Rebuttal to the hearing of 5/25/17
http://universitycorruption.com/private/updaftr-3-8-17-priv/Hearing-5-25-17-Rebuttal.htm
Lies told in this hearing are at: (Lies)
943.30 Threats to injure or accuse of crime.
(1) Whoever, either verbally or by any written or printed communication, maliciously threatens to accuse or accuses another of any crime or offense, or threatens or commits any injury to the person, property, business, profession, calling or trade, or the profits and income of any business, profession, calling or trade of another, with intent thereby to extort money or any pecuniary advantage whatever, or with intent to compel the person so threatened to do any act against the person's will or omit to do any lawful act, is guilty of a Class H felony.
(4) Whoever violates sub. (1) by attempting to influence the official action of any public officer is guilty of a Class H felony.
DEFAMATION LAW OF WISCONSIN says“A witness whose statements in proceedings were absolutely privileged under the law of defamation, could nevertheless be held liable under a conspiracy charge, provided proper proof be made that there was a conspiracy to injure the plaintiff which met statutory tests.” Strobl, Fuller and Solar defamed Sabina below.
A transcript of the hearing was provided at this link: https://gramannreporting.sharefile.com/d-sf5049f24721441ca : Transcript saved here (Hearing-Sans-Burton-5-25-17) as .zip file Here is the transcript as an individual file: (Transcript-5-25-17-Hearing).
We received a video also – Roger has it.
Related rebuttals located here: (Appeals-Schedule).
Below is the Transcript with numbered lines and rebuttals interspersed headed by “Rebuttal:”
Note: Some of the numbers may have changed from the original transcript due to MS word autoformatting.
1
1
2
3
4 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - PLATTEVILLE
5
6 UNIVERSITY APPEALS COMMISSION HEARING
Rebuttal:
This is an incorrect use of the title “Appeals Commission.” The Appeals Commission is a nine-member body. The 5 member panel that hears appeals is called the “appeal panel” or “hearing panel” (Faculty_Personnel_Policies-Procedures-2017 – pg 103). This is further misleading because the five member panel at this hearing seems to have been selected improperly. The 9-member Appeals Commission should have, but does not seem to have selected the a 5-member panel. Instead Laura Anderson selected a 6-member “special panel” by the powers vested in her by the wrong agency ((Peckham-to-Amouyal-5-1-17)). The “special panel” was selected in violation of policy (AppealPanelViolations), (Burton-respondstoPeckham-5-23-17), (ToAppealsCommission-5-21-17). The hearing panel seems to have been selected in violation of policy. If this is true, they would not have the authority to act in the name of the “Appeals Commission.”
Dr. Laura Anderson’s involvement in the appeal process is particularly problematic given her status as chair of the three person Executive Committee that Shields consulted in the decision to suspend Dr. Burton (Rebuttal-Shields Suspension-1-4-17).
Attorney Amouyal wrote “Putting aside the University's blasé characterization of the Appeals Commission's very important role in protecting Dr. Burton's procedural due process rights, if the Appeals Commission was not seated in accordance with applicable faculty bylaws and state laws, the Commission as it currently stands does not have the authority to hold a hearing and to make such recommendation” (Amouyal-to-Lattis-5-12-17).
7
8
9
10 RE: Revocation of Tenure of Sabina Burton, Ph.D.
11
12
13
14
15
16 University of Wisconsin-Platteville
17 1 University Plaza
18 Platteville, Wisconsin 53818
19
20
21 9:00 a.m.
22 May 25, 2017
23
24
25
2
1 University Appeals Commission Chairperson:
2 SUSAN HANSEN
Rebuttal:
Objection: Use of the title “Appeals Commission” does not seem appropriate. This should probably refer to an “appeal panel.” The panel seems to have been selected in violation of policy. The Appeals Commission is a nine-member body while the appeal panel is a five-member body.
Not only does the panel seem to have been selected improperly but the new chair also seems to have been selected improperly, after the former chair, Dr. Peckham, resigned (Hansen-Denial-of-Rqst-5-23-17). The explanation seems to be that she “volunteered.” Faculty Bylaws, Part II, Article III, Section 6(b)(iv) states that the panel shall select its own Chair. It is unclear whether the panel selected Hansen as chair or whether she was appointed by an individual. Until this matter is resolved, Dr. Hansen does not seem to have the authority of an appeal panel chair.
Susan Hansen, decided to continue with the appeal hearing before the panel even though Dr. Burton, the appellant, was too sick to be at the hearing. She allowed the panel to be fed unconfirmed, unverified, uninvestigated and unsupported statements that had nothing to do with the statement of charges. She allowed the hearing to extend far outside the scope of the charges against Dr. Burton without giving Dr. Burton an opportunity to cross-examine or confront adverse witnesses.
How far will Susan Hansen go to get Dr. Burton fired on bogus and false charges? We should not have to find out. She should be immediately disqualified from sitting on any panel that is to decide whether Dr. Burton, champion of student rights, is to be dismissed.
Susan Hansen’s name appears in a Wisconsin Legislature bulletin (Directory of Registered Lobbying Organizations, Licensed Lobbyists, State Agencies’ Legislative Liaisons) which identifies her as one of the employees of UW Platteville “whose normal duties included attempting to influence legislative action on the agency’s behalf.” (http://archive.is/9vpbu), (Bulletin–Wis_Legislature-period ending-12-31-10).
This may indicate a bias against Dr. Burton that should exclude her from service on any hearing body empaneled to decide whether an employee should be terminated. It seems to be a conflict of interest as a vote to dismiss Dr. Burton would be a vote to clear the university of her charges while a vote that Dr. Burton not be dismissed would give credibility to Dr. Burton’s claims of retaliation and discrimination thereby negatively impacting Dr. Hansen’s job duties.
3
4 University Appeals Commission Members:
5 ABULKHAIR MASOOM
BARB BARNET
6 SHERYL WILLS
RICHARD (RICK) BOCKHOP
Rebuttal:
Richard Bockhop’s name first seems to appear as a cc to Hansen’s email but there was no mention as to why (Hansen-Denial-of-Rqst-5-23-17). He now seems to be the fifth member of the hearing panel but there is no indication how he was selected for this position. Was he selected by the entire committee or was he appointed by someone? Was he appointed by Chancellor Shields, Attorney Lattis or Dr. Anderson? Did he volunteer; and if so, how does volunteering get him the position without having been selected by the committee? Richard Bockhop’s name just appeared on the list of panel email addresses. This does not seem to be in keeping with the policy which requires the Appeals Commission to select the members of the appeal panel. Dr. Peckham admitted that the original members of the panel were hand-picked by Dr. Laura Anderson; an apparent violation of policy (Rebuttal-Shields Suspension-1-4-17).
7
Rebuttal:
Susan Hansen seems to have violated policy by allowing this hearing to take place after she had been informed that Dr. Burton was too sick to attend (A42-Roger-informs-univ-Sabina-sick-5-25-17). The chair of an appeal panel “must conduct the hearing under the provisions of UWS 3.08, these policies and procedures, and the guidelines for appeal hearings (which may be found in section 7 of 6.3.12.3)“ (Faculty_Personnel_Policies-Procedures-2017 para 6.3.12.3 ).
Dr. Burton has made the panel aware of their seeming violation on May 12, 2017 9:26 AM (AppealPanelViolations) and on Tue 5/23/2017 10:15 AM (Burton-Rqst-for-shorter-hearing-days-5-23-17), (Burton-respondstoPeckham-5-23-17). Since the members of this panel do not seem to have been selected in compliance with policy they do not seem to have authority to hear this appeal. Dr. Burton requested that the panel be selected in compliance with policy but her request was mischaracterized as a request for a “continuance” and was quickly denied without valid explanation (Rebuttal-Peckham-5-15-17). Until the 9-member Appeals Commission selects the five-member appeal panel there seems to exist no entity legally suited to hear this issue. Dr. Burton re-iterated her request and it was flatly denied without valid explanation (Hansen-Denial-of-Rqst-5-23-17).
Dr. Burton also requested, multiple times, that the panel agree to allow her to address all the charges against her but they never responded to or acknowledged her request (AppealPanelViolations), (Burton-Rqst-for-shorter-hearing-days-5-23-17), (Burton-respondstoPeckham-5-23-17).
8 Also present:
9 BRIAN VAUGHAN
UNIVERSITY LEGAL COUNSEL
10 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON
Rebuttal:
Attorney Vaughan was assigned to advise the Appeals Commission (AttyBrianVaughan-4-21-17). He was aware that Dr. Burton was too sick to attend yet he allowed Susan Hansen to continue the hearing without Dr. Burton in attendance. This seems to have violated Dr. Burton’s right to be heard in her defense and to cross-examine witnesses (UWS 4.05). Attorney Vaughan failed to advise Hansen to re-schedule the hearing which seems to violate SCR 20:1.13 (b). Indeed, Vaughan invited Roger Burton to stay for the hearing even before Hansen had decided to continue the hearing (A42-Roger-informs-univ-Sabina-sick-5-25-17). This indicates that Vaughan already knew that the hearing would continue despite Dr. Burton’s absence. Atty Vaughan seems to have also violated policy by allowing the witnesses to give testimony that was way outside the scope of the charges against Dr. Burton. There seems to be many other violations of policy that Attorney Vaughan could have corrected and should have corrected but he allowed the process to continue. This may be a violation of his ethical duties to keep the appeal process within the bounds of policy and law.
11 JENNIFER LATTIS
SENIOR SYSTEM LEGAL COUNSEL
12 OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
1802 VAN HISE HALL
13 1220 LINDEN DRIVE
MADISON, WI 53706
Rebuttal:
Attorney Lattis has been a central figure in the retaliation of Dr. Burton from the beginning of Dr. Burton’s five-year story of retaliation (AttorneyJenniferSloanLattis). Dr. Burton requested that she not be allowed to represent the university in this case due to personal conflict of interest issues (AppealPanelViolations). Burton’s request was refused. As of 10-18-17, attorney Lattis is still under stalled investigation for alleged unethical actions against Dr. Burton (OLR-Spec-Prelim-Revw-Panel-decision-7-21-17). Attorney Lattis had motive to lie. She also had motive and seems to have had opportunity to forge the investigation report (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17). She cannot be relied on as truthful, unbiased or accurate. (AttorneyJenniferSloanLattis)
14
MICHAEL J. BREITNER
15 DIRECTOR
OFFICE OF EVENT SERVICES
16
17
18 WITNESSES: PAGE
Rebuttal:
All of these witnesses have something to gain by discrediting Dr. Burton. Their diatribes are not within the scope of the statement of charges or the complaint against Dr. Burton.
Most of the testimony by witnesses have nothing to do with the charges in the statement of charges. The witnesses were allowed to hear all the other “witnesses” statements. The panel was exposed to the witnesses’ ad hominem attacks against Dr. Burton without Dr. Burton being given the opportunity to cross-examine or confront them. Dr. Burton has filed complaints against each of the administration’s witnesses so they all have motive to lie.
19
UW-Platteville Chancellor Dennis J. Shields 15
Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields has motive to discredit Dr. Burton. Dr. Burton has made several public allegations that Chancellor Shields is corrupt. He lied in his statement of charges (sburtonstmtofchrgs-Rebuttal-3-30-17). He lied in this hearing, as shown below. His testimony cannot be relied on as truthful, unbiased or accurate. He has motive to lie. He also had motive and opportunity to forge the investigation report (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17). (ChancellorDennisShields-Platteville)
20
Interim Provost Elizabeth Throop 33
Rebuttal:
Interim Provost Throop has motive to discredit Dr. Burton. Dr. Burton has made several public allegations against Throop, including a federal lawsuit. Throop lied in a federal deposition (perjury). She lied in this hearing. Her testimony cannot be relied on as truthful, unbiased or accurate. She issued the charges against Dr. Burton but fails to make a valid claim (Rebuttal-Throop-Gormley-complaint-12-16-16). (Dr_Elisabeth_Throop).
21
Department Chair Criminal Justice Department
22 Staci Strobl 57
Rebuttal:
Dr. Strobl has motive to discredit Dr. Burton. Dr. Burton filed an EEOC complaint and federal lawsuit naming Dr. Strobl as a participant in retaliation against her (eeoc-4-20-17), (case-2). Her testimony cannot be relied on as truthful, unbiased or accurate (Dr_Staci_Strobl).
23 Director of Master of Science Criminal Justice
Department Cheryl Banachowski-Fuller 96
Rebuttal:
Dr. Fuller has motive to discredit Dr. Burton. Dr. Burton told Dr. Fuller in a department meeting that “you will be held accountable” for her part in retaliation against Dr. Burton (A36-EmergDeptMtg-11-4-16) (A36 - Partial transcript). Fuller’s testimony cannot be relied on as truthful, unbiased or accurate (Dr_Cheryl_Fuller).
24
Associate Professor Department of Criminal
25 Justice Patrick Solar 1
Rebuttal:
Dr. Solar has motive to discredit Dr. Burton. Solar took part in the retaliation against Dr. Burton. Dr. Burton complained to higher authority about Dr. Solar’s actions. Dr. Solar lied about the issue. Dr. Burton complained about Dr. Solar’s violation of policy to Dean Throop. Dr. Solar complained to Dean Throop about Dr. Burton’s complaint and the matter was included in Throop’s Letter of Direction against Dr. Burton without even an investigation into Dr. Burton’s allegations against Solar. When asked to rescind his complaint Solar refused to do so, instead he threatened Dr. Burton and her husband with “consequences of his choosing.” Telling lies in an appeal hearing could certainly be considered a consequence of Solar’s choosing. Solar’s testimony cannot be relied on as truthful, unbiased or accurate (Dr_Patrick_Solar).
3
1 9:00 a.m.
2 May 25, 2017
3 CHAIRPERSON: I'd like to call us to
4 order.
5 Good morning. And thank you for being
6 here for this review.
7 Today is Thursday, May 25th, 2017, and
8 the time is 9:00 o'clock a.m. We are meeting in
9 the student rooms of the Markee Center in the
10 UW-Platteville campus.
11 I'm Professor Susan Hansen, Chair of the
12 UW-Platteville Appeals Panel. The other committee
13 members hearing the case will introduce themselves.
14 MR. MASOOM: Abulkhair Masoom.
15 MS. BARNET: Barb Barnet.
16 MS. WILLS: Sheryl Wills --
17 MR. BOCKHOP: Richard Bockhop.
18 CHAIRPERSON: Also present is UW-Madison
19 Attorney Brian Vaughn, who is advising the
20 committee.
21 This is an appeal before the University
22 of Wisconsin-Platteville Appeals Committee, which
23 is authorized to hear this appeal pursuant to
Rebuttal:
For the reasons presented in this rebuttal the panel of five does not seem to be authorized to hear the appeal. Dr. Burton objects to the hearing as an unauthorized hearing that was conducted outside the bounds of policy. If the hearing was not an authorized hearing, the panel heard testimony that should disqualify them from hearing any further testimony and discussion in this matter.
24 UW-Platteville Employee Handbook, Article III,
25 Section 6. This appeal will be conducted according
4
1 to policies and procedures set forth in chapter
2 UWS 4 and UW-Platteville Faculty Handbook chapters
3 6.3.12.3 and 6.3.13.
