“Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.” Mahatma Gandhi
Circumscribing Definition of “circumscribe.”
“In a typical sham investigation, (one that a reasonable jury could find unworthy of credence) persons conducting the investigation fabricate, ignore, or misrepresent evidence, or the investigation is circumscribed so that it leads to the desired outcome (for instance, by deliberately failing to interview certain witnesses).” Harden v. Marion County Sheriff’s Dept.
Judge Peterson’s decision to dismiss Burton’s case in Summary Judgment took away the non-moving party’s (Burton’s) chance to be heard before an impartial jury. One man, Judge Peterson, decided to dismiss Burton’s case. In similar fashion Chancellor Shields (with help from Attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis) circumscribed Dr. Burton’s grievance against Dr. Caywood in 2013. Below is a timeline that details the events surrounding Dr. Burton’s first grievance request and explains how Chancellor Shields and Jennifer Sloan Lattis orchestrated an outcome that, like Judge Peterson’s decision to dismiss the case, was completely disconnected from the facts.
From Timeline
3/28/2013 – I turned in my printed grievance package to Mary Rose Williams (folder exhibit FE1) (exhibit EZZZZZS). The heading of my (cover letter to the grievance committee) stated “Grievance: Dr. Caywood, chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice, practices retaliation, sexual discrimination and favoritism.” Since I had already left for Germany I asked my husband to deliver the package for me. Note: a minor error on the Timeline of Student Complaint is that I informed Kate Demerse about the student complaint on Oct. 11 not on Oct 10 as shown.
A few days before the grievance hearing I received Caywood’s rebuttal Dkt 40-12. (exhibit ZI) and exhibits (Folder Exhibit 629). For some reason I was not given all of Caywood’s exhibits. A more complete collection of his exhibits are in [UW-P 219 - 306] . I later wrote a rebuttal (folder exhibit 541 - 6a - My Rmks-CaywoodRebuttal). I included this rebuttal in the package I delivered to the Chancellor on 7-8-13
On April 12, 2013 (12 PM to 1 PM): There was a department meeting. Dr. Caywood has not released the minutes of that meeting. We should ask for those minutes in discovery. Dean Throop attended that entire meeting for no apparent reason. I got the sense that she was there to “protect” Dr. Caywood against me even though I am the one who needed protection.
On April 12, 2013 (4 PM to 5:45 PM) a Grievance Committee hearing was conducted. In attendance was myself, Dr. Caywood, my husband Roger, who acted only as an observer and supporter, and five board members. I requested that the meeting be recorded and I have a copy of the recording. (audio exhibit A6) (Note: This has been converted to MP3 format so you can play it on the computer now.)
Dr. Caywood admitted that he had acted “poorly” and probably “very poorly.” [Comm-Caywood Retaliates] . [Comm-Caywood Retaliates]
Caywood claims that he didn’t know that the student didn’t want to talk to a male. I told him when I first informed him of the issue that she didn’t want to talk to a male so; he knew. He said many other things that show his corruption at the grievance hearing. [pretext] [Comm-Caywood Retaliates] (partial transcript of the grievance)
Caywood said there are only two people in the department who he considered to be eligible to be chair, Dutelle and Burton. He did not seem to consider Dr. Fuller as an eligible candidate for chair even though she is qualified. So Caywood considered me eligible to be chair but Dean Throop did not consider me eligible because she said, at her 12-2-13 grievance hearing, I “couldn't handle things on a local level.”
I later wrote a rebuttal to some of Caywood’s comments at the meeting (folder exhibit 541 – 6c - My rmks-Grievance HrngAudio Transcript) This was never sent to anyone in the university. Tim and Michele should read this.
April 17, 2013 – The grievance committee wrote a draft letter of findings for my grievance. [UW-P 002831] This draft was not sent to me. Note that this draft did not have anything in it about investigating Gibson’s “experiment.”
April 17, 2013 – Dkt 53-32. The Complaints and Grievances Committee sent a letter to Chancellor Shields expressing their findings about Gibson’s actions. [UW-P 002846-2847] (exhibit Gibson-Slut-Shaming) In this letter they wrote “his actions were so egregious” and “Dr. Gibson showed extremely poor judgment in conducting an in-class example of a study,” and “ Dr. Gibson’s email is beyond reprehensible.” The committee made recommendations for dealing with Dr. Gibson.
Gibson confirmed that the phone number on the note given to a student was his personal cell phone number.
