My Opinions and Facts about the Case of Dr. Burton v. Board of Regents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tenure Protection.
Free Speech Protection.
Sexual Harassment.
Due Process.
The entities responsible for investigating corruption in Wisconsin claim to be barred from investigating corruption in the UW System due to "conflict of Interest" or lack of jurisdiction. Since the AG represents the UW System it will not investigate reports of corruption against the UW System. So, what agency is responsible for investigating reports of corruption within the UW System? There is the public.
The below events can be found on the timeline with additional details: (Public_Timeline).
In October, 2012 Dr. Lorne Gibson, a faculty member of the Criminal Justice Department, passed a note to a female student that said “Call me tonight!!!” and included his personal cell phone number. The student asked Dr. Burton to help her with reporting the incident which she considered inappropriate and made her uncomfortable. Dr. Burton considered it sexual harassment and reported the incident properly. This began a whirlwind of retaliation against Dr. Burton that ultimately led to her dismissal. See: The story of the Solicitous Note. The administration has spun this event to be nothing more than an in class "breach experiment." They did this to cover up its mishandling of the incident that was clearly an incident of "sexual harassment."
Dr. Caywood, chair of the Criminal Justice Department, retaliated against Dr. Burton for her advocacy of the student. Dr. Burton filed a complaint against Dr. Caywood and was given a fair grievance hearing. See: Dr. Burton’s grievance against Dr. Caywood. At the hearing Dr. Caywood admitted that he handled the sexual harassment incident "poorly." Note that Dr. Caywood called the incident "sexual harassment" and that the matter was handled improperly. This is important to remember as you progress through this story and realize that the administration later claimed that the incident was not sexual harassment and that the matter was handled properly by the administration. They lied. Judge Van DeHay got this wrong in his November 1, 2019 decision. Sworn Deposition of Dr. Caywood: Interviewer’s question to Dr. Caywood “Do you believe that you owe Dr. Burton an apology for the way you handled the student complaint issue?” Dr. Caywood’s response “After the fact probably.” (Dr. Tom Caywood - Caywood’s deposition 8-21-15)
Dean Throop wrote notes about events: “When I discussed the matter (The Solicitous Note) with Caywood and Gibson, Caywood attempted to explain it away to me as a classroom exercise; Gibson attempted to instruct me on the use of “breach experiments” and claimed that the note was a breach experiment. It of course is NOT a proper breach experiment and was interpreted by the student as sexual harassment.” (Dean Throop - (Dkt 101-20)) Dean Throop – in sworn deposition said: “She (Dr. Burton) came to me with a complaint of a biased student. It was not a sexual advance.” (Dean Throop – Sworn deposition, 10-28-15 - Dkt 42 pg 114-115)
Throop wrote “I will agree that an election should have been held in the summer before opting for an external candidate. I actually did not expect that Caywood would step down; I was very hopeful that he would have been willing to acquire the management skills necessary to allow the department to run at a minimally acceptable level.” Dkt 42-82 Dean Throop wanted Dr. Caywood to get training so he could meet her “minimal” expectations.
“It is now very clear we are a little bit dysfunctional as a result of the department not doing what it was suppose to do.” ((Dr. Lorne Gibson - (11-22-13-KeepingMike-intheloop))
“The Complaints and Grievances Committee recommends ... (2) the Criminal Justice department take steps to resolve the dysfunction within the department, such as communication training.” (Grievance committee recommendation. - (Dkt 42-88 pg13) – note: the recommended communication training never happened)
The retaliation against Dr. Burton quickly moved up the chain and Dean Elizabeth Throop began to also retaliate against her. This saga is filled with Dean Throop's lies, false accusations against Dr. Burton and her violations of policy and law. Dean Throop is a central figure in this story. For a partial explanation of Dean Throop's actions see: (Dr_Elizabeth_Throop). (Note: This is not complete. I'll add more when I have a chance. )
Dr. Burton asked Dean Throop and HR director Durr for help in stopping Caywood from retaliating. Listen to the audios A1, recorded on 1/29/13, and A2, recorded on 2/7/13 located here: (audios). Instead of helping Dr. Burton Dean Throop retaliated against Dr. Burton to get her to stop complaining. (Dr_Elizabeth_Throop). (Note: This is not complete. I still need to add a lot to this page.)