Rebuttal:
Susan Hansen was not selected in accordance with policy. The nine-member Appeals Commission was not present at this hearing, rather it was a five-member panel that seems to have been selected in violation of policy (Empl-Hbk-ArtIII=Sec6). The appellant was not afforded the right to cross-examine and confront adverse witnesses. These, and other improprieties indicate that the hearing was conducted outside the bounds of policy.
4 UWS 4.06(1)(c )and Chapter 6.3.12.3 of
5 the Faculty Handbook provide that this evidentiary
6 hearing may be conducted in open session if
7 requested by the appellant. The faculty member in
8 this case, Dr. Sabina Burton, has requested that
9 this hearing be held in open session.
10 I will now note the appearances of the
11 parties. Please state your appearances for the
12 record.
13 Dr. Burton is ill today and is not
14 present.
Rebuttal:
How amazing is that? Hansen acknowledged that Dr. Burton was ill, and not present, yet she continued an appeal hearing without her.
15 For the University, Jennifer Lattis.
16 MS. LATTIS: Yes, Jennifer Lattis from
17 the office of General Counsel, UW System. And with
18 me today is Chancellor Shields of UW-Platteville.
19 Also present is the Interim Provost,
20 Elizabeth Throop.
21 CHAIRPERSON: Dr. Burton is not here, and
22 so we will need to decide whether we should move
23 forward, and I can hear from the parties about
24 moving forward with this procedure today.
25 MS. LATTIS: Yes. The University
5
1 requests that we be allowed to move forward with
2 the putting on of the University's case. As you
3 know, Dr. Burton did not present any medical
4 information -- any medical evidence as to why she
5 couldn't be here today. She has been trying to
6 postpone this hearing ever since it was scheduled,
7 although the hearing was -- is being held at her
8 request. She could have decided that it was too
9 stressful to have a hearing and not go through with
10 it, but she requested it. Since that time she has
11 used every possible excuse that she can to try and
12 get out of it. I do not believe that she will ever
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton has not tried to get out of the hearing. She has tried to get a “FAIR” hearing. Discovery: Please provide all evidence that Dr. Burton tried to “get out of” a hearing.
13 appear for a hearing, given what her problem --
14 what she has said today. I thought all of the
15 objections that she has made to the process have
16 been without merit and have been so found by this
17 committee several times.
Rebuttal:
It is incorrect that the committee (panel) has found Dr. Burton’s objections to be without merit. The panel ignored Dr. Burton’s request for an assurance that she would be allowed to address all of the charges against her. Dr. Peckham mischaracterized her request for a re-constitution of the hearing panel as a request for a continuance. Dr. Hansen denied Dr. Burton’s request for a shorter hearing day. (AppealPanelViolations) , (Burton-Rqst-for-shorter-hearing-days-5-23-17), (Burton-respondstoPeckham-5-23-17), (Rebuttal-Peckham-5-15-17), (Hansen-Denial-of-Rqst-5-23-17).
Also, Dr. Burton requested the hearing panel to be re-constituted and the panel chair failed to make a decision on that request until the 9-19-17 hearing. Peckham didn’t make a decision and Hansen referred to Peckham’s decision, which had never been made.
18 So I believe that this termination
19 process needs to go forward, but the Board of
20 Regents should have the opportunity of hearing from
21 the Chancellor and the witnesses as to Dr. Burton's
22 misbehavior so that they as the decision-makers can
23 determine whether there's just cause for
24 termination, and I don't believe that by refusing
Rebuttal:
Attorney Lattis mischaracterizes Dr. Burton’s absence as a “refusal” to come to the hearing. Yet Dr. Burton’s husband reported to Lattis, Shields, Vaughan and Hansen (A42-Roger-informs-univ-Sabina-sick-5-25-17); the record shows (transcript of hearing pg4-para 13); and Dr. Burton’s letter from the doctor (Bearse-Drs-Note-6-1-17), supports that Sabina was not able to be present due to severe illness. The mischaracterization of Dr. Burton’s absence was intentional as Attorney Lattis knew of Dr. Burton’s history of ulcers and had been informed of her illness less than an hour before making this statement.
25 to be present today Dr. Burton can stop that
6
1 process from moving forward. The Board of Regents
2 has to have a record to make that decision.
3 CHAIRPERSON: I will ask the committee to
4 consider whether or not we should continue.
5 (A PAUSE.)
6
7 CHAIRPERSON: Any objections to
8 continuing?
9 (NO RESPONSE.)
10 CHAIRPERSON: No?
Rebuttal:
6.3.12.3 Section 7 states: The chairperson of the appeal panel convenes the hearing and serves as presiding officer. The chairperson assumes all the normal responsibilities of a committee chairperson and rules on such questions as may arise on the procedure of the hearing, admissibility of evidence, and all other matters related to the hearing.” Susan Hansen made the ruling to continue with the hearing. She seems to be responsible for violating Dr. Burton’s rights. Because of this, she should not be allowed to continue as a member of the panel. She should recuse herself from further activity in this matter.
11 We'll continue.
12 MS. LATTIS: Thank you.
13 I have a brief opening statement that I
14 would like to make.
15 CHAIRPERSON: Well, let me just -- let me
16 talk about where we're at so far, --
17 MS. LATTIS: All right.
18 CHAIRPERSON: -- and then we'll get to
19 your formal opening statement.
20 MS. LATTIS: All right. Thank you.
21 CHAIRPERSON: Prior to this appeal
22 hearing, a complaint was received by the Office of
23 Chancellor Shields on December 16th, 2016, seeking
24 Dr. Burton's termination from her position as
25 tenured professor in the Department of Criminal
7
1 Justice. Chancellor Shields appointed Dr. Petra
2 Roter to investigate the matter. Dr. Roter
Rebuttal:
Dr. Roter seems to have been a defendant of a civil lawsuit that was still being considered during the time she was investigating this complaint. This seems to be inappropriate (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17).
3 submitted her report to Chancellor Shields on
4 March 1st, 2017. Dr. Burton was offered the
5 opportunity to meet with Chancellor Shields to
6 discuss the matter. Chancellor Shields
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton asked for a meeting with the Chancellor and never received a response (MtgRqst-11-9-16-ignored). Chancellor Shields did not offer an informal meeting, as required, but a meeting where his attorney would be present. This was too stressful for Dr. Burton to attend. She requested that Attorney Lattis not be in attendance but her request was refused. More details of this in (Public_Timeline) see Sat 3/4/2017 1:38 PM, More details in (sburtonstmtofchrgs-Rebuttal-3-30-17).
7 subsequently issued a letter to Dr. Burton dated
8 March 30th, 2017, in which he determined that the
9 evidence supported dismissing Dr. Burton from her
10 tenured faculty position for cause. On April 19th,
Rebuttal:
This is a mischaracterization of the Chancellor’s statement of charges. The Chancellor wrote “I concluded that the charges were substantial and that, if true, might lead to dismissal.” Attorney Lattis makes it sound as though the Chancellor had already decided to dismiss Dr. Burton and that is not true. He does not have that authority. The hearing panel is to make their own informed decision.
11 2017, Dr. Burton notified the university in writing
12 of her intention to appeal that determination.
13 The issue before the panel is as follows:
14 Whether there is just cause to dismiss
15 Dr. Sabina Burton from her position as a
16 tenured faculty member as set forth in the
17 statement of charges included in Chancellor
18 Shields' letter of March 30 of 2017,
19 sections I, II and III.
20 UWS 4.05 and 4.07 as well as Article
21 6.3.12.3 of the Faculty Handbook provide that the
22 hearing panel will take evidence and testimony by
23 each of the parties and their respective witnesses.
24 A brief opening statement and closing statement may
25 be offered by the parties. Thereafter, the hearing
8
1 panel shall convene in closed session to deliberate
2 and will prepare a written report, findings and
3 recommendation, which will be provided along with a
4 verbatim record of the testimony to the Chancellor
5 and appellant pursuant to UWS 4.07.
6 The record in this appeal should be --
7 shall include those exhibits and materials
8 submitted by the parties during the presentation of
9 their respective cases, the verbatim record of
10 testimony, arguments offered, and any other
11 materials as stipulated by the parties.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton was not at the hearing, by no fault of her own, so her right to present arguments was unfairly denied. Dr. Burton presented thousands of pages of evidence to the “special panel” in support of her case in the website UniversityCorruption.com. It is likely that the administration will attempt to disqualify the electronic files. I don’t trust them. The electronic files need to be included.
12 Because this matter is being conducted in
13 open session, does either party wish to request
14 that witnesses be sequestered until such time as
15 they may be called to testify?
16 MS. LATTIS: No.
Rebuttal:
Wow. They know Dr. Burton is not in the room. So, this way it is easy to get what they want. Just ask the one side what they want and then give it to them. Wow. It seems to be a violation of procedure to allow the witnesses to hear the other witness testimony.
17 CHAIRPERSON: Pursuant to UWS 4.06(1),
18 the burden of proof of the existence of just cause
19 is on the Administration. The UW-Platteville
20 Administration will therefore makes it's
21 presentation first. Dr. Burton will follow.
22 Panel members from time to time may ask
23 questions of the witnesses. The panel has provided
24 two full days for this appeal. The parties are
25 reminded to proceed with the examination of their
9
1 witnesses in an orderly and prompt manner to
2 conform to this schedule.
3 If either party needs a brief recess,
4 please let me know. The committee may also request
5 a brief recess.
6 I'm confident that all the parties will
7 conduct themselves in a professional and respectful
8 manner during the interview.
Rebuttal:
Which parties is Hansen referring to? She knew that Dr. Burton wasn’t even in the room. There is only one party in the room. She seems to be trying to make the audio and transcript appear as though Dr. Burton was in the room.
9 Following all presentations, the
10 committee will contemplate, that it will move to
11 executive session to deliberate and to make its
12 recommendations concerning the matter.
13 Does either party have any matters to
14 raise before we proceed to hearing?
Rebuttal:
Who is Hansen talking to? She knows Dr. Burton isn’t in the room. For goodness sake.
15 MS. LATTIS: No.
16 CHAIRPERSON: Does either party wish to
17 make a brief opening statement, no more than five
18 minutes, please.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton was not in the room. How could she have offered a brief opening statement?
19 MS. LATTIS: Thank you.
20 CHAIRPERSON: Attorney Lattis.
21 MS. LATTIS: It is regrettable that we
22 come to you today seeking recommendation to
23 terminate a tenured professor, Dr. Sabina Burton.
24 These are rare, and in fact nobody at my office
25 could recall this happening at UW-Platteville
10
1 before.
2 I want to thank you all for agreeing to
3 serve in this very serious matter as the Board's
4 hearing examiner as well as the faculty experts.
5 The matter, your opinion in this, is very important
6 both to the Board of Regents as well as to
7 Chancellor Shields.
8 You can probably say that this instance
9 started way back in October of 2012, so that's
10 nearly five years ago. An untenured professor in
11 the Criminal Justice Department by the name of
12 Lorne Gibson decided to conduct what he called a
13 breach experiment in his class. What does that
Rebuttal:
Gibson claimed it was a breach experiment but that seems to have been his cover story for sexual harassment. Dean Throop, Chair Caywood, the student involved and Dr. Burton all saw this as sexual harassment (TheSolicitousNote). The grievance committee thought it was egregious (exhibit ZA). On 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.” Defense admits that “Dean Throop stated that the note could be interpreted as sexual harassment.” (Dkt-10-para38), (Dkt-36-para38).
14 mean? Well, he wanted to test -- what he said he
15 wanted to do was to test social norms and see how
16 people reacted and then discuss it. He tried it in
17 one class with no issues. And then he tried it in
18 another class. He handed a female student a note
19 that read "call me tonight."
Rebuttal:
Dr. Gibson’s story was that he conducted an unsanctioned, unauthorized breach experiment however, then-Dean Throop wrote that the student interpreted his act as “sexual harassment” (TheSolicitousNote). A grievance committee wrote that Gibson’s actions were “beyond reprehensible;” Gibson’s email to the class was a version of “slut-shaming” that suggests Dr. Gibson has serious liabilities and lacks even a fundamental understanding of structural sexism; Gibson showed “extremely poor judgment;” his actions undermined his competence to teach research methods ethically and effectively[UW-P 002846]. Yet Gibson was never disciplined. He was later voted by the department to be the chair of the department and recommended for merit pay. He is now teaching at another university with no blemish on his personnel record regarding this incident. In fact UW Platteville administration seems to be doing everything they can to excuse his actions while attempting to unfairly destroy Dr. Burton’s career without evidence against her.
20 The student did not recognize that she
21 was the subject of this breach experiment and
22 believed and said that she was being sexually
23 harassed by Mr. Gibson -- by Dr. Gibson. She
24 reported the matter to Dr. Burton, who then brought
25 the matter forward to other members of the
11
1 Administration. And you will hear from Chancellor
2 Shields that that's what he expected Dr. Burton to
3 have done.
Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields admonished Dr. Burton equally with Dr. Caywood in his letter to the entire department even though Dr. Caywood admitted that he handled the matter “poorly.” (exhibit ZA), (exhibit ZA-6), (exhibit ZA-7), (ZA-9-Rmks-ChancellorFindings-7-26-13), (ZA-9a-Rmks-Chancellormemo-7-26-13). He publicly chastised someone for doing what she was expected to do.
4 Administration interviewed the student,
5 and the student -- and offered her support. The
6 student did not wish to pursue a formal complaint,
7 and Administration dealt with Dr. Gibson by letting
8 him know that that was not an acceptable practice
9 at UW-Platteville.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Gibson received a verbal discussion about the matter and no discipline but the administration wants to fire Dr. Burton for nothing. This seems like very disparate treatment.
10 Later, when Gibson came up for renewal,
11 his department voted to non renew him, and he
12 departed from UW-Platteville's employ. That should
13 have been the resolution of that issue.
Rebuttal:
Attorney Lattis seems to be saying that Dr. Gibson was non-renewed because of this issue. But that is not the case. The solicitous note incident did not play any part whatsoever in the decision to non-renew Dr. Gibson’s contract (TheSolicitousNote). In fact, the department was never made aware of the incident and Dr. Gibson was later voted by a majority of department members to become chair of the department (CriminalJusticeDept). Dr. Gibson does not seem to have learned his lesson because the decision to non-renew him was based largely on his inappropriate behavior in class long after the sexual harassment complaint incident, and long after the administration “let him know that that was not an acceptable practice at UW-Platteville.” The administration’s counseling did not seem to convince Gibson that he should not act inappropriately in class. But remember, he was never disciplined. In fact, he was recommended for merit pay and elected to be chair. The former chair, Dr. Caywood fought hard to keep Dr. Gibson in the department.
14 But subsequent to reporting Gibson over
15 the breach experiment, Dr. Burton received tenure
16 and two raises. That doesn't mean she let this
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton received tenure because her performance record was so strong the administration knew she would get tenure if she pursued legal action. They were afraid to openly deny her tenure. That is why they tried to deny her tenure by pretending to make hidden administrative errors. The administration attempted to deny Dr. Burton tenure but because Dr. Burton pursued the matter the administration finally relented and gave her tenure. See (Public_Timeline) - Feb 13, 2013 to April 9, 2013. If she had not fought for tenure she would surely have been non-renewed as was Dr. Gibson.
