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.
(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:
Rebuttal to the report that was delivered to Dr. Burton by Chancellor Shields (“Roter report”).
(Rebuttal - written by Roger Burton)
The “Roter report” appears to have been written by Dr. Petra Roter but it seems too biased and filled with inaccuracies to believe that it was.
UW System President Ray Cross assigned Dr. Petra Roter to be the co-chair of the Task force to Strengthen Efforts to Address Sexual Violence and Harassment on Campus. The task force, in their December 2016 report to UW System President Ray Cross, “recommends that President Cross appoint the current Co-Chairs, Anne Bilder and Petra Roter, to continue to focus on implementation, to monitor progress, and to provide guidance, coordination, and oversight.”
Chancellor Dennis Shields assigned Dr. Roter to investigate bogus allegations against my wife, Dr. Sabina Burton, a vocal advocate of student rights (RoterReport-pages 9 - 12). Chancellor Shields wrote to Roter “I am seeking your determination of the facts at issue in the complaint.” He did not ask her to provide opinions or to digest the facts. Dr. Roter was assigned as a “fact finder.”
Dr. Roter doesn’t seem to have any reason for railroading Sabina and we were very hopeful that her report would be fair. Given Dr. Roter’s position as co-chair of the Task force to Strengthen Efforts to Address Sexual Violence and Harassment on Campus it seems she should be fair to a faculty member who advocated for a student victim of sexual harassment. I was hopeful that the Roter investigation report would be fair but I was sadly disappointed. I doubt that Dr. Roter wrote the report Chancellor Shields delivered to Dr. Burton and her attorney. I think it was forged.
On Sat 3/4/2017 1:38 PM– Chancellor Shields sent an email to Sabina. Attached was a document that appears, at face value, to be an investigation report from Dr. Roter (“Roter report”). (RoterInvestigationReport-3-4-17) (Shieldsofferstomeet-3-4-17). However, there is no signature on the report. The report was delivered to my wife Dr. Sabina Burton by email and by certified mail from Chancellor Shields (EmailfmShields-3-4-17). If the report was altered after Dr. Roter delivered it to Chancellor Shields then it would appear that Chancellor Shields committed fraud. The cover letter of the “Roter report” says “Report of the Investigation of the Complaint Made by Provost Elizabeth Throop and Dean Melissa Gormley Against Professor Sabina Burton. Submitted to Chancellor Dennis Shields, UW-Platteville as per his Charge and Request, Submitted by Petra Roter, Senior Special Assistant to the Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs, UW System Administration, March 1, 2017” But the report is not signed. Anyone could have written this report and submitted it in her name. Chancellor Shields certainly had opportunity to alter the report. Where is Dr. Roter’s actual report? Why didn’t she sign this report? Why didn’t Chancellor Shields cc Dr. Roter in the email delivering this report? Was he trying to keep Dr. Roter in the dark about a forgery of the report?
Dr. Burton’s attorney sent a communication to Dr. Roter asking for verification that the “Roter report” identified above was her actual final draft of her investigation report. Rather than answering the question, or even communicating with Dr. Burton’s attorney, Dr. Roter forwarded the communication to Jennifer Sloan Lattis. Attorney Lattis responded that the report in question was the final draft. But she didn’t answer the question. Was this Dr. Roter’s final draft of the report? Was the report altered after Dr. Roter delivered it? Did attorney Lattis alter the report? Why wouldn’t Dr. Roter confirm the authenticity of the report delivered to Dr. Burton? Did Chancellor Shields send my wife the authentic, original investigation report or was it “edited” by an unnamed third person after Dr. Roter delivered it? Why didn’t Dr. Roter sign the report? Why would Dr. Roter fabricate evidence against Dr. Burton as the report in question clearly does? Why does the vague and biased tone of the “Roter report“ (RoterInvestigationReport-3-4-17) seem so similar to the vague and biased tone of two previous investigation reports 1) The report supposedly by Dr. Barraclough (Barraclough_Report), (Barraclough_Report-Rebuttal) and the report supposedly by Dale Burke (DebRice-Complaint808016). We have evidence that a previous investigation report was edited after it was delivered by the investigator (WhydidCrowleyLie), (WhydidCrowleyLie-2).