Dr. Burton asked for a grievance hearing to address one of Dean Throop's early acts of retaliation. She was afforded a grievance hearing and the findings of the grievance committee supported Dr. Burton's allegation that Throop violated policy by appointing an interim chair to the Criminal Justice department without an election within the department. ( Dkt 53-17). That was the last fair hearing Dr. Burton was ever afforded. One of the grievance committee members made an interesting statement at the hearing that was audio recorded. She said "I do want to point out though that article Wisconsin 36.09 does begin with the statement that all of the decisions are ultimately the decision of the chancellor and the chancellor’s advisory, so basically the Provost and the Dean. So, Bottom line is that faculty governance is not a legal contract. That, in the end they can do whatever they choose to do. And that is the case. So it seems to me that arguing that these laws, which are not really laws, were broken is not real useful to us at this point. I think what’s more useful to us is to just look at: Was procedure violated, was there clarity in why procedure might have been violated, or, I shouldn’t say violated,. was procedure followed and if there wasn’t a following of that procedure was there clarity provided in why that procedure was not followed? And then from there it’s up to whoever, to either go to the courts of law to make those decisions or to settle for what has been passed down. I think that’s where we are." (A13 - Grievance - Throop - 12-2-13), (Grievance-Throop-Transcript) at 54:20. So, the Chancellor and the Dean can do whatever they choose to do. Is that the kind of America we live in? The powerful can violate any law they want? Why isn't that written into the laws so we understand that to be the standard? Why do we even have laws and policies?
The administration began a smear campaign against Dr. Burton that included rumors that she was mentally ill, that she was biased etc. She was taken off prestigious assignments and her title “Dr.” was truncated from documents. (TitlesMeanSomething). The smear campaign intensified over coming years. Sabina was not allowed to speak in department meetings. She was even assaulted in one meeting. (AudioShortClips).
The violation by Throop was never corrected and the new interim chair, Dr. Mike Dalecki, began to retaliate against Dr. Burton, seemingly, at the behest of Dean Throop. Dean Throop seems to have been acting at the behest of Chancellor Shields. Chancellor Shields was advised by Attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis of the UW System Legal Department. I can't say who Attorney Lattis was pressured by. As this story unfolds it becomes clear that the Chancellor was, from this point forward, unwilling to allow Dr. Burton to be given any more fair hearings to air her grievances or to defend herself from false allegations. (Dr_Mike_Dalecki), (ChancellorDennisShields-Platteville), (AttorneyJenniferSloanLattis). These people began to make Dr. Burton's work environment so toxic that she would just leave. This tactic has been used on many other employees and it worked on them. This tactic did not work on Dr. Burton because she was concerned for the safety of students and other employees. Instead of going to another job at another university Dr. Burton stood her ground and fought for her own rights and for those of students and other employees. Because she stood her ground, Dr. Burton's rights were trampled and the Board fired her on 6/8/18. But the retaliation did not stop at that level. It continued even into the judicial process.Any employee who advocates for a student victim of sexual harassment will face similar pressures. This may change if Dr. Burton can win her job back.
On Aug 27, 2014 Dr. Burton filed a grievance against Dr. Dalecki because of the abuse he was heaping on her. (exhibits 558, 558a, 558b, 529, 536, 508, 529a, 533, 537). This was the first official grievance filed by Dr. Burton for which she was never given a hearing. From this point forward all of Dr. Burton's complaints, grievances and requests for investigation were ignored or denied. From this point onward, the university repeatedly, wantonly and purposefully violated Dr. Burton's rights. They tried to get Dr. Burton to quit her job by making her work environment toxic. When Dr. Burton refused to quit her job, the university set her up with false, half-true and fraudulent allegations and fired her without really explaining what she supposedly did wrong. She violated no policy, rule, guideline or law. But scores of laws and policies were violated by the administration against her.
The administration promised a hearing for Dr. Burton's grievance against chair Dr. Dalecki, but never scheduled one, in violation of UWS 6.02. In coordination with UW System Attorney Thomas Stafford, Dr. Balachandran, chair of the grievance committee, created a new "Grievance Hearing Procedure" which was never ratified by the Faculty Senate or approved by the Chancellor or by the Board of Regents. This fake procedure was applied to Dr. Burton anyway. By using the fake policy to deny Dr. Burton's requested hearing the administration violated UWS 2.02. The new fake procedure was designed to ensure Dr. Burton's side of the story was never heard in a legitimate hearing. See (SFDGHP).
On 10/28/14 Dean Throop filed a UWS Chapter 6 complaint against Dr. Burton with the Chancellor. The Chancellor investigated the complaint and dismissed it on 8/31/16. (Chancellor-8-31-16-letter). There were a lot of problems with the Chancellor's letter: ResponsetoChancellorLtr-8-31-16. At the time, Dr. Burton did not know of the chapter 6 complaints that Throop had filed against her on 10/28/14 and 10/29/14 so she did not make reference to them in this rebuttal. Dr. Burton never had any clue that this complaint had been filed against her until she received the Chancellor's dismissal letter on 8/31/16. Even then, she thought the Chancellor had used the wrong date for the complaint. So many groundless, unwarranted, hidden and bogus complaints were filed against Dr. Burton that Chancellor Shields couldn't keep them straight.