Dr. Burton was given one inequity adjustment that failed to bring her salary to equity with male new hire Dr. Solar and was seen as a bribe see (Public_Timeline) - Mar 13, 2014.
Dr. Burton’s personnel file now includes two documents concerning salary adjustments that were not in the file previously. The legitimacy of these documents is suspect see (Public_Timeline) - Sept. 24, 2013 and Oct 16, 2014. Neither Dr. Burton nor her husband saw these documents before 9-2-17. There are unexplained mathematical mysteries and other anomalies with these documents (PayRelated). They appear to have been placed in Dr. Burton’s personnel file to demonstrate that she had received pay raises that she had, in fact, never received. Even if these are legitimate increases in pay they seem to be raises that everyone received with the exception of the “merit pay.” This is strange because at that time nobody received merit pay, including people who had been recommended for merit pay. It is likewise strange that Dr. Burton should receive merit pay less than two weeks before Dean Throop issued the infamous letter of direction.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
17 matter be put to bed. Dr. Burton engaged in a
18 concerted effort to try to embarrass the
19 UW-Platteville over this one issue. She would
20 never talk about the facts of the issue, always
21 just accusing UW-Platteville of condoning sexual
22 harassment.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton engaged in a concerted effort to gain fair treatment. Members of the UW Platteville administration and Attorney Lattis engaged in vicious smear campaigns and retaliated against Dr. Burton without compassion or concern for law. It is unclear how the administration can make the ridiculous and completely unfounded claim that Burton “would never talk about the facts of the issue.” Dr. Burton did talk about the issue when she was able to do so. She talked about it in a grievance hearing where the grievance committee called Dr. Gibson’s actions “egregious.” Burton talked about the facts of the matter in two depositions. She included facts of the matter in a federal lawsuit. She talked about facts of the matter at a meeting called by Criminal Justice Department Chair Staci Strobl (A37-Forum-Cancelled-11-1-16), (A37-Forum-Cancelled-11-1-16-Trscpt). Dr. Burton wanted to further address the matter at a follow-on forum that was scheduled by the administration but the administration excluded Dr. Burton from the meeting by scheduling the meeting while Dr. Burton was in class. Dr. Burton’s husband posted facts of the matter online (TheSolicitousNote). Dr. Burton explained the incident on numerous other occasions as well, to include emails to then-department chair Dr. Caywood, then-dean Throop and then-HR director John Lohmann. Evidence of Dr. Burton’s descriptions of these events are readily available on UniversityCorruption.com. It is absurd to say that she never talked about the facts.
Use this statement to show that the administration knew that the issues revolved around sexual harassment and that Sabina was trying to make people aware of it. Show that Lattis lied about Sabina never talking about it. Show that Lattis gave testimony at the hearing while protecting herself from cross-examination as a witness because she is an attorney. That's not fair. We need to depose Lattis. This is witness testimony, not lawyer talk. Ask about this is discovery.
23 By the fall of the 2016 she was actually
24 publicly accusing the UW-Platteville of failing to
25 protect women of campus, of conti- -- on campus, of
12
1 continuing to retaliate against her because of her
2 participation in the Gibson matter, notwithstanding
3 the tenure and raises, and beginning -- and
4 bringing in the community and the students into
5 these complaints.
Rebuttal:
Attorney Lattis is wrong. Dr. Burton publicly accused Chancellor Shields, Attorney Lattis, Interim Provost Throop, Dr. Mike Dalecki, Dr. Caywood of retaliation against her because she had advocated for the student victim of sexual harassment. Dr. Burton has always tried to help UW-Platteville be the best it can be and has tried to protect the name of the university and the rights of its faculty, staff and students. She has two daughters attending UW schools, one of them attends UW Platteville. She is trying to keep her own daughters, and other parents’ children, safe from corrupt individuals.
Dr. Burton is attempting to gain fair treatment so other advocates of student rights might be better protected from corrupt individuals who have ascended to positions of power in UW Platteville and the UW System Legal counsel. Dr. Burton has been trying to expose corruption to help get it cleaned up, not trying to tear down the reputation of the school itself. Dr. Burton wants to continue teaching at UW Platteville and she wants the students to be safe.
Again, Attorney Lattis is wrong. Dr. Burton did not receive any raises. She received one equity adjustment that was actually a bribe for her to keep quiet.
Attorney Lattis seems to believe that Dr. Burton should have taken the bribe. Why else would she suggest that Dr. Burton continued to speak out about retaliation and student rights even though she received unrelated benefits? Why should receipt of money or tenure cause Dr. Burton to shirk her responsibility to advocate for student rights or her own rights? Attorney Lattis seems to be arguing that Dr. Burton should be fired because she is not corruptible.
Dr. Burton did not bring students into these complaints. Dr. Staci Strobl called a meeting to inform students of the issues and Dr. Burton attended that meeting (A36-EmergDeptMtg-11-4-16), (A36 - Partial transcript). Dr. Strobl brought students into the matter, not Dr. Burton.
6 For reasons that are unclear to me
7 anyway, as part of this Burton embarked on what can
8 only be described as a bullying campaign against
9 colleagues in the Criminal Justice Department, even
10 those who hadn't been here in 2012, and has very
11 publicly leveled these unfounded accusations
12 against Platteville Administration continually.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton describes her efforts as an attempt to gain fair treatment and to protect the rights of students and other faculty members. It is unclear how Attorney Lattis can characterize Dr. Burton’s legitimate complaints, delivered in writing and in conformance with policies and laws to be bullying. Attorney Lattis’ vague allegation that Dr. Burton “bullied” her peers should be considered individually and completely to determine whether she is right or wrong. Close examination of the facts will reveal that Dr. Burton is the victim of severe bullying and she did not bully anyone.
All of Dr. Burton’s accusations are founded in fact and supported by strong evidence. The administration’s allegations against Dr. Burton are unfounded and full of lies.
13 In 2014 the then Dean Elizabeth Throop
14 issued a Letter of Direction to Dr. Burton,
15 instructing her to cease disrespectful treatment of
16 colleagues, especially of the junior faculty.
17 Burton did not heed the instruction.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton did not accept the Letter of Direction because it was invalid, it was based on lies, it accused her falsely and she requested to address the letter in a grievance hearing. The requested hearing was never afforded to Dr. Burton in violation of policy. Dr. Burton has never treated her colleagues disrespectfully so there is no way she could have “ceased” to do so. Dr. Burton followed the directives of the letter of direction even though they were unfair. Dr. Burton continues to treat her colleagues respectfully, even those who have violated policies and lied to her and about her. She considers exposing corruption to be a moral obligation to others in the department and university.
18 In June of 2016 Chancellor Shields sent a
19 second Letter of Direction, summarizing Burton's
20 bullying of colleagues up to that -- that had
21 happened immediately prior to that and directing
22 her to cease those activities. She did not do so.
23 So you will see she has had plenty of notice to
24 cease her behavior.
Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields’ letter of direction is bogus and is based on lies as explained in Dr. Burton’s rebuttal (ShieldsLOD-Rebuttal). Dr. Burton did not violate any of Chancellor Shields’ directives. Dr. Burton did not bully anyone.
25 In the late fall of 2016 the
13
1 Administration learned that Burton had been
2 secretly recording confidential department meetings
3 for years. Some of these meetings included times
4 when the department committees were evaluating
5 tenure track professors.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton’s recordings were taken legally. She took the recordings because it had become clear to her that she was not going to be treated fairly unless she had proof of the discussions in various meetings. She took the recordings to protect herself from discrimination and retaliation.
6 Burton provided those records to her
7 husband, Roger Burton, who maintained a website,
8 and he put them up publicly for anyone in the world
9 to access. Burton even included partial
10 transcripts, which are in the record, that she
11 prepared which specifically show that confidential
12 evaluative information about nontenured employees
13 was discussed. Burton also provided links to that
14 website to members of the media, who then published
15 the links in media columns.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton’s husband did not post any confidential information. The files identified specifically by the administration as problematic were already public, did not contain confidential records as the administration claims and were removed immediately after notification of objection to their posting. This matter is further explained in these rebuttals: (Rebuttal-Throop-Gormley-complaint-12-16-16), (Rebuttal-Shields Suspension-1-4-17) , (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17).
16 As part of her public campaign against
17 the Criminal Justice Department and UW-Platteville,
18 Burton began increasingly to involve her students.
19 She -- all students. She reached out to them
20 through her social media sites. She, as I said,
21 misrepresented the breach experiment in order to
22 frighten students, and some students even suggested
23 that she was using her class time to discuss these
24 kinds of concerns.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton has never engaged in a public campaign against the Criminal Justice department or UW-Platteville. Dr. Burton has not involved students in any such campaign. Dr. Burton admits to communicating with students and others through social media but did not use social media to engage them in her disputes. Dr. Burton has not reached out to students to involve them in her disputes with the UW Platteville administration. Dr. Burton has informed some students, at a meeting called by Dr. Strobl that she had been targeted because of her advocacy of a student victim of sexual harassment. Attorney Lattis claims to know what was in Dr. Burton’s mind. She claims that Dr. Burton tried to “frighten students” but Attorney Lattis should know that she cannot read Dr. Burton’s mind. Lattis is wrong. Dr. Burton has never done anything to frighten students. Her actions have been to 1) gain fair treatment for herself, 2) expose corruption of named individuals 3) protect students’ rights 4) protect other faculty and staff.
Dr. Burton did not discuss any of these issues in any of her classes. Attorney Lattis’ claim is baseless and unsubstantiated. She has produced no evidence of this; no names of students and no written affidavits from those students. Dr. Burton has obtained statements from graduates who were in her classes that prove her statements true (Burton-no-speak-in-class).
25 The Criminal Justice Department itself
14
1 simply is unable to function with Sabina Burton
2 present. She relentlessly attacks all colleagues
3 as unprofessional and untruthful. She continues to
4 record meetings and constantly tries to turn every
5 meeting to her concerns, including the five-year-
6 old instant matter. There is a total and complete
7 breakdown of trust between Dr. Burton and most
8 other members of the Criminal Justice Department,
9 not to mention the Administration.
Rebuttal:
The members of the Criminal Justice department who are corrupt seems to be unable to function with Dr. Burton present because they are not willing to allow her to speak. The administration is protecting itself by silencing Dr. Burton and denying her First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. Dr. Burton has not attacked any colleague either physically, verbally or in writing. Attorney Lattis’ claim is outlandish and damaging. Accusing Dr. Burton of attacking someone without evidence is a serious breach of ethics. Even the complaint against Dr. Burton did not allege that she attacked anyone. Dr. Burton has never been physically abusive with anyone.
Dr. Burton’s allegations against named individuals are all accurate and true. Attorney Lattis’ vague statement is unsupportable.
There is no law or policy against recording meetings.
Attorney Lattis mischaracterizes Dr. Burton’s actions. Dr. Burton has been trying for five years to gain fair treatment. The administration, under counsel of Attorney Lattis, has violated many of Dr. Burton’s rights.
There is a breakdown of trust between Dr. Burton and Chancellor Shields, Attorney Lattis, Dr. Dalecki and several others who have been specifically named in Dr. Burton’s various complaints. This is due to the corrupt actions of those named individuals. There is no breakdown in trust between Dr. Burton and members of the CJ department who have not violated laws to injure her. Most members of the department have not violated laws to injure Dr. Burton so Attorney Lattis’ statement is inaccurate. The administration has violated numerous of Dr. Burton’s rights so yes, Attorney Lattis is right that Dr. Burton distrusts the administration. However, it is likely that the administration trusts Dr. Burton to tell the truth at an appeal hearing and that is why they cannot allow her to be heard before a fair hearing panel. The exposed truth will condemn the administration and Attorney Lattis.
10 And to be clear, the source of this
11 dysfunction is Dr. Burton and only Dr. Burton.
Rebuttal:
Wrong. The source of the dysfunction is the severe systemic corruption that has taken UW-Platteville hostage.
12 She's been on administrative leave the entire
13 spring semester, and the department has functioned
14 very well without her.
Rebuttal:
Wrong. Dr. Burton has not been on administrative leave she was suspended from her teaching duties and banned from campus.
Whether the department can hide its dysfunction while a whistleblower is absent is not an indication that the dysfunction is gone but that it is hidden. Also, the dysfunction resides far above the departmental level. The Chancellor and Interim Provost are severely corrupt. Dean Gormley seems to have decided to throw her hat in with those other corrupt administrators as has Dr. Strobl. Attorney Lattis has been covering up corruption for years. It is not hard to believe that the administration’s corrupt activities have been covered up while the only whistleblower in the university has been banned from campus.
15 The standard of dismissal that you
16 will -- that the Board of Regents uses for
17 termination of a tenured faculty member is whether
18 that faculty member is engaged in behaviors that
19 impair the efficient functioning of the university.
20 That is the definition of just cause, for at the
21 end of this hearing there will be no question that
22 that is what Sabina Burton has done.
Rebuttal:
Incorrect. Attorney Lattis misstated the UW System standards for dismissal and Attorney Vaughan, who was assigned to advise the special panel, failed to correct her. According to University of Wisconsin System UPS OPERATIONAL POLICY - GEN 14 : “Just Cause” means a standard that is applied to determine the appropriateness of a disciplinary action. The elements of determining whether just cause exists are:
• Whether the employee had notice of workplace expectations and potential consequences if those expectations were not met;
• Whether the workplace expectations were reasonably related to business efficiency and performance the employer might reasonably expect from the employee;
• Whether an investigation was undertaken by the employer before discipline or discharge to determine whether the employee violated expectations;
• Whether the investigation was conducted fairly and objectively;
• Whether the employer obtained substantial evidence of the employee's guilt;
• Whether workplace expectations were applied fairly and without discrimination; and
• Whether the degree of discipline imposed reasonably related to the seriousness of the employee's offense and the employee's past record.
These standards, as they apply to this case, are further explained in (JustCause-Standards).
Attorney Lattis, and attorney Vaughan by failure to correct her, assert to the panel a standard that is not consistent with policy. In fact, the one “standard” Lattis quoted is not even part of the UW System’s standard of just cause for dismissal. Attorney Lattis has not, given any reference to any law or policy or guideline of the UW System to support her assertion. Attorney Lattis and Attorney Vaughan (by acquiescence), seems to have attempted to misdirect the panel about the fundamental standards they are expected to use to decide this case. That seems to be a serious breach of ethics.
