Timeline for subpoena evidence that was finally provided to Dr. Burton on 11/9/16, long after the case had been dismissed.  

 

Here is an interesting story.   11/1/2016 12:17 PM -  I sent an email to Tim Hawks asking for emails that had been subpoena’d but had never been given to us. (missingevidence), (missingevidence-attachement)  I only found out about the subpoena because Deb Rice mentioned it in her complaint against my wife.   Mr. Hawks quickly sent me a usb stick containing the files that he should have given to us when her received it.  We didn’t get the files until 11/9/16, long long after Judge Peterson dismissed our case in summary judgment. (emailsfmTim-11-9-16)  Why didn’t Attorneys Hawks and Sumara provide this information to us in a timely manner?   Hmmm.  That’s a good question.  Maybe we will ask them some day.

 

 

Note:  Defense did not provide any emails dealing with the student complaint of 10/10/12 or with events of 1/24/13.   Defense withheld information that is material to this case.  That’s not cool guys.  No problem though.  We have plenty of evidence without it.  Still Defense did provide some pretty good stuff, read on.

 

Timeline:

 

 

October 4, 2012 2:48:25 PM     (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Fuller forwards to Caywood info about Burton’s course development.

 

 

 October 17, 2012 1:44:54 PM -  Fuller told Throop “Sabina requested that she only be assigned 2 seminar paper students for Spring 2013; I am still waiting for her to submit to you (or me) the green form (payment $1000). She did not want online graduate teaching assignments for Spring 2013 because she said she is teaching an on campus course as an overload.”  (Subpoena-Throop)      This is wrong.  Rebut.

 

October 22, 2012 4:08:40 PM      (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood thanks Fuller for ccing him on her communications with Sabina concerning course development.

 

 

November 15, 2012 10:57:02 AM      (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood thanks Fuller for the heads up on Burton’s grad council agenda.

 

January 10, 2013 9:45:35 AM      (Subpoena-Caywood)  -   Caywood thanks Fuller for setting up DRB stuff.

 

 

 

January 24, 2013 10:48:04 AM    -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller sent to Caywood the emails she had sent to Burton the previous November.  November 14, 2012 8:20:00 AM -  Fuller wrote to Burton “Hi Sabina, I will need to issue you a course development contract early Jan. 05 or so. Will you be able to defend your course development proposal at the December Graduate Council meeting?  The Grad Council will need to approve your course development proposal before I can issue you a contract.”  Burton wrote back “Yes, I will. When is the meeting?”  Fuller responded “December 13 is the next GC meeting. You will need complete the 'new course' form (posted on the Grad Council website under forms), then Tom and Liz will need to sign it; please make sure to attach the mini-syllabus (proposal) to the form. Once Tom and Liz sign the form, you will need to send it to Linda so that she can post it on the s-drive (for members to review) and list it in the Dec 13 agenda.”

 

 

January 24, 2013 11:14:59 AM      (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood thanks Fuller for forwarding to him the info she had previously sent him concerning Burton’s course development.

 

February 12, 2013 8:51:00 AM    (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood asks Fuller “Is Sabina doing anything for you this semester?”

 

 February 12, 2013 11:16:10 AM     (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood replies to Fuller’s explanation of what Burton is doing for Spring 2013.

 

 February 14, 2013 10:06:56 AM     (Subpoena-Caywood)  -    Caywood sent an email to the dept asking for donations for Sabina after her father passed away. 

 

February 15, 2013 8:43:07 AM      (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood wrote an email to all in the dept except Burton asking if anyone had heard from her. (Re_ Sabina)

 

February 15, 2013 8:44:48 AM – Rice responded to Caywood “I recieved a short reply at 1400 yesterday in reply to an email I sent. Otherwise I have not heard from her.” (Re_ Sabina)

 

  March 20, 2013 7:25:19 PM    (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood forwards to Fuller the email string about Burton’s course curriculum and his stupid changes.

 

 June 26, 2013 11:05:00 AM     (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood informs Fuller that he signed the authorization for Burton’s overload.

 

 August 1, 2013 8:33:51 AM     (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood informs Fuller that he signed the auth for Burton’s additional payment.

 

 

 August 2, 2013 12:31:38 PM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller brown noses the new chair.

 

August 24, 2013 7:57:35 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller brown noses the new chair again.

 

 

September 5, 2013 2:27:46 PM      (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood is ok with Fuller chairing the DRB.

 

 

 

October 2, 2013 9:29:36 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Email from Stackman to Fuller showing that Burton was instrumental in her coming to work for UWP.

 

November 6, 2013 10:10:40 AM      (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Banter about the new RST Plans.

 

 

 November 7, 2013 9:13:05 AM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Burton points out that Fuller improperly called Dana Cecil a “professor” when she should not.   Titles have not been used properly.

 

November 12, 2013 3:15:43 PM      (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood wants to get the RST Plan changed to allow tenure track faculty to have a say in DRB procedures.  He wrote “I can't understand why tenure track faculty have no say in the department's DRB procedures. Half of the faculty are excluded from the processs. How else can they learn how the drb functions? They are suppose to wait 7 years before having any input into any aspect of the drb process?”  Note:  This was after the DRB meeting of 10-15-13 when Dalecki said he unilaterally changed it (Audio Exhibit A5). He was jockeying to get his loyal followers the right to vote.  Not because it is the right thing but because he wanted to win the votes.

 

December 4, 2013 8:39:13 AM   (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Caywood complains to Fuller, cc to Dalecki that the rules are not being followed in evaluations and search and screens.

 

 January 2, 2014 2:01:14 PM -  Lattis sent an email to Throop cc to Paige Reed with subject “Sabina Burton case”.  (redacted) (Subpoena-Throop)

 

1/2/2014 2:28:35 PM – Throop forwarded Burton’s right to sue request to Lohmann.  (Subpoena-Throop)

 

 

 

January 15, 2014 1:42:00 PM-   Discussion about Burton’s additional payment.

Fuller sent Throop an email asking for a signature on my course work development payment form.  She wrote “It must of ‘fall through the cracks.’”  

Throop wrote back to Fuller saying “Shouldn't this have been paid out of the ATT grant?” 

Fuller answered that it was not to come out of the grant money.  

Then Throop wrote “Sabina was paid for this work on Nov 1 2013 in the amount of $1875. It clearly says work done from June-October 2013 for CJ 7340. I cannot approve additional payment without justification.   

Dawn Drake wrote to Throop “Liz--The $1875 was only a partial payment. This request is for the rest of the payment for development. This was from the original contract you signed for her.”   

Throop wrote that she had no record of the request. 

Drake wrote back “The contract is in the online contract folder (MSCJ) with all the other contracts and authorizations.”  

Throop wrote “I see nothing in the Summer 2013 portion of the S drive relating to course development on the part of Burton.”

 

This exchange shows how much Throop scrutinized Burton’s actions.  It seems that Throop wanted to deny Burton’s request to be paid for work she did.  Throop pushed for verification more than she did with other employees. Seems a lot of things fall through the cracks for Burton.  (Subpoena-Throop)

 

 

January 15, 2014 2:12:29 PM -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Lohmann communicates with Dawn Drake about payments for Burton.  Lohman asks “What would be the justification for splitting the payment this way? How much do you pay for the course development? Is it a flat rate or by the hour?”  Drake replies “John--This is a standard process that we have been using for 16 years and is identified in the contract that the course author and all supervisors sign. The first payment comes when the course author submits the content of the course and the last payment is made after the course has been reviewed, edited, had media components added, updated, put into Desire2Learn, etc. and is ready for students to access. There is a standard fee that is identified in the contract. I know that Jeanne had samples of these contracts. I'll be sure to get them to you and can go over them with you sometime next week. I'm booked in meetings the remainder of the week.”   So, in 16 years they only singled out Burton for scrutiny of the way her payments were processed.  Hmmm.  That seems like disparate treatment.   

 

 

January 24, 2014 2:59:15 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -           Caywood sends a memo in support of Gibson for DRB reconsideration.  Fuller snitches it to Dalecki.

