Never be bullied into silence. Never allow yourself to be made a victim. Accept no one's definition of your life, but define yourself. “ Harvey S. Firestone

UW Platteville Criminal Justice Department 

The story of a dysfunctional department and incredible failed power grabs. 

(Written by Roger Burton)



My wife, Sabina Burton, came to the UW Platteville Criminal Justice Program in 2009 with fantastic credentials.  She came here to give your kids a great education in the field of Criminal Justice.  She was overqualified for this small-town university but she loves to teach so we came here.  But it seems that she was viewed as a threat to some who desired power and secrecy.  They have violated laws to cover up sexual harassment and deprive Sabina of her rights.   She was abused because she stood up for a student victim of sexual harassment and demanded fair treatment.  The corrupt UW Platteville administration has tried to fire her for the past five years.  They made her life a living hell.  She has stayed because she cares about students.  She has been threatened with termination three times on bogus charges but she chose to fight for student’s rights.

Chancellor Dennis Shields suspended her so she is not currently available to offer her inspired teaching to students.  Instead she is fighting to keep her job.  I firmly believe that students are not safe at UW Platteville as long as corruption is allowed to fester.  Sabina is trying to expose this corruption and clean it out.

Please consider helping Sabina in her fight for student rights and get her back in the classroom where she belongs.  Learn more at

Below is a chronicle of events that have crippled the UW Platteville Criminal Justice Program over the past five years.  


April 11, 2006 – Dr. Cheryl Fuller suggests that Caywood and her be Co-Chairs.  Fuller would chair the online program and Caywood would chair the CJ program.  [UW-P 000977   

July 2007: Caywood took over as chair of the department.    Caywood-New-chair-July_2007

Aug 2009 – Dr. Burton started working in the Criminal Justice department.

Mon, May 10, 2010 08:44 AMDkt 40-22. SB000027]   SB000032]  Email from Dr. Caywood (exhibit EZZZZZG-1) with an attached report from Dean Nimmocks (Den Herder). (exhibit EZZZZZG-2)        SB 000028-30

Then Dean Den Herder wrote about Fuller’s sexual harassment complaint against Caywood: “It is for this reason, that I am having Cheryl report to me for the next year. Tom will be privy to all reports, requests, and communications between Cheryl and me. This decision does not reflect on Tom’s leadership of the department generally but is an attempt to create a buffer between Cheryl and him.” This decision impacted Dr. Burton greatly. As she began her career at UWP she found herself working for two bosses who hated each other. She was caught in the middle of a horrible situation.

July 9, 2013 – Throop writes a memo to Den Herder and Caywood.  [UW-P 005915]  It summarized the meeting the previous day clearly saying that Caywood “resign[ed]” as chair. 

July 10, 2013 9:27:25 AM - Dr. Caywood sent an email to numerous addressees saying that he had been “removed as chair.” (exhibit EZZZZS-2) Dkt 37-9  Clearly Caywood did not want to step down or he would not have complained that he was removed.  


Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:46:24 PM – Dean Throop sent an email to numerous addressees stating that Dr. Caywood had “stepped away” from being chair and expressed her “very deep appreciation for the many important contributions he has made to this university and our students in the decades that he has worked here.” (exhibit EZZZZI) [UW-P 004003]   SB000022]  Dkt 37-9   She also stated that Dr. Dalecki would be interim chair and that a national search would be conducted.  In doing this she violated policy and law. (exhibit ZZA-1)

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 06:33 PM Burton sent an email to the Provost complaining about the way the chair position was filled. (exhibit EZZZZI)  SB000021]  Dkt 37-9    


Jul 10, 2013 10:28 PM - Chancellor Shields decided “not to weigh in” on an issue critical to Burton’s grievance. (exhibit EZZZZJ-1)     SB000021]


Thu, Jul 11, 2013 01:39 PM  -  Dr. Burton formally opposed Dalecki’s chairship in an email to the Chancellor’s office and to Dean Throop  Dkt 42-85, (exhibit 519).  Dkt 37-12     




9-2-13 – Burton composed a letter to Dean Throop that she intended to send but did not (showing great restraint).  (never sent Dean Throop letter-9-2-13).  

Early Sept - Burton took notes at the department meeting which was very intense. (exhibit ZP-3) Dr. Gibson was yelling at Dean Throop and she was yelling back. Dr. Gibson said he would call for an election. Dean Throop said she would veto any election results. There was clearly a lot of discontent with the removal of Dr. Caywood from the chair position. The department was clearly fragmented with two primary camps. Dr. Caywood, Mr. Dutelle, Dr. Gibson, Dr. Reed, Dana Cecil, Diana Johnson against Dr. Fuller and Dr. Burton. The new chair Dr. Dalecki was trying to be on everybody’s side at first.

Sept 10, 2013 – Department meeting.  Minutes: [UW-P 005331]

Tue, Sep 10, 2013 09:39 AM - Dr. Caywood sent an email explaining how he became dept. chair (exhibit EZZZZW).   Note that the department chair position is an elected position and an election was to be held every 3 years according to policy.  Caywood had been chair for 6 years with no election at the 3-year mark.  


Tue – Sep 17, 2013 – Department meeting: Lorne Gibson nominated Rex Reed and Rex nominated Gibson for chair position. The vote favored Dr. Lorne Gibson. The guy who handed the solicitous note to a student was voted in as chair of the CJ department by the faculty and staff of the department.     Burton was not nominated since the opposition outnumbered her supporters. One reason she had lost support in the department is all the rampant and ambiguous or vague lies about her that had circulated.  Another reason is that they were intimidating people into avoiding her.  There was a gag-order out on Dr. Burton.