This misinterpretation of the definition of “just cause” seems to be an effort by attorney Lattis to mock tenure protection. The university produced an audio recording of a 12/2/2013 grievance hearing which captured what seems to be another very disturbing misinterpretation of law: (AudioShortClips – “Another Misinterpretation of Law?”) In this grievance hearing, with Attorney Lattis in attendance, the statement was made that Wisconsin 36.09 gives the Chancellor and Dean ultimate decision making authority to do “whatever they choose to do;” that “faculty governance is not a legal contract;” that violating policy is acceptable as long as there is a clear reason for doing so. The end justifies the means. Essentially the argument was made that the Dean and Chancellor can decide to fire Dr. Burton for any reason, without just cause, without evidence, without true testimony and Dr. Burton’s only recourse would be to take the matter to court. However, Wisconsin 36.09(1)(f) states “The board shall delegate to each chancellor the necessary authority for the administration and operation of the institution within the policies and guidelines established by the board.” So, the chancellor’s authority, according to this state statute, does not seem to give the chancellor authority to act outside the policies. If the appeal process steps outside the policies and guidelines of the board the panel should deliver a finding that the charges should be dismissed because the chancellor acted outside his authority.
In Judge Peterson’s decision of 3-18-16 he wrote “In January 2013, at her earliest eligibility, Burton applied for tenure. She was granted tenure, effective for the 2013-14 academic year. Burton thus enjoyed substantial job security: tenure extends for an unlimited period, and tenured faculty can be dismissed only for just cause and only after due notice and a hearing. See Wis. Admin. Code UWS § 4.01.” (Dkt-90-Case1)
23 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
24 MS. LATTIS: And I would like to ask
Shields Testifies beginning here:
25 Dr. Shields to testify first. And I assume that
15
1 he'll answer my questions, and then the committee
2 will ask questions if they have -- if you have
3 them.
4 CHAIRPERSON: Correct, yes.
5 MS. LATTIS: Okay. Do you want
6 Dr. Shields to remain here while he testifies,
7 because there's not like a witness chair.
8 CHAIRPERSON: No, I think that's fine.
9 MS. LATTIS: It's somewhat awkward, but
10 I'll survive.
11 EXAMINATION
12 BY MS. LATTIS:
13 Q All right. So for the record, Chancellor Shields,
14 would you put your name out there and make clear
15 what you do, and then we'll move on.
16 A So my name is Dennis J. Shields. I am the
17 Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-
18 Platteville.
19 Q And why are you here today?
20 A I'm here today to testify in support of my, what
21 would you say, charges that warrant the
22 dismissal -- the withdrawal of tenure and the
23 dismissal and termination of Dr. Sabina Burton.
Rebuttal:
His charges don’t warrant dismissal or withdrawal of tenure as shown in Dr. Burton’s rebuttal Dr. Burton rebuts this allegation in (sburtonstmtofchrgs-Rebuttal-3-30-17) , (Rebuttal-Throop-Gormley-complaint-12-16-16), (Rebuttal-Shields Suspension-1-4-17) , (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17).
Chancellor Shields’ charges do not amount to just cause for dismissal or withdrawal of tenure as shown here (JustCause-Standards).
24 Q Can you describe why you brought those charges?
25 A Well, let me -- let me start by saying this. This
16
1 is a remarkable institution. I'm here because of
2 the commitment that the faculty and staff made
3 apparent to me when I visited to excellent student
4 outcomes. I'm inspired by the commitment of the
5 faculty and staff here to the students, to this
6 university.
7 I am distressed that I have to take this
8 step. This is pretty remarkable. In any given
9 year probably anywhere from 20 to 40 tenure
10 decisions come across my desk, sometimes more. And
11 since I've been here I have probably disagreed with
12 maybe two or three of those judgments. I think the
13 faculty here does an extraordinary job of their
14 service to this university in hiring, counseling,
15 nurturing, and ultimately deciding and assessing on
16 the suitability of their peers, their junior peers
17 for teaching service and scholarship. The
18 university could not exist if the faculty didn't do
19 so.
20 I am an advocate for tenure because of my
21 experience in higher education. Fully engaged and
22 committed tenured faculty members make institutions
23 great. So it is with some reluctance that I would
24 ever take -- even consider taking the action of
25 withdrawing tenure and dismissing a faculty member.
Rebuttal:
What a load of garbage. My goodness. Every time Dr. Burton has tried to engage in proper dialogue about important issues she has been shut down, often by Chancellor Shields directly. This is just such hogwash. Wow. If Chancellor Shields were an advocate of tenure he wouldn’t violate tenured faculty member’s rights as he has been and continues to do to Dr. Burton.
17
1 So in this instance I think my letter of
2 charges lays out a pretty clear case for taking
3 this action now. There are essentially three
4 prongs to that:
5 One, that Professor Burton intentionally
6 recorded the conversations about sensitive and con-
7 -- what should be confidential deliberations over
8 the assessment of junior faculty and either caused
9 or permitted to be disseminated publicly those
10 deliberations. That undermines the trust that is
11 necessary for a faculty to make informed, candid
12 decisions about the performance and qualifications
13 of faculty. Without that trust people would not be
14 able to engage in the kinds of discussions that
15 result in good decisions on the promotion and
16 tenure of their colleagues, a complete breakdown of
17 that. And that's probably the most serious of the
18 charges, although I think any one of the charges in
19 and of themselves would support this removal;
Rebuttal:
This charge does not warrant dismissal or withdrawal of tenure as shown in Dr. Burton’s rebuttals (sburtonstmtofchrgs-Rebuttal-3-30-17), (Rebuttal-Throop-Gormley-complaint-12-16-16), (Rebuttal-Shields Suspension-1-4-17) , (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17).
Chancellor Shields’ charge does not amount to just cause for dismissal or withdrawal of tenure as shown here (JustCause-Standards). Chancellor Shields is on a withch-hunt. He is trying to fire Dr. Burton on charges that are based on lies and if they were true, would not warrant dismissal. He is doing this because Dr. Burton is an engaged faculty member who advocated for student rights and asked to be treated fairly.
20 The second piece is that she has engaged
21 in an ongoing campaign to impugn the integrity and
22 the abilities of her colleagues. That has caused
23 no end of distress in the Criminal Justice
24 Department, one of the long-standing, well-
25 regarded programs on this campus. In my view
18
1 professors have every right to argue their cases,
2 their ideas in a civil manner, but you don't do it
3 by making ad hominem attacks on your peers and your
4 colleagues. Even a little bit of that can be
5 damaging to the dynamic that goes on on a campus.
Rebuttal: Most people do not know what an “ad hominem attack” is. The manner in which Chancellor Shields uses the term seems to imply that Dr. Burton were physically attacking someone however,
Google’s definition: “ Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.”
Dictionary.com’s definition of ad hominem: “1. appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.”
So, Chancellor Shields uses the term incorrectly and he falsely accuses Dr. Burton of attacking people in this way. This is a lie. Dr. Burton addresses the substance of arguments directly. Chancellor Shields’ arguments and charges however, are ad hominem attacks against Dr. Burton.
Deposition of Shields or appeal hearing – Ask Shields what Dr. Burton did that constitutes an “ad hominem attack.” He will say, it’s in the charges. So, then ask him if it is all in the charges. Is there anything else? Then go over each charge to show him wrong on each count.
6 Now I'm a lawyer by training and spent
7 most of my career in legal education, and trust me,
8 I've sat in on faculty meetings in law schools
9 where the faculty argued passionately, fervently on
10 an ongoing basis. What happens? A decision is
11 made, they move on to the next thing, and they
12 would walk out of the room and have dinner, talk
13 with each other, and continue in a civil manner.
14 When your integrity is constantly impugned, when
15 your motives are always questioned, that destroys
16 trust and it destroys an atmosphere and ultimately
17 impacts on our ability to effectively deliver on
18 our educational mission;
Rebuttal:
Incorrect. Dr. Burton has been trying for five years to gain fair treatment. Chancellor Shields mischaracterizes Dr. Burton’s efforts. During those five years Chancellor Shields has harassed Dr. Burton without mercy. Dr. Burton’s rights have been violated repeatedly. Dr. Burton has not engaged in any campaign to impugn the integrity and abilities of her colleagues but has tried to gain relief from severe retaliation. The distress in the Criminal Justice Department has been caused by the corruption of the administration, not by Dr. Burton’s attempts to gain fair treatment. This is even evinced by the fact that Dr. Strobl resigned citing “lack of institutional support” as her reason, not any problem with Dr. Burton.
It appears that Chancellor Shields is making a new claim against Dr. Burton, that she made ad hominem attacks on her peers. This was not included in the statement of charges against Dr. Burton and Chancellor Shields offers no evidence of this. By definition, an ad hominem attack is untrue but Chancellor Shields has provided no evidence that Dr. Burton’s statements were untrue. Dr. Burton has provided strong and convincing evidence that the many ad hominem attacks on her character are indeed false. Shields’ vague and unsupported statement does not even identify what he considers to be an “attack” by Dr. Burton. He simply says she did it and expects the panel, who works for him, to decide he is right. But he is wrong. It seems that it is Chancellor Shields, and other administration witnesses, who have attempted to impugn Dr. Burton’s reputation with ad hominem attacks. For example, in his statement of charges Shields claimed that Dr. Burton told students about her disputes in class, but she didn’t (Burton-no-speak-in-class).The extremely biased and probably forged “RoterReport” stated specifically that Roter did not interview any students and did not make any statement about whether Dr. Burton mentioned her disputes in class (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17). So, the source of Chancellor Shields’ statement is not clear. Where did Chancellor Shields’ allegation originate? Were there students? Who are they? Where are their written and signed statements? Did Chancellor Shields sit in Sabina’s class? No. Where then, did Chancellor Shields come up with this unfounded accusation?
Chancellor Shields’ statement seems to be an ad hominem attack on Dr. Burton designed to get her fired. Chancellor Shields seems to be practicing the very sort of attack he attempts to fire Dr. Burton for. Shouldn’t he then be fired? To do otherwise would be disparate treatment, wouldn’t it? This entire transcript seems to be full of ad hominem attacks by various persons attempting to unfairly discredit Dr. Burton. Shouldn’t they all be fired? Wouldn’t doing otherwise be unfair and discriminatory, and cause the charges against Dr. Burton to fail the “just cause” test. Chancellor Shields does not seem to be interested in delivering effective education. He seems to be interested in derailing Dr. Burton’s legitimate efforts to be treated fairly and protect students.
19 Third, she has willfully and on a
20 continuing basis involved students in these
21 disputes in ways that are not appropriate. For
22 many good reasons we do not involve students in our
23 personnel decisions and a lot of the administrative
24 things that go along with that. The purpose for
25 the students' presence here is to get an education,
19
1 develop their skills and talents so they can be
2 contributing members to the society. They are not
3 here to arbitrate squabbles amongst administrators
4 or staff, and they should not be encouraged to be
5 involved in that. The documentary evidence that we
6 have presented to this body I think presents
7 factually that this has occurred and has continued
8 to occur.
Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields has not identified what Dr. Burton has done that was inappropriate. He makes only vague statements without evidence to back it up. He failed to provide any policy or law to support his unspecified “good reasons” or how those “good reasons” apply to this case. Perhaps if he would specify what he believes Dr. Burton did to “willfully and on a continuing basis involved students in these disputes in ways that are not appropriate” we might be able to address the error in his allegation.
For Shields to support his statement he would need to show specifically: 1) that Dr. Burton involved students in her disputes; 2) that each contact was “not appropriate”; 3) that she made these contacts on a “continuing basis.” He attempts to do this in his statement of charges but his vague arguments do not hold water as shown in the rebuttal (sburtonstmtofchrgs-Rebuttal-3-30-17).
Chancellor Shields cannot say what Dr. Burton did wrong, instead he makes broad, vague generalizations to try to convince the panel, which he hand-picked through Laura Anderson, to fire Dr. Burton on bogus and false charges.
Dr. Burton has never discussed the matter of her disputes in her classes (Burton-no-speak-in-class). If students’ safety is in jeopardy because corrupt administrators, like Chancellor Shields, unfairly target advocates of students wouldn’t it then be appropriate for students to be informed of the danger the administration puts them in? Chancellor Shields mischaracterizes the involvement of students in this matter and he is wrong again.
9 Q Can you describe for the committee the Letter of
10 Direction that you provided to Dr. Burton? And I'm
11 going to give you an exhibit and direct the
12 committee to Exhibit C, page 23.
Rebuttal:
(Shields-LOD-6-3-16) Included with the letter were quite a few printed copies of emails (Shields-LOD-6-3-16-Attachments). Dr. Burton rebuts Chancellor Shields’ letter of direction here: (ShieldsLOD-Rebuttal-e). Chancellor Shields’ LOD was based on former Dean Throop’s LOD (exhibit 570a), (i571-DirectionRebuttal). Throop’s LOD is based on lies. Chancellor Shields’ LOD is based on lies. They are both discriminatory and retaliatory in nature. Dr. Burton’s requests to address Throop’s LOD have been unfairly denied because Chancellor Shields cannot afford the truth to be heard and fairly evaluated. Any fair hearing panel will consider Dr. Burton’s arguments against Throop’s LOD and see it for the discriminatory bag of lies it is.
13 A Okay.
14 Q Okay. So did you provide this to Dr. Burton?
15 A Yes. Almost a year ago I sent this letter to -- I
16 crafted and sent this letter to Dr. Burton.
17 Q And why did you do that?
18 A Because I wanted to give her a clear idea of how
19 she was stepping outside the bounds and direct her
20 to cease and desist in activities that I thought
21 were inappropriate.
Rebuttal:
Wrong. Chancellor Shields issued the LOD to harass Dr. Burton, increase her stress, get her to stop asking for fair treatment, waste her money on legal costs and build a case against her based on lies. He intended to use it against her in a future attempt to fire her unjustly. That is what is happening now. Any fair hearing panel would carefully examine Chancellor Shields LOD, and Dr. Burton’s rebuttal to it, and would determine that it was based on lies (Shields-LOD-6-3-16), (Shields-LOD-6-3-16-Attachments), (ShieldsLOD-Rebuttal-e). Shields’ LOD does not give a clear idea of how Dr. Burton was stepping outside any bounds. Instead it attempts to unfairly enclose her activities in a way that does not apply to anyone else. This is disparate treatment that violates law. Chancellor Shields stepped outside the bounds of law by issuing the LOD.
22 Q And the specific directions are on page 24?
23 A Yes.
24 Q All right.
25 A I am directing -- do you want me to --
20
1 Q No.
2 A Okay.
3 Q I think the committee can read it, so we don't need
4 to take time to read through it.
Rebuttal:
Attorney Lattis probably didn’t want him to read through it because it is so much baloney. It is completely unfair and she didn’t want to bring up the content of the LOD for fear that it would be shown to be unfair. Of course, Dr. Burton was not in the room to cross-examine Chancellor Shields and address the matter. That, in itself should be enough to dismiss any charges against Dr. Burton.
5 A I think it's important to note that I never object
6 to any employee raising significant concerns and
7 following -- and engaging in our processes to have
8 those concerns engaged, so this was not to
9 discourage her from pursuing those sorts of things
10 through the normal process but to cease and desist
11 in these other activities that were outside of that
12 -- those processes.
Rebuttal:
This is an interesting statement. Dr. Burton asked for grievance hearings and because she asked for grievance hearings Chancellor Shields issued the LOD. Dr. Burton raised significant concerns and engaged the university’s processes to have those concerns engaged. But instead of addressing Dr. Burton’s concerns Chancellor Shields admonished her for doing what he now claims to support. Wow. What a crock.