 

January 25, 2014 8:44:36 AM    -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki shares with Fuller what he wrote to Burton.  Behind Burton’s back.

 

 

January 25, 2014 10:29:00 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -     Paul Erickson wrote to Dalecki “I love talking to Sabina!”  Fuller wrote to Dalecki “Your response to Sabina was perfect. I am in total agreement! There will be time when Sabina can take her arguments to the CRSTC reconsideration. Sending e-mails now is NOT the protocol; the DRB has made the final decisions in writing to the CRSTC.  Thanks for your leadership, you always make the right decisions, Mike.”   Dalecki wrote “Thanks. Her (Burton’s) old habits die hard, don't they? But it's only been 5 months.”    Fuller wrote “You are correct.  She is still fighting built-up 'anger'! If she ever wants to be hired in an administrative position she needs to understand protocol procedures. Thanks for putting the lid on this one, her emails would definitely cause some major problems at the CRSTC reconsideration.

 

March 13, 2014 3:44:27 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Fuller snitched to Throop Gibson’s counter statement which Gibson had emailed a month and a half prior.

 

 

 

 

Thursday, March 13, 2014 3:52:17 PM -  Throop’s response to Gibson’s Counter Statement that he emailed to the department.  Good heavens.” (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

 

April 11, 2014 8:26:59 AM -    (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Dalecki writes to Lohmann “Regardless of what it is, as we go through this, let's reinforce the idea of holding to the chain of command. She (Burton) should have come to me first with this, as she did with the other instance.”   Lohmann responds “What is this chain of command of which you speak?”  You see, an academic institution of learning is not a military organization.  It does not have a rigid chain of command but Dr. Burton was held to this rigid chain by Dr. Caywood and Dr. Dalecki.  She was punished severely for going outside of their imagined chain of command by asking for policy and law to be followed.

 

 

April 17, 2014 9:14:05 AM – Throop informs Caywood and Lohmann of Burton’s lawsuit. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

April 22, 2014 5:00:00 PM -  Throop emails Burton’s lawsuit complaint to Shields, Den Herder, Lohmann. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

 

May 1, 2014 2:11:42 PM  -  Email fm Deb Rice to Dalecki with intern assignments,  – she wrote “Location and office politics all played a part in the assginments. [sic]”   (InternAssgmts-based-on-OfficePolitics)

 

 

May 9, 2014 11:27:40 AM  -    (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Lohmann wrote Dalecki “Awesome, one less headache for me!”

 

 

May 9, 2014 8:07:21 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwarded Burton’s email to Fuller saying “Here we go. J.”  Clearly he is annoyed by Dr. Burton’s insistence that the department follow FERPA laws.  Fuller wrote to Dalecki “.. ignore .. NO email trails!”  In doing so, Fuller left an email trail that demonstrates that she and Dalecki had something to hide.

 

 

 

May 14, 2014 10:55:45 AM  -    (Subpoena-Lohmann)  A student explains how Caywood presented his grades to students in violation of FERPA.   Sherry Nevins becomes involved.

 

June 9, 2014 2:58:13 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller snitched her email conversation with Burton to Dalecki.

 

 

June 10, 2014 9:48:39 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Donna Anderson wrote to Dalecki “Sabina replied that today is tough for her. She is waiting to connect with her mom's doctor this morning and has her own doctor's appointment in Dubuque this afternoon. I have stressed again the importance of the three of us meeting as soon as possible, even if by phone and asked again for her availability. Will let you know when I hear back.   Dalecki forwarded it to Rice.

 

June 11, 2014 8:22:00 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwarded to Rice Burton’s email of 10 Jun 2014 19:23:16.  Attached was the invitation from Donna Anderson and Burton’s letter to Mike Dalecki about the visit.

 

June 11, 2014 8:22:00 AM to  June 25, 2014 7:07:30 AM  -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Coordination for the German delegation vist.

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, June 13, 2014 3:43:00 PM  Rice emails Dalecki “I forgot to email Sabina, really I did. So I will do that Monday morning.”   (RiceForgotSabina)   What did she forget and why did she feel the need to say “really I did?”  Hmm.

 

 

June 16, 2014 10:06:22 PM    (Subpoena-Stackman)   -   Laurie Hammer asks about German delegation visit for press release.   https://www.uwplatt.edu/news/german-police-academy-students-visit-campus    (GermanVisit-article-6-25-14)

 

June 24, 2014 2:32:38 PM – Burton wrote “Cheryl, I didn't invite them. Why does nobody get it? As you can see in the attachments I just facilitated the visit. That's how I saw it. I taught overload last semester, did extra directed studies and the seminar papers for you. That is what I was hired for. I am not an event planner. I have never signed up for that, nor do I have the training or education that says so nor the desire to be an event planner. Perhaps that was a big misunderstanding but that shouldn't be automatically my fault.” -  (Subpoena-Fuller June 25, 2014 10:21:49 AM  )  

 

June 25, 2014 6:29:04 AM     (Subpoena-Stackman)   -   Stackman coordinates for German visit.

 

 

June 25, 2014 7:49:11 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwards Burton’s email of 06/24/2014 5:57 PM to Lohmann.

 

 

 June 25, 2014 10:21:49 AM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller snitched Burton’s email to Dalecki. 

 

 

June 25, 2014 10:59:54 AM -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Dalecki forwards Burton’s email to Lohmann. 

 

 June 26, 2014 9:41:53 AM -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Lohmann, DeCoste and Dalecki set up mediation.

 

 

June 26, 2014 7:08:32 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwards to Lohmann Burton’s email of 5 Jun 2014 22:45:20 with the explanation “The email that began all this.”    So, in Dalecki’s mind, Dr. Burton’s email started everything.  Hmmm.  Everything always seems to be Burton’s fault.  Hmm.  But they can never actually point to any rule she has broken.  Hmm.

 

 June 26, 2014 7:22:27 PM  -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwards to Lohmann and DeCoste Burton’s email of 6 Jun 2014 15:38:44 with the statement “Just the first paragraph. I want her to see me about these things.”

 

June 26, 2014 7:30:59 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -    Dalecki forwards to Lohmann and Decoste Burton’s email of 9 Jun 2014 14:54:23.  He writes a bunch of baloney to lay blame on Burton.  There are so many lies just back to back.   Wow.  Just wrong.  It looks like Dalecki was trying to convince Lohmann and DeCoste that Burton was the problem by lying to them.  Rebut these lies when time allows.

 

June 26, 2014 7:39:09 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki sends email to Lohmann and DeCoste.  He says Burton continued to make arrangements after she was asked to stop.  Wrong.  He wrote that he bolded the messages because Burton “wasn’t getting the message.   But he didn’t articulate a message, other than perhaps something like “we will crush you.”   What exactly did Burton do wrong?  She complained about policy, law and ethics violations.   It seems that complaining about violations is far worse than the actual violation.

 

June 26, 2014 7:54:01 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwards Burton’s email of 24 Jun 2014 17:57:45 to Lohmann saying “going through the blizzard of emails she's sent me, makes me feel tired.    Dalecki tries to make Burton sound like someone who writes two or three emails a minute.  If you count them up you’ll see she writes no more than anyone else.  Dalecki’s problem is that some of Burton’s emails complain about corrupt behavior that he wants to keep hidden.

 

 

 June 30, 2014 8:16:16 AM -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Lohmann, DeCoste and Dalecki more discussion on scheduling mediation.

 

  July 10, 2014 1:41:50 PM  -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Lohmann, Dalecki and Fuller discuss Burton’s doctor note.

 

 

 July 16, 2014 11:44:00 AM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Email chain that explains Burton’s online as part of load issue and talks to Fuller’s 20-25 student limit.  Fuller snitched the email chain to Dalecki.

 

 July 28, 2014 7:51:00 AM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller snitched her emails concerning Burton’s online as part of load issue to Dalecki.

 

August 1, 2014 9:14:29 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Fuller wrote to Dalecki “Attached for review is her Spring 2014 online instructional contract.  Please review the compensation regulations for 'overload' and 'part of load'. Spring 2014 semester, Cyber Crime enrolled 10 students.  As Chair, you make the final decision.”