Sep 17, 2013 – Dean Throop sent a memo (exhibit ZP-2) to Dr. Dalecki and the Faculty and Academic Staff of the CJ dept. cc’d to Chancellor, Provost, HR director. In the memo Dean Throop stated that Dr. Gibson would not be appointed because he is not tenured. The dean could have called for another election in keeping with LA&E Constitution but reaffirmed Dr. Dalecki’s appointment instead, another violation of policy.  (The policy is explained in the documentation of the Dec 2, 2014 grievance hearing)

 Sept 20, 2013. Dr. Caywood sent a memo to members of the department suggesting a department grievance to protest how the interim chair was selected. (9-20-13-roleoffacultygovernance) also (exhibit EZZZZX) attached was (exhibit EZZZZX-1)  Dr. Burton was watching the newspaper (Platteville Journal and Exponent) for an announcement of Dr. Caywood’s grievance but it was never advertised, as required by Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, and nobody told her when it would be so she missed it. 


Fri 9/20/2013 1:46 PM – Rex Reed responded to Caywood saying that we should have an open discussion rather than secret email chain.  (9-20-13-roleoffacultygovernance)

Sept 23, 2013 – Dr. Gibson wrote a memo. (exhibit ZP-1)   Though his memo is poorly written his overall tone is distinguishable.  It is surprising that a probationary faculty member would be so brazen after his actions on October 10, 2012. Dr. Gibson sent the memo to the Chancellor, Provost and Director of HR regarding Results of the Department vote for recommendation of chair.

On Oct 3, 2013    Dkt 39-12.    Dean Throop sent a memo to Dr. Gibson, Dr. Dalecki, the Faculty and Academic Staff of the CJ dept. and cc’d the Chancellor, Provost and HR director. (exhibit ZP)   [UW-P 004005]  SB000226]    UW-P 007402  In this memo Dean Throop claimed that “there are no tenured faculty members in the department either willing or in a position to take on the chairship.” But Dr. Burton was willing, tenured and in a position to take on the chairship. Throop’s statement was not only untrue but it also injured Burton by vaguely implying that she had done something that made her ineligible to become chair.    This shows that she considered Burton to be ineligible to be chair without saying why.  She took away Burton’s right to the opportunity to be elected as chair in a fair election without saying why.     Burton was not fighting to become chair, she was fighting for policies and laws to be followed.  

10-15-13 – DRB meeting deciding whether the committee would recommend Dr. Gibson for retention and merit pay:

During the meeting, which Burton audio recorded, Dr. Caywood and Mr. Dutelle intimidated and interrupted Burton whenever she tried to speak. They clearly did not want her voice to be heard. She didn’t get to say much. She was afraid that if she said what was on her mind she would suffer severe retaliation so she kept quiet.) Lizzy Gates, chair of psychology, a person from outside the CJ department, who did not know what was going on in the department, was chair of the DRB. Also in attendance were Mr. Lomax, Mr. Dutelle, Ms. Johnson, Dr. Reed and Dr. Burton. Dr. Fuller was on the CRST so she was not present at the DRB meeting.  Burton abstained from voting in protest of the way the meeting was conducted. She was not asked to vote. She did not vote. She just said nothing. She was afraid to say what she believed. There really was no “vote;” Lizzy Gates just followed Dr. Caywood’s lead.  [corrupt vote] (Audio Exhibit A5


Excerpts from the full audio A5 are:
A5a – Discussion about Tenured only on DRB.  Dalecki gives reason why non tenured people should not be on the DRB.  He unilaterally decided that untenured can’t sit on DRB.  He calls it a “power differential conflict of interest.”  He can’t think of a single reason to have non-tenured on the DRB.  This violates policy which allows non tenured members on the DRB. (see Gibson’s appeal on Mar 24, 2014)
A5b – Shows how Burton was not given a chance to be heard.
A5c – Fuller shushes Burton when she tries to speak.
A5d – Dutelle hypocritically shuts down Fuller like someone would shut down a child saying “you’re raising your voice.”
A5e – Burton is ignored when she tries to get across a point.
A5f – Burton is shushed again during the meeting to keep her quiet.  In (audio exhibit A5f) Dutelle talks about the student eval scores with 4.3 to 4.7 being “Above Normal” (he meant to say “outstanding”) then Sabina protested that she was not rated that way and Fuller shushed her and thumped her leg to keep her quiet.   The slapping may have constituted (simple assault) as shown in a compilation of legal text compiled on about 8-20-14 and never sent to anyone.  (Audio Exhibit A5)

Caywood says “we gotta go by this sheet.” 

A5g – Dutelle laments that he can’t win the vote with an even number of people.  He probably wants to rig the vote first and he is frustrated because he can’t do that when it is split two and two.

A5-1 is a partial transcript of the meeting.  

 On the audio at  17:27 – Caywood asked:  “When was it decided that only the tenured faculty could serve on the DRB?” He asks this because he wanted his non-tenured loyal votes to be allowed to vote.     Dalecki said:  “Well, that was right at the beginning of the semester.”  Then Caywood asked   “You took a vote on that?”  Dalecki saidNo I did that.”
Caywood said:  “You just, you decided.”  Dalecki verifiedRight, right.”

Dalecki unilaterally disallowed non-tenured faculty on the committee, in violation of policy, so he could get the votes he wanted to oust Gibson.  He wanted to oust Gibson because he made a power play for Dalecki’s chair position, not because he had sexually harassed a student.

When merit pay votes were solicited Burton wasn’t given an opportunity to vote even though she was a voting member of the department.

UNIVERSITY RANK, SALARY, AND TENURE (URST) PROCEDURES states: “Any department chair serving on the DRB for his/her department shall serve as a nonvoting member.” (appendix IX)

Policies and Procedures for the Criminal Justice Department states: “The Department chair will serve on the DRB as a non-voting member.” (appendix XIII)

Later Lizzy Gates told Burton that she would not serve on any more DRB committees for the CJ department, due to its dysfunction.