UWS Chapter 6 has specific requirements for such complaints. UWS 6.01(3) says "Guarantee of adequate due process to include, but not limited to, written notification of the complaint, fair and complete hearing procedures, written statement of findings, transmittal of findings to the faculty member involved and appropriate administrative officials within a reasonable period of time, and prohibition of further jeopardy for the same alleged misconduct after a final decision." Dr. Burton was not notified of the complaint, was not given any hearing concerning the complaint and never received any written statement of findings. However, the Chancellor claimed in his dismissal letter that he had an investigation conducted. Dr. Burton was never interviewed in the conduct of the investigation. Dr. Burton's dismissal seems to have been premised on the same allegations that were in the complaint, so it appears she was subjected to double jeopardy for the same alleged misconduct. So, in regard to this one document the Board seems to have violated UWS Chapter 6.01(3) in five different ways.
On 10/29/14 Dean Throop filed an amended chapter 6 complaint against Dr. Burton with Chancellor Shields, but Dr. Burton was not given notice of this complaint either. (Burton Ch 6 complaint Throop Oct 29 2014). (RE_Letter-of-Direction). There is no indication that Chancellor Shields ever investigated or resolved this amended chapter 6 complaint. So, again, the administration seems to have violated UWS Ch. 6.01(3) in five different ways. Dr. Burton did not receive a copy of this chapter 6 complaint against her until 4-1-19. (Burton Ch 6 complaint Throop Oct 29 2014-email). Dr. Burton had requested any such complaints against her in discovery in two lawsuits but neither of these chapter 6 complaints had been delivered in response to those discovery requests. So, it appears that the UW System attorneys violated discovery laws as well.
Also on 10/29/14 Dean Throop issued Dr. Burton a "letter of direction." (Dkt 37-15), (Throop-LOD-Rebuttal). What is a "letter of direction?" There is no policy or precedent or rules of any kind regarding the use of a "letter of direction." Dr. Burton had no idea that Throop had also filed two Chapter 6 complaints against her so she didn't try to have a hearing concerning the complaints. But she did attempt to address the unacceptable nature of the letter of direction.
On November 12, 2014 3:15 PM Dr. Burton filed a grievance and requested a hearing to address the letter of direction. (exhibit 583); (exhibit 600); (Dkt 37-15 (exhibit I)) and supporting files (exhibits 571, 571f, 600a, 600b) (Appendix XV) updated: (interactive exhibit i571f); (interactive exhibit i600a). Dr. Balachandran acknowledged receipt of the grievance. He wrote “I will schedule a meeting of the Commission as soon as members are available for that meeting.” (exhibit 600). But Dr. Burton was never given a hearing to address the letter of direction. Dr. Burton repeatedly asked for a hearing but one was never afforded her. By failing to provide a hearing the administration violated UWS 6.02, which states "The faculty of each institution shall designate a committee or other appropriate faculty body to hear faculty grievances under rules and procedures established by the faculty of the institution in conjunction with the chancellor. The committee or faculty body shall have the power to conduct hearings and fact-finding related to the grievance and to recommend solutions to the grievance to the chancellor. If the committee or other body makes recommendations to the chancellor, the chancellor shall act on the recommendations within 30 days. The decision by the chancellor on the recommendation of the committee, or on the grievance in the absence of committee recommendation, shall be final except that the board, upon petition of a grievant or the committee or other faculty body, may grant a review on the record." UW Platteville bylaw (Part III: Personnel Rules and Procedures, Article IX Complaints and Grievances section 2) states "A faculty member with a grievance may submit his or her grievance to the Complaints and Grievances Commission. The aggrieved faculty member is entitled to a hearing before the commission within twenty calendar days of the written submission of the grievance to the commission chair. The colleague or colleagues against whom the grievance is lodged are entitled to at least a ten-calendar-day notice of all hearings related to the case. All parties are due as prompt a resolution of the matter as practicable."
Dean Throop asked the grievance committee to violate Dr. Burton's right to a hearing regarding the letter of direction. (exhibit 595). Why? It is simple. Throop couldn't afford for Dr. Burton to have a fair hearing because that would expose her violations of policy and law; Dr. Burton would get a favorable recommendation from any fair grievance hearing committee; and it would be more difficult to win lawsuits against Dr. Burton and to fire her. In Throop's memorandum, Throop described the letter of direction as "nothing adverse." Throop's arguments are absurd, as explained here. (interactive exhibit i595d).