13 Q So that would be then why the second to last
14 paragraph regarding retention of rights.
15 A Right.
16 Q Prior to issuing the Letter of Direction, you also
17 dealt with a complaint about that Dr. -- or that
18 Interim Provost Throop had filed, isn't that
19 correct?
20 A Right. She had filed that when she was serving as
21 Dean of Liberal Arts and Education.
22 Q Okay. And then could you take a look at Exhibit E,
23 which is the very last one, and this is the one
24 where the -- where I had told the committee that I
25 would bring the hard copies because it was a late
21
1 edition, so if I can vouch, I have many copies of
2 the exhibit.
3 CHAIRPERSON: I'm distributing Exhibit E
4 among us.
5 BY MS. LATTIS:
6 Q All right. Could you tell us what the complaint
7 was and then what action you took?
8 A Quite frankly, I don't know exactly what -- I mean
9 this is at this point about three years ago, but
10 there had been a back and forth between Dean Throop
11 and Sabina about some activities Sabina had been
12 engaged in, and I had engaged another -- I think it
13 was Dominic Bearclaw, and said, okay, we need a
14 disinterested party to look into this and arrive at
15 a rec- -- some fact finding. The result of that
16 was that there was arguably some merit to the
17 complaint. About that time I believe Sabina Burton
Rebuttal:
There was no merit to the complaint as shown in Dr. Burton’s rebuttal (Barraclough_Report-Rebuttal). Dr. Barraclough’s report was not signed by anyone. Therefore, it cannot even be determined even if the report is authentic. It is likely a forgery. Chancellor Shields failed to act on the report for a year without explanation. Ultimately Chancellor Shields dismissed the charges with no explanation. Dr. Burton asked for the investigation report but was denied access to it in violation of law (Erickson.Denial11.30.16). In fact, the law that guaranteed Dr. Burton’s right to be given the report was used to deny it. Dr. Burton engaged the AG’s office (DenialofAccess-12-2-16), (Erickson.Denial11.30.16). She was finally given access to the report (Barraclough_Report-Rebuttal). The report is seriously biased.
18 went on leave of the following semester, and then
19 there was some federal litigation, and the long and
20 short of it, it was nearly a year and a half until
21 I was in a position to act on this. My perspective
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Chancellor Shields was the Chancellor of UW Platteville for the entire period in question. He was absolutely in a position to act on the matter. He chose not to act on it because he was trying to unfairly deprive Dr. Burton of her due process rights.
22 on it, while there was probably some merit to the
23 complaint that the then Dean Throop had submitted,
24 enough time had passed that I decided that it was
25 not worth it at this point moving forward, the
Rebuttal:
Policy requires such matters be addressed in a timely manner. Chancellor Shields decided to violate this mandate. Because he violated the mandate he decided not to move forward with the matter. He made these very shady decisions behind his closed office door. He wrote a letter claiming that the complaint had merit but didn’t explain himself (Chancellor-8-31-16-letter), (ResponsetoChancellorLtr-8-31-16). If the complaint had merit why didn’t Shields pursue firing Dr. Burton based on that complaint? Because Shields acted outside the bounds of policy established by the Board his decisions Chancellor Shields acted outside the authority of the Board.
22
1 federal case had been decided, et cetera, et
2 cetera, and that the better course of action was to
3 let that go and move forward. And as you'll see in
Rebuttal:
But as you see by his false statements in this hearing, Chancellor Shields did not let that go. He is using it against Dr. Burton even though he dismissed the charges. He is claiming that the complaint had merit so the complaint needs to be addressed. Dr. Burton’s rebuttal needs to be considered. (ResponsetoChancellorLtr-8-31-16). A fair hearing panel would realize that Throop’s complaint had no merit and that is why Chancellor Shields dismissed the charges.
4 the letter, I actually extended an opportunity for
5 Dr. Burton to come visit with me, because I was
6 concerned about actually talking with her to help
7 resolve and give -- give me an opportunity to hear
8 a little bit about what her views were on things,
9 give her my sense of perspective, and help get
10 beyond where we were at that time.
Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields never offered to meet with Dr. Burton over the Throop complaint as he implies. He offered to meet over the Deb Rice complaint of 8/8/16 and over the Throop/Gormley complaint of 12/16/16.
Chancellor Shields did not offer to meet because of any desire to do the right thing. He offered to meet because it is a requirement of the UWS policy.
Shields offered to meet with Dr. Burton over the Deb Rice complaint. However, when Dr. Burton asked to schedule the meeting Chancellor Shields ignored her request to meet. (MtgRqst-11-9-16-ignored),
(Shields-LOD-6-3-16) , Chancellor-8-31-16-letter , Shields-response-9-6-16 .
Shields offered to meet again over the Throop/Gormley complaint but would not allow the meeting unless Attorney Lattis, who had been instrumental in Dr. Burton’s harassment, was present (Shieldsofferstomeet-3-4-17). This violated policy which requires the Chancellor to offer to meet “informally.” He kept the pressure up so Dr. Burton could not attend due to stress related issues.
11 Q Did Dr. Burton take you up on that offer?
12 A Well, in a manner of speaking. She -- because in
13 the letter I said I wasn't going to have a meeting
14 if it wasn't recorded, she could bring somebody
15 with her, because I, you know, that was appropriate
16 so she'd have a witness if she'd like, but she took
17 a very adversarial pose, said, you know, "I had --
18 if you don't do anything wrong, you don't have to
19 worry about it being recorded. I'm going to bring
20 whoever I like." And I said, "Well, you know, it's
21 not the purpose of this," and so I let it go. I
22 think this is a continuation of the pattern of an
23 unwillingness on Dr. Burton's part to resolve these
24 issues on an informal basis or attempt to -- at
25 least make the attempt to resolve them on an
23
1 informal basis, which is her right if she doesn't
2 like to, but in the course of interactions with
3 human beings, we all get crossways with one another
4 once in a while, and my experience has shown that
5 if parties really want to get to the right place,
6 they're willing to at least sit down and think
7 about how to resolve it before seeking some other
8 sort of adjudication.
Rebuttal:
It is amazing how Shields tries to paint Sabina as the one who was unwilling to talk reasonably. Shields ignored or denied Dr. Burton’s attempts to set things right in the proper manner.
Dr. Burton did not take a “very adversarial pose.” There is no evidence of this. She just wanted to be treated fairly. After learning about the way her words were twisted in the Barraclough report from the actual audio recorded meeting she felt she needed to record any meeting with the Chancellor in order to protect herself from his lies.
Shields is attempting to confuse the panel by mixing up the events of the two times he offered to meet with Dr. Burton. The first time he offered to meet was for the Deb Rice complaint. The second time was for the Throop/Gormley complaint. He violated policy both times. He didn’t “let it go” either time. The first time he ignored Dr. Burton’s request to schedule a time to meet. The second time he failed to offer an informal meeting as required.
Chancellor Shields’ rendition of events is flawed. He tried to make his unfair actions seem amicable and Dr. Burton’s attempts to gain fair treatment seem “adversarial.” The truth of the matter is that Chancellor Shields has been treating Dr. Burton as an adversary for five years. He has all the power and he has been using it unfairly against Dr. Burton for a long time. Amazingly, Dr. Burton has continued to follow the rules, even the unfair rules, and has continued to act in a professional manner in all engagements. Chancellor Shields tries to make it appear that Dr. Burton was unwilling to participate in an informal meeting but it is Chancellor Shields who violated policy in that matter. Chancellor Shields failed to offer to meet informally with Dr. Burton.
9 Q Could you describe -- I want to take you back out
10 of time now to the 2012 breach experiment and ask
11 that if you can recall that and describe what you
12 know of the Administration's response to the
13 student complaint.
14 A Let me start by saying, I would expect any faculty
15 member that would have a student come to them with
16 this sort of concern to do exactly what Dr. Burton
17 did initially, that is, report it to the
18 appropriate people so that we could act on it
19 quickly. One of the things I find most troubling
20 about her allegations is the ongoing campaign to
21 say this university doesn't care about the safety
Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields is incorrect. He cannot point to any written or verbal statement by Dr. Burton claiming that the university doesn’t care about student’s safety. She has said that Chancellor Shields is corrupt and covers up sexual harassment and retaliated against her because she advocated for a student victim of sexual harassment. She has said that Chancellor Shields, not UW Platteville, doesn’t seem to care about student safety. Chancellor Shields mischaracterizes Dr. Burton’s statements. Dr. Burton has always said very good things about most of the people of UW Platteville and has high hopes that the corrupt few, such as Chancellor Shields, Attorney Lattis, Dr. Dalecki, Dr. Caywood, Aric Dutelle, Deb Rice will be eliminated from the university to restore its good reputation. Dr. Burton has been, and remains dedicated to improving the university.
22 of students and care about eliminating sexual
23 harassment and sexual assault, and as is normal in
24 many of those cases, they come up, but there have
25 been several occasions when those things have been
24
1 brought to my attention and I have acted swiftly to
2 correct that situation and in a couple of cases
3 it's been the departure of probationary faculty
4 when I discovered this. So in this instance the
Rebuttal:
Is Chancellor Shields referring to Gibson? If so, he is not telling the truth. Gibson was not let go for the sexual harassment incident. He was let go because he butted heads with Dalecki. (CriminalJusticeDept)
5 young woman was referred to the Dean of Students,
6 who is a professional, experienced at dealing with
7 these issues, both in helping the student receive
8 emotional and counseling support that they need to
9 get them through these circumstances and alerting
10 them to their right to pursue a complaint against
11 the party that's done it. Those steps were all
12 taken care of and we moved on.
13 To reiterate, there was nothing about
14 Dr. Burton's reporting of this incident that was
15 anything but proper and what I would reasonably
16 expect. In fact, if they -- if you don't report
17 those sorts of things, that's a problem. So in
Rebuttal:
If Sabina acted appropriately why did Caywood create new “policy” instructing the CJ dept to handle these incidents differently?
Oct. 16, 2012 (10:20 am): Dkt 40-11. Dkt 40-18. Dkt 42-74 Dr. Caywood sent out a department email with attachment on “how we should deal with student complaints.” (exhibit EZO) (exhibit EZO-1). His procedure is contrary to UW-Platteville guidelines the law. He generated this procedure as a direct result of the student complaint of Oct. 11 and shows that he disapproved of the way Dr. Burton handled the event. Dkt 53-6
Caywood later admitted that he handled the matter “poorly.”
Chancellor Shields later admonished Dr. Burton and Caywood equally without explaining what he thought Dr. Burton did wrong (exhibit ZA-7), (Dkt 101-7) . For what? If Shields believes Dr. Burton acted appropriately in reporting the incident, something her boss disagreed with, what did Shields publicly admonish Dr. Burton for having done? It seems he was admonishing her for complaining that Caywood was harassing her. Caywood was harassing her because he felt Dr. Burton should not have reported the incident to higher authority. (ZA-9-Rmks-ChancellorFindings-7-26-13), (ZA-9a-Rmks-Chancellormemo-7-26-13), (exhibit ZA-6).
18 this case, while I think for any student being in
19 this circumstance it is stressful and at any rate I
20 think our concern has to be first about making sure
21 they are comfortable while it moves forward, if
22 they choose not to file the complaint, which, you
23 know, is their choice to make given their personal
24 circumstance and their emotional state, even if I
25 feel powerfully that we'd like to move, if we don't
25
1 have a complaining party, we can't move forward.
2 In dealing directly with the faculty member, I'm
3 confident we took the appropriate steps of telling
4 them not to do this in the future, that that's not
5 appropriate in the class.
6 And ultimately, for a variety of reasons,
7 the department voted not to retain that faculty
8 member, and even upon his appeal, I denied that
9 appeal, and he departed I think right away almost.
10 He didn't -- he didn't use the additional year that
11 he had to find another circumstance.
12 So that matter was all resolved almost
13 four years ago.
Rebuttal: (Lies)
The department vote was split – two for Gibson’s retention and two against retaining him. It seems the Chancellor decided to non-renew and Gibson filed an appeal. The appeal panel recommended retention and Chancellor Shields went against their recommendation. Gibson stayed another year, until his contract expired.
Dr. Burton never complained that Chancellor Shields acted improperly in handling Dr. Gibson. This entire explanation of events is a diversion from the real issues.
Dr. Burton claimed that her chair, Dr. Caywood retaliated against her because she advocated for the student. The message she received from Dr. Caywood was ‘don’t advocate for students’ rights or you will be punished.’ Dr. Burton filed a grievance against Dr. Caywood (folder exhibit 541), (index of exhibits and appendix included in package). The grievance committee agreed with her, and found Dr. Caywood to have acted poorly (exhibit ZA) (Dkt 101-21). Caywood admitted he acted poorly and that he owes Dr. Burton an apology, which he never gave. However, Chancellor Shields ordered the grievance committee to re-do their findings (exhibit ZA-2). Attorney Lattis derailed Dr. Burton’s grievance without Dr. Burton’s knowledge [UW-P 005749-52] (Attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis). The committee delivered new findings without ever again talking to Dr. Burton and without considering her updated complaint package (exhibit ZA-5). The findings were not satisfactory as explained in (exhibit ZA-8). Chancellor Shields displayed his disregard for students’ safety by depriving a student advocate’s due process rights. The message he seems to have sent to Dr. Burton was ‘don’t exercise your right to complain or you will be punished.’
If Chancellor Shields believed Dr. Burton acted properly, as he stated in the hering, why did he blame her equally with Dr. Caywood? (exhibit ZA-6), (exhibit ZA-7), (ZA-9-Rmks-ChancellorFindings-7-26-13), (ZA-9a-Rmks-Chancellormemo-7-26-13) How many other innocent student advocates has this happened to? How many others will this happen to if Dr. Burton is fired?
The statement of charges vaguely claims that Dr. Burton misrepresented what Shields and Gibson claim was an unauthorized human subjects “experiment” but does not specify what was allegedly misrepresented. Chancellor Shields did not identify any specific statements by Dr. Burton that he felt were “misrepresentations.” Dr. Burton stands by all of her representations (TheSolicitousNote).
Because Chancellor Shields brought this issue up in the statement of charges and at the hearing it must be fairly evaluated whether Chancellor Shields acted appropriately in asking the grievance committee to re-submit new findings. The same standard of just cause must be applied to the manner in which Chancellor Shields blamed and publicly admonished Dr. Burton equally with Dr. Caywood. It must be determined whether Attorney Lattis violated ethics by incorrectly framing Dr. Burton’s complaint and circumscribing the issues to exclude her real complaints. It must be determined whether the grievance committee’s second report was generated in violation of policy (Public_Timeline – April 19, 2013 to July 26, 2013).
14 Q Can you describe then, let's see, you would have
15 received a complaint from Dr. Throop and
16 Dr. Gormley in December of 2016, right?
17 A Right.
18 Q And that, for the committee, is Exhibit C, page 3.
19 And what did you do when you received this
20 complaint?
21 A I immediately began -- I reviewed it; I assessed
22 the allegations; I thought they rose to the level
23 that if true, I was compelled to take action;
24 consulted with you about how to proceed; and then
25 began a process of trying to identify someone to
26
1 investigate the matter to make some factual
2 assessment of the allegations that were made.