 

  August 1, 2014 10:29:00 PM -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Discussion – Dalecki and Fuller about Burton’s request for online as part of load.

 

 

 

August 2, 2014 10:19:37 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -    Fuller and Dalecki try to get their story straight on how they will justify violating Burton’s contract. 

 

 

 

 

 August 8, 2014 10:44:30 AM   -   (Subpoena-Lohmann)   Lohmann sent Dalecki an email saying “I sent the previous email to let Sabina know she has been heard and maybe help stem the tide of emails.”  Lohmann was the only administrator who would even listen to Burton.  But it seemed he was not allowed to act on her information by higher authority.  We got the sense that he wanted to be fair, or at least equitable, but his hands were tied.  Maybe that is why they didn’t make him the permanent HR director but moved him somewhere out of the way.

 

August 8, 2014 10:54:46 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwards Burton’s email to Lohmann saying “In her mind the position on the CRST is prestigious; it's just another service position in everyone else's mind.” This contradicts Dalecki’s statement in his notes.

 

 

August 8, 2014 2:55:37 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Lohmann tells Dalecki to “stop there and not be drawn in further.”  Dalecki responds “will do.”

 

 

 

August 11, 2014 4:33:37 PM  -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)   Dalecki writes to Lohmann “John, regarding all this, I'm OK with her teaching the Grad Course as an overload in the Spring should she want to do that. It may be that thing you were looking for, something to give up.”    Dalecki is not giving up anything.   Burton wanted to teach the class as “Part of Load” not as overload.  Dalecki was trying to convince Lohmann that he was giving “half a loaf” to Burton but in fact he was giving nothing to Burton.   Dalecki seems to excel at this kind of double talk.

 

August 27, 2014 7:07:13 AM-  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Fuller confirms that Jacobus was to work with Dr. Sabina Burton.  Later Fuller reassigned him and did not allow him to work with Burton.  She forwarded the email to Dalecki, so he knew about it.

 

 

 August 28, 2014 8:16:14 AM     (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Fuller asks if anyone wants to chair the DRB.  Caywood says that Burton can do it as he has no desire to chair it.

 

 

August 29, 2014 1:13:37 PM -  Fuller and Throop pat each other on the back because the meeting went well.  (Subpoena-Throop)   What they mean is that Burton did not make a big stink and they were able to push their agenda down the throat of the department.   Department members were rightly concerned about speaking their mind.

 

 

August 30, 2014 9:55:00 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Fuller snitches Dr. Burton’s email to Dalecki.

 

August 30, 2014 10:07:16 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwards Burton’s email of August 30, 2014 9:21:23 AM to Fuller writing “Anybody but Dalecki!”   Dalecki is calling out that mean old powerful dictator Dr. Burton as not being fair to poor little mikey dicklicky.  He can’t stand to have a fair election because he knows he would lose in a landslide.

 

 

 

September 2, 2014 8:52:00 AM  - (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Burton wrote a letter to the department (not Dalecki) about selecting a new chair.  Fuller snitched the email to Dalecki.  Dalecki told Lohmann that Burton was trying to scuttle the plan to proceed with a national search.  There had been no real decision made at the meeting.  There was Dean Throop ramming down the department’s throat what she wanted to happen and a rigged vote with Throop in the room, watching everyone for signs of disloyalty. 

 

 

 

September 2, 2014 11:21:54 AM -Rice emails Dalecki with dept minutes (CJ_Dept_mins_8-14-email-9-2-14).  Attached was the minutes (CJ_Dept_mins_8-14--9-2-14).  

 

 

 

September 3, 2014 7:49:07 AM -  Fuller and Throop converse about Burton’s email of September 2, 2014 11:48:44 PM.  They involved System Legal in their efforts to strip the department of its right to self-governance.  They did not inform the department that attorneys were involved in this process.  It is clear that Fuller has become the “snitch” in the department.  Throop asks “is anyone paying attention (to Burton)? (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

September 3, 2014 8:07:02 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Fuller snitches Dr. Burton’s email to Throop asking her to “intervene” to “calm” the faculty, especially the newest hires.     

 

Throop asks if anyone is paying attention to Burton.   Fuller says “I do not think so” and stuck her nose a little higher.  Throop appreciated Fuller’s snitching and said she would talk to system legal about it.    Burton was fighting a battle against System Legal but nobody told her.    Fuller wrote to Throop “There has been some discussion from a few (Rex) that the appointed outside Chair of search should not have vote when final decision is made.”     How is Rex a “few” people?   Hmm.  

Throop agreed.  Then she pointed out that the search committee does not make decisions but recommendations and that it is usual practice nationally.   Hmmm.  Is that so?  Hmm.   I don’t remember reading that in the policy.   Hmmm.  Did Throop make that up?  Hmmm.

 

This exchange shows that Throop was not opposed to Burton being chair because of the reason she stated in the Grievance hearing of Dec 2, 2013.  Throop wanted to be involved so her reason had to be something else.    Hmm.  What was it that made Throop disqualify Burton from the chair position?   Hmmm.

 

September 10, 2014 11:25:00 AM     (Subpoena-Stackman)   -   Stackman emails the published job ad to Fuller, Dalecki, Caywood and Solar.  Note:  She did not send it to Burton or other members of the department.  Why not?  Hmm.   Was she under orders to keep the actual wording quiet?  Hmm.

 

 

September 18, 2014 10:21:27 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller snitched back to Dalecki an email he had sent to the department on Jan 31, 2014 concerning Post Tenure Review.

 

 

September 19, 2014 9:16:53 AM – Reed sent the final draft of the job description.    Solar wrote that leadership and management skill, and a demonstrated record be an important part of the job description (probably to exclude Burton from consideration and to include Dalecki).    Fuller snitched the email string to Throop and Throop responded “YAY! for Pat!”   This was likely because Pat Solar had thought of a way to exclude Burton that she had not yet thought of.    Why would she express such joy because of a simple suggestion to wording of the job description unless she had intention to use the description to limit the applicant pool?    Hmmm.  It seems that Throop had a vested interest in the wording of the job description.  Why was she so invested in this search?  Hmmm. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

September 19, 2014 11:23:34 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Word comes from higher authority that the department needed to provide RST plans.  Fuller sends the draft to Dalecki with the comment that the department is meeting Oct 7 to finalize the plan.

 

 

 

September 22, 2014 12:21:46 PM -   Solar wrote to the department “leadership and management experience in the academic world and/or practical leadership experience is critical. Not having this will set this person up to fail.”   He seemed to be pushing an agenda to exclude Burton from consideration for the position.   Throop had probably encouraged him to do so.    Fuller snitched his email to Throop with a question about the chair position.  Throop’s response affirmed that the chair position would be 100% administrative.  (Subpoena-Throop)   As it turns out Dr. Strobl failed, so it seems Solar was right about the set up.

 

September 23, 2014 10:26:44 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Fuller forwards to Dalecki the results of the election for CRST committee.  Sabina Burton was listed as one of the elected members.

 

September 23, 2014 10:28:04 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki asks for feedback on a draft email to Burton that should be a no-brainer.   Why did he need others to give him feedback on a simple thing like this?   Hmmm.

 

 

September 23, 2014 12:16:00 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki sends a simple request to Burton and forwards it to Lohmann and Lattis.  Why not just call her and ask if she is going to the conference?   Hmmm.  Turns out that Dalecki had already authorized this conference (GoingtoConference).  Why did Dalecki get HR and legal involved in this?  Probably because they were trying to find something to fire Burton on and they all conspired to ensure that Dalecki’s little traps were set properly.

 

 

September 23, 2014 1:03:00 PM   (Subpoena-Lohmann)   Dalecki bounced a draft email off Lohmann about a simple matter.  They were trying to get something on Burton.  Turns out Dalecki was wrong.   He said that rumor had it that Burton filed a couple of grievances and that neither had merit.  It was only one grievance and he couldn’t know if it had merit as he didn’t know what the grievance was even about.  He hadn’t seen it at that point.  Of course the grievance had merit.  What it didn’t have was an administration willing to allow a fair hearing.    