Dean Throop falsely accused Dr. Burton of canceling class in December 2014 and threatened discipline. Throop stated, under oath, that Deb Rice informed her that Dr. Burton canceled the class. However, Deb Rice, under oath, denied making this report to the Dean. (cite) Dr. Burton proved that she had indeed conducted the class but instead of apologizing to Dr. Burton Dean Throop filed a bogus complaint against her on 1/5/15. (exhibit 619b) Attached was: (exhibit 619a). There were many problems with the complaint (i619d-RebuttalThroopcomplaint-1-5-15). One of the allegations was that Dr. Burton had involved students by asking them to verify that she had conducted the class. The only people on the planet who could have verified that she had conducted the class were the students who were in the class. The Chancellor quickly ordered an investigation into the allegations against Dr. Burton but Dr. Burton never received a copy of the investigation report until over a year later. (Barraclough_Report). There were many problems with the report. (Barraclough_Report-Rebuttal). The Chancellor never resolved the complaint. So, the Chancellor seems to have violated UWS 6.01(3) about three different ways in regards to this complaint.
On 6/16/15 Dr. Burton met with Gov. Walker at the Lincoln Dinner in Des Moines, Iowa and told him of fraud, waste and abuse at UW Platteville. He told Dr. Burton to send him more information. Dr. Burton wrote to Gov Walker on 8/22/15. (Dkt 43-9 ) Dr. Burton's letter was forwarded to UW Legal and then to Dean Throop. Dean Throop filed police reports against Dr. Burton because she had written to the Governor and ordered the police officer, who worked for her, not to contact Dr. Burton regarding the reports. (15-7905 Burton). These police reports that were hidden from Dr. Burton and their existence was used to paint her as a physically dangerous person. Throop also filed a false police report against Dr. Burton claiming that Dr. Burton had been served a cease and desist order by Chancellor Shields. (PlattevillePD-Rpts-10-6-17). Dr. Burton was never issued a cease and desist order by anyone. An anonymous person filed a false police report saying that Burton had been seen on campus in violation of Chancellor Shields' banishment order. (17-728- Burton). Dr. Burton never set foot on campus after she was banned without written permission. Dr. Burton was never notified of any of these police reports.
Dr. Burton was on a search and screen committee to find a permanent department chair to replace interim chair, Dr. Dalecki. Dean Throop wanted Dr. Dalecki to become the permanent department chair. To that end, Dean Throop ordered Dr. Burton to recuse herself from any discussion regarding Dr. Dalecki's candidacy for the chair position, thereby ensuring that Dr. Dalecki would be nominated by the search committee for the permanent chair position. Dr. Burton wanted Dr. Dalecki, removed from the Criminal Justice department because he had been abusing her. But, When Dr. Burton refused to recuse herself from consideration of Dr. Dalecki's candidacy, Dean Throop removed her from the committee. This email exchange helps explain the situation: (exhibit 597a). Other members of the department also wanted Dr. Dalecki removed so there was a sort of a coup in the department that Dr. Burton was not involved in. Dr. Gibson wrote: “I recommend against us continuing on the counterproductive, irresponsible, bylaw illegal, unethical path that we currently are on--if we are serious about hiring the most appropriate candidate. This is not our committees fault, but if we continue on the current course, it will be.”(11-22-13-KeepingMike-intheloop) When the dust settled, Dr. Dalecki was replaced by Dr. Staci Strobl. Here is the story of the power grab that went on in the department. (CriminalJusticeDept).
Strobl didn't know what she was getting herself into. Dr. Strobl was instructed by Attorney Lattis never to talk to Dr. Burton about any of her complaints. This put Dr. Strobl in an uncomfortable position that will be discussed later. Dr. Dalecki was in the department a lot, even though he had no reason to be. He likely had many discussions with Dr. Strobl which poisoned her against Dr. Burton. There seemed to be an unwritten rule that Dr. Burton was not to be allowed in Dr. Strobl's office without one of the dean's informants in the room to report what had been said. Dr. Burton was never able to talk candidly to Dr. Strobl one on one.