The committee wrote that his actions “undermines Dr. Gibson’s competence to teach research methods ethically.” They called his apology to the class “slut-shaming” and wrote that Gibson “has serious liabilities and lacks even a fundamental understanding of structural sexism.”
Yet, even after all of that the committee seemed to believe that the note was part of an experiment. It was an attempt to get a female student to sleep with him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rule 26 Disclosure - 54. April 17, 2013, memorandum from complaints and grievances committee to Chancellor Shields regarding addendum to the Burton-Caywood Grievance, Dkt 53-32
April 19, 2013 - Dkt 42-88 pg13, Complaints and Grievances committee issued their first findings in my grievance against Caywood. (exhibit ZA) (Dkt 101-21)
They wrote that I alleged that Caywood treated me in a demeaning and unfair way. They glossed over all the other things I alleged. Their analysis was overly simplistic and minimized my allegations.
They recommended that; “the Criminal Justice department take steps to resolve the dysfunction within the department, such as communication training.” This training has never been accomplished.
The grievance committee submitted their findings to the Chancellor (exhibit ZA) (Dkt 101-21) with recommendation that “a third party needs to investigate further how the breach experiment which prompted a student complaint was handled before and after the experiment took place.” This was never done. The findings were not satisfactory as I explain in (exhibit ZA-8) although they were much more reasonable than the committee’s second findings which the Chancellor demanded on June 4, 2013 or the Chancellor’s response.
Complaints and Grievances committee recommended, among other things, that; “the Criminal Justice department take advantage of Dr. Burton’s willingness to be more actively involved in the hiring of new faculty members.” (exhibit ZA) (Dkt 101-21) Dr. Dalecki has actively excluded me from the hiring process of new members. Dr. Solar actively excluded me from participating in the discussion to create the job advertisement for three new faculty members.
The Committee recommended that an investigation be conducted into how the breach experiment was handled before and after the experiment took place. We should ask for the results of that investigation in discovery. [document request]
The
committee’s recommendation included the statement that Caywood
“defended his last-minute withdrawal of support to her AT&T
grant proposal, saying it was due to a concern that Dr. Burton was
misrepresenting the university’s commitment to a cyber-security
program.” The audio of the grievance supports this.
1)
Caywood claimed at his deposition that he never withdrew support.
2) Throop claimed to Den Herder that the reason for withdrawal
of support was that I had falsely claimed to be an expert in
cyber-security.
3) This clearly shows that support was withdrawn and makes
Caywood a liar under oath.
4) Den Herder
tried to make it seem as though the reason for the withdrawal was
that I had not gained appropriate approvals
5) The
Chancellor’s findings had yet another vague reason for the
withdrawal.
6) The fact that nobody told me any real
reasons for the withdrawal shows that they were purposely keeping me
guessing what the real reason was. Their vagueness and
ambiguity supports the argument that it was done in retaliation for
my filing the complaint.
May 19, 2013 (Day 30): The deadline for the Chancellor to act on the board’s findings came and went with no word from anyone. (appendix VIII) I was anxiously awaiting something that nobody was even working on. I believe this was a conscious decision to delay my grievance.
As of Fri, May 24, 2013 10:46 AM, I had heard nothing from the Chancellor concerning my grievance (Day 35). Since the Chancellor had not responded to the Grievance Committee’s report within the required 30 days I sent an email to the Board of Regents (exhibit ZA-1) requesting their review of the matter. [Comm-Caywood Retaliates]
5-25-13 2:53 PM – Den Herder sent an email to Throop. [UW-P 000133] In this email Den Herder corroborates with Throop in what seems like an effort to help Throop write the final say for the grievance hearing. Den Herder makes a confusing question/statement writing “It is accurate that the committee never sought your input regarding any of these matters?” [sic] Was she asking Throop or telling her? She clearly did not know that the Chancellor was required to respond within 30 days. This is because probably no grievances have ever been conducted to completion in her employ in Platteville. Grievance hearings are just a way to identify the next person to fire. Anyone who complains gets fired and they use their own complaints as reason.
5-25-13 3:02 PM –[UW-P 000133] also [UW-P 005744] Den Herder sends an email to Throop saying that she “just read the administrative code that is referenced and Dennis was suppose to respond within 30 days so he is out of compliance.” [sic] Admission of guilt.
She wrote “I’ll draft something from the Chancellor indicating that you will make sure recommendations 2-4 occur but recommending that the grievance committee should hear your input – and he will not require that you send a letter to AT&T?