Did the same unnamed third person “edit” all these reports? Was that person Jennifer Sloan Lattis?
If Dr. Roter wrote this “Roter report” I question her ability to ethically fulfill her duties as co-chair of the Task Force to Strengthen Efforts to Address Sexual Violence and Harassment on Campus. We need someone who will fight for our children’s right to fair treatment and protection against sexual violence and harassment and who will protect advocates of student rights. We don’t need another dog-and-pony show, we need real change, real protection for our children. If Dr. Roter is indeed the author of the “Roter report” she should not be allowed to co-chair that task force. If Chancellor Shields, Attorney Lattis or someone else altered Dr. Roter’s original report then they should be held accountable. Last time I checked fraud was a crime in the state of Wisconsin.
How much was Dr. Roter paid to produce her investigation report? A previous “edited” report cost UW Platteville almost $10,000. This seems to be an example of fraud, waste and abuse all rolled into one action. Where is Dr. Roter’s original signed version of the report? Would Dr. Roter stand behind the statements in this report if she were asked to testify to it under oath? This “Roter report” raises more questions than it answers.
The author of the “Roter report” made a number of misstatements, omissions and errors that all slant the report toward serious bias against Sabina (Roter investigation rept of Mar 1, 2017). Here are just a few examples:
1) “Roter report:” “Dr. Dalecki’s conversation with a graduate student was taped by the student without permission and posted online. (Exhibit F) It was characterized and captioned as a threat against the student, who was described as a protégé of Dr. Burton’s. Dr. Burton said the student was one she was mentoring, but did not suggest or direct him to tape the conversation. Upon listening to the transaction it appears to be mentoring rather than punitive or threatening.”
a. Please listen to the audio and read the transcript (Exhibit F - Transcript)
b. It seems the student was acting within the law, according to Wis Statute 968.31(2)(c). Not all states are “one party consent states” but Wisconsin is.
c. The author of the report is incorrect to say that the student recorded the conversation “without permission.” The student gave himself permission and that is all the authority he needed according to Wis Statute 968.31(2)(c). It seems the “without permission” statement is an effort by the author of the “Roter report” to influence the reader to believe that the student made a “mistake” by recording the conversation. However, it seems the student was well within his rights, as a person in Wisconsin who was a party to that conversation, and gave himself permission (consent) to record the conversation. Why doesn’t the “Roter report” address the FACT that Wisconsin is a “one party consent state?” Wouldn’t that be an important fact for a “fact finder” to include?
d. Do you agree that that this discussion was “mentoring rather than punitive or threatening?”
e. Would you want the chair of your child’s department talking to your child this way?
f. Soon after this meeting the student’s position was rescinded (in essence - he was fired). The administration said it was due to lack of funds but we have evidence that funds were available. The student stated, under oath, that he believed his position was rescinded because of his association with Dr. Burton (Grad Student Declaration).
g. Dr. Dalecki wrote that it is not uncommon for students to believe “the right to an opinion includes the right to have it taken seriously by others.” (Dkt 34-6 pg5 & 9 ) Dr. Dalecki seems to believe that student’s opinions are not worth considering. The author of the “Roter report” seems to agree with Dr. Dalecki.
h. I wonder if the author of the “Roter report” has similar “mentoring” sessions with students. Who is the author of the “Roter report?”
i. Why isn’t Dr. Dalecki being investigated under threat of imminent dismissal for this “mentoring” session?
j. Why didn’t the author if the “Roter report” sign it?
