhibit 602a).

 

 

Also in (exhibit 599c) Balachandran wrote “Please see the attached pdf file with the filename “UW-Platteville Documents _Cmplaints &GrievancesCommission” . This file contains relevant pages from the Employee Handbook (Employee Handbook, Article III: Councils and Commissions, Section 7). In addition the UWS 6.01 and 6.02 that are referenced in b. iii are also attached for your convenience.” 

 

In his Dec 5, 2014 letter to me (exhibit 602a) Dr. Balachandran, chair of the Grievance Commission, wrote “The first task undertaken by the Complaints and Grievances Commission (C&GC) was to develop a formal procedure to hear grievances.”  By doing this instead of arranging for my grievance hearing the 20 day deadline came and went.  I am still waiting for my grievance hearing.

In Dr. Balachandran’s letter to me (exhibit 602a) he misquoted UWS 6.02 by writing “As per UWS 6.02 Grievances, ‘The Commission is authorized to establish its own procedures to investigate a grievance that it is hearing.’”  UWS 6.02 actually says “The faculty of each institution shall designate a committee or other appropriate faculty body to hear faculty grievances under rules and procedures established by the faculty of the institution in conjunction with the chancellor.”  Dr. Balachandran changed the quote, in an apparent attempt to convince me that his statement was quoted from UWS 6.02, which it was not.  Did he quote the same passage to the Faculty Senate?   I believe Dr. Balachandran misquoted that passage to convince me, and possibly the Faculty Senate, that he, and the grievance commission, had authority to make the changes he wanted to make.  UWS 6.02 puts the authority to “develop” grievance procedures in the hands of the faculty, not in the hands of the Grievance Commission.  Dr. Balachandran seems to have seriously overstepped his authority and lied to cover it up.

 

12/10/2014 9:13 PM -  I sent an email to Dr. Balachandran, cc to members of the grievance committee and others, (exhibit 602), with 3 attachments,  Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit G).    (exhibit 598-this is a must-read document).   (exhibit 598c)  (exhibit 602a) in which I called his new grievance procedures “bogus” and made some requests.  I asked for the grievance to be heard as soon as possible.  I wrote “Myrequests for investigations and grievance resolutions have been denied and delayed since Nov, 2012. The Commission and the Hearing Panel are given 20 days, per your own newly updated procedures, to do things like "take care of all the logistics for holding a hearing and recording the hearing and

giving at least a ten-day (10) notice to both parties for all hearings.”      

 

I wrote “I do not find your reasons for the extension of the deadline adequate and request that the

hearing be conducted in compliance with the procedures or that you give adequate reason

why the hearing has been extended past the 20 day deadline. I do not accept that you

extended the deadline because the commission needed more time to accomplish tasks that

can easily be accomplished within 20 days. I certainly do not accept that you extended

the deadline to give me more time. I believe your order to extend the deadline for

conducting the hearing is in violationofyourownprocedures,UWS6.02 and Wisconsin

statute111.36(3)due to the invalid reason cited for the extension order. I'm guessing

the real reason is that you needed extra time to pass your bogus grievance procedures in

an effort to deny me an open meeting.”    

 

I went on to explain some of the reasons why the new Grievance Hearing Procedures were bogus.  I have since compiled more reasons.   I pointed out that the new procedures do not confirm to Wisconsin Open Meetings law.  Balachandran later updated the procedures but did not correct it to conform with this law.     I included paragraphs of the Open Meetings Law including “"The two most basic requirements of the open meetings law are that governmental body: (1) give advance public notice of each of its meetings, and (2)conduct all of its business in open session, unless an exemption to the open session requirement applies.  Wis.stat.§ 19.83. "  None of the grievance hearings I had were advertised.  They were held in closed session.

 

I included the passage “"Every meeting of a governmental body must initially be convened in open session. All business of any kind, formal or informal, must be initiated, discussed, and acted upon in open session unless one of the exemptions in Wis. stat.§19.8S(t ) applies. Wis. stat. § 19.83."   Bala’s bogus new procedures stated that it was ok to convene in closed session.

 

I made the point that their efforts to update the Grievance Hearing Procedures right before my hearing is further evidence of retaliation.  