3 Q And that investigation was eventually conducted by
4 Dr. Petra Roter?
Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields claims that the request for Dr. Roter to conduct an investigation was a fact-finding assignment only and did not call for opinion. The report delivered to Dr. Burton contains many opinions and is terribly biased and was not signed by Dr. Roter. It is likely a forgery. It was likely forged by Chancellor Shields and/or Attorney Lattis. This comes into play in the rebuttals of the charges.
5 A Yes.
6 Q And if you look to Exhibit B, so it's the blue B.
7 A Okay.
8 Q Okay. You recognize that?
9 A Yes. This is the report that Dr. Roter presented.
Rebuttal: (Lies) 99.99999% probability that Shields lied.
We need Roter to testify about the authenticity of the report. The report is not likely the report Dr. Roter presented to him. There is no evidence that it is Dr. Roter’s report other than Chancellor Shields’ assertion that it is. It is not signed. Any fair hearing panel would require more evidence than Chancellor Shields’ assurance. Evidence suggests strongly that it is a forgery (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17). One of the most telling facts is that Dr. Roter is mysteriously unavailable to testify in a hearing which hinges on the investigation she performed. She stopped answering her emails or phone calls. The report that Chancellor Shields claims is Dr. Roter’s report cannot be accepted as legitimate evidence without solid proof from Dr. Roter, that she accepts responsibility for it, as it is written.
10 Q And you reviewed that report?
11 A Yes, I did. And several things became clear, that
12 by her own admission, Dr. Burton had recorded the
13 meetings that contained the deliberations on
14 confidential employee matters and admitted that she
15 made them available to her husband and then they
16 were published online. So as to the first
17 allegation, I don't think there's any factual
18 dispute about that.
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton did not admit to recording meetings that contained deliberations on confidential employee matters.
Wrong. Dr. Burton did not violate any law or policy. Just because a person admits that they ate an apple does not mean they ate an apple with a worm in it. Chancellor Shields is saying that because Dr. Burton recorded a meeting that she broke a law. She didn’t break any law, as explained in the rebuttal to the statement of charges (sburtonstmtofchrgs-Rebuttal-3-30-17). Even if she had violated a law, which she didn’t, termination would be far too extreme.
19 The report goes on to talk about the
20 interviews that she had with a number of faculty in
21 the Criminal Justice Department in addition to her
22 meetings with Dr. Burton, and an additional -- in
23 addition she reviewed the e-mail and other
24 documentary evidence about the communications that
25 had transpired, mostly generated by Dr. Burton, but
27
1 some from, as I recall, some of the faculty, and I
2 believe those formed a basis for saying that she
3 was continuing to engage in behavior that was
4 impugning the integrity of her peers, and in
5 particular the junior faculty, so based both on her
6 witness account -- or accounts from those
7 interviews and the documentary evidence, I don't
8 think there's any factual questions about whether
9 or not she had engaged in the second prong of the
10 charges that I have made. And she didn't interview
11 the students because our own position is we
12 shouldn't be involving the students in this, but
13 she reviewed the documentary evidence from e-mails
14 and some social media sites to show that factually
15 Dr. Burton had engaged in behavior to get the
16 students involved in her personal dispute with the
17 department and the university. So, in my view, the
18 investigation supports the allegations that Dean
19 Gormley and Provost Throop had presented in their
20 complaint.
Rebuttal:
Wow. Shields takes a lot of liberty here. He takes a biased, probably forged report and misrepresents what is in it. Ask him to show where the forged report says that emails and social media sites factually show that Dr. Burton engaged in behavior to get students involved in her personal dispute. It appears that Shields is putting more fraudulent words in Dr. Roter’s report, even after he put words in it previously by forging it. He did the same thing in the statement of charges.
It appears that Shields and Lattis are trying to twist the truth just a little bit in layers of lies. It seems they twisted the truth a little in the fraudulent and forged Roter report but not so much that it seems too obvious. Then, in the statement of charges it seems they twist the truth from the Roter report. It seems they believe that two half-lies equal a truth. Shoddy math. A fair hearing panel would listen to the audio of Dr. Roter’s meeting with Dr. Burton to determine what was actually discussed. Then they would compare the actual discussion to the Roter report and Chancellor Shields’ statements. But the most important thing a fair hearing panel would do is to get absolute confirmation from Dr. Roter herself whether she takes credit and stands by the content of the report that Chancellor Shields and Attorney Lattis presented as her work. Would Dr. Roter swear under oath that the report is her own work? That may depend on how much dirt they have on her.
21 Q What did you decide to do following your review of
22 Dr. Roter's investigation?
23 A I decided that there was sufficient evidence to
24 support the withdrawal of tenure and the
25 termination of this professor and started the
28
1 process of alerting Dr. Burton of this, and the
2 first step of that process are for an informal
3 meeting to discuss the matter with the professor.
4 Q And what happened at that informal meeting?
5 A Well, it never took place because not longer than
6 two days, but maybe the day before, she objected to
7 the presence of my lawyer, you. For some reason or
8 other, she's of the opinion that she can pick my
9 lawyer. She was free to bring her lawyer with her.
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton has never been of the opinion that she could pick the Chancellor’s lawyer.
The policy allows Dr. Burton to bring a representative of her choosing but it does not allow Chancellor Shields to bring an attorney. It requires the Chancellor to offer an informal meeting, not one where he brings an attorney. Why would he need an attorney? He wasn’t the one under threat of termination.
10 We were going to do this by Skype. And when I made
11 it clear that she didn't get to pick my lawyer,
12 they didn't show up for the Skype interview.
Rebuttal: (Lies)
1. This is news to Dr. Burton. Nobody said anything about a Skype interview. What is the purpose of a Skype interview anyway? Why would Dr. Burton want a Skype interview instead of an informal meeting? Why wouldn’t the Chancellor just meet with her informally? Dr. Burton wasn’t trying to pick his lawyer. She was trying to get Shields to follow UWS 4.02(1) and meet with her in an “informal” meeting. UWS 4.02(1) does not allow Shields to bring an attorney but it allows Dr. Burton to bring a representative. Chancellor Shields demanded a right he was not due and by so doing, seems to have violated Dr. Burton’s right to an informal meeting.
13 Q Following that informal -- the informal meeting
14 that didn't happen, what did you do next?
15 A I produced the letter of the formal charges to her
16 that alerted to her that she had the right to
17 request a hearing with this body here today, and we
18 proceeded accordingly.
Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields failed to follow policy which requires that the statement of charges include the policies and procedures available to her on appeal (sburtonstatementofcharges3-30-17). The statement of charges misled Dr. Burton by falsely stating that she must give her request for appeal to the Faculty Senate (sburtonstmtofchrgs-Rebuttal-3-30-17). So, the chancellor hid the policy from Dr. Burton and misinformed her as to the process of the appeal. Dr. Burton was later blamed for involving the Faculty Senate even though she was just following the Chancellor’s instructions because the Chancellor failed to give her the correct procedures. Using Chancellor Shields’ seeming violation of policy to deny Dr. Burton’s right to a fairly selected hearing panel hardly seems fair.
19 Q And is that those charges that are Exhibit A, blue
20 Exhibit A, the very first one?
21 A Right. Yes. That's them. And this is the letter
22 of March 30th that I sent to her, notifying her
23 that we were proceeding with the charges.
24 Q Do you have anything else that you would like to
25 say to the committee or on the record today?
29
1 A Well, yes. A couple of things. I'll just
2 reiterate that this is the worst case scenario, to
3 come to this point where we -- I have to make the
4 very difficult decision that has an impact on this
5 individual faculty member is not something that I
6 take lightly. I think it is an extraordinary step.
7 But I also think that at the end of the day, my
8 concern has to be about our ability to execute on
9 our academic mission. That means there has to be
10 trust. The faculty members have to be able to do
11 their work. Students cannot be distracted by these
12 sorts of matters. They are not here to sort of
13 litigate these issues. They're here to get an
14 education. We have an extraordinarily committed
15 faculty to this in the Criminal Justice Department
16 and throughout the university, and if I were to
17 allow this professor to continue here, it would not
18 enable us to effectively deliver our educational
19 mission, at least in the Criminal Justice
20 Department.
Rebuttal:
It is not fair for the Chancellor to be able to address the panel without Dr. Burton having the ability to cross-examine. Chancellor Shields does not have the authority to fire Dr. Burton. Only the Board of Regents has that authority. His statement indicates that he plans to continue trying to fire Dr. Burton even if she wins her appeal. This is a sign that he is personally involved and has a vendetta against Dr. Burton. The person who is damaging the university is Chancellor Shields, not Dr. Burton. He has wasted tens of thousands of dollars on investigating Dr. Burton on charges that he knows to be false.
21 I'd say one other thing, just to
22 reinforce that -- how should I say this? In many
23 ways what Dr. Burton has done has tried to keep
24 tying her perception of her difficulties in the
25 department back to this one incident with
30
1 Dr. Gibson and the student. I would remind this
2 panel that every one of those has been adjudicated
3 in a number of different forms:
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Most of the issues that Dr. Burton has raised have not been adjudicated in any form. Her repeated requests for due process have been ignored and denied.
Dr. Burton’s first grievance committee finding was favorable to Dr. Burton but Chancellor Shields ordered a new finding and blamed Dr. Burton equally with Caywood without saying what Dr. Burton did wrong. She won her second grievance against Dean Throop but there was no correction to the violation of policy that damaged her. She filed a grievance against Aric Dutelle that was completely ignored. She requested a grievance hearing against Dr. Dalecki that was promised but never given within required time. She filed a grievance against Dean Throop to address her letter of direction. A hearing was promised but was delayed for eleven months. Policy mandates that grievances be heard within 20 days. Dr. Burton renewed the grievance against Throop and was denied a hearing. The reason cited was a 300-day window that seems to have been created in violation of policy. Dr. Burton filed a grievance against Deb Rice but was denied a hearing for invalid reason. The federal lawsuit appeal was dismissed because defense convinced the court that Dr. Burton’s attorney did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claims of retaliation. There was never a court hearing with a jury. The court never said she wasn’t retaliated against but just that there wasn’t enough evidence produced. Dr. Burton’s attorney failed to provide evidence and arguments to the court that Dr. Burton provided to her attorney in her first lawsuit.
How would it be fair to fire Dr. Burton because her attorney failed to present convincing evidence and arguments in a previous lawsuit?
4 On campus in the normal course of
5 adjudicating these issues;
6 State regulatory agencies where she has
7 filed complaints have looked at them and taken no
8 action or told her to go ahead and sue;
9 And even in Federal District Court her
10 case was summarily dismissed;
11 And even on appeal to the Sixth Circuit
12 Court --
13 Q Seventh.
14 A -- Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld that
15 judge's determination. So all of that has been
16 litigated through something else. And even if all
17 those things were true, they're not, if all those
18 allegations were true, even if they were, it
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton’s allegations are true and supported by solid evidence.
19 doesn't justify violating the confidence -- the
20 confidential nature of the tenure deliberations
21 moving forward. There are other ways to get to
22 those matters. It doesn't justify impugning the
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton was denied due process. Her attempts to use the normal methods of addressing grievances was withheld from her so, Chancellor Shields lied here. He knows there were no other ways to get to those matters because he had blocked her efforts. Sabina did what she had to do, and even then she acted within the law and in good faith.
This vague statement is unsupported and unsubstantiated. What confidences? What does “confidential nature of tenure deliberations” mean and how did Dr. Burton violate this? Where is this written? What?
23 integrity of nearly every person that this case has
24 touched. She casually impugns the integrity
25 without regard for her own credibility, let alone
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton has not casually impugned anyone’s integrity. She has deliberately filed legitimate complaints against the following individuals and provided evidence to support her claims: Chancellor Dennis J. Shields, Attorney Jennifer S. Lattis, former Dean Elisabeth Throop, Dr. Mike Dalecki, Deb Rice, Dr. Patrick Solar, Dr. Thomas Caywood, Aric Dutelle, Dr. Patrick Solar, Dr. Staci Strobl, Dr. Cheryl Fuller. Dr. Burton suspects that Chancellor Shields and/or Attorney Lattis forged the Roter report, that has no signature, and provides compelling arguments to support that suspicion. It is telling that the administration could bring forth only witnesses against whom Dr. Burton has filed previous claims and therefore have a vested interest in discrediting her. Dr. Burton has high regard for her own credibility. The administration has not produced substantive evidence to support their wild and incredible allegations against her.
31
1 the credibility of the people that she is accusing.
2 That is just not acceptable. It's one thing to
3 have disputes and disagreements, but ad hominem
4 arguments that impugn the integrity of your
5 colleagues and peers just are inappropriate and
6 should not be permitted to continue.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton agrees that ad hominem attacks are inappropriate and should not be allowed to continue. That is why she hanot done this. The ad hominem attacks have been against Dr. Burton.
7 I would go on to say that she knew that
8 she was violating this ethic because we sent her
9 two Letters of Direction. And these were not done,
10 you know, every week. She engaged in this behavior
11 for nearly two years before the first Letter of
12 Direction was given by Dean Throop. A year later
13 when that behavior continued, I gave her a Letter
Rebuttal:
Those letters of direction need to be addressed. Dr. Burton needs to be given an opportunity to address the false basis of both of the letters. The fact that these letters are in her personnel file show that Shields lied when he said other avenues are available.
14 of Direction. And on several occasions she was
15 offered the opportunity to have informal
16 conversations to help resolve this. Quite frankly,
17 she's not interested in resolving this. She's
18 interested in a campaign that is damaging to the
19 reputation of this institution, that is intended to
20 damage the professional advancement of her peers
21 and colleagues in the Criminal Justice Department.
Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields pretends to know what Dr. Burton’s motivation is but he is wrong. Dr. Burton is advocating for students and she is trying to be treated fairly. She does not want to damage the reputation of the university. Dr. Burton has been trying to resolve the issues for five years. Her requests for hearings have been denied. Her requests for investigations have been ignored. She has been unfairly blamed for things she didn’t do. The Chancellor is trying to fire her for things that don’t even amount to just cause.
22 And ultimately who does that do the most damage to?
23 The folks that we should be most concerned about:
24 Our students.
Rebuttal:
Are you kidding me? Chancellor Shields is hurting the students by trying to fire the only person on campus willing to stand and fight for their rights.
25 So I was left with no choice than to
32
1 proceed with this. And I would ask you not be
2 distracted by this notion of retaliation because
3 all that's been litigated in a number of different
4 adjudicatory venues.
Rebuttal:
Really? No choice? Chancellor Shields had plenty of other options. For example, he could have treated Dr. Burton fairly. He could have given her the policy with the statement of charges. He could have allowed the hearing panel to be selected properly instead of hand-picking them. He had plenty of legitimate options.
5 CHAIRPERSON: Do the members of the panel
6 have any questions?
7 (NO RESPONSE.)
8 CHAIRPERSON: I just have one question
9 and a simple one. Exhibit E, what is the date of
10 that letter?
