Rebuttal to Barraclough’s report   (A sham investigation) (Written by Roger Burton in Sabina’s voice and not yet proof-read by Sabina Burton)

 

 

First and foremost, this investigation was ordered illegally:

 

 Wis Stat 19.85 (1)(b) says “The notice shall contain a statement that the person has the right to demand that the evidentiary hearing or meeting be held in open session.”   Chancellor Shields failed to include my right in his notification.    I would have demanded that the investigation be conducted in open session.   It was not held in open session but was conducted in a very shady way as shown below. 

 

 

 

 

Email from Barraclough to Shields on May 26, 2016 at 2:57 PM:   In this email Barraclough forwards to Shields his report in an attachment titled “D. Throop Complaint Result Memo-Final.docx.”  But Dr. Barraclough’s report is dated November 24, 2015.   So, did Barraclough back date his report or did he wait until May 26, 2016 to deliver it?   Hmmm.  Either way there is a problem.  Why didn’t Barraclough deliver the report in Nov 2015?   What outside pressures caused him to finally deliver it in May, 2016?  

 

 

Page 1

Para 3

I did not refuse to follow lawful directions.  My behavior was disruptive only to corrupt people who were depriving me of due process rights.  I was not insubordinate but I was exposing corruption.  I did not violate the Employee Handbook; Throop herself acknowledged that I did not violate any policy as reported by Dr. Barraclough in the very same report he begins by stating that I had done all those things.  He should have begun by stating the Dean Throop alleges that Dr. Burton…and then provide his explanations and conclusions.  However, as the report is written, he begins by inaccurately stating that Dean Throop was correct in her accusations and then in the same paragraph indicates that Dean Throop withdrew one of the accusations.  The wording of this paragraph indicates that Barraclough is biased against me.

 

As of Dec 19, 2016 I have not seen Dean Throop’s email dated January 26, 2015.  It was not included in the set of emails provided as response to subpoena for emails.  The defense seems to have cherry picked this email out of the response to subpoena.  I would like to see this email.

 

Pg 1, Para 4

Dr. Barraclough is incorrect.  Dean Throop emailed the LOD to me on Oct 29, 2014 but the letter was dated Oct 28, 2014.  

 

Dr. Barraclough indicates that Burton included a point-by-point rebuttal to Dean Throop’s LOD (Exhibit I) but that rebuttal was not evaluated in the report, nor was it included as part of the report.  He merely mentioned that I rebutted the charges without giving any indication of the validity of my rebuttals.  Hmmm.   Other exhibits were also noted but not evaluated or included with the report.

 

Throop’s item #1 “Refusal to follow directions”

 

item #1 para 1

Barraclough’s first sentence delivers his assertion that I refused to recuse myself from the search committee.  He should have pointed out that I actually wrote to Throop “To be clear: While I am a member of the search committee I will not agree to voluntarily exclude myself from participating in "any activities of any kind, including interviews, discussions, and evaluations of Dr. Dalecki in the search process" because your demand is a violation of law.”   A fact finder should not misinterpret this statement as a “refusal to recuse” but as a refusal to be bullied into accepting a violation of law.   Barraclough’s misinterpretation of the facts indicates his agenda was to report falsely in a report intended to get me fired.

 

After Barraclough mischaracterized my “refusal to recuse myself” he went on in the same paragraph to say, wrongly, that I recused myself after Dean Throop’s December 10th email.   This is inaccurate as Dean Throop “removed me” from the committee.   I did not “recuse myself.”  This can be easily seen by reviewing the email exhibits.     Since Dean Throop had removed me I had no more interaction in the context of the search.  There is a difference between “recusing oneself” and “being removed” from the search.  Dr. Barraclough got this wrong.  I never agreed to recuse myself and I never recused myself from the search committee.  I had no reason to recuse myself as I was the only member of the committee without a conflict of interest.  Barraclough should have reported that Throop removed me illegally.

 

item #1, Para 2

 

Dr. Barraclough failed to address the allegation by Throop that my accusations were “groundless” by not addressing the validity of my allegations.   I am confident that he did this purposefully since giving fair evaluation to my accusations would prove them out and thereby disprove Throop’s allegation that they were “groundless.”  The fact that Barraclough failed to even address the validity of my accusations demonstrates his bias against me in this report.  The entire report is flawed.