 

I asked some tough questions and made some requests, he never answered, or even responded to any of them. 

 

I ended the email with this “I do not want the hearing to be extended into next semester. My grievances need to be heard this tern, in December, 2014.”   My grievance hearing was continually delayed for no reason for the next ten months.  My attorney advised me to withdraw the grievance because he thought it would be better to have it heard in the court.  This was of course bad advice but the fact is that the university delayed my hearing for eleven months before I withdrew it.

Shortly after receiving Dr. Burton’s allegations of wrongdoing Dr. Balachandran appears to have become so stressed, by exposure of his actions, that he was not able to come to work (exhibit 619b).  In the complaint Throop wrote “Dr. Burton has attempted to discuss her grievances against Dr. Dalecki and her issues with me with members of the Grievance Commission, including Dan Fairchild, the initial convener of the Grievance Commission, and with Dr. Balachandran—to such an extent that he has elected to be absent from campus much more frequently than he would be otherwise.”     By asking for a fair grievance hearing Dr. Burton stressed out one of the highest paid faculty members in the university so much he couldn’t even come to work.  He very soon after retired.   Asking for a grievance hearing shouldn’t stress out the grievance committee chair, unless he is hiding something.

 

The SFDGP restricts the rights of faculty members and violates law. 

 

SFDGP forbids Representatives to represent people they represent

The SFDGP states: "The grievant may choose to be accompanied by a representative, who may support and advise the grievant. However, the representative may not provide testimony, make statements, or otherwise participate in the hearing.”  This absurd statement not only violates law concerning fair representation but it also violates the dictionary and common sense.  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “represent” as: 1.  “to act or speak officially for (someone or something)” 2.  “to have a government position in which you speak or act for (a particular group, state, etc.)”  3. “to speak or act for (someone or something) in a court of law.”   What if the grievant were unable to speak for themselves due to some injury, illness or anxiety?  What if the grievant could barely speak English?  How could this grievant be afforded a fair hearing without a representative who is allowed to “provide testimony, make statements, or otherwise participate in the hearing?” 

 

Closed Session and Adherence to Law 

The SFDGP states “The hearing panel should consult with the university’s legal counsel prior to holding a closed meeting.”  

Dr. Balachandran wrote to me on Dec 5, 2014 (exhibit 602a) “The Commission and the Hearing Panel will schedule a closed hearing.”  I asked him on 12/10/14 (exhibit 598) “Did you consult with the university’s legal counsel before telling me you would close the meeting?”   He has not yet answered this question.  Instead he seems to have skipped the country.   I take his lack of response to my question to mean that he did not consult legal counsel. It seems that Dr. Balachandran can’t even follow his own seemingly fraudulent and discriminatory grievance procedure.  Requiring the hearing panel to consult with legal counsel before executing the procedure indicates that Dr. Balachandran was aware of this legal flaw in the text of the document.

The SFDGP contains a poorly worded sentence that is problematic.  Paragraph 5 states “The hearing panel may hold a grievance hearing in closed session in conformance with the Wisconsin Open Meetings law.”  The sentence is vague and misleading.  It could easily be interpreted to mean that the hearing panel is authorized to initially convene a grievance hearing in closed session, which it is not.  All meetings that are conducted in conformance with the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law must be initially convened in open session. 

 

 

I wrote to Dr. Balachandran on 12/10/14 (exhibit 598) and asked him “Did you consult legal counsel to ensure that the updated grievance procedures comply with the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law and UWS 6.02 before your committee approved it and submitted it to the faculty senate?”   He has not yet answered this question.  I take his lack of response to mean that he did not consult legal counsel.   I believe his reason for not consulting legal counsel was that he planned to circumvent laws in order to create a situation that would continue to deny my due process rights and because he knew legal counsel would not approve his scheme. 

Grievance procedures should be drafted to give instruction that conforms to all applicable laws.  All legality issues should be addressed before the Faculty Senate approves any new procedure. 