1. Was the Provost asking permission from the Dean? She ended the last sentence with a question mark.
2. Why was she telling Throop about what the Chancellor’s findings would be before the Chancellor published it? Was it so Throop could oppose it before it was published thereby ensuring a good cover up?
3. Way before the Chancellor’s findings were published and before the Grievance committee returned their second findings, or even knew they would be asked to return another finding, Throop was already off the hook for sending a letter to restore my rep to ATT. It didn’t matter to the Chancellor whether the committee agreed with me or if they uncovered the truth. He had already decided. Why bother with the grievance process at all? Obviously that is what the Chancellor was asking himself and that’s why he blocked my future efforts to be heard.
5-25-13 3:17 PM – [UW-P 000133] Throop responds to Den Herder’s email saying that she “already said something to Tom about getting a facilitator to come in.” But a facilitator never came in. [Communication Training] She wrote “I have already warned Lorne and Tom that something of that nature can never happen again.” So, Gibson’s punishment was just a warning. She wrote “It is exactly right that the Grievance Committee did not contact me about anything.”
May 28, 2013 – Dkt 42-88 , Chancellor Shields wrote a draft response to the grievance committee. [UW-P 000111] His final draft was signed on June 4, 2013 . I wrote a comparison of the two documents. IMPORTANT!!!!! This contains good deposition question for Chancellor and highlights how he changed direct verbiage to vague direction. Another draft version Ok’d on 5/30/13 was included in defense response to document requests [5441-5443].
Wed, May 29, 2013, 9:04 AM: Provost Nimocks Den Herder, who claimed that she had been assigned by the Chancellor to handle the Chancellor’s response to the grievance committee’s findings, telephoned me and apologized that she had not responded within the allotted time and that she did not know that there was a time limit. She told me that she would make a response by Friday. She never responded. [Comm-Caywood Retaliates]
On Friday, May 31, 2013 7:05:01 PM: I received a response from the Board of Regents (exhibit ZA-3) informing me that the matter was still being reviewed on the campus level.
Friday, May 31, 2013, 11:29 PM (Day 42): Having heard nothing from Provost Nimocks Den Herder I sent another email to the Board of Regents (exhibit ZA-4) asking “how long must I wait?” I never received a response to this email. [Comm-Caywood Retaliates]
The Faculty Bylaws, Part III, Article IX, 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.” http://www.uwplatt.edu/university/documents/emp_handbook/current/Part4/facconst/partIII/article9.html (web page appendix Article IX)
The bylaws have been removed and seem to have been replaced by a bogus and unauthorized “procedure” that includes the option of the grievance committee to extend the grievance past the 20 days. I believe this is a violation of uws 6.02. They should be held to the procedures in place at the time and not the procedures that have been changed to violate my rights. I composed a letter explaining the bogus grievance procedures issue for the faculty senate but, showing great restraint, I did not send it. (exhibit 617) I have updated (interactive exhibit i617)
Bogus UWP. Stuff on Grievance Procedure web page of univ website. Dkt 48- XVI-1 - Griev Procs-2013-14
June 4, 2013 (Day 46): The Chancellor sent a letter to the grievance committee, and mailed a copy to me, asking the committee to re-do their findings of April 19, 2013 within a month. (exhibit ZA-2). Draft of the letter is [UW-P 005736] also [UW-P 005741]. In the opening paragraph of his letter Shields stated that I had“filed a sex discrimination grievance with the Committee against the chair” of my department. To be accurate, the grievance I filed against Dr. Caywood stated that he “practices retaliation, sexual discrimination and favoritism.” Whether the board finds that sexual discrimination is apparent does not diminish the other charges against Dr. Caywood and those charges must not be ignored but they were ignored. The Chancellor and Lattis ensured that my other charges were swept under the rug.
9 month faculty are unavailable during the summer effectively stalling any investigation for three months. This, along with other delays I have suffered in my grievance process, are in violation of Wisconsin statute 111.36(3) (appendix VIII). My grievance was intentionally and unnecessarily delayed at almost every level including the Chancellor’s office. [Comm-Caywood Retaliates]
The Chancellor wrote a draft of this letter on May 28, 2013 in the defense response to document requests that had some differences.
The grievance committee wrote that they needed more information so I put together another package which also implicated Mr. Aric Dutelle and requested another grievance hearing. (exhibit showing this)
June 10, 2013 – Shane Drefcinski sent a letter to Chancellor Shields asking to meet concerning his decision to remand my grievance back to the commission. [UW-P 002843] In this letter Drefcinski writes about a copy of my grievance that has his notes in the margins. This seems to be [UW-P 002848 to 2873].