 

Barraclough failed to address Throop’s direction to “cease” activity that I had not been conducting.  Since my accusations against Dr. Dalecki were solidly grounded in fact they were not groundless.  Therefore Dr. Barraclough should have indicated in his report that I could not “cease” an activity that I had not been doing.  I had not made any groundless or unwarranted accusations.  Barraclough knew this because he had my rebuttal to Throop’s accusations.  He chose to ignore my rebuttal in favor of producing a biased report that was intended to get me fired.  I believe Dr. Barraclough is one of the corrupt members of the university administration’s sphere of influence.  His report is inaccurate and biased against me.

 

It makes sense that Dean Throop and Dr. Balachandran didn’t like my email because I accused Balachandran of violating law and Throop was looking for a good reason to fire me.   Barraclough did not evaluate whether the email presented by Throop was actually “unprofessional” or “demeaning” but merely stated that Throop and Barraclough claimed it was so.  This is very poor “investigating” and completely disregarded the fact that the content of my email was spot on truthful and accurate; Dr. Balachandran violated law and policy by creating new policy based on misinterpretation of law and without gaining the required approvals.   Dr. Barraclough should have reported that I was right in my assessment that the new Grievance Hearing Procedures were improperly implemented but he completely ignored my claims.  This is poor “fact finding” and is another of the many indications that Barraclough was trying to railroad me with his report.  It was an attempt to get me fired on trumped up charges.

 

 

item #1, Para 3

 

Dr. Barraclough used the wrong word in the first sentence.  He should have said that Throop alleged that I made an inappropriate comment regarding Solar’s progress toward tenure.   By stating as fact that Throop “considered” the comment to be improper Dr. Barraclough makes the unsubstantiated assessment that Throop truly believed that the comment was improper.   My comment was not inappropriate and Throop did not believe it to be inappropriate.  She wrongly alleged it to be inappropriate so she could issue a bogus letter of direction to stifle me and provide bogus reason to issue a ch 6 complaint with intent to fire me.   Dean Throop told Lohmann that she planned to issue a ch 6 complaint against me within an hour after issuing the letter of direction. 

 

Barraclough refers to my “belief” that Solar had violated policy implying that he didn’t believe that Solar violated policy without even considering the possibility that he had.  In contrast Barraclough confirms Throop’s false allegation that my email was “inappropriate” by so stating without evaluating the appropriateness of my email.    This disparate treatment of facts is further evidence of Barraclough’s bias in reporting the “facts” and completely invalidates his entire report. 

 

Barraclough states that I defended my communications with Solar without offering any indication as to whether my defense was successful and without evaluating my defense of my communication.  This is an example of poor “fact finding.”  Of course my defense is successful when the evidence I provided is considered.  Barraclough did not consider my evidence.

 

item #1, para 4

 

I tried resolving my issues on the departmental level but that was impossible so I tried to go to the next higher level.   Barraclough parrots Throop’s claim that it is a “fact” that my complaint against Rice is evidence of my failure to comply with Throop’s directives as though he agrees it is true.  He does not give an opinion about the validity of Throop’s statement, nor does he give evidence of its validity but instead presents Throop’s allegation as fact without supporting documentation or commentary.  In the very next sentence he proves that Throop’s “fact” is at best a “disputed fact” but he does not make that point.   This is poor “fact-finding” and demonstrates his bias against me.  He presents Throop’s statements as though he agrees with them and presents my claims as merely my “perception” or my “belief” of the matter.  This implies that Throop is always right and I am always probably wrong without explaining why.       

 

The issues with Rice were not the sort of petty slights that can be resolved by just talking to the other individual but rather require that the entire bullying culture of UW Platteville to be turned upside down.  This is in accordance with the advice of the Workplace Bullying Institute which states “Stopping bullying requires nothing less than turning the workplace culture upside down. Bullies must experience negative consequences for harming others. Punishment must replace promotions. And only executives and senior management can reverse the historical trend.” http://www.workplacebullying.org/individuals/problem/how-bullying-happens/  . 

 

Throop’s requirement that I “handle things on the lowest level” are a form of bullying and evidence of discrimination and retaliation. The sham investigation that Dr. Barraclough conducted is a form of bullying and is also evidence of discrimination and retaliation.   