July 1, 2015 - UW System Operational Policy states “University staff shared governance groups shall have the opportunity to participate in the development of the grievance procedures.”  (UWS-OperationalPolicy)

https://www.wisconsin.edu/ohrwd/download/policies/ops/gen14.pdf   archived at: (https://web-beta.archive.org/web/*/https://www.wisconsin.edu/ohrwd/download/policies/ops/gen14.pdf) -note-copy/paste this into a browser as it won’t work if you just click the link, 

Compliance with Wisconsin Open Meetings Law:

For your convenience I have attached the Open Meetings Law Compliance Guide (appendix XV-1).   You can also find the guide online at:  http://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/dls/open-meetings-law-compliance-guide-2010.pdf

I have attached a list of applicable statements about the Open Meetings Law in a separate document (appendix XV-2) attached.  I believe this is a good source of information to help the Senate members understand some of the problems with the SFDGP and the penalties that can be imposed for violation of the Open Meetings Law.

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4:  The SFDGHP was not authorized by the Faculty Senate, in violation of policy.

Dr. Balachandran created new “policy” and went through a shady process to create the illusion that his new SFDGHP was legitimate but it is not.

The Faculty Senate was informed that there was a severe problem with the grievance process but took no action

On Oct 8, 2013 -  Faculty Senate meeting minutes.   In this meeting the faculty senate also discussed the Draft Chapter 6.    This draft does not contain the wording in the suspect webpage.    

There was no mention of grievance procedures in any Faculty Senate meeting minutes between Oct 8, 2013 and 5-13-15.  

5-13-14 – Faculty Senate meeting minutes state: “5. UW System Policy on section 4.0 and 6.0 Complaints and Grievances (T. Burns) Burns brought forward the complaints and grievances policy for discussion and suggested Faculty Senate review this policy at the first meeting in the fall. The major concern was whether administration is following policy. MOTION: Burns moved that faculty senate urge administration to follow the UW system to follow chapter 4.0 and 6.0, seconded by Williams. Motion carried.   Discussion ensued about the UW System policy being something that has to be followed not something we chose to follow; therefore, legislative law takes precedence.”    This indicates that there was a practice of not following policy in Grievances.   

 

9-9-14Faculty Senate minutes state: “9. UWS 4.0/6.0 Awareness and Upcoming Changes (T. Burns) MOTION: Burns moved to postpone discussion on UWS 4.0/6.0 until the next Faculty Senate meeting under unfinished business, seconded by Masoom.  Motion approved.”      But grievance procedures were not even mentioned in any of these meeting minutes:   9-23-14 ;   10-28-14 ;  11-11-14   11-25-14 .   

12-9-14  Faculty Senate meeting minutes states:  “3. Grievance Hearing Procedure - Informational (C. Cornett) Chair Cornet reported that the Complaints & Grievances Commission voted unanimously on Nov. 21, 2014 to adopt the attached grievance hearing procedure.”    At the meeting Chuck Cornett said “they (Grievance Committee) have the governance to set their policy and procedure as a committee.”    Meeting Agenda (exhibit 627a)   Meeting  audio: (audio exhibit A29/627b)       

Cornett’s statement is untrue.  Roger went through all the faculty senate meeting minutes from Oct 8, 2013  in which a draft of Chapter 6 was presented and this meeting and found no motion or discussion to change the procedures. 

   Did Cornett believe his statement to be true or was he lying?  If he believed it to be true where did he get his information?  My guess is that he got his information from Balachandran.  What did Balachandran tell Cornett to make him believe this statement to be true?  Can he back it up?  Did he misquote UWS 6.02 to Cornett as he did to Dr. Burton?  Was Cornett’s statement based on the  suspect webpage?    

 

The suspect webpage Balachandran used to validate his Grievance Hearing Procedures says “the Commission is authorized to establish its own procedures to investigate a grievance that it is hearing.” However, 1. UWS 6.02 says “the faculty of each institution shall designate a committee or other appropriate faculty body to hear faculty grievances under rules and procedures established by the faculty of the institution in conjunction with the chancellor;” 2. the suspect webpage, even if it were valid policy, would not authorize the grievance committee to create “hearing procedures” but only “investigation procedures;” 3. It does not state that the grievance committee has the “governance to set their policy and procedure as a committee” as Cornett wrongly informed the Faculty Senate.

