UniversityCorruption.org            

 “Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.”  Mahatma Gandhi

 

Dr. Burton’s grievance against Dr. Caywood (in the voice of Dr. Burton)

 

 

March 21, 2013 (12:10 – 12:25 pm): I had a meeting with Dr. Joanne Wilson who provided me with a contact person for the grievance committee: Mary Rose Williams, Media Studies. 

 

March 22, 2013 12:39 pm – Dkt 42-88 pg3,  : I received an email from Jeanne Durr informing me that Dr. Caywood had not responded to her multiple requests to schedule some time to meet for mediation.  I informed her that I had initiated grievance procedures. (exhibit EZZZU) (exhibit EZZZE

 

Mar 22, 2013 12:48 PM – Dkt 42-88 pg3 – I informed Durr that Caywood continues his retaliation by rejecting my grad course proposal and “graded” it in red ink.   

 

 

3/20/13 to 3/26/2013 – I was booked to fly to Germany to bury my father but United Airlines would not let me on their flight from Madison to Chicago because they thought my Lufthansa flight from Chicago was canceled due to the Lufthansa worker’s strike. (exhibit ZZF-2) The strike did not affect my Lufthansa flight from Chicago so I missed the flight for no good reason other than United made a mistake. My husband re-booked my trip for 3/27 through 4/2/13. (exhibit ZZF-2a)   

 

 

3/28/2013 – I turned in my printed grievance package to Mary Rose Williams (folder exhibit FE1)   (exhibit EZZZZZS).  The heading of my (cover letter to the grievance committee) stated “Grievance: Dr. Caywood, chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice, practices retaliation, sexual discrimination and favoritism.”     

 

This is important.    I filed an updated grievance package on 7/8/13 that is better organized and more complete (folder exhibit 541),  (index of exhibits and appendix included in package), (Links to exhibits and appendix).

 

Notes about the grievance package:  1) Since I had already left for Germany I asked my husband to deliver the package for me.

2)  A minor error on the Timeline of Student Complaint is that I informed Kate Demerse about the student complaint on Oct. 11 not on Oct 10 as shown.  

3) My former attorneys Tim Hawks and Michele Sumara failed to include my grievance package as evidence in court.  So, all the work my husband and I did to put this package together was wasted for purposes of presenting evidence in court.   Because my attorneys failed to include this grievance package in court documents I am now forced to plead my case in court using the evidence that I have been able to piece together rather than using this comprehensive document that I already created.  This is one of many reasons I believe my attorneys misrepresented me.

 

 

Some time after March 2013 - Jean Durr wrote a statement about her activities.  Her notes seem to be her attempt to defend her actions against Sabina’s allegation that Durr “Contributed to the hostile work environment by purposely delaying requests for help.”   (UW-P 000067)     Most of what she says seems right, however she uses little word twists to make me seem unreasonable.  [reputation smear]

In her notes Durr wrote “Dr. Burton stated that she didn’t know if what we had done was sufficient, and that the experiment continued to bother her. “   This a misleading statement.  I wasn’t concerned that the experiment “bothered me” nor was I concerned about how they handled Gibson, I assumed the matter would be dealt with appropriately, but I was trying to get help to because Caywood was retaliating against me for having reported it “over his head.”  Durr’s statement also misleads one to believe that Gibson’s note was just an experiment rather than an attempt by Gibson to get in the student’s pants.  Durr is trying to maike it sound like I called it an experiment at first.  I didn’t know what it was at first.  The “experiment” parachute used by Gibson sounded somewhat plausible and I gave him the benefit of the doubt early on.  But he didn’t have IRB approval, he didn’t tell the subjects they were in an experiment and he gave his own personal cell phone number to an attractive student.  The student perceived it to be creepy and was uncomfortable.  That is why she came to me.

 

 

 

April 9, 2013

 

A few days before the grievance hearing I received Caywood’s rebuttal  Dkt 40-12. (exhibit ZI) and exhibits (Folder Exhibit 629).   For some reason I was not given all of Caywood’s exhibits. A more complete collection of his exhibits are in [UW-P 219 - 306] . I later wrote a rebuttal (folder exhibit 541 - 6a - My Rmks-CaywoodRebuttal).  I included this rebuttal in the package I delivered to the Chancellor on 7-8-13 (folder exhibit 541).

 

On April 12, 2013 (12 PM to 1 PM):   There was a department meeting.  Dr. Caywood has not released the minutes of that meeting. Dean Throop attended that entire meeting for no apparent reason.  I got the sense that she was there to “protect” Dr. Caywood against me even though I am the one who needed protection. 