 

item #1, para 5

 

I did not involve students in my personal disputes and grievances in the past so I could not “cease” doing so.  I asked students to confirm my presence in class and explained why Throop was trying to fire me.   Dean Throop had intentions to file a ch 6 complaint against me even before she issued the false accusation that I cancelled class.  On 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 me fired (RE_Letter-of-Direction).  She just needed a reason to do so and that is why she issued the accusation that I cancelled class.   When it became obvious that I had conducted class, instead of apologizing she issued a Ch 6 complaint to get me fired.

 

On 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 me 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 me alleged my actions between Oct 29, 2014 and Jan 5, 2015, AFTER Throop had already made the decision to file the complaint.  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 my “behaviors” that were not protected by law.  So, it seems, she fabricated ridiculous directives to apply to only me, which is itself probably a violation of law, and poked me and waited for me to do something, anything, that she could spin into a violation of her unfair directions, which I had rejected as violation of due process (Subpoena-Throop).      

 

Throop and Barraclough both identify Throop’s false accusation that I cancelled class as a “personal dispute” against me.  Clearly it was not a “grievance” since a grievance is a formal request for resolution.  Since both Throop and Barraclough indicate that my email requesting verification that I conducted class was evidence that I violated Throop’s directive to not involve students in “personal disputes” they identify this instance as a “personal dispute.”  Therefore, it follows that Throop issued the false accusation that I cancelled class as a “personal dispute” against me since she was the initiator.   By Throop’s own admission her false accusation against me was “personal” and not professional.   

 

Throop’s item #2 – Insubordination

 

Accusatory language is necessary when accusing someone of crime.   Barraclough fails to indicate that I was right in all of my accusations, or even to address the validity of my accusations.  He only addresses the accusations against me and presents my accusations as evidence of my insubordination but fails to investigate any of my accusations, which were all based on fact with solid evidence.   Dr. Barraclough’s report is biased against me and he is part of the problem at UW Platteville.  His entire report is baloney.

 

 

 

 

 

Throop’s item #3 –  Disruptive Behavior

 

Dean Throop considers my “behaviors” to be disruptive and she is right.  The Workplace Bullying Institute says “Stopping bullying requires nothing less than turning the workplace culture upside down. Bullies must experience negative consequences for harming others. Punishment must replace promotions. And only executives and senior management can reverse the historical trend.” http://www.workplacebullying.org/individuals/problem/how-bullying-happens/.    In the sense that I am attempting to curb corruption at UW Platteville I have been purposefully disruptive.  It is nice to know that Throop believes that my efforts have had the desired effect of causing the administration to address my concerns.   I am trying to disrupt the corrupt culture of the UW Platteville administration that enables, encourages and supports bullying on the departmental level.    Chancellor Shields and his corrupt administration have expended much time attempting to silence my righteous messages.   The UW Platteville administration is corrupt.  There is a severe bullying problem at UW Platteville.  There is a severe cronyism and nepotism problem at UW Platteville.  Victims of Sexual harassment and sexual violence are not protected at UW Platteville because of these and other systemic problems in the culture.   This university’s corrupt culture needs to be turned upside-down.  That will not happen without major disruption.   We need a new Chancellor, a new Provost and a new complaint investigator.  Others in the university also need to be replaced or punished.  

 

It is not condescending to write an email to a junior colleague as though you are addressing a junior colleague.  It is absurdly biased of Barraclough to suggest that my emails to junior colleagues was “condescending.”  This is another example of his bias against me.

 

 

Barraclough doesn’t share which emails he refers to so I can’t speak to it.  One thing however is true.  A senior faculty member should be able to speak with a tone of authority and it appears Barraclough may not understand that.  He doesn’t identify which emails he refers to as exacerbating the problem by including the Chancellor and Provost.   I think the emails I sent to them were appropriate.  I would need to see the emails he speaks of to argue my side.  This report was withheld from me, it is incomplete and it is biased against me.

 

 

Conclusion

 

This process of selective investigation into bogus charges and hidden reports is incredibly biased against me.  The fact that Barraclough’s report was hidden from me is evidence that the administration knew it to be unfair.  Chancellor Shields wanted to fire me and he commissioned Dr. Barraclough to falsely validate Dean Throop’s pretextual allegations against me.  My arguments were not considered and I was not given fair opportunity to argue my points.  I violated no rules or policies and fair due process has been denied me.   My complaints and grievances are ignored and complaints against me are speedily conducted and held over my head like a sword of Damocles.

 

This is a sham investigation.   Dr. Barraclough should be investigated.