 

The SFDGHP  was never discussed, commented on or voted on by the Faculty Senate.  It was presented by Cornett as an “informational item only” and there were not even any questions or comments about it from any of the Faculty Senate members.  This violates UWS 6.02.  It is also not in keeping with the UWS Operational Policy (UWS-OperationalPolicy).

 

This was a sneaky way to slide unauthorized documentation into a seemingly valid situation in order to suppress and deny Dr. Burton’s due process rights while giving the illusion of compliance with policy.  This act not only violated law but it is more evidence of severe systemic corruption at UW Platteville. 

 

 

 

 12/17/14 – I received from Paul Erickson a list of the Faculty Senate Members (exhibit 662)

 

 

Chapter 5:              A UW System Operational Policy prohibits the grievance committee from producing procedures such as the SFDGHP.

 

July 1, 2015 - UW System Operational Policy states “University staff shared governance groups shall have the opportunity to participate in the development of the grievance procedures.”  (UWS-OperationalPolicy)  (https://www.wisconsin.edu/ohrwd/download/policies/ops/gen14.pdf )  archived at: (https://web-beta.archive.org/web/*/https://www.wisconsin.edu/ohrwd/download/policies/ops/gen14.pdf) -note-copy/paste this into a browser as it won’t work if you just click the link.

This means the new SFDGHP  were created without authorization.

 

 

Chapter 6:  The suspect webpage and the new SFDGHP were used to violate Dr. Burton’s due process rights.

 

Dr. Burton was held to the suspect webpage instead of the actual policies.   

 

5-3-16 – Fairchild wrote a letter that denied Dr. Burton’s right to a grievance hearing  (Fairchildrefusalletter) referencing a 300 day window.   Dr. Burton asked for an explanation of the 300 day window -  (GvnceCommviolatesitsownrule5-3-16),  (Re_ Fw_ DeniedGvncHrg-5-9-16).  Dr. Fairchild signed and delivered to Dr. Burton a letter (LtrfmFairchild), stating “Please refer to the University of Wisconsin Platteville Employee Handbook, and specifically the UWS 6 Complaints and Grievances.  Under UWS 6.02, “A faculty member with a grievance must submit his or her grievance to the Complaints and Grievances Commission within 300 days of when he/she knew or should have known of the most recent incident or incidents that he or she is grieving.””  This is a quote from the suspect webpage on the UW Platteville website.  So, Dr. Fairchild used the fraudulent policy to deny Dr. Burton’s grievances unfairly.

 

Dr. Burton sent emails explaining the issue to the Faculty Senate (EmailtoFacSenate5-8-16).  The faculty senate did not respond. 

 

 

The new SFDGHP was made while Dr. Burton was awaiting grievance hearings and the 20 day deadlines were completely ignored.

 

The Faculty Handbook for Spring 2016  6.3.16.3 Grievances states “The aggrieved faculty member is entitled to a hearing before the commission within twenty calendar days of the written submission of the grievance to the commission chair.... All parties are due as prompt a resolution of the matter as practicable.”  Yet Dr. Burton was never given a grievance hearing to address Dean Throop’s letter of direction or her grievance against Dr. Dalecki.

 

The Employee Handbook Article IX (copied on 1/4/15) stated: “The aggrieved faculty member is entitled to a hearing before the commission within twenty calendar days of the written submission of the grievance to the commission chair.... All parties are due as prompt a resolution of the matter as practicable.” (exhibit 541c)

 

The Regents databank shows the UW-Platteville Faculty Bylaws which states:  “The following procedure shall be followed: A faculty member with a grievance may submit his or her grievance to the Complaints and Grievances Commission. The aggrieved faculty member is entitled to a hearing before the commission within twenty calendar days of the written submission of the grievance to the commission chair. The colleague or colleagues against whom the grievance is lodged are entitled to at least a ten-calendar-day notice of all hearings related to the case. All parties are due as prompt a resolution of the matter as practicable.”  