2) Chancellor Shields assigned Dr. Roter to collect and report facts, not to offer opinions. Opinions are to be formed by the Chancellor in deciding disposition of the claims and by a hearing committee if the Chancellor decides to pursue formal charges. (Note: If Chancellor Shields files formal charges against Sabina we will demand an open hearing to address the bogus charges and will advertise the date and time of the hearing on universitycorruption.com so that parents and students will be able to attend.) The “Roter report” stated about Dr. Burton: “Colleagues describe the threats and harassment as attempt to undermine them professionally and to do damage to their reputation and careers, including calling some unethical and imply that she could adversely impact tenure and promotion processes and decisions.”
a. The author of the “Roter report” seems to state, as if it were fact, that Dr. Burton made threats and harassed her colleagues. This is an opinion and not a fact. What evidence does the author of the report use to determine whether Dr. Burton did indeed “threaten” or “harass” anyone? Is this something that the real Dr. Roter would include in a report used to determine whether someone gets fired? Did the author of the “Roter report” overstep her/his bounds in offering this opinion as if it were fact? Did he/she do this purposely to slant the report toward bias against Dr. Burton? Who would have motive to do that? Who would have opportunity to do that?
b. There were other statements made in the report that were stated as fact that should not have been. In contrast, there were facts favorable to Sabina that were stated as though unproven.
c. Shouldn’t a “fact-finder” try to uncover whether Dr. Burton actually did the things her colleagues described? Which colleagues said these things? Where is the evidence? Can these colleagues provide any evidence to back up their claims?
d. I talk to Sabina all the time and she has not exposed truth “in an attempt to undermine anyone professionally or to do damage to their reputations or careers” as the author of the “Roter report” seems to be reporting as though it were fact. Sabina and I are exposing lies and policy and legal violations in an attempt to gain fair due process and to protect students. Anyone who acted illegally, immorally or unethically during the course of Sabina’s story deserves for their misdeeds to be exposed. They should apologize and accept any repercussions due them. If they were decent people they would. If damage is done to their reputations isn’t it their own doing rather than the doing of the person who exposed the facts?
e. When and where did Dr. Burton call people unethical or imply that she would adversely impact tenure and promotion processes and decisions? Why didn’t the writer of the “Roter report” include this evidence in the “fact-finding” report? These are not facts but a parroting of vague opinions that seem to be held by unnamed people who seem to have a vested interest in silencing a vocal advocate for student rights and due process. How can Sabina demonstrate the truth in her words if the “fact finding” report does not specify what Sabina said. How can she defend herself against these vague statements.
3) “Roter report”: “Dr. Burton said she did forward the email string to her husband, but did not give him access to her University email account. Mr. Burton did respond, though it appears it was from his own personal email.
a. This statement is in response to the false allegation that I used my wife’s email account. The evidence provided was an email string that originated from Dr. Solar to my wife, Dr. Burton. Dr. Burton forwarded the email to me and then I forwarded the email string with my response to Dr. Solar from my personal email account (investigation report – pg50-Appendix B). People respond to forwarded emails all the time. Most people can read an email string to see who sent it and from which account it was sent. The evidence Solar produced to implicate me instead exonerates me.
b. However, the writer of the “Roter report” vaguely states that it only “appears” that the email came from my personal email account. Why didn’the author of the “Roter report” present this as the obvious fact that it is?
c. Doesn’t it seem strange that Dr. Solar would call my response unauthorized use of University Email? Doesn’t it seem strange that Provost Throop and Dean Gormley would include this obvious false accusation in an official complaint against my wife? Doesn’t it seem odd that Chancellor Shields would call for an investigation into Sabina based on this obviously false allegation? Doesn’t it seem strange that the alleged “unauthorized use” was not part of the complaint but included in the exhibits? Why were they so vague?
d. Are all of these people conspiring to fire Sabina because she advocated for a student and won’t accept the retaliation for it? I think they are trying to run us out of money.
e. Who wrote this “Roter report?”
4) “Roter report”: “All those interviewed in the Criminal Justice program noted the department environment was “chilling” and “dysfunctional”and “Interviews of all parties, including Dr. Burton, report that they felt threatened directly and indirectly. Dr. Burton reports being cursed at, belittled, misrepresented and felt she was being retaliated by her colleagues. All those interviewed described threatening and harassing emails and interactions.”
a. Is this the kind of environment you want your children to be taught in?
b. Would the environment be made better by firing my wife, a vocal student advocate?
c. Would the environment be made better by firing people who retaliated against my wife? Is forging an investigation report against my wife a form of retaliation?
d. Does my website seem “threatening” to you? Do you think that people with something to hide might view my website as “threatening to them?” Why do you suppose the administration is trying so hard to shut me and my wife up?