Dr. Dalecki went to great lengths to isolate Dr. Burton from supporters while he was interim chair. Here is an example: Dr. Dalecki Threatens a graduate student because he informed Dr. Burton that Deb Rice had called her mentally ill and said that Dr. Burton would soon be fired. The graduate student was fires soon after this conversation. (audio exhibit A28),(Audio of the meeting), (Transcript of the meeting) (Dr_Mike_Dalecki). In this conversation Dalecki said to the student "be very very careful what you pass on to other people....Cause in the long run, that stuff, it will come back and will ultimately to haunt you either in terms of people will no longer include you, or, uh, or who knows what....if something explodes in the face you’ll get hit by shrapnel.... shut the hell up...This is sort of a mentoring conversation between you and I, um. No one else is privy to it and it’s not designed to be a horrific kind of thing but rather to be little bit of advice. And I recall when I was a master’s student like you I made a mistake and rather than cut me off at the legs and let me crawl away bleeding I was given a chance to demonstrate that it was a one-time affair....In the end you will get caught in the shrapnel...The side you should cast your lot in with is the person who is paying you...I’ve been in departments where you didn’t turn your back because you didn’t know who was going to plunge a knife into it."
Dr. Dalecki pointing his finger at Dr. Burton, like a pistol, and let his thumb fall, like the hammer of a gun. Dr. Burton complained of this veiled death threat to the HR director, Janelle Crowley. (RequestforAdvice-Help-Crowley). Instead of admonishing Dr. Dalecki for making such a threat, the Chancellor admonished Dr. Burton for reporting the incident. (Shields-LOD-6-3-16). In his letter Chancellor Shields wrote "You should not be accusing colleagues of criminal or illegal behavior..., or insinuating that death threats have been made against you." The Chancellor's letter of direction seems to have violated Dr. Burton's First Amendment rights and is probematic for many other reasons. (ShieldsLOD-Rebuttal).
Deb Rice filed a complaint against Dr. Burton on bogus charges shortly after Dr. Burton filed a grievance against Deb Rice. Burton’s grievance hearing request was denied but Chancellor Dennis Shields immediately ordered an investigation into Deb Rice’s complaint against Dr. Burton saying that the investigation could lead to Burton’s dismissal. The university denied Dr. Burton access to the investigation report, in violation of state law. After Dr. Burton involved the AG’s office in her attempts to see the report she was given a report that was not signed by the investigator and was an altered version of the investigator's final draft. Mr. Burke admitted that a “third person” had “edited” his final version of the report. Someone seems to have committed forgery. (WhydidCrowleyLie-2).The Chancellor spent $10,000 to get this investigation and then seems to have altered it (BurkeInvest-invoice-3-8-17). The Chancellor dismissed both Deb Rices's complaint and Dr. Burton's grievance saying they were personal misunderstandings, miscommunication, and personal animosity. Rice v Burton Complaint Dismissal Packet and Burton Complaint v Rice Dismissal Packet. By refusing to give Dr. Burton a grievance hearing Chancellor Shields violated UWS 6.01(3). More about this issue here: (Chancellor-Attempt-to-Fire).
“Rice said she has no proof but believes based on her observations that Burton has some undiagnosed and probably untreated, mental health issues.” (Rice apparently said this to a fact finding Investigator (DebRice-Complaintof8-8-16)). This is an example of the false rumors that Deb Rice was spreading behind Dr. Burton's back in a smear campaign against her.
This is where the story gets a little crazy.
Matt Kittle, an investigative reporter, published a story about Sabina’s case on Oct. 26, 2016. This got a lot of people’s attention, especially students. Dr. Strobl called a meeting to discuss the matter with students but the university canceled the meeting at the last minute because they didn't want the truth to come out. Dr. Burton attended and explained to a room full of students and faculty and staff members what had been going on. Students were upset that the administration failed to show for the meeting and refused to answer their questions. They were also not happy to hear that Dr. Burton had been retaliated against for advocating for a student victim of sexual harassment. A television news station was on hand and reported on the matter. (DiggingDeeper-WKOW-TV) There were dozens of articles about the matter. (News).
Dr. Burton complained about problems and requested an investigation. (RqstforInvestigation-AG-12-9-16); (PersFile-MajorProblems-12-31-16). Dr. Burton’s complaints were not acted on.
The Chancellor dismissed the Rice complaint on November 30, 2016, shortly after Dr. Burton had taken her case public. The Chancellor swapped the Rice complaint for a new complaint filed on 12/16/16 by Interim Provost Throop and Dean Gormley. (Rebuttal-Throop-Gormley-complaint-12-16-16). Dr. Burton was not made aware of the complaint until January 4, 2017 when she was suspended and banned from campus. (Chancellor-Suspends-Burton-1-3-17 – pg 5-48).
I think the many false and hidden complaints against Sabina were to 1) create a paper trail of false allegations that the Chancellor could point to as reason to fire her, and 2) to provoke her into taking some action that he could then spin into a reason to fire her.