11 MS. LATTIS: Oh, I remember noticing that
12 there was a missing date. I think --
13 THE WITNESS: It was last August.
14 CHAIRPERSON: Last August.
15 THE WITNESS: I don't know the exact
16 date, but last August.
17 MS. LATTIS: Yes, I have -- at the very
18 top is written 8/31/16.
19 CHAIRPERSON: Oh, okay.
20 MS. LATTIS: I think that that was
21 because the letter was issued undated.
Rebuttal:
It was issued undated so Shields could later claim it was issued sooner. This is explained in the rebuttal (Chancellor-8-31-16-letter), (ResponsetoChancellorLtr-8-31-16).
22 But sharp eyes.
23 CHAIRPERSON: Anyone else?
24 (NO RESPONSE.)
Rebuttal:
Wow, all those lies and nobody has any questions. They had Dr. Burton’s rebuttals but nobody dared ask any questions. That’s a hand-picked panel for you.
25 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Thank you.
33
1 THE WITNESS: Thank you for your time and
2 patience.
3 (WITNESS EXCUSED.)
4 CHAIRPERSON: I would like to request
5 just a brief break, about five minutes, if we
6 could, before we move on.
7 MS. LATTIS: Yes. That will give me a
8 time to load us up with some more witnesses.
9 (A RECESS WAS HAD.)
10 CHAIRPERSON: I think we're all back, so
11 we can reconvene then. So you may continue.
12 MS. LATTIS: Thank you.
13 EXAMINATION
14 BY MS. LATTIS:
Throop Testifies beginning here:
15 Q I have here the Interim Provost, Elizabeth Throop,
16 so if you could state and spell your name, and then
17 describe briefly your personal history,
18 specifically with your role here at UW-Platteville.
19 A Sure. My name is Elizabeth A. Throop, T-H-R-O-O-P,
20 and I'm currently the Interim Provost. But for the
21 previous four years starting in June of 2012, I was
22 the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and
23 Education, and as part of that job I oversaw
24 Criminal Justice, among several other departments.
25 Q And how did you first come to know Dr. Sabina
34
1 Burton?
2 A She actually was on my search committee, so I first
3 encountered her before I was hired.
4 Q When in -- at some point in 2014 you came to issue
5 a Letter of Direction, and that's Exhibit D20, if
6 you want to see page 20, if you want to go to that.
7 And then can you tell the committee why you took
8 this step?
9 A Yes. And I did in fact write this letter to
10 Dr. Burton. I had found Dr. Burton's behavior
11 almost immediately to be of concern to me. Even
12 within a month of my arriving in June of 2012, she
13 embroiled me in a dispute she was having with
Rebuttal:
It is strange that Throop states that Dr. Burton “embroiled her” in this “dispute.” This was simply a student who produced a “D” paper and received a “D” grade for his effort. Dean Throop even agreed with Dr. Burton writing “I too am very concerned about the quality of writing in this paper; it is largely incomprehensible and written at about a 6th grade level.” (exhibit 703) Dr. Fuller pushed for Dr. Burton to change the grade to a “C” so the student could graduate. In the end the student was given a hearing and the hearing panel upheld the “D” grade that Dr. Burton had assigned. End of story.
14 Dr. Cheryl Banachowski-Fuller. It was a dispute
15 over a graduate student's ability to write. She
16 was the supervising professor. And as time went
17 on, she continued to involve me in disputes that
18 she was having with her chair or with her
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton asked Dean Throop to do something about Dr. Caywood’s retaliation. So, it seems Dean Throop is trying to say that Dr. Burton should be fired because she complained of retaliation by her chair to her Dean. Here is an audio recording of the meeting where Dr. Burton asked Dean Throop and HR director Durr for help (audio exhibit A1) transcript (audio exhibit A1a). Durr’s notes on the meeting are in [UW-P 000178], (Dkt 101-18). In a grievance hearing an astute committee member made the connection and told Dean Throop “I can also understand her (Dr. Burton’s) position of what you have really experienced with her is this pattern of behavior against her that she had nowhere else to go but to you. And so it seems that now she is being penalized because she had nowhere else to go and she went to you” (AudioShortClips). Dr. Burton brought legitimate complaints to Dean Throop asking for help but instead Dean Throop abused her and is now trying to paint her as a malicious victim who deserves to be fired because she didn’t like being unfairly punished for years.
19 colleagues, so the Gibson incident was another.
20 Again, Dr. Burton came to me and told me about this
21 incident that the student had told her about. She
22 sent me a copy of the note that Dr. Gibson had
23 handed to the student, and I believe, although I
24 don't remember five years ago, but I believe I
25 instructed her to tell the -- to have the student
35
1 go to the Dean of Students, which was our procedure
2 for any sort of sexual harassment, Title 9, any
3 kind of issue. And I went to our Human Resources
4 Department in order to get advice about how to
5 handle the faculty member.
6 Subsequently in late October, I sat with
7 the faculty member and Jean Doore, who was then the
8 HR Director, and Dr. Tom Caywood, who was the
9 Department Chair, and I very strongly verbally
10 reprimanded Dr. Gibson for performing such a stupid
11 stunt. I mean I have known many sociologists, and
12 breach experiments are rarely done anymore anyway,
13 but this was particularly egregiously bad example.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Gibson was later voted to be chair of the CJ department (CriminalJusticeDept).
14 So I will give an example from a
15 colleague of mine who is a tenured Professor of
16 Sociology in Kentucky. And I should describe him.
17 He's sort of short and round and balding and very
18 hairy otherwise. He demonstrates a breach
19 experiment by walking into class wearing a tutu and
20 diving flippers and a snorkel mask, so he's
21 breaking social norms and demonstrating how people
22 react to the breaking of social norms. But he's
23 humiliating himself, he's not humiliating a
24 student. And Dr. Gibson humiliated a student.
25 Never acceptable.
36
1 So I really did spend a significant
2 amount of time with Dr. Gibson attempting to help
3 him change his behavior. He did not, but we did
4 try to counsel him.
5 So for whatever reasons, Dr. Burton
6 didn't believe it had been taken care of, and she
Rebuttal:
False. Dr. Burton did not concern herself with what was done about Dr. Gibson. She never complained to anyone that Dr. Gibson was let off too easy. This was not at all Dr. Burton’s complaint. She complained to Dean Throop that Dr. Caywood was retaliating against her because she had helped the student. Dr. Caywood was angry at Dr. Burton and took advantage of his position to punish her for her actions. Dr. Burton asked Dean Throop for help in dealing with Dr. Caywood’s retaliation, not for anything to do with Gibson. Dr. Burton filed a grievance against Dr. Caywood on 3/28/2013 that explained his retaliation and did not mention Gibson (folder exhibit FE1), (exhibit EZZZZZS), (cover letter to the grievance committee). Throop is trying to deflect attention onto an unimportant and irrelevant topic.
7 continued to involve me in disputes that she was
8 having. And I can't even remember all of them, but
9 there was a dispute in January in which -- well,
10 actually I should take that back. In December her
11 department chair had discovered she had constructed
12 two websites that had the University of Wisconsin-
13 Platteville logo, but were not actually associated
Rebuttal:
This is an interesting lie. Initially nobody claimed there was a logo on the websites. Even Caywood, who was trying to unfairly smear Dr. Burton’s name, didn’t mention a logo and a logo was never mentioned in the grievance hearing between Burton and Caywood (audio exhibit A6). Nobody ever even mentioned a logo until Dean Throop mentioned it, under oath, on 10/28/2015, three years later (perjury-para 6). Now she is bringing up this non-existent logo again. The evidence shows that there was no logo on the website. Throop knew this.
14 with the university, in which she claimed that
15 there was a cyber security curriculum, which there
16 wasn't, and that she was an expert in cyber
17 security, which she isn't. So he was able to get
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton’s website never claimed that there was a cyber security curriculum and didn’t claim that she was a cyber-security expert [UW-P 257 - 258] (629-F - copy of website CJ), (629-G - copy of website CS). Dr. Burton was, and is, a cyber-security expert. It is a sad commentary that Dean Throop threw away an opportunity to provide our students with cyber-security training and instead decided to harass and retaliate against Dr. Burton.
The verifiable truths: 1) Dr. Burton did not claim on the websites that there already existed a cyber security curriculum 2) Dr. Burton did not claim to be a cyber security expert on the websites and 3) there was no Platteville Logo on the websites.
18 those websites taken down. But she, in the
19 meantime, had received a small grant for -- from
20 AT&T to look into developing a cyber security
21 curriculum. In January she wrote a series of very
22 long e-mails to me about how horrible everything
23 was and that she didn't want to take the money, but
24 she wound up going to the reception and taking --
25 taking the money for the cyber security. And
Rebuttal:
Dean Throop directed Dr. Burton to accept the money and use it in a manner inconsistent with its intended use. (exhibit EZZZZZB) This put Dr. Burton in a difficult position. The grant specifically stated that the money could not be used for other purposes. That is why Dr. Burton wanted to give the money back. She wanted to be honest with AT&T. This is a very long and involved story that should be evaluated thoroughly by a fair hearing panel. To make the story short. Dr. Burton was working on building a cyber Security program for UW Platteville. She had Dr. Caywood’s support until she advocated for the student. She had Dean Throop’s support and blessing until she complained about Dr. Caywood. Caywood and Throop both decided to pull the rug out from under Dr. Burton. They lied to destroy Dr. Burton’s dreams of building a Cyber-Security program. Dean Throop is continuing her lies to get Dr. Burton fired.
37
1 things just kept -- there seemed to be something
2 every week that happened, so that there were weeks
3 when I was spending 20 hours a week trying to
4 manage Dr. Burton and the upset that she was
5 causing.
Rebuttal:
Dean Throop is blaming Dr. Burton for “causing upset” by asking for help to address Dr. Caywood’s retaliation. This is the same mentality that blames a rape victim for the rapists actions.
6 Things sort of came to a head in July, I
7 believe, of 2013 when then-Provost Ben Herder and I
8 had a conversation with Dr. Caywood about how are
9 we going to move forward, how are we going to
10 manage these things. And he essentially said, "I'm
11 going to hope for best." He then resigned. And I
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Caywood believed he was removed. One of them seems to be lying. Probably Throop.
12 asked for a suggestion from him about who to put in
13 place as interim, and he suggested Dr. Dalecki,
14 D-A-L-E-K- -- -E-C-K-I, who was interested in
15 serving as the interim chair, so he was installed.
16 Dr. Burton wasn't happy about that. So, again,
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton wasn’t happy about that because Dean Throop violated policy in appointing Dalecki.
17 things just began snowballing in ways that I
18 couldn't predict. And the e-mails that I was
19 receiving from Dr. Burton became more and more
20 unprofessional, more and more hectoring, really
Rebuttal:
Which emails were unprofessional? Dean Throop provides no evidence. One of the emails she admonished Dr. Burton for in her letter of direction was a protected activity. She was asking for help and Dean Throop admonished her for the email in a letter of direction. That is illegal.
21 very inappropriate kinds of communications, so that
22 I was finally at a point where I felt as though she
23 needed to hear very clearly and be counseled very
24 clearly in writing about her poor behavior and what
25 she needed to do to correct it. And the behaviors
38
1 at that point were making accusations about
2 Dr. Dalecki, making accusations about all of her
3 colleagues, none of which were true. She
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton did not make accusations against “all of her colleagues.” Dr. Burton made accusations against only these colleagues: Dr. Solar, Deb Rice. Dalecki was not a colleague but the chair.
Dr. Burton’s allegations against Dr. Dalecki and others were all true. That is why the administration would not let her address the issue in a fair hearing. Burton’s allegations were never investigated or heard by a hearing panel. Throop knows Dr. Burton’s allegations are true and so she is lying.
4 intimidated -- to my way of thinking, she
5 intimidated a random faculty member who -- she
6 tried to intimidate, but the faculty member didn't
7 get too intimidated, but she asked the new faculty
8 member to housesit for her. I mean there were all
9 these sorts of things that I found a senior faculty
10 member, because at this point she had earned
11 tenure, a senior faculty member should not be
12 treating junior faculty members in such a way. So
Rebuttal:
Dean Throop wrote Dr. Burton a letter of direction reprimanding her for asking a colleague if she would like to house sit. If a fair hearing panel can’t see how ridiculous that is without commentary I live in a strange world. It is clear that Throop just needed something to accuse Dr. Burton of so she made up this house-sitting nonsense.
13 by October of 2014 it really felt necessary for
14 Dr. Burton to hear directly what kinds of things I
15 expected out of her. These were just sort of
16 minimal expectations.
17 Q And so that resulted in Exhibit C, page 20, the
18 October 28th Letter of Direction?
19 A That is correct.
Rebuttal:
Throop’s lies are exposed in Dr. Burton’s rebuttal to the LOD (Dkt 42-78), (Dkt 37-15 pg 30(exhibit I), (interactive exhibit i571). The letter of direction is based on lies and is completely bogus.
20 Q You spoke about the Gibson matter breach
21 experiment. That happened in 2012.
Rebuttal:
The question is misleading. Gibson claimed it was a breach experiment but Throop called it Sexual Harassment. The student saw it as sexual harassment. Caywood admitted it was sexual harassment after the HR director and Dean explained to him that is what it was (TheSolicitousNote).
22 A If my memory serves, it was October 2012.
23 Q And subsequent to that did -- was Dr. Burton
24 awarded tenure?
25 A She was.
39
1 Q And that was subsequent to her complaint?
2 A It was.
Rebuttal:
The university tried to deny Dr. Burton’s tenure bid without addressing it. The administration “took no action” on Burton’s tenure request. If she hadn’t pursued it they would have never given it to her. She had to fight for it even though she earned it. The university wants to make it look as though Dr. Burton was being treated fairly but she was being routinely victimized in a severely hostile work environment. Even Dean Throop wrote in her notes that Caywood was treating her badly (Dkt 42-82).
3 Q And subsequent to that was Dr. Burton promoted?
4 A She had already been promoted.
5 Q Okay. Subsequent to that was Dr. Burton given a
6 raise?
7 A Yes. At my instigation, I noticed that with a
Rebuttal:
False. Dr. Burton was given an inequity adjustment, not a raise. Dr. Burton saw it as a bribe. Her salary was brought up so she was paid almost as much as a junior male faculty member.
8 couple of new hires, she would be put into a
9 compression situation, so I initiated a raise for
10 her, and again, about two years later, a much more
11 substantial raise. She didn't ask for it, and it
12 was just clear to me that there was an equity
13 issue, so I provided that raise for her without her
14 asking for it.
15 Q So two raises --
17 Q -- subsequent to --
18 A October '12.
Rebuttal: (Lies)
This issue is a bit murky. It may require some research before we can call this a flat out lie.
Dr. Burton was given one inequity adjustment of $3,732 bringing her salary to $56,000 as a tenured associate professor. Before 9-2-17 she was not aware of any other adjustments or forged adjustment documents. There are some mysterious documents that appeared in Dr. Burton’s personnel file that seem to support Throop’s statements. However, the documents are suspicious as Dr. Burton never saw them before 9-2-17, they were not in the personnel file given to Dr. Burton on 12-21-16, the amounts seem to defy math and it seems that Dr. Burton was the only department member to have received merit pay at a time when she was being threatened with dismissal. Wierd (cite persfile problems ). Were these documents forged to make it appear that the administration was trying to be fair to Dr. Burton when in fact they were not? This will require looking into the pay records for Dr. Burton.