Defense provided some notes that seem to be Drefcinski’s notes about the grievance [UW-P 002874 to 2878]
June 24 2013 – Drefcinski sent my grievance and Caywood’s response to Lattis [UW-P 005465 to 5491] with a few hand written notes on it (probably by Drefcinski). Lattis gave the committee three issues to “narrow” the grievance (see July 10, 2013 ) and in so doing guaranteed that my core issues were ignored.
Tue, Jun 25, 2013 09:53 AM - I sent an email to the Chancellor (exhibit EZZZZJ) also [UW-P 005462] SB000019-20] in response to his letter of June 4, 2013 (exhibit ZA-2). Someone made notes on my email in [UW-P 000190], probably Shields. I informed the Chancellor about a number of problems I was facing and asked for his help. I ended the long email with “Please let me know as soon as possible whether you will accept my new charges, evidence and clarification of the issues and whether you will agree to remove Provost Nimocks Den Herder from the proceedings and take this issue on personally.” I composed a letter explaining why I believed Provost Nimocks Den Herder was biased but I think I never sent it to anyone. [Comm-Caywood Retaliates]
June 25, 2013 12:52:04 PM - Rose Smyski emailed me asking to connect with me and update me on the situation. I called her and she told me she would set up an appointment with the Chancellor. I was told that Joyce would contact me to let me know of the meeting time. -(exhibit EZZZZK) I never heard back from them. [Comm-Caywood Retaliates]
June 27, 2013 – Lattis sends a letter to Drefcinski [UW-P 005749-52] In this letter she basically derails the real issues of my grievance and directs Drefcinski away from a fair finding calling her corrupt actions “framing” the issues. This is not part of the grievance process.
July 7, 2013 – I wrote a document to collect my thoughts. I never sent this document.
Jul 08, 2013 10:12 AM -(exhibit EZZZZK) - I asked Rose Smyrski when I could expect to hear from Joyce about the meeting. I was told that it was scheduled for July 8, 2013 but nobody bothered to tell me about it. This is another example of the lack of respect and attention I get from the administration. If I had not followed up when I did I would have been the only person not in attendance to the meeting I asked for. (exhibit EZZZZK-1) At the meeting the Chancellor said he couldn’t know whether Caywood did anything wrong because he had to listen to both sides. He said it is very complex and it could take months to take care of it. He said I am tenured so I have reached the pinnacle in teaching. He asked me why I felt discriminated against so I gave him examples. Poor evals, Dutelle was favored, Caywood in general liked male employees better. I said Caywood excluded me from searches and assignments and yanked his support from a cybercrime project he signed off on. The Chancellor turned to the Provost and asked about the decision with Caywood, can we share anything yet? She said no, not yet. A few hours later they had a meeting with Caywood when they told him he had to step down.
I wasn’t happy with the meeting because I felt the Chancellor tried to push me into letting things go. He wanted me to trust him and let him take care of it. I noticed that the Chancellor had Dutelle’s DRB folder on the table during the meeting.
(Dkt 40-19, Dkt 40-20, also exhibits) While at the meeting I gave a printed updated grievance to Chancellor Shields. He handed it to Provost Den Herder. This package named both Dr. Caywood and Mr. Dutelle. This grievance was ignored by the administration. I never was allowed to confront Mr. Dutelle for his part in my abuse. The university violated its bylaws by not conducting a grievance hearing within 20 days. (folder exhibit 541) Also RPD 15 - SB000230 through SB000772] (exhibit 541a) [Comm-Caywood Retaliates] Defense provided their copy of my grievance in discovery: [UW-P To_Chancellor_7-8-13]. SB000231 to 319]
Mon, Jul 08, 2013 05:00 PM- Dr. Drefcinski acknowledged receipt of my grievance (exhibit 541a). He asked me to make copies for the other members of the Grievance committee: Theron Parsons, Mary Rose Williams, Miyeon Kwon and Yong Y. Li.
Note: I have continued to update the grievance package to keep track of and explain events: Fed Suit – Caywood-Throop
The Faculty Bylaws, Part III, Article IX, 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.” http://www.uwplatt.edu/university/documents/emp_handbook/current/Part4/facconst/partIII/article9.html
The bylaws have been changed so now they include the option of the grievance committee to extend the grievance past the 20 days. I believe this is in violation of law. They should be held to the procedures in place at the time the grievance was filed and not the procedures that have been deliberately changed to violate my rights after my rights have already been violated.