 

 

September 24, 2014 1:09:39 PM – Fuller wrote Throop “The concern was that much of the wording was designed intentionally to keep Mike from making application for the position. Many folks think he should at least get a shot at it.”  (JobDescription)   So, it is clear that the department wanted to exclude Dalecki.  Throop later changed the job description to allow him to apply, against the department’s wishes. 

 

 

September 25, 2014 9:38:32 AM-  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Fuller wrote to Throop “12 voting members (not 11), 6 voted in favor of the proposed wording (not a majority vote)… 7 members voted (so a quorum), but only 6 members voted in favor of the proposed wording.    Then Fuller wrote another email saying she was in error and that Rex Reed had used the correct voting procedure/process.

 

 

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.”  This is likely the reason why Throop later unilaterally changed the wording of the job description. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

September 25, 2014 2:25:39 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki wrote to Lohmann, Decoste and Throop: “I don't think I can ignore questions without creating other issues, but I do not intend to get in a long email chain.”   Dalecki ignored Burton’s questions and created other issues.

 

 

September 25, 2014 2:40:37 PM -  Throop thanked Dalecki for his decision to ignore Burton and “create other issues.”    (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

 September 29, 2014 8:11:37 AM  -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwards email chain with Burton to Lattis, Lohmann, Throop and Decoste.    Burton was up against five people, all with more power in the system, and nobody told her.

 

 

 September 29, 2014 10:37:00 AM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Fuller sends Dalecki the course assignments.  Dr. Burton was listed for two courses:  1053      SEMINAR PAPER RESEARCH         105778” and “5418     IND STUDY/CRIM JUST   101627

 

 

September 29, 2014 1:06:15 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller asks Theron Parsons to help with the DRB.

 

 

October 3, 2014 8:36:32 AM   -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)    Den Herder sent an email to Cornett, Lohmann, cc Shields, throop, Lattis about the grievance.  They were trying to figure out if Burton really filed on Aug 27,  she did, and where she sent the grievance.  Lohmann thought she sent it to the faculty subcommittee.

 

 

October 3, 2014 8:52:41 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwards Burton’s email to Throop, Lohmann and Lattis.  Redacted.

 

 

October 3, 2014 10:21:20 AM -  Email chain – Throop Cornett, Burns, Kirk, Fairchild, Lohmann, Shields, Lattis, Den Herder -  About Burton’s grievance and which bogus reason would best explain away the violation of policy that delayed a hearing beyond the mandatory 20 days.  (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

October 3, 2014 11:31:04 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki sends email draft he wants to send to department to Lattis, Throop and Lohmann.  (redacted)  Why did he need to get three other people involved in the everyday business of running the department?   Hmmm.  It appears the attorneys did not let him send this email to the department since Burton does not seem to have an email from Dalecki in her inbox in this time frame.   Hmmm.  I wonder what was in that planned email?  Hmm.

 

 

 

October 7, 2014 10:35:03 AM -  Rice emails Burton”s email to Dalecki he requested.  (Fwd_ Info requested)

 

 

October 7, 2014 10:41:58 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwards email from Rice to Lohmann, Lattis and Throop.   (Burton’s request from Rice for info)

 

 

 October 7, 2014 10:57:55 AM – a heavily redacted string of emails discussing Burton’s email to Rice.   Rice sent it to Dalecki without comment.  Dalecki forwarded it to Lohmann and Lattis, cc to Throop.    Lattis responded with a redacted message.    Then Throop replied with a redacted message.   After Rice forwarded the email to Dalecki it took 22 minutes for three people to respond.   (Subpoena-Throop)     It looks like they were all primed just waiting for Burton to do something so they could all dog-pile on her.   It didn’t matter what she did, they just needed anything to jump on.

 

 

October 7, 2014 12:09:00 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Fuller sends to Dalecki the RST plans saying “Mike, the CJ/FI 2015 RST Plan was approved this morning by majority of tenured and tenure-track faculty.”    Dr. Burton does not remember this ever being discussed in the department meeting.   Hmmm.   Why did Fuller explain to Dalecki that the plan was approved?  Wasn’t Dalecki at the meeting?  Wouldn’t he already know that?  Hmmm.  Was this on the agenda and the minutes?   Hmm. 

 

Note that section 1.1.1.4 states “All faculty members will be reviewed annually for the purpose of determining merit/no merit.”    Dr. Burton was only reviewed once in her entire time at UWP, by Dr. Caywood, her first year.   Other than that no faculty member ever sat in on one of Dr. Burton’s classes.  Fuller downgraded Burton on peer evaluations without ever having sat in on one of her classes in Jan 2015.   Hmmmm.

 

 

 

 October 8, 2014 1:37:14 PM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Dalecki sent Fuller a Post Tenure Review Form.  He pointed out what needed to be done with the form by March 31, 2015.  It was an evaluation form.  Fuller had three months to familiarize herself with the form before the Jan 2015 evaluation of Dr. Burton.  The evaluation records for Dr. Burton’s Jan 2015 evaluation is “askew” according to Dr. Dalecki (Dalecki’s deposition).   Hmmm.

 

 

 

October 9, 2014 1:58:31 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwarded Burton’s email of 9 Oct 2014 13:27:45 to Throop, Lohmann, Lattis (redacted subject and text)   They seem so interested in Burton’s emails.  Why is that?  Hmmm.  Could it be that she was uncovering corruption that they were all trying to keep covered?  Hmm.

 

 

October 13, 2014 8:13:44 AM -  Throop and Lohmann make arrangements to meet concerning the Alcalay incident and mention discussing Burton’s issues as well. (Subpoena-Throop)   What is the Alcalay incident?   Well, that is a story of sexual harassment allegations that were improperly addressed by the administration.  Sound familiar?    Hmmm.

 

October 16, 2014 10:16:59 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Fuller emails Solar (cc to Dalecki) Dalecki’s August 28, 2014 8:06:23 PM email to the department with the agenda for the 8/29/14 dept meeting.  She writes “Pat, the department did talk about the 3-hire LE/FI assistant positions on August 29th, and most everyone agree; no objects (#10).”   It seems that Fuller was trying to tell Solar that the job description had been discussed and voted on based on the proposed agenda.  It wasn’t.  Solar probably assumed from Fuller’s vague and unsupported statement that the job description had been discussed and voted on.  However, it had not been as can be seen by listening to the audio of the meeting (audio exhibit A10).    Also remember that Pat Solar was at the meeting.  He was the person appointed to chair the searches.  He was instructed specifically by Dalecki, Solar’s mentor at the time, to get a consensus at a later time.   So, how could Solar believe that the job descriptions had been discussed and voted on at that meeting?  Hmmm.  He couldn’t.   Did he lie about it?  Yea, he did.  But why?  Maybe Dalecki asked him to dog-pile on Burton for the good of the team?   Maybe he was promised rapid advancement if he helped eliminate his competition?  Read more about this by searching for “Solar” in the timeline.

 

 

December 22, 2014 8:38:08 AM   -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Lohmann emails Dalecki explaining that Sabina reported a FERPA violation and agreed that it was a FERPA violation.  He asked Dalecki to talk to the individual and explain the law.  Dalecki asked who it was and Lohmann did not know.

 

 

October 23, 2014 4:51:45 PM -  Fuller triple brown noses Throop and points out that she might want to delete a travel file that was visible on the s-drive.    This may have been in reference to Throop’s attempt to get hired elsewhere and the travel plans she made for that trip. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

October 29, 2014 8:44 AM -  Throop wrote to Lohmann – “OK. Thanks for letting me know. I will add this information (if you are comfortable with this) to my Ch. 6 complaint.”    This demonstrates that on the same day she issued the letter of direction she planned to later file a Ch. 6 complaint to get Burton fired.  (RE_Letter-of-Direction)

 

October 29, 2014 8:55:54 AM -  Throop and Lohmann discuss the letter of direction and soon to be delivered Chapter 6 complaint.     This email string indicates that Throop decided that she would file a chapter 6 complaint against Burton on or before Oct 29, 2014.  She did not deliver the Chapter 6 complaint until January 5, 2015, two months later.  Throop’s chapter 6 complaint against alleged Burton’s actions between Oct 29, 2014 and Jan 5, 2015, AFTER Throop had already made the decision to file the complaint.   Hmmmm.   Hmmmmmm.     It seems that Throop was planning to retaliate for something(s) that had occurred prior to October 29, 2014 8:44 AM but she needed to use Burton’s “behaviors” that were not protected by law.  So, it seems, she fabricated ridiculous directives to apply to only Burton, which is itself probably a violation of law, and waited for Burton to do something, anything, that she could spin into a violation of her unfair directions, which Burton had rejected as violation of due process. (Subpoena-Throop)    

 

October 31, 2014 11:23:37 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller forwards Burton’s Oct 23 email to Throop.