e. Why didn’t the author of the “Roter report” offer specific evidence of emails from my wife that she believed to be threatening? Could it be because the emails that have been identified as threats were instead requests for hearings and investigations or whistleblowing?
f. Would it be right for the administration to fire my wife specifically because she reported violations of law? Isn’t that what is happening? Isn’t that why the administration can’t talk about it publicly?
g. Could the cherry-picked interviewees have lied? Maybe the investigator would get different input by talking to people who Sabina has not previously filed complaints against. Did the actual “Roter report” include discussions with other people? Was the investigation circumscribed to only hear the side of those loyal to the corrupt administration?
h. Was Dr. Roter’s original, signed investigation report altered before Dr. Roter delivered her actual, signed investigation report to Chancellor Shields or after she delivered it to him?
i. Why didn’t Dr. Roter sign the “Roter report?”
5) “Roter report”: “Dr. Burton said that colleagues called her mentally ill; asserted that her father was a Nazi SS; questioned her credentials; and appeared to be limiting her expression and professional development.”
a. Does this seem like serious enough allegations that Chancellor Dennis Shields, 608.342.1234, should have investigated Dr. Burton’s claims? Chancellor Shields ignored Sabina numerous requests for help but immediately ordered three investigations into bogus complaints against her.
b. Chancellor Shields explained his unwillingness to address Sabina’s complaints and requests for help by saying that it had never been clear to him “what outcomes (she) desired?” (Chancellor-8-31-16-letter) However, Chancellor Shields knew what Sabina wanted – read page 4 of Sabina’s response (ResponsetoChancellorLtr-8-31-16). Does lack of clarity seem like a good explanation for ignoring all these requests for relief from retaliation? Do you think Chancellor Shields pushed Sabina into taking the matter over his head? Doesn’t it seem like he has been provoking her? Didn’t Chancellor Shields force Sabina to take this to the courts and to the media? I think so. We tried everything else first. I believe the internal grievance process at UW Platteville failed because Chancellor Shields did not give Sabina fair due process.
a. Was Dr. Roter’s actual, signed investigation report altered before Dr. Roter delivered her actual, signed investigation report to Chancellor Shields or after she delivered it to him?
6) Dr. Burton told Dr. Roter that she repeatedly requested a grievance hearing to address Dean Throop’s bogus Letter of Direction (LOD) of Oct 28, 2014 but that she was never offered opportunity to address the LOD. Here are links to the audios of the meeting: (Pt1) (Pt2) (transcript).
a. The author of the “Roter report” neglected to mention in the report that the university failed to provide the requested hearings. Why did the author of the “Roter report” exclude this material fact? Is this indication that the author of the “Roter report” has a hidden agenda?
b. My wife would advocate for your child without hesitation if they were raped and came to her for help. How many other professors would advocate for your child? Listen to this audio for some insight. How likely is it that advocates for your child’s rights would receive retaliation by the UW Platteville Administration.
c. What message would be sent to other professors if Chancellor Shields were to rely on this investigation report and fire Sabina over these recent bogus allegations? Is that the message you want your child’s teachers to receive?
d. Here is Throop’s LOD – pg 4-6.
e. Here is Sabina’s Rebuttal to the LOD (Exhibit I on page 30).
f. Here are Throop’s ridiculous arguments that a hearing should not be offered: Dkt 42-70. Throop requested that Dr. Burton’s due process rights be violated, in writing.
i. Here is Sabina’s rebuttal to Throop’s arguments:
h. Throop wrote a similar bogus Letter of Direction against another faculty member that she was forced to withdraw. (evidence is kept private for confidentiality reasons)
i. Why would Provost Throop officially reprimand Dr. Burton for asking a colleague to house sit but never disciplined Deb Rice, who spread rumors that Dr. Burton is mentally ill and biased against East Germans? Sabina asked for a grievance hearing to address the bogus Letter of Direction but she was never given the opportunity and it is now used as basis in the complaint against her that threatens her job. Does that seem fair?
j. I think the Letter of Direction issue needs to be discussed in open session before any decision can be made concerning the January 2017 complaint against Dr. Burton.
k. What is stopping you from calling Chancellor Shields, 608.342.1234, and demanding that he order Throop to withdraw the LOD?
m. Was Dr. Roter’s original investigation report altered after it was delivered to Chancellor Shields? Did Chancellor Shields commit fraud? Did Jennifer Sloan Lattis commit fraud? I think it was Lattis who wrote the “Roter report.”