 

On April 12, 2013 (4 PM to 5:45 PM) a Grievance Committee hearing was conducted.  In attendance was myself, Dr. Caywood, my husband Roger, who acted only as an observer and supporter, and five board members.     I requested that the meeting be recorded and I have a copy of the recording.

A6 - Grievance -Caywood- 4-12-13  -  CD 1

4/12/2013

Transcript for CD 1 and CD 2

****

A6 - Grievance -Caywood- 4-12-13  -  CD 2

4/12/2013

 

****

 

Dr. Caywood admitted that he had acted “poorly” and probably “very poorly.”  

Caywood claims that he didn’t know that the student didn’t want to talk to a male. I told him when I first informed him of the issue that she didn’t want to talk to a male so; he knew.  He said many other things that show his corruption at the grievance hearing.  

 

Caywood said there are only two people in the department who he considered to be eligible to be chair, Dutelle and Burton. He did not seem to consider Dr. Fuller as an eligible candidate for chair even though she is qualified.  So Caywood considered me eligible to be chair but Dean Throop did not consider me eligible because she said, at her 12-2-13 grievance hearing, I “couldn't handle things on a local level.”

I later wrote a rebuttal to some of Caywood’s comments at the meeting (folder exhibit 541 – 6c - My rmks-Grievance HrngAudio Transcript)  This was never sent to anyone in the university. 

 

April 17, 2013 – The grievance committee wrote a draft letter of findings for my grievance. [UW-P 002831]    This draft was not sent to me.  Note that this draft did not have anything in it about investigating Gibson’s “experiment.”

 

April 17, 2013 –  Dkt 53-32.  The Complaints and Grievances Committee sent a letter to Chancellor Shields expressing their findings about Gibson’s actions.  [UW-P 002846-2847]   (exhibit Gibson-Slut-Shaming)  In this letter they wrote “his actions were so egregious” and “Dr. Gibson showed extremely poor judgment in conducting an in-class example of a study,” and “ Dr. Gibson’s email is beyond reprehensible.”  The committee made recommendations for dealing with Dr. Gibson.

Gibson confirmed that the phone number on the note given to a student was his personal cell phone number.

The committee wrote that his actions “undermines Dr. Gibson’s competence to teach research methods ethically.”  They called his apology to the class “slut-shaming” and wrote that Gibson “has serious liabilities and lacks even a fundamental understanding of structural sexism.”

Yet, even after all of that the committee seemed to believe that the note was part of an experiment.  I think it was an attempt to get a female student to sleep with him.  I wouldn’t want him teaching my daughters.  He was allowed to leave UWP with no entry of wrongdoing in his record.  Gibson is now teaching at University of Maine, Presque Isle.    UWPI.edu    Gibson-UMPI

 

Rule 26 Disclosure - 54.         April 17, 2013, memorandum from complaints and grievances committee to Chancellor Shields regarding addendum to the Burton-Caywood Grievance, Dkt 53-32

 

April 19, 2013 Dkt 42-88 pg13,   Complaints and Grievances committee issued their first findings in my grievance against Caywood.  (exhibit ZA)  (Dkt 101-21)  

They wrote that I alleged that Caywood treated me in a demeaning and unfair way.  They glossed over all the other things I alleged.  Their analysis was overly simplistic and minimized my allegations.

They recommended that; “the Criminal Justice department take steps to resolve the dysfunction within the department, such as communication training.”  This training has never been accomplished.

 

The grievance committee submitted their findings to the Chancellor (exhibit ZA) (Dkt 101-21)     with recommendation that “a third party needs to investigate further how the breach experiment which prompted a student complaint was handled before and after the experiment took place.”  This was never done. The findings were not satisfactory as I explain in (exhibit ZA-8) although they were much more reasonable than the committee’s second findings which the Chancellor demanded on June 4, 2013  or the Chancellor’s response. 

Complaints and Grievances committee recommended, among other things, that; “the Criminal Justice department take advantage of Dr. Burton’s willingness to be more actively involved in the hiring of new faculty members.”   (exhibit ZA) (Dkt 101-21)     Dr. Dalecki excluded me from the hiring process of new members.  Dr. Solar later excluded me from participating in the discussion to create the job advertisement for three new faculty members.