 

 

October 31, 2014 2:18:15 PM(Subpoena-Throop)     - (also October 31, 2014 2:17:34 PM (Subpoena-Fuller))     Fuller snitched Solar’s complaint against Burton to Throop.  It is interesting that she did not cc Dalecki.   Throop asked questions about how Burton might be able to vote on certain issues in what appears to be an attempt to block Burton’s ability to do so.    Fuller seems to have vaguely accused Burton of “disruptive behavior.”   This is basically the same thing they accused Burton of doing to Solar except that she was open about it and let Solar know.  Fuller made this comment behind Burton’s back.   

 

My opinion about an interesting exchange:  Throop {asks} (tells) Fuller {if} (to ensure that) Burton will not be part of the discussion within the department.   (Read between the lines).   Throop ended her order with a question mark to be able to say she didn’t make the order but simply asked a question. Den Herder seems to have done the same thing in her discussion with Throop concerning the outcome of Burton’s grievance against Caywood.  Fuller knew what she meant. 

 

 

 

November 12, 2014 3:44:13 PM -  Throop asks Lohmann for a copy of Burton’s grievance. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

November 20, 2014 5:07:40 PM -  Throop emails Balachandran, cc to Lohmann, Den Herder, Fairchild, Michael Thompson, Theron Parsons, Miyon Kwon and Donnita Catmill.  She informs them that she will write a rejoinder to the allegations that she will deliver by Dec 1, 2014.  (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

December 7, 2014 7:45:40 AM -  Throop writes to Bala cc to Lohmann, Den Herder, Fairchild, Michael Thompson, Theron Parsons, Miyon Kwon and Donnita Catmill.  She says she prefers the matter be heard sooner rather than later but gives them reason to delay it anyway.   This was sent just a few days after she gave a long explanation why they should not hear the grievance.  The attorneys probably explained to her that her rationale was bogus so her only recourse was to delay the hearing indefinitely.    She probably only said she wanted to have it heard sooner than later because there were too many names on the list that she did not have in her pocket and she needed to maintain the illusion of propriety.  (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

December 15, 2014 8:28:24 AM    (Subpoena-Rice)  -  Rice sends Dalecki the minutes of the August Dept meeting.  This makes clear that Dalecki had not “approved” the minutes until 3 and a half months later.  Did he “change” the minutes?  Hmmm.    Compare the minutes to the audio of the meeting to find out.

 

December 15, 2014 5:38 PM – Throop wrote an email to Lohmann saying “(I am going to have to file a Ch. 6 Complaint against [Burton])  (Ch6ComplaintDec15-2014).   This shows that her accusation that Burton cancelled class (which was sent after this email) was pretext to give her reason to fire Burton.    It also demonstrates that her statement in the deposition was perjury (Dkt 42 pg 114-115).  She did want to fire Burton, why else would she plan a Chapter 6 complaint before she even issued the false allegation that Burton cancelled class?  She wrote that she “had to” file the complaint but there were many other options available to her.  She could have, for example, asked Dr. Burton if she had cancelled the class instead.  She did not “have to” file the complaint, there was no need for it and no justification for it.   It seems too obvious that Burton was right; Throop wanted to fire her.  Also, on Oct 29, 2014 Throop planned to file a chapter 6 complaint even then.   The accusation of cancelled class was pretext to disguise the true motives for filing the complaint.  After learning that Burton didn’t cancel class Throop issued the chapter 6 complaint anyway, instead of apologizing for the false accusation.  Note:  Throop said in her deposition that she owed Burton an apology for the false accusation (Throop deposition pg 124).  Burton is still waiting for an apology. (Subpoena-Throop December 15, 2014 6:38:57

 

 

 

December 15, 2014 7:44 AM -  Dalecki asked Rice for the meeting minutes of Sept meeting.  (CJ_Dept_mins_8-14-email)

 

December 15, 2014 8:28:24 AM – Rice emails the 8/29/14 dept meeting minutes to Dalecki saying “Mike, I don't think you officially "approved" these so you might want to check first.”  (CJ_Dept_mins_8-14-email)  (CJ_Dept_mins_8-14).   Three and a half months after the meeting was conducted and after Burton had alleged Solar violated policy Dalecki probably “changed” the minutes.  If we find the official minutes we’ll probably find that it says that the department discussed the job description.  (falsification of records – listen to the audio)  Note:  minutes for the special meeting with Throop were delivered in discovery (Dkt 37-15 pg 20-22). 

 

 

December 17, 2014 1:27:03 PM -  Burton provided evidence to Lohmann that she indeed conducted class.  Lohmann forwarded the evidence to Throop and Throop replied that she had discussed it with Lattis. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

December 22, 2014 8:33:03 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Lohmann informed Dalecki that Burton had complained about a FERPA violation.  Dalecki said he would get on it.

 

December 22, 2014 10:30:27 AM- (Subpoena-Rice)  -  Rice forwards to Dalecki the CJ dept mtg minutes Dec 14.  The minutes state that the 8-29-14 minutes were approved but did not include Dr. Burton’s request of December 17, 2014 10:28:04.  (CJ_department_mtgDec_14)

 

January 6, 2015 3:46:20 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki sends RST Plans to Barb Barnet

 

 

 

January 8, 2015 2:00:12 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller sends a list of people to be evaluated to the DRB members Caywood, Parsons, Fuller.

 

 January 9, 2015 2:29:26 PM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller snitches to Throop an email chain in which Burton informs Fuller that she wants to copy her DRB file.  On January 7, 2015 11:28 AM Burton wrote “I need to make a copy of the notebook before I can turn it in.”  Here is that copy:  [RPD 5 (00187541xCECB9)]  

 

 January 9, 2015 2:30:52 PM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller snitches Burton’s email to Throop.

 

 

 

January 9, 2015 2:32:39 PM -  Burton wrote to Fuller “UW-Milwaukee's Dean Stojkovic and CJ Chair Freiburger asked me to teach Cybercrime to their grad students starting this spring. They were impressed by my credentials and work experience in this field. I am looking forward teaching for them.”     Fuller forwarded the email chain to Throop who responded “Stan Stojkovic did not ask her to do that.    Hmmm.   Throop was wrong again. (Subpoena-Throop) Stojkovik did ask Burton to teach online. 

 

January 9, 2015 3:06:36 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller identifies the DRB members as Caywood, Parsons and Fuller.

 

 

January 9, 2015 3:36:00 PM   -  Fuller snitches to Throop about Burton’s statement for non-tenured faculty members.  Throop took a very keen interest in Burton’s affairs.   She wanted to know how the voting and evaluations would go.  She was very involved in this process and this fact indicates she was probably also involved in Fuller’s actions in evaluating Burton a few days later and the decision to allow Caywood to sit on the DRB that evaluated Burton.    Here is something funny:  Fuller suggests that Burton’s argument “could be that…” and Throop replies that “[Burton’s] argument is incorrect.”    These people can’t even keep straight who said what.   Fuller was just guessing about Burton’s reasoning and Throop flat said that Burton is “incorrect.”    It doesn’t matter what Burton really says, they just make shit up for her and act on that.   Throop and Fuller do some back room scheming to figure out how to keep Burton out of the decision making process.     They talk about how Burton could appeal if she is not awarded Full Professor and determine how they can squash the appeal even before it is begun.  Fuller brown noses one last time and they close the discussion.  (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

 

January 13, 2015 2:27:59 PM – Throop sends her complaint against Burton to Lohmann.  (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

January 13, 2015 6:08:21 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Fuller forwards to Dalecki the DRB evaluation letters for five department members.  Note that Burton’s letter is very short and very different from the other letters.  Hmmm.  Why didn’t they include the other aspects of the evaluation in Burton’s report?  Could it be that they had plans to fire Burton and thought they wouldn’t need to go through the extra work?   Hmm.    This seems to be disparate treatment.   Hmm.