Wed, Oct 16, 2013 03:07 PM – Burton sent an email to Chancellor Shields spelling out a new grievance against Dean Throop. (exhibits 554 , 630)  Attached to this email were (exhibit, 554a) and (exhibit ZP).  In this grievance Burton asked the Chancellor to let her know within a week if he preferred that she submit the issue to the grievance committee rather than to him directly. The chancellor responded 12 days later with a letter, dated Oct 28, (exhibit ZT), suggesting that Burton take the grievance to the Senate Chair Melissa Gormley to be heard by the grievance committee.   Burton received the letter on Oct 29, 2013.  This was not a policy mandated deadline but it shows the Chancellor’s lack of concern for expeditiously handling Burton’s claims.  He delayed her progress again.  His actions were not in keeping with the grievance policy which calls for expedience in handling these claims.

Bylaws and regs that say grievances should be handled expeditiously:
               1.  also Archived Web Page for Article IX

 Oct 17, 2013 – Dalecki wrote some notes:  (Dkt 34-2 Exh C- Meeting Notes) –He wrote “Sabina thinks she’s qualified for department chair, and much of the conversation centered around whether she truly was qualified.” 

He wrote “ I asked Sabina if she had experiences of serving on a real DRB-not what has passed for one in the department for these years-and suggested that her experiences here were not particularly good preparation.  I asked what other committees she’d served on, whether she’d served on any university-wide committees, whether she’d ever been involved in a negative decision for a DRB, whether she’d ever had to make a firing decision.”  

So, here Dalecki makes the point that serving on a university committee is important for preparing someone to be chair.  But, he told Lohmann on Aug 8, 2014 In her [Burton’s] mind the position on the CRST is prestigious; it’s just another service position in everyone else’s mind.”    Dalecki contradicted himself.  Hmmm.    This shows that he didn’t believe his statement to Lohmann about the prestige of the CRST position. 

He wrote “I asked Sabina if she had experiences of serving on a real DRB-not what has passed for one in the department for these years-and suggested that her experiences here were not particularly good preparation.”   So, here he is saying that the DRBs for the past years were not “real.”  They were not good preparation to be chair.  He is saying there is something wrong with the way Departmental Review Boards were run.   He was right about that!   

He asked whether Burton had “ever had to make a firing decision” as though lack of that experience would disqualify someone from being chair.   Absurd.   Staci Strobl had never had to make a firing decision and she became chair.

Dalecki wrote “(if) I had experienced what she had experienced, I might have felt little alternative other than complaining to higher-ups-but that things are now different.”   This shows that Dalecki knew Burton needed to take her complaints above the departmental level; he would have.  But Throop explained at the grievance hearing, on Dec 2, 2013, that Burton was disqualified from eligibility for the chair position because she brought her complaints above the departmental level  (audio exhibit A13b).  Burton was in a catch 22 situation.  She couldn’t handle the retaliation she suffered on the departmental level but since she had taken her complaints above the departmental level Throop disqualified her from eligibility to become chair.   Hmmm.

Dalecki wrote “The more one files complaints, the less they might be taken seriously by higher-ups.”   So, even if Burton’s complaints are legitimate, and they remain unresolved, higher ups will ignore complaints about the mishandling of her complaints.  What Dalecki was telling Burton is that no matter how badly you are abused you should never complain.  No matter what happens to you, sexual assault, severe hazing, physical abuse, retaliation - no matter what happens to you, don’t complain.

Dalecki wrote Tom’s removal and [Burton’s] replacing him was a tacit if not overt admission that at least some of her complaints were likely valid.”   Throop stated that Caywood stepped down and that his stepping down had nothing to do with Burton’s complaints.  This indicates that Throop did not believe her statements that Caywood stepped aside but that she had removed him. 


 Dec 2013  (estimated date) Throop’s notes:   Dkt 42-82  Dean Throop wrote a chronological list of events in CJ since June 2012.  [UW-P 005940 to 5941  (Dkt 101-20)   She wrote  I will agree that an election should have been held in the summer before opting for an external candidate. I actually did not expect that Caywood would step down; I was very hopeful that he would have been willing to acquire the management skills necessary to allow the department to run at a minimally acceptable level.”     Let this sink in a second.  Throop wanted Caywood to get management training so that AFTER he had been trained he could operate at a “minimally acceptable level” so she believed him to be somewhere below “minimally acceptable” if he didn’t get the management training, which he refused to do.  If he was less than minimally acceptable why would she not remove him?  Probably because she didn’t want to give the impression that his removal had anything to do with Burton’s grievance against him?  Why?  Probably because she knew Sabina’s claims are right but she didn’t want to give them any credibility.  [Cover up]



Oct 17, 2013 – Dalecki told Burton words to the effect:  how dare you contact the Chancellor?  I’ve only contacted the Chancellor two or three times in my whole career.  Who do you think you are?  I am the better choice of chair because I know where the skeletons are buried.’  He said that he was ‘the only one who could turn the department around.  You are not chair material because you haven’t served on the CRST, you don’t have support in the department.  You can’t expect to file a law suit without consequences.  You can’t be chair after all the complaining you have done.  Don’t expect an apology, it’s not going to happen.’

October 28, 2013 – Chancellor Shields signed a letter saying he believed Burton’s grievance would be more appropriately heard by the Faculty Complaints and Grievances commission. [UW-P 004010]    

October 30, 2013 7:05:56 PM - Burton contacted the Senate Chair with her request for a grievance hearing. (exhibit EZZZZY-3) Attached to this email were (exhibit, 554a) and (exhibit ZP).


Nov 6, 2013  - Dkt 53-33.  Burton emailed a grievance against Dean Throop (exhibit EZZZZY-4), with two attachments (exhibits 554a, ZP), to Dr. Drefcinski.

Wed, Nov 06, 2013 03:35 PM:    Dkt 39-13 and Dkt 39-12 and  Dkt 37-9  .   Burton emailed her grievance to the chair of the grievance commission, Dr. Drefcinski. (exhibit EZZZZY-4) (exhibit 519) (exhibit ZP)   Dkt-53-33—8291    

Article VI of the Employee Handbook – Dkt 42-86  - Talks about chair selection procedures.

Article I of Employee Handbook – dkt 42-87 also deals with selection of chair.