The Committee recommended that an investigation be conducted into how the breach experiment was handled before and after the experiment took place.  We should ask for the results of that investigation in discovery.  [document request]

The committee’s recommendation included the statement that Caywood “defended his last-minute withdrawal of support to her AT&T grant proposal, saying it was due to a concern that Dr. Burton was misrepresenting the university’s commitment to a cyber-security program.”  The audio of the grievance supports this.
1) Caywood claimed at his deposition that he never withdrew support. 
2) Throop claimed to Den Herder that the reason for withdrawal of support was that I had falsely claimed to be an expert in cyber-security. 

3)  This clearly shows that support was withdrawn and indicates that Caywood lied under oath.  
4)  Den Herder tried to make it seem as though the reason for the withdrawal was that I had not gained appropriate approvals
5)  The Chancellor’s findings had yet another vague reason for the withdrawal.
6)  The fact that nobody told me any real reasons for the withdrawal shows that they were purposely keeping me guessing what the real reason was.  Their vagueness and ambiguity supports the argument that it was done in retaliation for my filing the complaint.

 

5-15-13 – Throop wrote a letter to Nimocks Den Herder about the Burton Grievance.  [UW-P 005429] also [UW-P 005733]   She wrote “Dr. Burton is not an expert in cyber-security.”  She wrote “she created websites (since taken down) in which she claims that UW Platteville has a “program in cyber-security, which we most assuredly do not.”  She wrote “I was put in the very awkward position of having to correct a number of incorrect statements made by Dr. Burton to AT&T as she made comments on a press release.”  She wrote “If Dr. Burton’s reputation has been damaged, it has been largely due to her own behaviors and not those of me or my office.  It is for these reasons that I am unwilling to write a letter to AT&T.    Note:  Dean Throop spoke of my expertise in the video of April 3, 2014.   Also, Caywood called me an expert in his deposition in Aug 21, 2015  Dkt 40,   (searchable file of Dkt 40).   Page 113, at 9-14.   This contradicts the Throop’s assertion that Burton was not an expert in cyber security.  This indicates that Caywood and Throop did not believe their stated reason for adverse actions on Jan 24, 2013 and in the defense summary judgment motion.    The defense has not produced any evidence that Caywood or Throop ever informed me that their adverse actions (withdrawal of support for cyber program) had anything to do with my expertise. 

They never told me that “expertise” was a reason for the withdrawal of support, never.  This indicates they didn’t believe the reason.  They never communicated it to me.

Throop referred to my expertise in cyber security at a faculty forum on April 3, 2014.  This indicates she didn’t believe her reason for withdrawal of support. Dkt 98 para 3a.  (first three minutes)  (Click Here to view video)  The argument that Throop became convinced, during the two months between Jan 24, 2013 and April 3, 2013, that I obtained expertise in cyber security is absurd.   This argument is especially absurd considering that Caywood and Throop withdrew their support for my work in cyber security on Jan 24, 2013 which eliminated my opportunity to gain more expertise in the field.

Defense asserted on Dkt 62, para 122 that as of Jan 2013 Throop did not believe Burton was an expert in cyber-security.   This is false as shown by the contradictions. 

I wrote a rebuttal and some deposition questions for Throop.    Den Herder did not mention anything to me about Throop claiming that I did not have expertise in cyber-security in my Aug 8, 2013 meeting with her.  Nobody EVER mentioned to me that part of the reason for the withdrawal of support had anything to do with my expertise (or lack thereof) in cyber-security.  This way they could keep me from addressing the issue.  Smoke and mirrors.  [pretext]

 

May 19, 2013 (Day 30):  The deadline for the Chancellor to act on the board’s findings came and went with no word from anyone.  (appendix VIII)  I was anxiously awaiting something that nobody was even working on.  I believe this was a conscious decision to delay my grievance in hopes that I would just stop asking about it and it would “go away.”

 

 

As of Fri, May 24, 2013 10:46 AM, I had heard nothing from the Chancellor concerning my grievance (Day 35).   Since the Chancellor had not responded to the Grievance Committee’s report within the required 30 days I sent an email to the Board of Regents (exhibit ZA-1) requesting their review of the matter.  

 

----------

 

Chancellor Shields and the Board of Regents, at this point, had the opportunity to discipline Caywood, hold an election in the department for a new chair and conduct an investigation to determine what to do about the solicitous note incident.    These actions could have created an environment where truth and legitimacy could flourish in UW Platteville’s CJ department.   But they chose another path.   What ensued next is another story of denial of due process, retaliation on a higher level and cover up.