-------------------
Forged, Fraudulent Investigation Report:
Chancellor Shields ordered a fact-finding investigation against Dr. Burton. The investigator, Dr. Roter, met with Dr. Burton and recorded the two-hour meeting. (A41-PetraRoter-Burton-interview-2-9-17-Pt1) (A41-PetraRoter-Burton-interview-2-9-17-Pt2), (A41a-PetraRoter-Burton-interview-transcript).
Dr. Roter delivered her original investigation report electronically to Chancellor Shields on or about Mar 1, 2017. Chancellor Shields delivered to Dr. Burton what he called “Dr. Petra Roter’s report” as an attachment to an email on Mar 4, 2017. (EmailfmShields-3-4-17). Attached to the email was this uncorroborated document. (RoterInvestigationReport-3-4-17), (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17), (Rebuttal-RoterReport-Motion). Also attached to the email was a letter (Shieldsofferstomeet-3-4-17). In the letter Chancellor Shields referred to the investigation report as “the investigation report prepared by Dr. Petra Roter.”
The investigation report delivered by Chancellor Shields seems to omit a lot of important and material information, contain false statements of fact, and contain biased opinion prejudicial to Dr. Burton. The audio and the report just don’t seem to go together. It seems that Chancellor Shields altered the report to suit his needs. That would explain why he held onto the report for three days before delivering it to Dr. Burton.
Wis. Stat. 943.39 says: “Fraudulent writings. Whoever, with intent to injure or defraud, does any of the following is guilty of a Class H felony:
(1) Being a director, officer, manager, agent or employee of any corporation or limited liability company falsifies any record, account or other document belonging to that corporation or limited liability company by alteration, false entry or omission, or makes, circulates or publishes any written statement regarding the corporation or limited liability company which he or she knows is false; or
(2) By means of deceit obtains a signature to a writing which is the subject of forgery under s. 943.38 (1); or
(3) Makes a false written statement with knowledge that it is false and with intent that it shall ultimately appear to have been signed under oath.”
Dr. Burton asked Chancellor Shields to provide a signed and notarized copy of the original investigation report, but he refused. (Roter-rqst-4-orig-Lattis), (Roter-rqst-4-orig-Shields.pdf).
Wis. Stat. 227.45(5) says "Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts, if the original is not readily available. Upon request, parties shall be given an opportunity to compare the copy with the original." The Board should have provided the original report in discovery of Dr. Burton's lawsuit, but it didn't. Discovery laws require delivery of such documents.
Wis. Stat. 943.38 says: “Forgery. (1) Whoever
with intent to defraud falsely makes or alters a writing or object of any of
the following kinds so that it purports to have been made by another, or at
another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not
give such authority, is guilty of a Class H felony: (a) A writing or object
whereby legal rights or obligations are created, terminated or transferred, or
any writing commonly relied upon in business or commercial transactions as
evidence of debt or property rights.”
I ask reporters to challenge Chancellor
Shields to prove that the investigation report he delivered is the original
report that Dr. Roter delivered to him by getting Dr. Roter to sign and
notarize a copy of the original report she delivered to him on 3/1/17.
If we allow administrators to
indiscriminately commit fraud and forgery to fire tenured employees
we are part of the problem.
----------------------
Chancellor Shields orchestrated a kangaroo
court to get Dr. Burton fired:
Fri 3/31/2017 5:07 AM - Chancellor
Shields sent a Statement of Charges for dismissal to Sabina (sburtonChargesforDismissal-3-3017-email
), (sburtonstatementofcharges3-30-17). (sburtonstmtofchrgs-Rebuttal-3-30-17).
On the last page of the statement of charges Chancellor Shields wrote “if you
wish to have a hearing, you must file your hearing request with the Faculty
Senate within 20 days of your receiving this statement of charges as required
by Wis. Admin. Code UWS 4.04.”
UWS 4.04 says: “Hearing. If the
faculty member requests a hearing within 20 days of notice of the statement of
charges (25 days if notice is by first class mail and publication), such a
hearing shall be held not later than 20 days after the request except that this
time limit may be enlarged by mutual written consent of the parties, or by
order of the hearing committee. The request for a hearing shall be addressed in
writing to the chairperson of the standing faculty committee created
under s. UWS 4.03.”
UWS 4.03 says “Standing faculty committee. The
faculty of each institution shall provide a standing committee charged with
hearing dismissal cases and making recommendations under this chapter. This
standing faculty committee shall operate as the hearing agent for the board
pursuant to s. 227.46 (4), Stats., and conduct the hearing,
make a verbatim record of the hearing, prepare a summary of the evidence and
transmit such record and summary along with its recommended findings of law and
decision to the board according to s. UWS 4.07.”