 

The email I received from Balachandran on November 3, 2014 11:17 AM had an attachment that stated “A faculty member with a grievance must submit his or her grievance to the Complaints and Grievances Commission within 300 days of when he/she knew or should have known of the most recent incident or incidents that he or she is grieving.”  It also stated:  The aggrieved faculty member is entitled to a hearing before the Commission within 20 working days of the written submission of the grievance to the Commission chairman.  This deadline may be extended upon the consent of the grievant or by order of the Commission. The Commission is authorized to establish its own procedures to investigate a grievance that it is hearing.  All parties are due as prompt a resolution of the matter as practicable.”  (exhibit 599b).   This is a reference to the suspect webpage.  

 

 

Chapter 7:      The policy that seems legitimate.   -  We should use these policies and we should shun the (SFDGHP) and the suspect webpage.    Dr. Burton has asked for clarification as to the origin of the (SFDGHP) but has never been given an answer.

 

 

We must remember that UW Platteville has been corrupt for a long time.  They have hidden procedures that seem to be legitimate.  They have suspect webpages that they hold employees accountable for while showing the UW System other procedures that adhere to System wide requirements.  This chapter shows the policies that seem to actually have been approved through legitimate process.

 

 

 

 

The 2016 Spring Faculty Handbook says:

6.3.16.3 Grievances

The following procedure shall be followed:

A faculty member with a grievance may submit his or her grievance to the Complaints and Grievances Commission. The aggrieved faculty member is entitled to a hearing before the

commission within twenty calendar days of the written submission of the grievance to the commission chair. The colleague or colleagues against whom the grievance is lodged are entitled to at least a ten-calendar-day notice of all hearings related to the case. All parties are due as prompt a resolution of the matter as practicable.”

 

The 2016 Spring Faculty Handbook has been removed from uwplatt.edu.  So, we’ll need to use the archived webpage:  

http://web.archive.org/web/20170122035817/https://www.uwplatt.edu/files/governance/Faculty_Senate/Files/faculty_handbook_spring_2016_for_the_web_as_of_may_2016.pdf

Click the link “Open With Different Viewer” or download it and open it with a Adobe reader.

 

 

 

 

The Employee Handbook Article IX says:

 

Section 2: Grievances

 

The following procedure shall be followed:

 

A faculty member with a grievance may submit his or her grievance to the Complaints and Grievances Commission. The aggrieved faculty member is entitled to a hearing before the commission within twenty calendar days of the written submission of the grievance to the commission chair. The colleague or colleagues against whom the grievance is lodged are entitled to at least a ten-calendar-day notice of all hearings related to the case. All parties are due as prompt a resolution of the matter as practicable.”

 

 

 (exhibit 541c)

https://web.archive.org/web/20100528085151/http://www.uwplatt.edu/university/documents/emp_handbook/current/Part4/facconst/partIII/article9.html 

 

 

 

 

Bylaws Part III, Article IX, Section 2  states:

The following procedure shall be followed:

A faculty member with a grievance may submit his or her grievance to the Complaints and Grievances Commission.  The aggrieved faculty member is entitled to a hearing before the commission within twenty calendar days of the written submission of the grievance to the commission chair.  The colleague or colleagues against whom the grievance is lodged are entitled to at least a ten-calendar-day notice of all hearings related to the case.  All parties are due as prompt a resolution of the matter as practicable.”

 

The Regents databank shows the UW-Platteville Faculty Bylaws), Archived: (https://web.archive.org/web/20170122051831/https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/download/bor_supporting_docs/october-education-Revision-of-UW-PlattevilleFacultyBylaws.pdf)   

 

 

 

UW Platteville Faculty Constitution:   https://www.uwplatt.edu/files/about/facy_const_bylaws_as_of_18_jan_2016_20160309112336_751231.pdf

Archive:  http://archive.is/DPbhM

Part II, Article III, Section 7:  Definition of Grievance:  “An allegation brought by a faculty member, which is 1) allegation against those in authority to make decisions or policies, and is 2) an allegation concerning any university decision or practice, except decisions concerning rank, salary, tenure, or renewal.”  