7) “Roter report”: “Dr. Burton asked Jannell Crowley, Human Resources, to take the Letter of Direction out of her personnel file last spring and thought with its removal it was no longer in effect.”
a. Burton never told Dr. Roter that she thought the Letter of direction was no longer in effect because Crowley had removed it. Listen to the audio of the investigation interview between Burton and Roter to confirm this (Pt1) (Pt2) (transcript).
i. Dr. Burton knew that Jannell Crowley had refused to take Throop’s Letter of Direction out of her personnel record (Case #2 Lawsuit filing – para 144-148)
ii. Dr. Burton did point out many problems with her Personnel Record and asked the Attorney General’s office to investigate (PersFile-MajorProblems-12-31-16). So far, no investigation.
b. Does falsely reporting what was said in the interview invalidate the entire report?
c. Is this fabrication evidence enough, by itself, to prove that Dr. Roter didn’t write the “Roter report?”
d. How often do investigators of the UW System put words in people’s mouths like this? Is fabricating facts in an investigation report a common practice at UW Platteville or is Dr. Burton a “special case” in which Chancellor Shields has some secret authority to violate her rights? Does his secret and shadowy “authority” come from a power higher than the US Constitution or Wisconsin state law? How does he get away with this?
e. It seems that all the “mistakes” made by the author of the “Roter report” put Sabina in a worse light and none of his/her “mistakes” put Sabina in a better light. Does that indicate bias on the part of the author of the report? Doesn’t bias of the author of the “Roter report” invalidate the entire report?
f. Do you think your child should audio record meetings if he/she is ever accused of wrongdoing?
i. Did you know it is not illegal, in Wisconsin, to audio record conversations in which only one party consents to the recording? (968.31(2)(c)) – There are limitations so be sure you understand the law. (Not every state allows this) I am not an attorney and am not able to give legal advice so, this is not legal advice.
g. Was Dr. Roter’s original, signed investigation report altered before or after it was delivered to Chancellor Shields?
8) “Roter report”: “I did not have a chance to interview students in this investigation and do not think it would be appropriate to do so considering the circumstances and would not know how to identify if I could.”
a. Do you understand the “Roter report” author’s reasoning for excluding students from the investigation? The school is full of students. How could he/she “not have a chance to interview students?” She/he could have easily walked to the CJ department and tagged random students between classes. The general attitude among students seems to be that Dr. Burton is in the right.
b. Do you agree that students should have no say whatsoever in determining whether a vocal advocate for their rights should be fired?
c. According to the “Roter report” Dr. Roter interviewed only the following people:
i. Provost Throop – Throop issued a bogus LOD against Sabina. Sabina filed a grievance, which was never heard, and then a federal lawsuit against Throop.
1. Throop lied under oath (short stories -para 2).
3. Throop filed a complaint against Dr. Burton (on Jan 5, 2015), that was dismissed. Chancellor Shields stated that the complaint had “merit” but didn’t identify any merit. If the complaint against Dr. Burton had merit why didn’t he discipline her at that time? Oh, yea, it’s probably because the investigation report was “edited” by someone besides the investigator. (Dkt 54-11). Chancellor-8-31-16-letter and ResponsetoChancellorLtr-8-31-16. (Barraclough_Report-Rebuttal).