Faculty Bylaws (Faculty_Handbook_Spring2016),
Section 4.2, Part II, Article III, Section 6.a.ii lists one of the
responsibilities of the Appeals Commission as:“Acts
as an appeal body on the request of any faculty member against whom the
Chancellor has filed charges that may lead to dismissal. In such circumstances,
the commission shall act as a hearing agent for the Board of Regents pursuant
to Section 227.12 Wis. Stat., and in accordance with all procedures set forth
in UWS 4.”
The standing faculty committee at UW
Platteville is the Appeals Commission, not the Faculty Senate. So, the
Chancellor misdirected Dr. Burton as to where to send her request for appeal.
Dr. Burton sent her request to the Faculty Senate as instructed. Dr. Laura
Anderson, chair of the Faculty Senate, then hand-selected a five-member hearing
panel and its chair under false authority. (FalseAuthority). The
panel chair stated “Dr. Laura J. Anderson, under the authority vested in her as
chair of the UW-P Faculty Senate, appointed five members of the Commission to
serve on a special panel to conduct the hearing requested by Dr. Burton in this
case and, with the consent of those members, appoionted
me to serve as chairman pro tem of the panel.” (Rebuttal-FalseAuthority)
The Faculty Personnel Policies and Procedures
(Faculty_Handbook_Spring2016)
Chapter 6 at 6.3.12.3 says: “Appointment of an Appeal Panel
An appeal panel of five members shall be selected by the Appeals Commission
to hear a particular case (see section 4.2 “The Faculty Bylaws” of this
handbook; specifically, Part II, Article III, Section 6 “Appeals Commission”
of the Faculty Bylaws).”
Faculty Bylaws (Faculty_Handbook_Spring2016), Section 4.2, Part II, Article III, Section 6.b.iv
says: “The Appeals Commission
shall select its own chair, and when constituted, each panel shall select its
own chair.”
So, it appears that Chancellor Shields
hand-picked the appeals panel, through Dr. Anderson, in violation of policy.
Why would he do that? Well, I think he did that so he could get his chosen
people on the panel and fire Dr. Burton without a fair hearing. Dr. Susan
Hansen became chair of the hearing panel.
Panel Chair, Dr. Susan Hansen’s name appears
in the Bulletin of the Proceedings
of the Wisconsin Legislature Session, Part 6, page 92 (Registered Lobbying
Organizations Licensed Lobbyists) (archive.org),
(archive.is) which identifies her as one
of the employees of UW Platteville “whose normal duties include attempting to
influence legislative action on the agency’s behalf.” (Filed: 3/14/19 Document
E0035 – Primary Brief Submitted to BOR by S. Burton p41 para2). (Eye
on Lobbying). The Wisconsin Govt. Accountability Board – 608-266-8123.
With someone who had a pecuniary interest in
making the university look good as chair of the panel the panel was biased
against Dr. Burton, and that bias became very evident.
Wed 4/19/2017 5:32 PM – Sabina sent an email
to the Regents filing a complaint against Chancellor Shields (Complaint-v-Shields-4-19-17).
On 5/25/17 Dr. Hansen decided to conduct an
appeal hearing in Dr. Burton’s absence, knowing that the reason for her absence
was severe illness. Here is an audio of me telling them why she couldn’t
attend: (A42-Roger-informs-univ-Sabina-sick-5-25-17).
The witnesses were not sequestered, were not sworn to tell the truth and Dr.
Burton was never allowed to cross-examine them. There were lots of lies told at
the hearing. Witnesses were (Dr_Elizabeth_Throop),
Dr. Fuller, (Dr_Patrick_Solar),
(Dr_Staci_Strobl).
The chair of the biased appeal panel was (Dr_Susan_Hansen). Here is
my rebuttal to the transcript of the hearing: (Hearing-5-25-17). The appeal
process is supposed to be an opportunity for the appellant to convince an
unbiased hearing panel that the charges are not true, or that they don't
warrant discipline. There are laws and policies that govern such a hearing to
protect the appellant. But UW System attorneys like Attorney Jennifer Sloan
Lattis and Brian Vaughan control the appeal process to take all
of those rights away from appellants who have been targeted by the
administration. In this case, Dr. Burton was targeted because she helped a
student report sexual harassment and complained about the retaliation she
received for her advocacy.
The next day I informed Dr. Hansen by email
that Dr. Burton was still sick. Hansen replied: “I have received your email.
The hearing was conducted yesterday as we had no documentation regarding Dr.