 Dr. Drefcinski scheduled the grievance hearing on December 2 at 3:00 pm in the LAE Conference Room (first floor of Gardner Hall, across from the Dean's Office).

Dr. Drefcinski told Burton that the hearing is open and that it would be recorded.  But he failed to advertise the meeting as required by Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.


Nov 15, 2013 – Caywood wrote a letter to Chancellor Shields about a number of rumors and half-truths about his removal as “chairman” of the cj dept.  He filed a grievance against the provost and dean.  [UW-P 005322] He said he recommended Gibson and Reed to replace him and after they asked for someone from outside the dept he suggested Dalecki.   Note: The official title of the post is “chair,” a gender neutral title. However, Caywood’s emails had “chairman” at the bottom.


Wed, Nov 20, 2013 08:54 AM: Dr. Gibson made some outlandish accusations. (exhibit EZZZZZ) Burton requested that he elaborate and he responded with an email (exhibit EZZZZZ-1) that says that he was only “referring to the general bullying that most everybody is well aware of.”

About Nov 20, 2013: Burton was told by Dr. Dalecki that Dr. Caywood filed a grievance against Dean Throop.  Dr. Burton did not know when the hearing was scheduled but nobody would tell her when or where it was to be held. 

Dr. Dalecki informed me that Dr. Caywood received a stern letter from the Chancellor indicating that this hearing will be a good opportunity to get things out in the open and implied that Dr. Caywood would not fare well in the hearing. I have not seen the letter.

Nov 2013?  Date unsure:  Lohmann took some notes for a AA officers teleconference (John Lohmann notes) Dkt 48-137 (complete set of notes)   [UW-P 004838 to 4845].   “Mike Delecki – concern CJ is Tom Caywood.  “Women do not belong in the criminal justice field.”   Lohmann also wrote “Finalists are all women.”        Lohmann said in his deposition that he wrote the note because he was concerned about Dalecki’s allegegation that Caywood made the statement “Women do not belong in the criminal justice field.”  (Lohmann Depo pg 15-16)

11/20/13 meeting -Dkt 48-137 -stamped   Dkt 48-137 (complete set)    Dkt 53-36 (partial set).   Lohmann’s notes also say “Tom: Incompetent Chair – 5 major incidents” and Aric Dutelle – accused of taking bribes on paper.  Academic staff person batshit crazy.    He wrote “Lorne Wilson (probably Gibson) – bad news” no majority, Mike remains interim chair – 2 years.  [UW-P 004842]   On another page someone wrote “Sabina (Jennifer Lattice) Professor CJ. Assoc. Prof earned tenure, emotionally labile.”    This could be the secret, hidden reasons why Throop disqualified each of these individuals from eligibility to be chair.[ UW-P 004844] someone else took notes on page [UW-P 004842] but did not mention Sabina.   On page [UW-P 004841] someone wrote “Sabina (Jennifer Lattice, loq) Assoc. Prof. earned tenure. Emotionally Labile.”  The word “labile” is defined by as “1. Open to change; readily changeable or unstable: labile chemical compounds; tissues with labile cell populations. 2. Fluctuating widely: labile hypertension; labile emotions. 3. Decomposing readily: the labile component of organic matter.”   Note:  Sabina is not emotionally labile.  The administration seems to have attempted to paint her as “crazy” to deny her the opportunity to be elected chair in a fair election, to isolate her and to get rid of her.  

Any female who complains is labeled as having a mental problem.   They must be crazy if they can’t understand that it is impossible to get resolution through the university grievance process!     In these notes two people are labeled as having mental issues, Burton and the unnamed Academic staff person (both females).   But the accusations were never shared with those individuals.    Policy for replacing the chair requires that the dean notify the department the reason why a nominated candidate is ineligible to avoid back room, closed door slander.  

 On page [UW-P 004845] Lohmann wrote that Dutelle took bribes.  


November 20, 2013 8:54:04 AM -  (11-22-13-KeepingMike-intheloop)   Gibson wrote “It is now very clear we are a little bit dysfunctional as a result of the department not doing what it was suppose to do [sic].”


12-2-13 – Burton’s grievance against Dean Throop was conducted:   The meeting was audio recorded by the university and that audio is (audio exhibit A13)  Burton also recorded the meeting and that audio is (audio exhibit A13a).  Burton made a short clip of the university’s recording when Throop was explaining why she was not eligible for chair and that audio is (audio exhibit A13b).  

Throop disqualified Burton from serving as chair for the stated reason that Burton was not able to handle her boss’s retaliation without complaining to higher authority.  Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  No wonder she didn’t want to explain her reason in writing.  But here it is in audio recording.  Listen to it (audio exhibit A13b).  

A partial transcript of the meeting was prepared by Roger and is (audio exhibit ZZA - Grievance-Throop-Transcript).  This transcript contains Dr. Burton’s rebuttal to some spoken statements.    The grievance had been filed on Wed, Nov 06, 2013 03:35 PM.


Documentation specifically relating to this event include

1.      Burton’s email to Drefcinski cc Gormley filing the grievance (exhibit EZZZZY-4) with attachments (exhibit 554a) and (exhibit ZP)

2.      LAE Constitution Article VI - (appendix X) This shows the procedure for replacing chairs.

3.      A mid December 2012 email thread with Burton’s complaint of Caywood’s actions (exhibit EI)

4.      Burton’s grievance damages and demands:  (Claim of 7/7/13 section 6d)   Dkt 43-11     This lists her damages saying that her health suffered because of Caywood’s retaliation.   Caywood defamed Burton to Throop.  Burton’s reputation with AT&T suffered.  Burton mentioned hostile work environment.  Caywood ignored her.  Caywood minimized her accomplishments, embarrassed her and attempted to ruin her success by damaging her reputation.  Burton said that Caywood treated her disparately with Dutelle.  Her office assignment was poor.  NSF proposal ruined.  All Burton’s projects were jeopardized.  Her grievances were delayed and she experienced foot dragging, counter accusations, indifference, incompetence, anger and violations of regulations by those she went to for help. 