4. Throop co-filed the complaint being investigated (”Roter report”- see pg 11).
ii. Dr. Mike Dalecki – Burton filed a federal lawsuit against him alleging severe retaliation, that Dr. Dalecki enforced a gag order on her and that he isolated her in the department. An example of this is in paragraph 1 above.
iii. Dr. Patrick Solar – Solar excluded Burton from a search and screen process and lied about it. He complained to Throop and his complaint found its way to Throop’s bogus Oct 28 2014 LOD. Solar threatened Burton with “consequences of his choosing.” Burton filed a complaint against Solar that Dean Throop refused to investigate. (search for Solar’s name in the timeline).
iv. Dr. Cheryl Fuller – Failed to remove Caywood from the committee that evaluated Sabina’s performance even though Sabina was suing Caywood in federal court. Fuller seems to have altered Burton’s evaluation scores. She assaulted Sabina in a DRB meeting by slapping Sabina on the leg and kicking her under the table to shut her up (we have audio of this to prove it). (short stories para 3&4) (search for Fuller’s name in the timeline for verification).
v. Dr. Staci Strobl – Burton filed an EEOC complaint against Strobl (OCR-Complaint-6-20-16).
vi. HR director Janelle Crowley – failed to give Burton a grievance hearing when requested. (RE_FairchildRefusal-CrowleyRefusal-5-17-16). Crowley failed to include Burton’s rebuttals in her personnel file as requested. Crowley maintains Burton’s personnel record in a messed up condition. Records are missing and other records should not be in the file. Burton filed a complaint against Crowley and asked the AG office to investigate (PersFile-MajorProblems-12-31-16). No investigation has yet been conducted as far as we know.
vii. Dr. Mary Rose Williams, UW-Platteville, Media Studies Faculty, Grievance Committees Member and Chair. Sabina filed a federal lawsuit against Dr. Williams on 1/17/17 (Lawsuit_filed-1-17-17-attachment).
viii. Dr. Sabina Burton - The only person identified as an interviewee who Dr. Burton has never complained about.
ix. The investigator failed to interview Dr. Gormley: Sabina has not filed any complaints against Dr. Gormley. Dr. Gormley and Dean Throop co-filed the complaint being investigated. Why didn’t the investigator talk to Dr. Gormley about her complaint? Was Dr. Gormley’s signature on the complaint forged?
d. Did the author of this report circumscribe the investigation to include only people who have vested interest in getting Dr. Burton fired and bleeding her resources dry? Does it seem fair to interview only people who have something to gain by getting rid of Dr. Burton?
e. Was Dr. Roter’s actual, signed investigation report altered before or after it was delivered to Chancellor Shields?
9) Dr. Burton told Dr. Roter in the investigation interview that she never discussed her personal issues or disputes with students in her classes but the author of the “Roter report” did not include this information (Pt1), (Pt2), (transcript). Neither did the author of the “Roter report” indicate that he/she talked to students to verify Dr. Burton’s claim.
a. Don’t you think the investigator should have investigated Dr. Burton’s claim by speaking to students who attended her classes?
b. Doesn’t this seem like a material part of this investigation?
c. Why would the author of the report exclude mention of Dr. Burton’s assertion from the report?
d. Why does this report seem so obviously biased against Dr. Burton? Could it be that a third party edited Dr. Roter’s original report and Chancellor Shields delivered to Sabina the “edited” version?
ii. I wonder if Attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis might have edited Dr. Roter’s original investigation report?
iii. Sabina filed a complaint with the Office of Lawyer Regulation against Attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis and the investigation stalled. Maybe Lattis changed Dr. Roter’s report? Attorney Lattis, on the other hand, seems to be all over Sabina’s case in very strange and shady ways. Lattis’ name keeps cropping up.
iv. Maybe Lattis didn’t change the “Roter report”. Maybe somebody else did? Who else had motive to do that? Who had opportunity to do that?
1. Chancellor Shields emailed, and certified mailed the unsigned “Roter report” to Sabina. It seems that Chancellor Shields had opportunity to change the “Roter report” after it was submitted. Would Chancellor Shields do that to someone who has publicly accused him of severe corruption? I do not trust Chancellor Shields. I think he is corrupt and I have a lot of documentation to back that up.
2. Did Chancellor Shields change Dr. Roter’s investigation report and deliver his “edited” version to my wife in hopes of using it to get her fired? Did he do it in hopes that her ulcers would flare up and kill her? Did he do it to try to run us out of money?