Burton's absence. All materials submitted by Dr. Burton were admitted into the
record.”
6-1-17 - Sabina’s doctor wrote a note
and Sabina delivered it to the hearing panel the same day (Bearse-Drs-Note-6-1-17).
We tried to get the note sooner, but it is hard to get a note from a busy
doctor over Labor Day weekend. It took
six days.
Originally, the administration had scheduled
16 hours for the hearings. But they reduced that to only 6 hours, or, 9 hours
if you count the time the university’s witnesses gave wild and unfettered testimony
in Sabina’s absence.
Why did they cut her time so short? Well, it seems
that they didn’t want her to have a fair opportunity to bring her arguments to
a fair forum. They had gotten the hearing panel membership on their side, but
they seem to have been afraid of allowing Sabina to tell her side of the story
in front of an audience that the administration didn’t control. That may also be
the reason they didn’t advertise the hearings per Wisconsin Open Meetings Law
and why they scheduled the hearings for Thursday and Friday immediately before
the Memorial Day Weekend. They didn’t want an audience.
In Marder, the Wisconsin Supreme Court
held that the presence of the professor in termination proceedings is required.
Ex parte proceedings “may cause constitutional
problems if during the consultation the chancellor provided the Board with new
facts on which the Board based [the professor’s] termination, even if such
consultation does not conflict with the terms of the administrative rule.” Marder
v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys., 286 Wis. 2d 252, 269, 706
N.W.2d 110, 119 (2005).
The Board admits that it based Dr. Burton’s
termination on testimony given at the appeal hearing of 5/25/17.
Dr. Burton went to an appeal to the Board of
Regents on 5/10/18. Here is an audio of that hearing: (Board-Hearing-5-10-18). The
first 20 minutes pretty much tell the story of what is going on.
Here is Dr. Burton's primary brief to the
Board of Regents: (Exceptn-to-Shields.pdf).
Here is the brief by Attorney Lattis in
response: (Lattis-responseBrief-4-4-18).
Here is Dr. Burton's reply brief to the
Board: (Lattis-Brief-rebuttal.pdf).
The Board fired Sabina on 6/8/18. (Board-Regents-decision-6-8-18),
(Board-Regents-decision-6-8-18-Rebuttal). Their
decision was based on an forged investigation report that
was almost certainly a forgery, and on the transcript of the appeal hearing
conducted in the appellant's absence.
--------------------
After Sabina was fired:
Dr. Burton's petition to the Grant County
Circuit court: (Petition)
Dr. Burton brief presented in support of her petition: (40pgBrief-8-9-19-Stamped-Dkt-224)
The Board's reply brief: (Dkt-228-RespondentBrief-9-26-19).
Dr. Burton's reply to the Board's response: (ReplyBrief-Filed-10-28-19-8am).
Here is a transcript of the decision by Judge Van DeHay
on November 1, 2019: (Transcript-oral-ruling).
Here are my comments about the judge's ruling (Transcript-oral-ruling-Roger-comments).
Perhaps the most distressing of the court's findings is that the judge thinks it is ok for the administration to conduct an appeal hearing in the appellant's absence.
“The applicable administrative code provisions, § UWS 4, and [Dr. Burton’s] constitutional due process rights required [Dr. Burton’s] presence at any hearing in which new facts were presented on which [her] discharge was based.” See the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling in Marder v. Bd. of Regents of University of Wisc. System, 2005 WI 159, 264 (Wis. 2005). Judge Van DeHay seems to disagree with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Whether Sabina had a legitimate excuse or not, there is absolutely no reason for the university to conduct an appeal hearing without the appellant in attendance. The fact that they knew she had a legitimate reason for not attending shows that their violation of her rights was intentional.
There are other very distressing aspects to the court's ruling. He didn't seem to think the Board's repeated violations of law was a problem, for example. Judge Van DeHay seems to agree that the Chancellor can violate any law or policy he wants.
An employee should expect to be treated fairly at the university appeal level, but they cannot. An employee should expect to be treated fairly at the state judicial review but they cannot.
We are appealing the Grant County Circuit court's ruling.
We are appealing to the court of public opinion.
---------
Throughout this process we have filed three lawsuits. We have found it nearly impossible to find an attorney who will provide zealous advocacy against the UW System, but our current attorney, Bernardo Cueto, has provided zealous advocacy and we are confident he will prevail in the appeal of the state judicial review.
Here are some documents from the cases (I need to update this):
Case-1 (DocketIndex) (perjury)
--------
Please let me know if you would like more information or would like access to documentation proving my statements. rogerburton@plattevillerealestate.net.