 

 

Chapter 8:  Chancellor Shields is responsible for the SFDGHP

12/10/2014 9:13 PM -  Dr. Burton sent an email to Dr. Balachandran, cc to Chancellor Shields, (exhibit 602), with 3 attachments, (exhibit 598) (exhibit 598c),  (exhibit 602a), Dkt 37-15 (pg 24).  In her communication Dr. Burton wrote: “The Chancellor is as responsible for your bogus procedures as you are.”

Chancellor Shields was informed of his requirement to be involved in the process of establishing rules and procedures to hear faculty grievances.  For this reason he cannot claim ignorance of this requirement.

Chancellor Shields should be investigated for his involvement in creation of this false policy.  

 

Chapter 9:   How to win an argument about this without getting mixed up in the spaghetti. 

 

In a deposition or hearing ask Chancellor Shields, or Lattis, or Fairchild:

 

Q: Why was Dr. Burton’s grievance against Deb Rice denied?  

A: (from university): Because Dr. Burton did not ask for the grievance within the 300 day window (Fairchildrefusalletter).

 

Q:  Where is this 300 day window policy located?

A: It is located on the website here (suspect webpage).

 

 

Q: I see this on the website but where is it located in the Employee Handbook?  (http://web.archive.org/web/20170122035817/https://www.uwplatt.edu/files/governance/Faculty_Senate/Files/faculty_handbook_spring_2016_for_the_web_as_of_may_2016.pdf

)

 

A:  It does not seem to be in the Employee Handbook.  It must be somewhere else.

 

 

Q:  Interesting that it is not in the Employee Handbook.  The (suspect webpage) seems to derive its authority from Faculty Bylaws, Part III, Article XIII, Section 3.  Can you please show me that section of the Faculty Bylaws?

 

A:  *Fumble Fumble* There does not seem to be any such policy.

 

Q:  Dr. Fairchild stated that the 300 day window is in UWS 6.02 (LtrfmFairchild).   Can you show me in UWS 6.02 where this 300 day window is identified?

 

A:  It is not in UWS 6.02. 

 

Q:  So, Dr. Fairchild denied Dr. Burton’s grievance hearing request because of his reliance on a fraudulent policy?

 

A:  But we investigated Dr. Burton’s complaints.

 

Q:  No, you hired an investigator, whom you paid $10,000, instead of allowing a grievance hearing which would cost the school nothing.  You violated Dr. Burton’s due process rights by denying her legitimate request based on a fraudulent policy that still resides on your official website even though you have been informed that it is fraudulent.  Your investigator didn’t sign the investigation report and he admitted that it was “edited by a third” person.  Instead of giving Dr. Burton the grievance hearing she deserved you gave her a sham investigation designed to get her fired.   Even if the policy were legitimate, which it is not, there is a problem with the timing.  According to HR director Janelle Crowley the 300-day window would not apply because Dr. Burton requested the hearing within 300 days after she became aware of the issue.  Why was the grievance hearing request denied even though the HR director agreed that the request was within 300 days (A34-Mtg-Burton-Crowley-5-9-16), (A34-TranscriptMtg-Burton-Crowley-5-9-16)?

 

A:  It was not within 300 days (lie).

 

Q:  Well, let’s do the math.  Dr. Burton became aware of Deb Rice’s defamatory remarks after Dean Throop was deposed on Oct 28, 2015 (Throop-deposition-10-28-15).  Fairchild denied her grievance hearing request on 5/3/16 (Re_ Fw_ DeniedGvncHrg-5-9-16), (LtrfmFairchild), (Fairchild refusal letter-5-3-16).  How is 187 days more than 300 days?

 

A:  It’s not.

 

Q: So, Dr. Fairchild not only used fraudulent policy to deny Dr. Burton’s grievance but he also miscalculated the number of days as they apply to the fraudulent policy?

 

A:  no comment.

 

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

See (i617-DearFacultySenatemembers) for more info (not smoothed out yet).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix:   - contains internet archive links to the various web pages associated with the (SFDGHP).