Web.archive.org shows the grievance procedures as they were when I filed my complaint at: https://web.archive.org/web/20100528085151/http://www.uwplatt.edu/university/documents/emp_handbook/current/Part4/facconst/partIII/article9.html (exhibit 541c) (web page exhibit 541d) (exhibit 541e)
July 10, 2013 - Dr. Drefcinski emailed me to call him and told me that he didn’t need me to copy the grievance for the other members after all. (exhibit 541b) The information I provided for my grievance against Dr. Caywood did not seem to be utilized in any investigation as the Grievance Commission issued their findings only three days after I delivered it to the Provost. I believe that Dr. Drefcinski failed to share my new grievance package with the grievance committee. I believe my grievance package was simply ignored.
July 10, 2013 – (exhibit ZA-5) (UW-P 000046) (Dkt 101-22) The grievance committee issued a second finding, certainly not enough time for them to consider my updated grievance package. I did not receive their findings until about July 15, 2013. The Grievance Committee wrote to Chancellor Shields “At our June 20 meeting, you indicated that Provost Nimocks Den Herder will meet with the Criminal Justice Department in order to help the members resolve their differences. This is consistent with one of our earlier recommendations.” This communication training never happened. The Chancellor published his unfair findings on July 26, 2013.
Note that the committee wrote the word “withdrawn” several times as though there was no question that support was withdrawn for my cyber-security program. Whether support was withdrawn wasn’t even a question in their mind. Caywood claimed in his deposition that he never withdrew support but he did.
Note that in the findings the committee states that Lattis advised the committee to narrow my grievance to three issues. She never asked me about this. She gave this advice purposefully to mislead the committee so that they would not give due consideration to my core grievances and it worked. Lattis did this maliciously and probably violated some ethics codes in doing so.
Jul 11, 2013 07:41 PM - Chancellor Shields asks me to call him (555 - emails fr Chancellor) (exhibit EZZZZG-3). I recorded the conversation (audio exhibit A8). In this call he told me not to worry. Let him handle it. I had tenure so I had reached the pinnacle of a career in teaching. He would take care of things. Two weeks later he officially and publicly blamed me equally with Caywood even though I am the victim. Partial Transcript [Comm-Caywood Retaliates]
About July 15, 2013 I received the findings from the Complaints and Grievances Commission, dated July 10, 2013 (exhibit ZA-5). (Dkt 101-22) The findings were not satisfactory as I explain in (exhibit ZA-8).
July 26, 2013: Chancellor Shields published his very late response to my grievance against Dr. Caywood. (exhibit ZA-6) His response does not address any of my demands (Grievance claim of 7-7-13 section 6d). The Chancellor’s response did nothing at all to right my wrongs but made things worse for me. He did not address, mention, comment on, remark on, reference, deal with, act on or even recognize any of my written demands in his response. Not even one.
One of my demands was that “a copy of the UW-Platteville Discrimination and Harassment Policy and the procedures for implementing it be distributed annually to all University of Wisconsin-Platteville students, faculty, academic staff, and classified staff as required by policy.” I brought this matter up with the HR Director Lohmann and Dean of Students, Sherry Nevins, on April 22, 2014 and again with HR Director Lohmann at a special meeting called “harassment policy” on April 28, 2014. This has still not been done. The Chancellor didn’t even think it was important to address an ongoing policy violation.
July 26, 2013: Dkt 42-96, Chancellor Shields publishes his response to the grievance commissions second findings that he ordered on June 4, 2013 and they delivered on July 10, 2013 . (exhibit ZA-6) His response does not address any of my demands (Grievance claim of 7-8-13 section 6d).
He wrote: “The proposed “cyber-crime” program is appropriately subject to departmental process and review that has not yet been completed.” This vague statement seems to say that I had made a mistake but not really. It says nothing of substance but strongly implies that I somehow skirted departmental process. It is similar to a pastor standing at the pulpit, pointing at the virgin woman in the front pew and shouting “That woman should not be sleeping with my brother!” It is an inappropriate statement for the context and an inexcusable form of harassment against me. It showed me that I cannot rely on the Chancellor for help but that I could expect more wrongly placed blame from him if I pushed the issue. I believe he, like Dean Throop, has used similar pressure tactics on other employees that have perpetuated dysfunction not only in the CJ department but possibly in every college in our university.
