Rebuttal to the package mailed by the Board of Regents on 2-21-18 - DRAFT
RE: (BoardofRegentsDocs-2-21-18).
The Board’s package seems to be the same as what the panel provided on 12-14-17 see (PanelPackage-12-14-17-Rebuttal). (Combine rebuttals into one)
The package does not include Dr. Burton’s rebuttals
Appeal Schedule – numerous Rebuttals – Missing
As Lattis said in her rebuttal of the motion to disallow the Roter report “However, the committee may not strike the report from the record because all evidence must be admitted in an administrative process like this one. See Rutherford v. Labor & Industry Review Commission, 2008 WI App 66.” (Lattis-RoterArguments-11-7-17.pdf) Likewise all of the rebuttals must be included in evidence.
On Wed 4/19/2017 6:33 PM – Dr. Burton sent an email to the UW Platteville Faculty Senate asking for a hearing (OpenHrgRqst-4-19-17). In this email Dr. Burton wrote: “My rebuttal to Chancellor Shields' statement of charges is at: http://universitycorruption.com/uw/upaft-3-7-17-pub/sburtonstmtofchrgs-Rebuttal-3-30-17.htm”
The rebuttal was not included in the hearing documentation.
On May 12, 2017 Dr. Burton sent an email To: Peckham Cc: yang, Anderson, Bockhop, leej, Zidon, Enright; Vance, Wills, Demaree, Reddy, Stanley, Hansen, Dalecki, li, Barnet, Masoom and Attorney Brian Vaughan in which she wrote: “In compliance with your instructions I am now providing a copy of my appeal documents to each hearing panel member by providing you all this link: http://universitycorruption.com/uw/upaft-3-7-17-pub/Appeals-Schedule.htm. Please forward this link to anyone else you feel needs copies of the documents. This links to a document that contains links to rebuttals to the various charges and investigations that I feel must be considered in these hearings.” This web page contained links to hundreds of pages of accurate and powerful rebuttals to the numerous charges against Dr. Burton. However, these rebuttals were not included in the documentation of the appeal. The Appeal Schedule web page was printed, which stripped it of all hyperlinks, and the one printed page was added to the documentation concerning this matter, as though it was Dr. Burton’s entire defense to five years of retaliation.
The only rebuttal that was included in the documentation was the rebuttal to the Throop Letter of Direction. Specifically, the rebuttal to Chancellor Shields’ statement of charges was completely excluded from the documentation package. This is an obvious attempt to cover up the violations of law and policy that are exposed by the rebuttal.
On May 21, 2017 Dr. Burton delivered a letter to the appeal panel which contained hyperlinks to these rebuttals:
http://universitycorruption.com/uw/platteville/Rebuttal-HearingNotice-Peckham-4-30-17.htm
http://universitycorruption.com/uw/updatesafter11-4-16/Barraclough_Report-Rebuttal.htm
http://universitycorruption.com/c/updatesaftr-3-22-17/exhibits/AppealPanelViolations.pdf
http://universitycorruption.com/uw/platteville/DebRice-Complaintof8-8-16.htm
http://universitycorruption.com/c/updatesaftr-3-22-17/SFDGHP.htm
http://universitycorruption.com/uw/upaft-3-7-17-pub/sburtonstmtofchrgs-Rebuttal-3-30-17.htm
http://universitycorruption.com/uw/updatesaftr11-15-15/i571-DirectionRebuttal.htm
Also included was a webpage designed to inform the hearing panel of some highlights of applicable policies and laws.
http://universitycorruption.com/uw/upaft-3-7-17-pub/AppealRights-Highlights.htm
Also included was a webpage designed to inform the hearing panel of violations that had already been committed. http://universitycorruption.com/c/updatesaftr-3-22-17/exhibits/AppealPanelViolations.pdf
(Rebuttal to Throop-Gormley Complaint).
Documents in the Package delivered to the Board of Regents were not provided previously
A lot of the documents were not included in the earlier documents. Also, a lot of documents that should be in the package were not there. For example, only one of Dr. Burton’s rebuttals was included in the package. Of particular note the rebuttal to the Statement of Charges was missing. Dr. Burton gave access to it as required but it was not included as required. This is a violation of (the chairperson’s responsibilities section of Fac Bylaws).
They violated UWS 4.05(b) by not giving Dr. Burton all of these documents before the final hearing.
They violated Wis Statute 227.45(5) by not giving the original Roter report.
Make a Rebuttal to this list of docs (Rebuttal Draft – make it)
They didn’t include Solar’s memo. That is a violation of Chairs responsibilities – also, failure to adjourn for claim of surprise. Also, failure to give her the document is a violation of open records law.
The audios were saved on about 11-9-16 so they did not contain the audio of Dr. Burton talking to Dr. Roter. It was excluded from the record. The audios were published unredacted. And this was the first time the university gave them to Dr. Burton (they were not in the complaint package).