 

January 13, 2015 8:09:40 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Dalecki corrects a typo on Fuller’s report about Burton.

 

January 15, 2015 12:42:25 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller sends Dalecki evaluation forms

 

 January 19, 2015 10:00:39 PM  -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwards Burton’s medical leave info to Throop and Lohmann.

 

 January 19, 2015 10:43:02 PM  -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki informs the department that Burton will be on sick leave and asks for ideas how to cover her courses.

 

 January 20, 2015 12:57:28 PM  -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki informed the department that Gibson would take one class Solar would take another and that he was working on finding someone to take Burton’s other class.

 

January 20, 2015 1:31:44 PM    (Subpoena-Caywood)  -    Fuller forwards Burton’s appeal to the DRB members, including Caywood, and asks to meet.  She makes no mention of Burton’s request to remove Caywood from the DRB committee.  (See Fuller’s deposition pg 38 for more on the failure to recuse Caywood.)

 

January 20, 2015 1:46:59 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller arranges for the DRB to consider Burton’s appeal.  Notice that she included Caywood, who Burton was suing in federal court.  Burton had just asked that Caywood be removed.

 

 

 

January 26, 2015 1:11:14 PM -  Throop assumes that being sick is reason to exclude Burton from even being on campus while she is recovering.   She wrote “I assume she is not to be on campus or to engage in any activity work-related, and that she’ll need clearance from her physician before we can allow her to return to campus.”     Throop doesn’t want Burton even to be allowed to be on campus because she is sick.   The reason for this is probably that she didn’t want Burton to be involved in the discussion to select the next chair. (Subpoena-Throop)   She acts like Burton had leprosy.  I’m a little bit surprised Throop didn’t mandate that she yell out “unclean, unclean” when she was in public.

 

 

January 26, 2015 1:11:58 PM   -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Lohmann wrote to Throop that he would prefer to talk about Burton’s leave, in person. 

 

 

February 3, 2015 12:40:21 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller forwards to Dalecki the CJ FI Dept 2015 RST Plans draft.

 

February 4, 2015 1:05:19 PM      (Subpoena-Caywood)  -  Discussion about RST Plan.

 

 

 February 4, 2015 3:00:11 PM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller forwards to Dalecki the revised plans.

 

 February 6, 2015 12:48:43 PM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller forwards evaluation forms to Dalecki

 

 

 

 

February 10, 2015 10:34 AM – Fuller emails dept members (including Burton) with results of the CJ chair search for recommendation to Dean.  Says there are 3 top candidates but they didn’t order them but rather sent all three to the dean for her to choose. 

 

 

February 10, 2015 10:50 AM – Throop emails dept (all but Burton) about the search and screen asking for input from the department (except from Burton) (Results-ChairSch).  Burton is excluded from the decision for the next chair completely.  Why?  Because she is sick?   I don’t think so.  I think it was because Throop didn’t want her involved in the decision making process.   Why?  Because Throop wanted Dalecki to be the next chair.  Did Throop violate policy by excluding a senior member of the department from the decision making process?  Yea, I think she did.

 

 

February 10, 2015 10:56:22 AM -  Rice replied that she would prefer a ballot vote.  She wrote “I think discussion would lead nowhere and I do not believe it would change anyone's mind.”   (Results-ChairSch)   Why did she believe discussion was pointless?  Probably because votes were cast based on loyalties alone and nobody seemed to have the best interest of the department in mind except the one person who was excluded from the discussion, Burton. 

 

 

 

February 10, 2015 10:57:00 AM -  Throop and Rice exchange thoughts about the “interesting” discussions that surely must be going on.  Throop asks the department for feedback “paper ballot?”  Rice wrote “Personally, I'd rather do a paper ballot vote. I think discussion would lead nowhere and I do not believe it would change anyone's mind.” (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 February 11, 2015 1:06:51 PM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller writes to Throop “The CJ department is in crisis due to lack of full-time faculty. We offer a FI major without at least one full-time faculty member who specializes in that area, for example. Mike's major job this year has been to find (relationship building) and hire 10-15 adjuncts to cover classes on a continuous basis. Among other accomplishments, he has done a great job finding and hiring qualified adjuncts to fill in as temporary replacements.”   She listed seven faculty members that needed to be replaced and pointed out that only seven faculty, two academic staff and one academic advisor remained.  This was to handle a department of about 900 students.   Fulller made the case for keeping Dalecki on as permanent chair to handle the crisis he created.

 

Note:  Fuller was on the Search Committee.  She attempted to influence Dean Throop behind the back of the search committee or department.   The search committee was not to make recommendations but only to provide three candidates from which the dean would choose.  Hmmm.   Did Fuller act inappropriately by making this recommendation to the dean?  Note also that the Dean asked Fuller for a recommendation without representation from the department.  Fuller doesn’t even teach in the on campus program.

 

February 11, 2015 9:03:21 PM     (Subpoena-Stackman)   -   Stackman wrote to Throop “I for one would love to hear what other folks’ thoughts are, but I am afraid to ask beyond Cheryl and Amy.”  This shows the intimidation that goes on in the department.  When people are “afraid” to even ask a question there is a problem. She continued “I’d very much so like to be able to openly discuss the large differences between expertise in the discipline and managerial skills with my department and get their feedback and bounce some ideas around so that I can see new perspectives on all of this, different from what I saw on my own in each of the candidates. However, I also know that this can’t happen in the open in this department (at least not for me) as folks will take it as being “for” or “against” a particular candidate. I just can’t risk being known as someone who was either “for” or “against” any of the candidates and having that potentially present problems down the line, regardless of who ends up appointed as chair. And that, above all else, is why I really don’t think I’d be able to share my thoughts in a group setting and still feel “safe” with regard to my professional future here. I will be honest and say that I probably wouldn’t do much more than ask questions in front of the department or I would remain silent. I don’t think any other course of action is safe enough for me now (beyond emailing you directly, of course).   I speak for myself when I say that I am fully aware that my opinions will not be the same as other faculty in my department, and I am okay with that, but I do not feel safe sharing my opinions and trying to defend them in a room filled with folks that either already have some control of my future (on the DRB) or may get tenure at some point after this, possibly before I do, and may hold something against me on a future DRB. Or just make day-to-day interactions uncomfortable. I’m not even comfortable sharing my vote publicly on this lest someone believe that it indicates my opinion on any candidate.

 

 

February 12, 2015 9:38:47 AM  - (Subpoena-Throop)    Throop writes to the department “I’ve only heard from four people regarding procedure; two of the four have suggested that, rather than a ballot or a meeting, those of you who are interested in providing input regarding the permanent chair position should email me your recommendation for chair and the reasons you believe your recommendation is best. This seems like a reasonable suggestion and I am happy to follow it.”   Hmm.  That doesn’t seem to be the case based on my reading of the three emails included in the subpoena results.  Fuller, Stackman and Rice responded.   Let’s see, one, two three.  Hmmm.  That doesn’t add up to four.  Hmmm.  Can Throop count to four?   Maybe Throop counted herself.  Maybe she talked to Dalecki for his opinion?  Maybe she counted Nemmetz even though she had not yet weighed in.   Anyway, the responses don’t seem to say what Throop claims they say.  Did Throop misinterpret the suggestions?    Did she do so purposely so she would be the only person to control the votes?    Hmmm.   It seems that Steve Elmer thought so.

 

Steve Elmer wrote to Throop saying he saw only “two responses and both of those were of the opinion that we should meet as a committee of the whole (department) to talk about this.”  He wrote “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.”  But it doesn’t seem that Throop is interested in openness. (Subpoena-Throop) 

 

Amy Nemmetz wrote to Throop and expressed her support for either Strobl or Dalecki.  She stated that she was uncomfortable speaking up in public about the issue.  (Subpoena-Throop)   Would someone be uncomfortable speaking up in a healthy work environment?  No.