3. Sabina asked for investigations into Chancellor Shields’ previous practices but nobody seems interested in getting to the truth (Brokenburr-referstoLegal-8-25-16), (RqstforInvestigation-AG-12-9-16) (PersFile-MajorProblems-12-31-16). Sabina’s requests for investigations keep being sent back to UW Legal, where Jennifer Sloan Lattis is a Senior Legal Advisor.
v. Is Jennifer Sloan Lattis corrupt?
10) One of the complaints against Dr. Burton was that she involved students in her personal disputes. As evidence, Throop and Gormley presented this email from a student (StudentEmailSupportingBurton-11-5-16).
a. Do you believe it is appropriate to punish Dr. Burton for an email sent by a student without Dr. Burton’s knowledge? We don’t even know who sent this email. The student didn’t send it to Dr. Burton.
b. Do you think this student will need protection from retaliation? Should she/he carry a tape recorder and a can of pepper spray with him/her for the rest of her/his college career?
c. Is it fair to the author of this email that it is used as reason to fire Dr. Burton when it was intended to aid her and to encourage the administration to address the real issues?
d. Is it fair to Dr. Burton to punish her for the action of a caring and worried student?
e. Do you believe the administration is violating Dr. Burton’s first amendment rights by ordering her not to discuss issues of student safety with students?
f. Do you believe students should have a voice in deciding how reports of sexual violence and harassment are handled? Who will speak for the students if Sabina is fired?
g. Do you believe students should get involved? Do you believe parents should get involved?
11) “Roter report”: “everyone interviewed agreed that Dr. Burton is an excellent teacher.”
a. Even the people who badly want her fired cannot deny her excellence in teaching. Even faced with severe retaliation and harassment she performed admirably in the classroom. Students were surprised to learn of the harassment Dr. Burton has been suffering because she didn’t let it show in the classroom.
b. Provost Throop (who filed the complaint being investigated) said “What Dr. Burton has listed as her qualifications are really very important qualifications about her amazing abilities as a teacher. I think there is no question that her presence in the classroom is absolutely astounding. From what I can tell she is an inspired teacher.” (Audio A6 at 10:05)
c. Does quality matter? Don’t you want your child taught by an inspired instructor with a PhD from one of the finest Criminal Justice universities in America, high level international experience, a passion for teaching, a passion for justice and a passion for your child’s welfare?
d. Why would the administration want to fire one of the best, if not the best instructor in the Criminal Justice department? Jealousy? Sexism? Nationality bias? Perceived weakness? Systemic Corruption? Cover-ups? Pressure from above? Inability to distinguish between PR and the law? Greed? Power hunger? All of the above?
12) “Roter report”: says that Dr. Burton “noted that she has a tendency to be direct and short which could be perceived as threatening.”
a. Dr. Burton never said that she has a tendency to be short or that her tendency to be direct could be perceived as threatening. Sabina said she was kinda direct and kinda short and brief in one specific email to Deb Rice because Deb Rice had cussed her out over the phone. She also said that she “wasn’t accusatory.” Don’t take my word for it, listen to the audio of the meeting (Pt1) (Pt2) (transcript). (Start listening to Pt2 at 5:35).
b. Dr. Burton said she has a tendency to be direct due to her German heritage and she said she tries to be careful (Pt2 at 41:20).
c. Why did the author of the “Roter report” twist Sabina’s words?
d. Does this seem like something an unbiased investigator would do in a report that could be used to terminate someone’s employment?
e. Why would someone who is in charge of a task force commissioned to make our children safer slant a report in bias against a faculty member who advocates for students’ rights?
f. It seems Dr. Roter is not the author of the “Roter report.”
13) Dr. Burton told Dr. Roter in the investigation interview that mandatory communication training for the department had been ordered, recommended and urged by Chancellor Shields and that it had never been conducted (Dkt 46-132) (Dkt 101-21), (Dkt 101-7).
a. How can they fire Sabina for having a controlled tendency to be direct in her communication style when the communication training that had been mandated by Chancellor Shields and Dean Den Herder had been blown off by Dr. Caywood and Dr. Dalecki and then-Dean Throop? Why is Dr. Burton the only one required to communicate with sugar and spice in her voice at all times? What about Dalecki? Why isn’t he under investigation for his “mentoring session” in which he threatened a student?
b. Why didn’t the author of the “Roter report” mention the failure of the university to conduct mandatory communication training in his/her “fact finding” report? Could it be because he/she wanted to bias the report against Sabina?
c. Why do you suppose the administration failed to conduct the mandated communication training? Was it because communication style was not the real problem? Was it because they were only ordering the communication training so they could lay the blame for their own misdeeds on Dr. Burton’s alleged failure to “play nice?”
e. Was Dr. Roter’s investigation report altered before or after after it was delivered to Chancellor Shields?