This shows that her grievance submission was a protected activity.  It also shows that her grievance request was delayed.  The fact that the grievance process was not followed shows that Throop did not believe her stated reasons for her adverse actions.

Burton demanded that Throop hold an election in keeping with policy.  She violated policy.  This shows she did not believe her stated reasons for disqualifying Burton from being chair. 

Burton demanded that the university post the laws EEOC enforces as required by law but they never did that.

5.      Roger’s statement about Lana’s 7/11/13 harassing phone call (exhibit EZZZZG-1)

6.      An email thread ending with Burton’s explanation to the Chancellor that Burton expected Dalecki would be unfair to her when he becomes chair (exhibit EZZZZG)

7.      Burton’s email to Provost Nimocks/Den Herder about the ‘he said removed she said stepped away’ issue. (exhibit EZZZZS-1)

8.      Caywood’s complaint that he was “removed” (exhibit EZZZZS-2)

9.      Burton’s email to Shields, Nimocks/Den Herder, Throop, Drefcinski stating “To be on record: I formally oppose the nomination of Mike Dalecki as interim's chair of the Department of Criminal Justice.” (exhibit 519)

10.  Throop’s email saying Caywood “stepped away” from being chair.  (exhibit EZZZZS)

11.   Then Dean Nimocks’ report about Departmental conflict on 26 Apr 2010 (exhibit EZZZZZG-2)

12.    Faculty Bylaw Part III Article I with policy for selection, removal and designation of department chairs.  (appendix XI)

13.  Wis. Stat. § 36.09 (4)   (appendix XII) which states “The faculty of each institution shall have the right to determine their own faculty organizational structure and to select representatives to participate in institutional governance.”

14.  Partial transcript of grievance hearing against Caywood (exhibit ZM-1)

15.  Policies and Procedures for the Criminal Justice Department (effective August 22, 2011) (exhibit ZQ)

16.   Questions the search committee asked Dean Throop for her on campus interview. (exhibit ZZ)  She said she would fight bullying.


Burton made a checkoff sheet of items to talk about at the hearing (never sent Check off statements).  

Files Burton printed and took to the hearing are (exhibit FE3).

Dr. Drefcinski admitted that he had not advertised the hearing and did not know of the requirement to advertise the grievance hearing. (appendix XV) talks to the WI Open Meetings Law.   He also did not indicate a commitment to do it right in the future or an apology for having done it incorrectly.   He did not publish the hearing for Caywood’s grievance and did not inform Burton when and where it would be as she requested.  

Partial Transcript of the Hearing with Burton’s comments are contained in (exhibit ZZA)

Note: Dean Throop was hired in part to oppose bullying. In her job interview she answered very sternly when asked how she would handle bullying (exhibit ZZ). Dr. Carl Alsup and Dr. Burton were both on the search committee for the new dean and can attest to this. Dr. Burton specifically wanted to hire a new Dean who would be tough on bullying because she was suffering bullying.    Dr. Alsup was fired shortly after Throop took over as Dean. 


December 13, 2013 – Dkt 42-99,  Dkt 41-43  Dkt 53-17.  Dkt 53-34.  Dkt 41-33.   Shane Drefcinski wrote a letter to the Chancellor about the Grievance by Burton against Throop.  (UW-P 007398 – 7399)   Grievance Committee’s report dated Dec 13, 2013 in which they agreed with Burton’s claims against Dean Throop. (exhibit ZZA-1)     (appendix XIV) is the LAE Constitution saved on 11/13/13.   (appendix XI) is the Faculty Bylaws pt III Article I, saved on 11/30/13.   Dkt-53-33—8291    Dkt-53-34—8343


This shows that Throop violated policy in appointing Dalecki.  That demonstrates that the university ignored Burton’s grievance demands against Caywood that she call for an election as required by policy.   The fact that Throop violated policy shows that she did not believe her stated reasons for violating policy and denying Burton a fair election.   This also is an adverse action against Burton.  For the following reasons”

    1.  Throop stated in a high level meeting that Burton was “labile” seemingly as a reason why Burton was ineligible to be chair.
    2. Throop stated in the grievance hearing that the reason Burton was not considered for chair was that she couldn’t handle things on a local level.  (Couldn’t handle retaliation by her boss by complaining to her boss)
    3. Throop denied Burton the opportunity to be elected chair by not holding the election.  Burton and Fuller were the only eligible members of the department.
    4. In her grievance against Caywood Burton demanded that Dean Throop hold an election.  This demand was ignored.
    5. The grievance committee recommended that Dean Throop follow procedures in the appointment of the next chair but she violated policies again.


Jan 14, 2014: The DRB met. Two members, Dr. Burton and Dr. Fuller voted not to renew Dr. Gibson’s appointment. Dr. Caywood and Mr. Dutelle voted to renew his appointment. The Dean is the tie breaker so we expected she would decide not to renew Dr. Gibson’s appointment.  Dr. Gibson was quite upset by this news when he found out.  Dutelle said “I can’t really rate I’ve never seen him teach” and “My amount of interaction with Lorne Gibson since he’s been here and I’ve been here could be put in one hand.  I mean, I just don’t work with him.  I mean, I ran the program, he never taught for me, he didn’t interact with me, we were not involved in the same things at all.  Other than working on the grant with him, that’s all we’ve got to go off of.  And he did average work on the grant.” Burton recorded the meeting (audio exhibit A4)   A partial Transcript of the meeting is A4a.    [corrupt vote]  Why did Dutelle vote to retain when he knew nothing of Dr. Gibson?  Why didn’t he abstain?   This audio shows how unfair these types of meetings are.  Burton was marginalized and ignored.  They just go through the motions to get what they want, bending the law as they go (see Caywood’s comment of Feb 6, 2013.  )

Jan 21, 2014 09:43 AM – Caywood sent an email saying “I was removed as chair” and “the faculty constitution was not followed” and “Based on the grievance commission’s comments: It is clear that the interim chair appointment was not done correctly.”  He also wrote “She (Dean Throop) made it clear then it didn’t matter what the department did she would not follow our suggestion. I am afraid that is what will happen again. In order to be compliant with the faculty constitution we will at some point have another election and the dean and the provost will again reject our candidate.”  (exhibit ZT-2) SB000532 Burton asked Drefcinski to let her know when Caywood’s hearing would be but the hearing was held without her knowledge (exhibit 532a).