No departmental approval is needed in order to accept funding. There is no policy, anywhere that I could find, that suggests that my request for funding was wrong or inappropriate or misleading.
The Policies and Procedures for the Criminal Justice Department states: “Proposals for curricular change must be approved by the faculty members of the Department before they are forwarded to the College Curriculum Committee.” (appendix XIII ) I was accepting a donation not proposing curricular change.
The Chancellor said that the rest of the commission’s commentary about issues within the CJ dept. is outside the scope of the grievance and will be dealt with by the VC for Academic Affairs and Dean Throop. This is probably a reference to the Sexual harassment of a student but it is vague and non-committal.
The Chancellor’s response did nothing at all to right my wrongs but made things worse for me. He did not address, mention, comment on, remark on, reference, deal with, act on or even recognize any of my written demands in his response. Not even one.
July 26, 2013: Chancellor further delayed my grievance (Caywood) by putting his response to findings in my campus mailbox rather than mailing or emailing it to me. I am on 9 month contract and not required to be at school during the summer. I have been trying to stay away from Dr. Caywood so I have not gone in to the school often this summer. I finally received the letters 13 days after they were signed. I believe this was a calculated attempt to further delay my grievance.
On July 26, 2013 Chancellor Shields wrote a letter to Dean Throop, Director Jeanne Durr, Human Resources and the Faculty of the CJ department. In that letter he wrote: “I also urge them (VC Den Herder and Dean Throop) to assist the department by employing outside consultants to work with the entire Criminal Justice Department to build a stronger team, work on communication and conflict resolution skills, and begin to resolve some of the conflict that has built up over time. This consultation shall take place as early in the academic year as possible.” The consultation and communication training he called for was never conducted. Chancellor Shields did not follow up on his instruction and I suffered for it. (exhibit ZA-7). (Dkt 101-7) Chancellor Shields’ letter to the department seems to blame me for the problems in the department and put a gag-order on me. I explain why the Chancellor’s policy on emails is problematic in (never sent - 506 - Reasons not to use email).
July 26, 2013 Chancellor Shields wrote a letter to the Faculty of the CJ department (exhibit ZA-7) (Dkt 101-7) saying “VC Den Herder and Dean Throop have recently taken steps to begin to address the challenges faced by the Department. I applaud their decisive step of appointing an interim chair and a commitment to a national search for a longer term appointment of a chair of the department.” Three separate committees found that Dean Throop violated policy in appointing Dr. Dalecki as interim chair (exhibit ZT-2) (exhibits 503, ZZA-1). Chancellor Shields applauded an act that violated policy, violated my due process rights and violated laws guaranteeing faculty self-governance. My remarks concerning the Chancellor’s letter are in (exhibit ZA-9a). Finish this up
In his letter he says that it would be wrong to blame Dr. Caywood and says that “the responsibility for the civil and orderly operation of any department is a shared responsibility between leadership and the tenured faculty.” He blamed me.
He wrote that he “applauds” Dean Throop and VC Den Herder’s decisive step of appointing an interim chair and commitment to a national search. He encouraged the violation of policy and law.
He assumed everyone knew this but emphasized that emailing is “problematic.” He just wants to make sure there is no evidence of the true issues. “He said She said” is much easier to refute in court. He claimed that email “presents the danger of escalating a conflict rather than resolving it.” This is the same baloney Dean Nimmocks Den Herder wrote in her May 10, 2010 letter to the department. (exhibit EZZZZZG-2)
He wrote “Conflicts, disputes or simple misunderstandings should first be handled by the parties sitting down face-to-face and attempting resolution. If this doesn’t work, one or both parties should seek help from an immediate supervisor, dean, or from Human Resources.” As I felt the Chancellor’s actions in my grievance were unacceptable I wanted to talk directly to him, as he suggested, in order to clear up any misunderstandings and possibly to dispute his decision and attempt resolution. I attempted to have a “face-to-face” meeting with the Chancellor but he did not respond to my email. (exhibit EZZZZZJ-1) Since my situation was not improving and I had been given no assurance that I was even being taken seriously I filed my claim with the ERD several days later on the last day before I began to lose leverage to statute of limitations law.
He wrote “This administration is dedicated to helping faculty members and departments create a respectful and productive work environment.” However, the administration seems more dedicated to keeping the boat from rocking.
July 28, 2013: Chancellor missed the deadline for conducting a hearing for my claims against Mr. Dutelle. I believe this was a conscious decision to delay my grievance. They seem to have completely ignored the fact that I filed an official grievance against Mr. Dutelle.