14) Do you think the efforts of the Task Force to Strengthen Efforts to Address Sexual Violence and Harassment on Campus can protect student victims of sexual violence and harassment without addressing retaliation against advocates of student rights? Do you think the task force needs a leader who dog-piles on advocates of student rights or do you think it needs someone who will stand up for your kid and defend their advocates? Is the author of the “Roter report” the right person to head this task force intended to make our kids safer?
a. Do you think potential rapists or sex molesters would be less likely to attack your child if this task force addressed the corruption that keeps victims quiet?
b. Do you think your kids will be more at risk if Dr. Burton loses her job?
c. Do you think Sabina and I can win this all by ourselves? We’ve been alone for a long time and we have taken a lot of hard hits. We could use your support.
I believe that any UW Platteville student who dares to ask for help in dealing with a sexual harassment or sexual violence incident while Dennis Shields is still Chancellor has about a 99.9% chance of being shut down, ridiculed, embarrassed, harassed and quieted in a very unforgiving manner.
UW Platteville’s website states “The University of Wisconsin-Platteville will take prompt and appropriate action whenever it learns that sexual harassment has occurred. You are encouraged to report incidents or concerns to your supervisor, manager, department chair, director, or dean for action and resolution.” My wife helped a student report an incident of Sexual Harassment in October 2012 and the UW Platteville administration still has not taken reasonable steps to resolve the issue. (https://www.uwplatt.edu/mandatory-reporting) Archived at (http://archive.is/8esqK). I believe the administration is trying to fire my wife because she reported this incident and refused to accept retaliation for her advocacy of the student.
While the UW System loudly shouts out that students and their advocates can speak up about sexual violence and harassment, agents of the administration quietly make clear to victims that they will experience much worse if they do. Here is an example: (legs cut off and crawl away bleeding). What do you plan to do about it? If Chancellor Shields files formal charges against Sabina I hope you, and all your friends and family, will come to the open hearing against my wife. This is not just about her job or her career, it is about our kids’ safety.
Note: Dr. Roter’s investigation is the third investigation Chancellor Shields has ordered with potential to get Sabina fired. Shields dismissed the first two. Chancellor Shields spent $9,682.38 of university money to pay for the second of three sham investigations against my wife (BurkeInvest-invoice-3-8-17). Assuming he spent the same on each of the three investigations he is up to a total of $29,047.14. Does this seem like fraud, waste and abuse to you? Would somebody please call Chancellor Shields, 608.342.1234, and demand that he stops wasting our tuition money on his personal vendetta against my wife? I believe he is trying to run us out of money and break us so he can keep his numerous violations of policy and law covered up.
Maybe you can help us stay in the fight. Please Donate to Dr. Sabina Burton if you can. We don’t want to make money off this, we are fighting to bring change that will make all our kids safer. We have already spent $250,000 in legal costs and we will spend much more before this is over. If we win a large judgment we promise to give back. Sabina wants to give back to UW Platteville in the form of scholarships for students who exhibit strength of character in the face of adversity.
Sabina and I both want to rid UW Platteville of the severe systemic corruption that grips it. After corrupt people have stepped down or been removed Sabina hopes to be here to help move the university in a new direction that will make students safer and will curb fraud, waste and abuse. She wants to build a new Cyber Security program for the Criminal Justice department to give students a real chance to compete in today’s job market. She is my personal hero. We can’t do this alone. The cost of failure will be heavy for Sabina and I, and it will be tragic for many future victims of preventable sexual harassment and sexual violence. Corruption will not clean itself up! Please Donate.