Jan 24, 2014 – Dr. Caywood wrote a letter of support for Dr. Gibson in regards to the DRB decision. (exhibit EZZZZZO)

Jan 24, 2014 – Caywood wrote a letter pointing out what he thought was wrong with the way Gibson was graded.  (exhibit 549) (exhibit 549a)   


Aug 8, 2014 – 10:54 AM – Dkt 41-55.    Dkt 48-142,  Dkt 48- UW-P 004709

  [UW-P 004709]  Dalecki sent an email to Lohmann saying “In her (Burton’s) mind the position on the CRST is prestigious; it’s just another service position in everyone else’s mind.”   Note:  On Oct 17, 2013 Dalecki wrote notes showing that university-wide committees (like the CRST) are the sort of thing Burton needed in order to be qualified to be chair.



On August 29, 2014 there was a department meeting.  There is an interesting story associated with this meeting and you can read about it at (CJDeptMeetingMinutes-Altered)

Throop tried to convince the department members to accept Dalecki for another year and put off a search for a new chair but the department voted in favor of conducting a search the same year. [corrupt vote]  In an email Burton sent to dept members she suggested that either Caywood or her, as the most senior CJ faculty on campus, should chair the search. She also wrote that she would support any other CJ faculty as chair of the search.  Caywood agreed. (exhibit 540). 


Dalecki acted as though he was accountable only to the Dean and not at all to the department.  Note:  When Caywood was appointed chair his appointment letter calls him an “Administrator.” [UW-P 005335]    Dean Throop wrote that the chair position is 100% administrative.  (Chair-100pctAdminPos).


August 30, 2014 9:21:23 AM -  (Caywood Agrees)  Burton wrote to the department a long email explaining that she opposed Dalecki and a number of other things.  She called for Lomax to be our nomination for chair.  She suggested “If we can’t pull a CJ chair from our own ranks and will go the route of national search we should choose the chair of the search & screen ourselves. I would be happy to serve as chair and work hard to facilitate a successful chair search. Dr. Caywood, as our former chair, would also be well suited to chair the search. Dr. Caywood and I are the most senior faculty for the campus teaching program. If we, as a department, can’t agree on an internal chair of the search and screen committee we should discuss outside candidates. E.g., Dr. Evan Larson who just recently was offered the chair position in the geography department but declined because he wants to continue to devote his time to teaching and research. Larson is an untenured, assistant professor with an outstanding work and teaching record. Other excellent candidates would be Dr. Travis Nelson (Political Science), Dr. Lizzy Gates (chair, Psychology and CJ DRB chair in spring 2013), Dr. Marc Wruble (Psychology) – just to throw out some names.”



September 2, 2014 8:54:44 AM - (Caywood Agrees)   Caywood wrote “I agree.”

September 2, 2014 9:18:39 AM -(Caywood Agrees)    Burton wrote to Caywood “Yes, very unfortunate. We should at least try to get Joe back in as chair. There is a state law that addresses faculty governance. The dean is not just in violation of bylaws and LAE constitution but also state law. Very sad for a CJ dept.  I was surprised by the Deb move as well. This should have been discussed with us CJ members first. Just like the "deal" that Throop offered us. Dalecki as chair for another year for search & screens for all vacancies. One search could cover 2 open positions. Just like Lorne did. Throop and Dalecki turned my search & screen into a double hire and that after the fact and without running it by the CJ department first.

9/2/2014 9:39 AM   (Caywood Agrees)   Caywood writes “I agree we should at least try.”

9/3/2014 2:53 PM  -  Throop sends an email to the dept saying “If anyone has suggestions, please do provide them either to Cheryl or to me.  We will identify the SCC by Sept. 19, 2014.” (Throop asks for suggestions for search chair).   Notice that Throop asked for “suggestions” that she would consider.  She wrote “we” but she meant “me.”  This was not a solicitation for nominations to be voted on by the department but it was a solicitation for “suggestions” that she later ignored.   She asked Zauche three times to chair the search but nobody in the department suggested him.

Sept 22, 2014 – Dean Throop confirms that the chair position is 100% administrative.  (Chair-100pctAdminPos).


9-24-14 -  Chair search meeting with Dr. Burton, Dr. Solar, Dr. Stackman and Dr. Reed.  (audio exhibit A9) Transcript (exhibit A9a)  At this meeting they discussed the wording for the job description for a new department chair.  What came through loud and clear in the audio is that the CJ faculty wanted the new chair to have education in Criminal Justice.  They wanted the new chair to have at least a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice (thereby excluding Dalecki). 

The job announcement that Throop posted was altered from what the CJ department agreed to.  She modified the position so Dalecki would not be disqualified (exhibit 698a).   She did this without consulting the department.   The announcement that was advertised says “The successful candidate will also have an undergraduate or graduate degree in criminal justice, criminology, or closely related field.”  So it seems that Throop added “or closely related field” in order to allow Dalecki to get the position.

This audio could be useful in explaining how Burton was injured by being excluded from the discussion of the job description for the search for 3 new faculty members and to show the committee’s intent to exclude Dalecki from consideration. 

Burton created a rubric for the evaluation of chair candidates (exhibit 698). She emailed the rubric to Throop on 10/9 at 1:16 pm as requested by the department. 


Some time in Sept 2014  Burton gave Throop a list of websites to which she could post the job advertisement to cast a wider net.   A good deposition question for her would be “Did you advertise the position in any other websites besides”  Probably not.

In the meeting Pat Solar mentioned that he was chairing 3 search and screens for new faculty members. 