 

 

February 13, 2015 4:06:15 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller sends the final revised RST Plan.

 

February 26, 2015 11:37:22 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller sends Dalecki the Post Tenure Review Form 2.

 

 February 26, 2015 11:38:17 AM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller sends Dalecki info about Post tenure review due March 1.

 

February 26, 2015 7:27:07 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller forwards to Dalecki the revised RST Plans

 

 

February 27, 2015 8:43:33 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki delivers final RST Plan and says to discard any previous versions and use this one. 

 

 

March 12, 2015 9:12:52 AM  -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Lohmann asks Throop when Burton presented in Florida. 

 

 

 

March 12, 2015 9:14:37 AM  -  Laurie Hammer asked Throop if it was ok to include Burton’s abstract in a Friday Features article and gave a link about it.   Throop forwarded the email to Lohmann with a cryptic instruction “Please see page 7 of the link.”    The link doesn’t work anymore so we don’t know what was on page 7.    It was probably an abstract about a presentation that Burton had planned to give at a conference in Florida but was unable to attend due to her illness. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

March 12, 2015 9:15:34 AM -  Throop wrote to Lohmann saying “apparently Dr. Burton’s illness has not prevented her from preparing and presenting a paper at a scholarly conference in Orlando, Florida.”   (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

March 12, 2015 3:41:36 PM  -  Lohmann wrote “I wonder if she went?”  Throop wrote “She is listed in the participants list.  Lohmann replied “Forgive my persistence. She is on the list to appear or on the list as having appeared? She could have cancelled right?  Throop wrote “She could have, and I don't know how to find out if she actually showed up.   (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

March 12, 2015 3:50:41 PM   -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)   Lohmann writes to Throop “Well, I suppose I will just ask her.    Why didn’t Throop think of that?  Hmmm.   It seems like Throop was just looking for something to hammer Burton for doesn’t it?   Hmmm. 

 

 

 

March 24, 2015 9:30:31 AM -  Throop asked Lohmann about Burton’s return date.  She wrote “I of course need to create a work plan for her should she be returning soon.    Why did the dean need to create a work plan?  Isn’t that the chair’s job? (Subpoena-Throop)   How does this jive with her stated reason for disqualifying Burton from eligibility to be chair?    Hmmm.

 

 

March 25, 2015 9:33:40 AM -  Lohmann replied that he would follow up.   Throop replied that the lawyers and the judge in Madison would be very interested. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

 

March 27, 2015 2:39:09 PM -  In response to an email thread in which Burton attempted to set up a class:  Throop wrote to Lohmann, Dalecki, Lattis, Bensky, Burket-Brist,  We are not interested in having Dr. Burton teach this class.  We have a serious teaching staff shortage. I’m not willing to pay an adjunct when Dr. Burton is perfectly capable of teaching courses that are on the books.  I think this needs to be communicated immediately to her lawyers.”  Throop-to-BurtonAttorneys    Hmm.  Why would Throop feel the need to communicate this information to Burton’s lawyers?   Why would they be included in this discussion?   Perhaps Throop wanted to influence Burton’s attorneys so they would purposely sabotage Burton’s case?   Perhaps this is advice she received from the system attorneys.  Hmmm.  Sabina – Please write a short explanation why this is problematic for the Dean. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

March 30, 2015 11:18:15 AM  -  Anne Bensky wrote “I agree that Mike handled this very well. As for Burton’s return, Monica and I will reach out to Burton’s counsel on that matter and basically require a doctor’s note for her return. Looking forward, we should also ask that, considering her substantial leave of absence, UWP affirmatively—and in writing of course—ask if she would please provide her doctor’s recommendations for any reasonable accommodations necessary for her to perform her duties. Looking down the road, I want UWP covered in the event we see a Rehabilitation Act (ADA) claim.”     Throop wrote that Lohmann was doing that.  Burket-Brist wrote “Ok in light of this message let's make sure John is in the loop so nothing goes out without our involvement.     So, nothing at all, even the most minor communications with Burton was to go out without attorney involvement.  Wow.    Why did the attorneys need to get Burton’s lawyer involved in a simple return to work from sick leave?  Maybe to increase the cost to Burton?   Why would someone coming OFF sick leave need a doctor’s note?  Hmmm.  Usually the doctor’s note is intended to verify that the person is sick.  Why do they need verification that she is well enough to work?  Hmm.   Probably harassment to use up Burton’s time, energy and money.   They did everything they could to deny all of Burton’s requests for accommodation appearing to be accommodating.  

 

Think about it.  In order for Burton to return to work the administration needlessly used up time and energy of a college dean and four high priced attorneys and added needless work in the process.  This is just a ridiculous waste of taxpayer’s money as well as Burton’s.   

 

Burkert-Brist wrote “I see that Dr Burton’s emails are creating pressure to clarify her return to work status as well as plans for the fall semester. I am here most of this week. I concur that a conference call among us is warranted sooner rather than later. I do not think I should reach out to opposing counsel until/unless we have a call first so I am confident that we are all in agreement about how to proceed.”  (Subpoena-Throop)   It would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall to learn what sort of insane discussions they had about a simple return to work from sick leave.  It seems they were setting a trap for Burton.   It seems they were interested in causing her as much stress as possible on her return to work, they did.  It was very stressful for Burton.  They probably hoped they could cause her ulcers to explode, they didn’t. 

 

 

April 6, 2015 12:25:23 PM     (Subpoena-Rice)  - Burton sent an email to Dalecki, cc to Lohmann, Shields, Throop, Rice, DeCoste.   Rice forwards Burton’s email to Dalecki saying “you should read the bottom paragraphs.”   In the bottom paragraphs Burton writes “Deb Rice maliciously told department members and students that I am mentally ill, that I resent East Germans and that I would be leaving UW-Platteville soon. That is slander which is also against Wisconsin state law (see above). When you were informed by HR Director John Lohmann about Deb Rice's illegal acts you did not attempt to repair the damage to my reputation or demand that she apologize to me. Instead you harassed and intimidated a student who you believed had informed me of Rice's statements. You had the audacity to demand that the student apologize to Deb Rice. Please explain. I will not let this go. My reputation is very important to me. I stand for integrity. I will not accept these smear campaigns against my reputation. The relentless harassment and abuse I have suffered at UW-Platteville has caused my severe health problems. I heard that you questioned the severity of my health condition in front of others. Is this true?

 

 What was Rice trying to point out?  Hmmm.

 

 

April 8, 2015 10:40:27 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwarded an email outlining a good deal for someone to get trained in grant writing.  But he only sent it to Nemmetz, Solar and Stackman saying “Any of you interested in this? Hint, hint..”  Interesting that he didn’t send this good deal opportunity to Burton.  Hmmm.       Disparate treatment.    Burton is excluded again.

 

 

April 8, 2015 7:31:01 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Discussion about Strobl arrival.

 

 

 

April 15, 2015 4:18:20 PM  -  redacted communications between Lohmann, Lattis, Reed, Throop, Dalecki (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

April 15, 2015 4:25:10 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki thanked Lohmann for a redacted email about “Sabina Burton” that was sent to Lattis, Reed, Throop and Dalecki.