 

 

Section 1: Archives of the suspect webpage

 

(archived on Nov 13, 2014)  (archived 2003-2004)

The suspect webpage is currently online, as of 4/5/17, at: http://www.uwplatt.edu/employee-handbook/uws-6-complaints-and-grievances  

Nov 13, 2014 https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20141113190100/http://www.uwplatt.edu/employee-handbook/uws-6-complaints-and-grievances

19 Sept 2015 https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20150906141445/http://www.uwplatt.edu/employee-handbook/uws-6-complaints-and-grievances

21 Dec 2016 (http://archive.is/eV26h)

4/5/17 (http://archive.is/jvnP0)

Jan 22, 2017 https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20170122032516/http://www.uwplatt.edu/employee-handbook/uws-6-complaints-and-grievances   

Sept 6, 2015  http://web.archive.org/web/20150906141445/http://www.uwplatt.edu/employee-handbook/uws-6-complaints-and-grievances 

 

Dkt 48-144   This page seems to have been taken off the website prior to 4/5/17: (http://archive.is/c23ua ).    The page seems to be (archived on May 28, 2010).  This seems as though it might have been a very old policy statement for grievances with reference to a Faculty Bylaw that no longer exists.

 

 

Section 2:  Archives of existing policy conflicts with the suspect webpage

 

Case law supports use of internet archives as evidence:  Wayback machine proves these sites existed with time stamps (article about wayback-legal).  (Marten Transport v. PlatForm Advertising).  This gives solid evidence that the websites were this way on the dates shown.  I saved them just in case someone changes the web pages back.  http://www.kcll.org/articles/wayback-machine-and-using-archived-pages-trial

 

Note that under the bold text under “Grievances” there is a note saying “See Faculty Bylaws, Part III, Aritcle XIII, Section 3.”   However, there is no such article or section in Part III of the Faculty Bylaws.  Part III deals with Amendments to the Bylaws and has nothing to do with grievances.  How long ago was that article and section taken out of the Faculty Bylaws?  Clearly it no longer applies, if it ever did.  

 

 

The 2016 Spring Faculty Handbook has different text.

 

 

The Faculty Handbook for Spring 2016  shows different text. Archives:    (Faculty_Handbook_Spring2016).  Also (Archive-FacHandbookSpr2016).  http://web.archive.org/save/_embed/https://www.uwplatt.edu/files/governance/Faculty_Senate/Files/faculty_handbook_spring_2016_for_the_web_as_of_may_2016.pdf

Note:  the above link must be copy-pasted into browser and open with different viewer (or save file).

https://www.uwplatt.edu/files/governance/Faculty_Senate/Files/faculty_handbook_spring_2016_for_the_web_as_of_may_2016.pdf

 

For some reason it is difficult to get this page to download but it is in the archive.org archives.  Try this link:  http://web.archive.org/web/20170122035817/https://www.uwplatt.edu/files/governance/Faculty_Senate/Files/faculty_handbook_spring_2016_for_the_web_as_of_may_2016.pdf

Click the link “Open With Different Viewer” or download it and open it with a Adobe reader.

 

The Employee Handbook Article IX has different text: (exhibit 541c)

https://web.archive.org/web/20100528085151/http://www.uwplatt.edu/university/documents/emp_handbook/current/Part4/facconst/partIII/article9.html 

The same thing is on the website on 1/22/17:  https://www.uwplatt.edu/employee-handbook/article-ix-complaints-and-grievances    Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20170122053218/https://www.uwplatt.edu/employee-handbook/article-ix-complaints-and-grievances  and

article IX Complaints and Grievances and https://web.archive.org/web/20170122042224/https://www.uwplatt.edu/employee-handbook/article-ix-complaints-and-grievances and

https://web.archive.org/web/20100528085151/http:/www.uwplatt.edu/university/documents/emp_handbook/current/Part4/facconst/partIII/article9.html

 

The Complaints and Grievances section of the Employee Handbook has different text: (exhibit 541e).  (web page exhibit 541d),  (http://archive.is/GCblZ)  

https://web.archive.org/web/20100528085151/http://www.uwplatt.edu/university/documents/emp_handbook/current/Part4/facconst/partIII/article9.html

 

 

The Regents databank shows the UW-Platteville Faculty Bylaws has different text https://web.archive.org/web/20170122051831/https://www.wisconsin.edu/regents/download/bor_supporting_docs/october-education-Revision-of-UW-PlattevilleFacultyBylaws.pdf