 Job ad – Dkt 41-34.


September 24, 2014 12:44:56 PM Dkt 42-92.   Reed sent an email to Throop with the form that was approved by six of seven votes.  (email fm Reed to Throop 9-24-14)   On October 7, 2014 8:11:50 AM   Throop changed or altered the wording without departmental approval so that Dalecki would be qualified.  She blamed Reed for the change.    



Sept 30, 2014 –  Throop wrote an email to the dept saying “I am happy to tell you that Tim Zauche (who several of you suggested) has agreed to serve as the chair of this search committee.  I will be contacting some of you, asking you to serve as members of this very important committee.”   Deposition question:  Who suggested Zauche? Answer: Nobody I know of.  I think Throop made that up.  She has done that before.


October 7, 2014 8:11:50 AM -  Dkt 41-35.  Throop sent an email to Reed saying “I've also attached a revised copy of the job ad so that we can throw, as Rex put it in our meeting, "the widest net possible."”  Again she is blaming someone else for her decision.  (Note:  The altered minutes of the 8-29-14 dept meeting say that Reed made this comment but; did  he actually say that?   Hmmm.) Throop unilaterally changed the advertisement so the net would include Dalecki without a vote.  She implies that Rex approved the change but he didn’t.   As you can tell by the audio recording of the meeting department members were adamant that the advertisement be written so that it would not include Dalecki as a viable candidate. (email fm Throop to Reed 9-24-14     The original wording was approved by the department on 9-24-14 .     Reed sent the final draft of the ad to Throop on  September 24, 2014 12:44:56 PM       

September 25, 2014 9:51:00 AM  -  Fuller snitched an email to Throop explaining that “much of the wording was designed intentionally to keep Mike from making application for the position.”   (Subpoena-Throop)  


10-15-14 – Burton met with Throop and Tim Zauche and recorded the meeting (audio exhibit A15)

 10/28/14 -  The job advertisement for CJ chair was posted (exhibit 659).    Burton thought at the time that Dalecki did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position as shown on the advertisement but since Throop made a subtle change on Oct 7, 2014 without the department’s permission the ad seemed to allow Dalecki as a qualified candidate.


12/1/2014 8:30 AM – Zauche sent an email to members of the chair search committee with instructions (exhibit 594).  Attached was an excel file that wouldn’t open (exhibit 594a).  


December 4, 2014 1:02 PM through 12/5/2014 6:06 PM – Emails between Zauche and Burton. (exhibit 593).  Zauche reminded committee members to send their votes.  Burton had trouble opening the form on her computer and Zauche sent her another form that worked.  She asked some questions about why Zauche changed percentages of categories and explained that she didn’t want to send her form and gave reasons why.   Zauche and Burton exchanged emails and he ended saying that her votes would not be included if she didn’t send them in.  Here is what he was probably trying to do:  He wanted all of the committee members to email their votes to him so he could manipulate the numbers so Dalecki wins.  Then he would say ‘That’s the way everybody voted’ and nobody could refute that because he would be the only person in the world who knew how the votes actually were cast.   This sort of thing is common practice at UW Platteville. Votes are routinely manipulated and influenced to produce the administration’s desired result while maintaining the illusion of propriety. 



12-5-14 -  Chair search meeting was conducted.  Burton audio recorded the meeting (audio exhibit A16)  (also audio exhibit A27) (Partial transcript –A16a)  At this meeting a student said “how things are run currently students do not feel comfortable at all going to our chair and we’re actually losing a lot of students.  I know of six that have left the university because of issues with that.” 



This is where the story gets juicy:


December 5, 2014 4:33 PM -  Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit C) .   Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit E)   (exhibit 596)  Dkt 42-79 pg4Dkt 42-80,  SB000228]  Throop sent an email to Zauche reminding him that he was to exclude Burton from discussions regarding Dalecki.  Throop did not cc Burton on this email.  Burton only received it because Zauche cc’d her in his response to Throop on December 5, 2014 5:53 PM.  Throop probably just wanted Zauche to exclude Burton without telling her.  


December 5, 2014 5:53 – SB000228] Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit C) .   Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit E) Dkt 42-79 pg4,  Dkt 42-80,   Zauche wrote to Throop (cc to Burton) “Got it” and asked me if I had questions.


December 8, 2014 7:32 AM.   Dkt 42-79, Dkt 42-80,   SB000227]   Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit C)Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit E)  Burton responded to Zauche, and cc’d Throop. (exhibit 596)    Burton pointed out her understanding of Throop’s comments at the meeting she mentioned.  Burton pointed out that she was the only member of the committee with no conflict of interest.




December 8, 2014 10:36 PM –  Dkt 42-80,   Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit C) .     Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit E)    Burton replied to Throop (exhibit 597) asking her many questions about why she had been doing the things she had been doing.  These were all good questions to ask in deposition.  Throop never answered any of the questions Burton asked.    Burton wrote “It seems to me that you are treating me disparately…”      Throop removed Burton BECAUSE she complained of disparate treatment and BECAUSE she refused to act on a direction that violated law.  She may say it was because Burton refused to recuse herself but that is not a violation of any policy.  One may recuse oneself for any reason.  One may decide not to recuse oneself for any reason.   It makes no sense to order someone to voluntarily recuse themselves.   Dean Throop could, and did, recuse Burton.  She cannot legally force Burton to recuse herself.  She cannot legally discipline Burton for refusing to voluntarily recuse herself.



Dec 8, 2014, 10:39 PM - Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit C) .   Dkt 42-80     Burton re-sent the email because she hadn’t included Zauche originally. 



On December 8, 2014 11:03 PM  Dkt 42-80,    Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit C)   Zauche said he would let Burton and Throop “figure this out.”   Zauche wrote “I am probably better than most people on CJ because I have no enemies in the departent or college, only respect for everyone.”  And “I declined the offer to serve as chair two times, but at the end, I serve at the discretion of the Dean. If needed, Liz can explain in further detail why she selected someone outside the department.”