 

 

April 20, 2015 11:28:45 AM -  Lohmann sent an email to Dalecki, cc Throop with Burton’s accommodation requests.    Throop sent an email to Lohmann, Dalecki and Lattis (redacted).    Lohmann sent an email to Throop , Dalecki and Lattis (redacted).    Lattis responded (redacted).   Lattis (redacted).  Throop (redacted).  Bensky (redacted).   Throop (redacted).  Lohmann, Lattis, Bensky, Lattis, Lohmann, Lattis, Throop (all redacted).  Lots of chatter just so Burton could come back to work after sick leave.  They did everything they could to deny her requests for accommodations without it looking like they were breaking any rules.    They knew stress is what put her in the hospital so they were probably trying to stress her out so she would give up. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

April 20, 2015 11:33:12 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Redacted emails about Burton’s medical accommodations.  Lattis, Lohmann, Throop, Dalecki

 

 

April 20, 2015 4:20:15 PM  - Lohmann sent Burton’s accommodation requests to Throop.  Throop sent an email to Lohmann and Dalecki cc to Lattis (redacted). (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

April 22, 2015 7:51:37 AM -   Burton wrote to Mary NechvatalI am back to work and will attend the next meeting.”  Nachvatal snitched the email to Throop.   Throop wrote to Lattis and Lohmann “Just heard of this one too. John, I left you a message. Again, if Burton is too sick to teach and doesn’t want to be on campus, how can she attend a committee meeting (that meets, by the way, in my office suite)? Also, she is not back to work yet, since we have not outlined the conditions of her work. Right?”       They are so all consumed by Burton’s events that they don’t even bother to describe the event but refer to it as “this one.”    This shows that people were under orders to tell Throop anything Burton did and that they were all primed to try to make a mountain out of any mole hill Burton dug up.  There seems to have been spies everywhere.    But again, Throop was wrong. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

April 22, 2015 9:01:41 AM -  Throop and Lattis and Lohmann correspond about Burton attending a committee meeting.  (redacted) (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

April 22, 2015 9:06:15 AM – Mary Nechvatal snitched Burton’s email about CRST election to Throop.  Throop zipped it off to Lohmann and Lattis (redacted).  Lattis wrote back (redacted).  Throop then Lohmann then Throop wrote (all redacted).    (Subpoena-Throop)   Zip, zip, zip,  ohh myyy Goooooood.   Sabina has another one we must panic over……..  AAAHHHHHH.   Ridiculous.   She was just coming back to work for crying out loud.  They act like she was setting up a catapult to siege the city.

 

 

 

 

 April 22, 2015 9:26:06 AM    (Subpoena-Stackman)   -   Stackman asks a question of her “mentor” Dalecki that could easily have been handled by Burton. 

 

 

April 22, 2015 9:47:25 AM -  Redacted communication about Curriculum Committee (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

April 23, 2015 2:21:12 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   More redacted emails about Burton’s med accomm. Lattis, Lohmann, Throop, Dalecki

 

 

April 23, 2015 2:22:13 PM -  Redacted comm – Accommodation letters to Burton and her doctor. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

April 23, 2015 2:26:45 PM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Redacted emails about Burton letters.  Lattis, Lohmann, Throop, Dalecki

 

 

April 28, 2015 10:19:48 AM  -   Throop sends Lohmann documentation that Burton taught online at UW Milwaukee.  (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

April 28, 2015 10:23:52 AM  -  Throop and attorneys and Lohmann converse.  Mostly redacted.  Throop writes “But if she was too incapacitated to work for UW Platteville, I'm not sure how she was well enough to work for UW Milwaukee.”  (Subpoena-Throop)   The answer to this should have been obvious, even to Throop.  She could teach for Milwaukee in her bed wearing pajamas because the class was online.  Throop was just trying to harass Burton.

 

 

April 28, 2015 12:00:33 PM  -   Redacted email – Throop to Lattis, Lohmann. (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

April 29, 2015 10:11:37 AM   -  (Subpoena-Lohmann)   Lohmann forwards the issue to attorneys since Burton cc’d her attorneys.  Then Lohmann writes to Dalecki “Often best to follow the lawyer’s advice, even if it sucks. But you know this.   This was right after an email from Lattis subj: “RE: Direction on accommodations” and three lines of redacted text.   Hmmm.  What advice did Lattis give that Dalecki didn’t like?   Maybe they said to give Burton what she asked for?  Hmm.

 

 

April 29, 2015 1:23:30 PM  -   Email from Kory Wein to Throop asking “is Sabina ok to return to her previous committee appointments?”  Many emails between throop, Lattis, Lohmann ensued (redacted). (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

May 1, 2015 2:04:40 PM  -  Bunch of redacted communications RE Burton’s accommodations (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

May 13, 2015 10:54:06 AM  -  Bunch of redacted communications RE: burton (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 May 13, 2015 10:55:36 AM  -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Redacted emails RE: burton.  Lattis, Lohmann, Throop, Dalecki

 

 May 14, 2015 12:38:16 PM  -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Redacted emails RE: Acccommodation to teaching sched-SB.  Lattis, Lohmann, Throop, Dalecki

 

 

 May 20, 2015 4:41:56 PM  -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Redacted email from Dalecki to Fuller about Lattis.

 

 

May 20, 2015 6:04:28 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Redacted communications concerning Burton’s accommodation letter - .Fuller, Lattis, Dalecki

 

 May 22, 2015 11:17:39 AM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Redacted communications concerning a “new draft” of something.  Fuller, Dalecki, Lattis

 

June 30, 2015 8:51:46 AM  - (Subpoena-Rice)  -  Rice communicates with Dalecki about the lawsuit (redacted.)

 

 

July 6, 2015 9:35:33 AM  -(Subpoena-Throop)      Lattis sends email to Hawks claiming Burton messed up her sick leave time slips. 

 

Lohmann announced that Crowley would be taking over as HR director.   Throop wrote that they had “resolved the issue.”   This was just harassment.   Read more about how Lattis harassed Burton and wasted her money in the timeline.

 

August 28, 2015 9:55:49 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -  Fuller snitches Strobl’s August 28, 2015 9:52 AM email to Throop.

 

 

August 28, 2015 10:18:00 AM  -   Strobl sent an email to the department.  Fuller forwarded it to Throop with a little brown nosing.  Throop wrote to Fuller “I think she will help you guys reach great heights!”    (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 September 4, 2015 4:22:00 PM  -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki emails Lohmann about Burton’s lawsuit.  FYI. Ah, well, I suppose I should have expected it.”

 

 

September 4, 2015 4:25:05 PM   - (Subpoena-Lohmann)  Bensky sent an email to Dalecki, cc to Burket, spitz and Lattis about Burton’s supplemental complaint which included Dalecki.  Dalecki wrote to Lohmann “Ah, well, I suppose I should have expected it.”  Lohmann wrote back “I just traded emails with her today about my class.  Sorry to hear it Mike. Did I make the list as well?”

 

September 8, 2015 4:15:58 PM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -   Burton requests that Stroble help her find a missing signature page writing “Please find attached the evaluation document from my DRB folder that is missing the signature page” attached was (Orig-2014Marks).

 

The request bounces around Throop, Liz Schall, Kory Wein and Fuller.  Fuller sends Strobl a copy of the DRB evaluation (BurtonEval-9-8-15).   This was not the signature page that Burton was asking for.  She already had the document that Fuller provided.   The eval Fuller provided is totally messed up.  See 8-28-15 on the timeline for more info.   The signature page Burton requested is missing from her DRB.   The administration decided to provide a document that was not requested as though that would satisfy the request.  Terrible record keeping or purposeful misdirection?   Hmmm.  Either way, They did not provide the document requested.

 

 October 8, 2015 10:03:36 AM  -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -    Fuller snitched an email to Throop that had been forwarded to the department members.   Attached was (Mitchell-10-8-15-DeadlyForce).  This is an article about the forum where Solar spoke.

 

 

 

 

October 8, 2015 10:34:48 AM  -   Sheri Kratcha sent an article about Solar to the department.  Fuller snitched it to Throop.  Throop responded “Yes, I saw it this morning at home! Pat got some excellent press.” (Subpoena-Throop)  

 

 

October 28, 2015 10:51:44 AM   -   (Subpoena-Dalecki)   -   Dalecki forwards to Rice the notification that Burton had dropped her grievances against Dalecki and Throop.  Did Dalecki tell Rice that Burton had filed a grievance against her?  Hmm.   Maybe that is why Rice thought Burton filed three grievances against her.  Hmm. 

 

 

November 2, 2015 10:10:51 AM   -  (Subpoena-Fuller)   -    Fuller informed Throop that a potential candidate for an open position would be on campus and that she was a “woman of color.”  

 

November 3, 2015 1:56:49 PM -  (Subpoena-Rice)  -  Rice snitches an email from Lattis to Dalecki (Fuller, Stackman, Strobl. Throop)   (Redacted_info-Depo).  

 

November 3, 2015 1:56:49 PM – Rice forwarded Lattis’ email to Dalecki (Redacted_info-Depo).