 Throop had to ask Zauche to chair the search three times before he agreed.  He likely knew he was being asked to violate policy so he didn’t want to do it.  What did Throop have on Zauche?  Hmmm.  I wonder what skeletons he has in his closet.  Did he owe Dalecki a favor?  Hmm.




December 8, 2014 4:42 PM -  Dkt 42-79 , (exhibit 597aDkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit E)  SB000227]   Throop emailed Burton and Zauche saying Burton had documented prejudgment of Dalecki’s ability to serve as chair.  She said Burton “must not participate in any activities of any kind, including interviews, discussions, and evaluations of Dr. Dalecki in the search process. If you attempt to participate, I will be forced to remove you from the search committee immediately.”   


On December 08, 2014 10:37 PM     Dkt 42-79   Burton responded with a lengthy, and informative, email.  She asked a bunch of questions Throop couldn’t answer.    This is important.


December 9, 2014 10:15 AM   Dkt 42-79,   Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit E)  Dean Throop wrote “You will either refrain from discussing Dr. Dalecki’s candidacy, participating in decisions/recommendations regarding his candidacy, and voting on his candidacy, or I will remove you immediately from this search committee.” (exhibit 597a)     Her direction was non-sensical.  


Tue 12/9/2014 12:47 PM –  Dkt 42-79,   Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit E)  Burton wrote a response saying “I will not bend to corruption, abuse and threats.”   Throop immediately removed Burton from the chair search committee. (exhibit 597a)  Burton accused Throop of corruption.  Burton asked her some pointed questions which she never answered.






12/9/2014 1:52 PM    Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit D) .   Dkt 42-80,        Burton wrote Zauche a rather long and informative email on telling him that he should do the right thing and recuse himself from the search due to major conflict of interest with Dalecki.  (exhibit 597)  Throop admonished Burton for this email in her UWS 6.01 complaint.  Burton wrote “I don't show loyalty to a corrupt, abusive system; and that is my "disqualification" for the search & screen chair position.”


December 10, 2014 10:44 AM  -   Dkt 48-145   (exhibit 609)  -  Throop wrote Burton an email saying “In light of your recent communication to me that you refuse to refrain from in discussion of Dr. Dalecki’s candidacy, I have no choice but to remove you from the chair search committee. Given your bias against Dr. Dalecki, your refusal to recuse yourself has the potential to harm this university. Your removal is effective immediately. Dr. Banachowski-Fuller will replace you.”

December 10, 2014 10:44 AM – Throop removed Burton from the search for a new chair. (exhibit 609)


Dec 10, 2014 12:27 PM Dkt 53-40    Dkt 48-145,  Burton forwarded Throop’s email to Lohmann.


Chair Search Issue #3 for Grievance against Throop:  Burton composed a list of events detailing the problems with the chair search (exhibit 610).  This document helps expose the corruption of the search.   updates on (interactive exhibit i610)


2-10-15 -  Burton was considering telling the candidates that Dalecki was selected before the process even began but Tim Hawks suggested that she not do so.  So she did not, showing great restraint.

February 11, 2015 12:30 PM -  Throop wrote an email to the CJ dept (exhibit 643) saying that people in the dept suggested things that they probably didn’t suggest.  Throop lies about what people ask for to make it look like her mandates are actually what the department wants.  It is the same thing she did with her claim that students reported Burton missing class.        This isn’t the only time Throop did this.

February 11, 2015 7:59 PM – Steve Elmer wrote an email to Throop cc to the department (exhibit 643) in which he writes “it seems extremely important to the integrity of the entire process that we meet as an entire department in order to thoroughly and openly air everyone’s opinions.”  He had other criticism, which he was careful to word politely, and made suggestions that shed light on the way Throop was trying to force Dalecki on the department.



February 12, 2015 9:00 AM – Throop wrote back to Elmer, cc the department (exhibit 643) in which she used vague terminology to tell the department members that ‘you have good reason to be uncomfortable about discussing this situation in a face to face meeting.’  I believe she lied about people telling her that they are not comfortable with or interested in a face to face meeting.  They are uncomfortable because they are afraid Throop will do to them what she has been doing to me.  Why would they communicate that to Throop?  They wouldn’t, so she probably lied.


Thursday, February 12, 2015 7:15 PM – Elmer responds with another email (exhibit 643) that makes it clear that he does not trust the legitimacy of the process to select a chair. 


2/12/2015 7:30 PM – Throop responds with an email blaming her mandates on the phantom concerns of an unnamed number of unnamed people.  (exhibit 643)



2-16-15 – Joe Lomax sent a pleasant email.  Burton responded on 2-24-15. (exhibit 675)

February 17, 2015 2:19 PM – Gibson wrote an email to the department that really sheds light on what happened and is a must read (exhibit 643).  In this email Gibson calls out the administration as being corrupt, recommended following policies for a change and predicted the eventual crash of the CJ department.   Being an aviator, I especially enjoyed reading his closing line “and just try to enjoy the silence of engine loss.”

2/24/2015 11:30 AM – Dean Throop sends email to department saying that Dr. Staci Strobl has verbally accepted the offer to join the CJ dept.  Sabina and Roger Burton danced. 

4-17-15 – Dr. Burton went back to school for the first time after being on sick leave.  Note that Dr. Burton was not involved in the discussions about the next chair while she was on sick leave.   She was not involved after Throop removed her from the search committee.


Thursday, November 3, 2016 11:45:42 AM – Dr. Strobl sends an email to department saying that she officially resigns.  Strobl-Resigns-11-2-16       Some dept members ask Strobl to reconsider and say she was a good fit.   Burton wrote “The admin has to wake up and recognize CJ/FI's contributions to LAE and the campus. Just see how many changes in chairs and even deans (see engineering) we have had, not to mention faculty and staff.”


As of 11/22/16 the flowers on Dr. Strobl’s desk are still there, dead and wilted.   Burton has not seen her at the department.  She does not seem to have even been in at all.