19 Q Okay. Did Dr. Burton ever tell you that she --
20 whether or not she intended to comply with the
21 Letter of Direction?
22 A She did tell me that she would not.
Rebuttal: (Lie)
Dr. Burton wrote an email to Throop explaining that she was violating her due process rights (exhibit 570b). October 29, 2014 8:44 AM - Throop wrote to HR Director Lohmann – “I will add this information (if you are comfortable with this) to my Ch. 6 complaint.” This demonstrates that on the same day Throop issued the letter of direction she planned to later file a Ch. 6 complaint to get Dr. Burton fired (RE_Letter-of-Direction). Later Dr. Burton sent an email informing Dean Throop that she “cannot accept” her letter of direction. Dr. Burton did not say that she did not intend to comply but that she could not accept the letter. What she meant was that she was filing a grievance to address the LOD. She informed Throop of this grievance in that very email. The grievance hearing was promised but never scheduled. Throop wrote an email to Lohmann saying “I am going to have to file a Ch. 6 Complaint against [Burton]” (Ch6ComplaintDec15-2014). But Throop needed some reason for the complaint so Dean Throop falsely accused Dr. Burton of cancelling class on Dec 16, 2014. She filed a bogus Ch. 6 complaint against Dr. Burton on Jan 5, 2015 Dkt 54-11 - Dkt 42-78, (exhibit 619b) Dkt 37-15. Dkt-53-56--9454 (exhibit 619a). Rebuttal: (i619d-RebuttalThroopcomplaint-1-5-15).
23 Q And did she comply with the Letter of Direction?
24 A She did not.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton complied with the LOD with the exception of the direction to apologize to Dr. Solar.
25 Q So fast forward then to 2016. Did there come a
40
1 time when you learned about Dr. Burton's website
2 with departmental recordings?
3 A There was in -- I believe in October of last year.
4 Q Can you describe how you came to hear that?
5 A Dr. Cheryl Banachowski-Fuller sent me an e-mail
6 saying "I don't know if you have seen this, but,"
7 and then what I saw was shocking to me because it
8 was in fact a transcript -- it was audio recordings
9 of DRB, which are -- that used to be what we called
10 it, but basically it's a personnel committee within
11 a department comprised of -- composed of tenured
12 professors, the Department Review Board. These
13 were secret recordings that were posted -- that
14 were posted on this website, which is supposedly
15 maintained by Dr. Burton's husband, Roger. So on
16 that website were the actual recordings and then
17 there were partial transcripts, so obviously
18 Dr. Burton either put or allowed to be put these
19 confidential recordings of discussions of
20 probationary faculty. So that once I saw that, I
21 -- again, I was shocked. And if I may, as an
22 aside, I think the panel knows that I've worked at
23 several different large state institutions in
24 different administrative roles. We all understand
25 that deliberations regarding probationary faculty
41
1 are confidential. It's a national norm. You
2 cannot have the sorts of candid and -- and also
3 compassionate kinds of discussions about your
4 junior colleagues if you're terrified of being
5 recorded, secretly recorded. Now it's true that
6 Wisconsin is, and I don't know what the technical
7 term is, Attorney Lattis, but a person is allowed
8 to record without the consent of the other person.
9 That's just -- that's our state law.
10 Q It's not a criminal.
11 A It's not a criminal.
12 Q It's not a felony.
13 A It's not. It's not a criminal offense. But it's a
14 moral offense. And I don't know how we have an
Rebuttal:
That is absurd. How can she say that something that violates nothing is morally offensive. There is a reason why recordings can be made secretly. So a person has a chance to protect themselves from lies. Just look at the way the audio recordings and the administration’s arguments and findings are out of sync to understand why recordings are important in this case.
To gain an understanding why audio recordings are important to combat corruption:
Listen to (audio exhibit A6) and then read the Chancellor Shields’ letters of July 26, 2013 (exhibit ZA-6), (exhibit ZA-7).
Listen to Dr. Burton’s discussion with Provost Den Herder (audio exhibit A7). Then read Den Herder’s account of the meeting in an email to attorney Paige Reed (5783-ProvosttoReed-8-14-13).
Listen to the audio of Dr. Burton’s interview with Dale Burke (A35-mtgw-investigatorBurke-10-10-16). Then read the Burke report (BurkeInvestigation-fmLattis-5-30-17), (DebRice-Complaintof8-8-16) .
Listen to the audio of Dr. Burton’s interview with Dr. Roter (A41-PetraRoter-Burton-interview-2-9-17-Pt1) (A41-PetraRoter-Burton-interview-2-9-17-Pt2) (A41a-PetraRoter-Burton-interview-transcript). Then read the Roter report that is not signed by anyone (RoterInvestigationReport-3-4-17) (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17).
By comparing what was actually said to what was written about the conversation a reasonable person will likely conclude that each of these discussions were twisted in the corresponding written statements. A reasonable person would also likely conclude that all of the differences were detrimental to Dr. Burton. So, the audios support Dr. Burton’s assertions and the written statements by the representatives of the Board support the univeersity’s statements. This is not a matter of whether someone recorded a meeting. It is a matter of whether the discussions were truthfully portrayed in writing by the Board’s representatives. The only way to know for sure is to consider the recordings in a comparison to the written statements.
For other reasons why Throop is wrong see (Rebuttal to Chancellor Shields’ Statement of Charges), (Rebuttal to Throop-Gormley Complaint).
15 effective system of shared governance if we cannot
16 deal candidly with our colleagues for fear of being
17 recorded and then having those words used against
18 us, put on a website, used as a Twitter hashtag, I
19 don't know how we are able to do anything when this
20 kind of behavior takes place. So I learned about
21 this and I was very distressed.
Rebuttal:
This contradicts Chancellor Shields’ earlier statement about open exchange of dialogue. An honest person who speaks truthfully is not fearful of being recorded. Dr. Burton is not fearful of being recorded. Liars and corrupt people are fearful of being recorded.
Who are Dr. Burton’s colleagues? Is the department chair her colleague? Is the Dean her colleague? Is the Chancellor her colleague? No. According to Google a colleague is “a person with whom one works, especially in a profession or business.” Note that it does not say “a person for whom one works.” Merriam Webster defines colleage as “an associate or coworker typically in a profession or in a civil or ecclesiastical office and often of similar rank or state :a fellow worker or professional.” Here is a Monster.com article that demonstrates that a boss is not considered a colleague (From Colleague to Boss). Dr. Burton is not colleagues with Chancellor Shields, former Dean and Provost Throop, Chair Strobl or Dr. Fuller, chair of the online program. They are Dr. Burton’s bosses. The only witness who is Dr. Burton’s colleague is Dr. Solar. the administration seems to argue that Dr. Burton is being “uncollegial” by filing grievances and complaints but that is just not true.
22 Q What effect in your opinion could this have on the
23 tenure -- the whole tenure process?
24 A I think it has a terribly chilling effect. The
25 ability for faculty to exercise their rights for
42
1 self-determination and for shared governance is
2 destroyed if you can't trust each other. And if
Rebuttal:
Throop wrote a bogus request to deny Dr. Burton’s due process rights (exhibit 601), (exhibit 595), (interactive exhibit i595d). The administration violated policy by not giving Dr. Burton a hearing concerning Throop’s LOD within the required twenty calendar days (Dkt 54-17), (Faculty Handbook for Spring 2016 - 6.3.16.3). The administration created bogus policy out of thin air with no authority and presented it on the official website as legitimate policy (SFDGHP). Who is untrustworthy in this scenario? There is no evidence on record that Dr. Burton has been “untrustworthy” but Dr. Burton has demonstrated, time and time again, that the agents of the Board have demonstrated “untrustworthiness.” There is no reason to distrust Dr. Burton but any reasonable person can find reason in Dr. Burton’s evidence to distrust Dr. Throop.
3 you never -- again, if you never know when you are
4 being recorded and you never know how those words
5 are going to be used against you, it -- the entire
6 sort of ability for faculty to provide counseling
7 and feedback to junior colleagues, or he even to
8 each other as we're considering things like
9 promotions and posting a review, it just gets
10 destroyed.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Throop has a point about words being used in powerful ways. That is why it is incumbent on us not to say things we do not stand behind. But as concerning as ones actual statements being recorded can be it seems much more frightening that words we never uttered can be put into our mouths. How terrifying would it be, if our innocent, well intentioned and true statements were made to seem sinister and diabolical such that our slight rebuke of a wrongdoer could be twisted to appear as though we are evil, heartless and dangerous?
Imagine how terrifying it is to Dr. Burton that words she never uttered have been used against her. One email, in which Dr. Burton referred to a colleague’s violation of policy as a “little bump in the road,” seems to be the only evidence the administration can present to support their position that Dr. Burton has professionally or physically threatened ten percent of the people in the university and two thirds of the Criminal Justice department (BumpintheRoad).
Look at the evidence and see how Dr. Burton’s words were taken out of context and used against her. It is important to go back to the actual words to glean the truth. If an audio recording or an email contradicts spoken testimony at a hearing years after the fact, shouldn’t we believe the actual recorded or written words, rather than someone’s interpretation of those words? Isn’t this especially true when considering the credibility of a witness who has motive to discredit the appellant?
11 Q I would like you to turn your attention to the
12 complaint that you filed with Chancellor Shields in
13 December, and that is C, pages 3 and 4.
14 A Okay.
15 Q And the committee has the complaint. We don't need
16 to reread it, but I just want to work through it a
17 little bit. So you see the bullet points on the
18 first page?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And what do those describe?
21 A They describe both audio recordings and partial
22 transcriptions of DRB discussions as well as the
23 college level committee discussing of Pat Solar,
24 one of our faculty members, as well as a DRB
25 meeting. So what was clear was that Dr. Burton was
43
1 not only recording departmental meetings, but
2 college level meetings.
3 Q And some of the bullet points refer to a transcript
4 -- or a transcript in quotations, "transcript
5 created and posted by Burton," so do you remember
6 those?
7 A I do.
8 Q And those are -- were attachments to your
9 complaint?
10 A I believe they were, yes.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Throop and Gormely wrote their complaint against Dr. Burton on Dec 16, 2016 so they clearly knew of the audio recordings at that time. But they failed to ask Dr. Burton to remove the audios from the website. In fact, as of 9-15-17, nobody has asked Dr. Burton or her husband to remove the audios from the website. Dr. Throop wanted a reason to fire Dr. Burton and this seemed convenient.
The charge against Dr. Burton, that she audio recorded three meetings, fails the “just cause” standards test for a number of reasons (JustCause-Standards):
1. Dr. Burton had received no notice of workplace expectations about potential consequences for making audio recordings of open meetings, or publishing them. What expectations she did receive were not reasonably related to business efficiency and performance. Exposing corruption cannot reasonably be expected to decrease efficiency of an organization. (ShieldsLOD-Rebuttal).
2. The investigation did not determine whether Dr. Burton violated any such workplace expectation, (Roterreport)
3. The investigation was not conducted fairly or objectively, (Roterreport)
4. The employer did not obtain substantial evidence of guilt. The word “guilt” implies a violation and not admission of an act that complies with law and/or policy. Validity of the (Roterreport) is still in question. Even if it was written by Roter, it does not provide substantial evidence because of its clear bias and unsubstantiated opinions.
5. Dr. Burton has provided numerous examples of discriminate application and misinterpretation of policies applied to Dr. Burton but not others, unfair directives applied to Dr. Burton for bogus reasons but not to others and discriminatory practices and threats against Dr. Burton’s supporters (Public_Timeline).
6. According to Wis Stat 19.37(2)(a) the costs, fees and damages of the alleged actions seem minimal ($100). This is hardly serious enough to warrant dismissal.
More arguments in (sburtonstmtofchrgs-Rebuttal-3-30-17).
The transcripts attached to the complaint were not redacted. So, it seems Throop and Gormley didn’t find anything on the transcripts that were confidential or they would have redacted that information. Shields also published the transcripts twice without any redactions. Why didn’t they redact anything?
This seems to be because they were not concerned about anything in the recordings or on the transcripts. It seems they wanted to use the recording against Dr. Burton to unfairly fire her.
11 Q Okay.
12 A Yes.
13 Q And then you also, if you would turn to page -- the
14 second page of the exhibit, page 4, you also spoke
15 about the Letters of Direction and the violations
16 thereto, correct?
17 A Yes, I did.
18 Q All right. And I just want to briefly work through
19 those. So you talked about Dr. Burton involving
20 students in your disputes and you've already talked
21 about that, but what specifically led you to
22 include that in this complaint?
23 A I had seen both social media postings created by
24 Dr. Burton on Facebook as well as on Twitter in
25 which she very actively discusses her
44
1 dissatisfaction with the UW-Platteville
2 Administration kind of over and over again and
3 continues to repeat the falsehood that the
4 University of Wisconsin-Platteville doesn't care
5 about student safety, which is of course completely
6 false. So she continued in the fall of 2016 to
Rebuttal:
Throop is wrong again. Dr. Burton did not send any messages to students that violate any law, policy or rule of any kind. The UW Platteville seems to be violating laws, rules, policies, common sense and ad hominem attacking Dr. Burton to convince the panel to recommend firing her because she advocated for a student victim of sexual harassment.
7 grind that axe and continued to write falsehoods
8 about UW-Platteville, upsetting students
Rebuttal:
Throop did not identify any statement from Dr. Burton that was false.
9 tremendously. And that involvement in particular
10 is -- there's just no excuse for it, particularly
11 -- again, particularly because what she was
12 repeating was false. We'd be -- and it created
Rebuttal:
Throop again claims that Dr. Burton made a false statement but failed to identify what Dr. Burton said that was false. That is because Dr. Burton has been truthful but Throop continues her ad hominem attacks.
13 just a whole storm of student upset, as well as
14 frankly faculty upset. I mean it's -- well, I'll
15 just put a full stop there.
Rebuttal:
Why are the faculty upset? Is it because the administration is violating the rights of a tenured faculty member who advocated for a student victim of sexual harassment? Why stop there?
Students are upset for good reason. Their rights are violated and the administration strips them of a good faculty member who was willing to stand up for their rights.
16 Q Well, one of the things that you noted was the
17 disappointed student e-mails?
Rebuttal:
I only remember one disappointed student email in the complaint. Were there more?
18 A Yes.
19 Q So if you could look at page 45 of the Exhibit C?
20 A Yes. I remember this.
21 Q Okay. And what was this?
22 A That was a student who wrote -- obviously wrote an
23 e-mail to the Chancellor, to myself, to Dean
24 Gormley, and to an academic staff member who
25 basically repeats things that Dr. Burton has
45
1 written in social media and expresses a lot of
Rebuttal: (Lies)
What? How does Throop come to the conclusion that the student “basically repeats things that Dr. Burton has written in social media?” This is absurd. The student did not write that she repeated Dr. Burton’s statements. This email came from a student. Not from Dr. Burton. Throop is attempting to fire Dr. Burton because of something a student, did? That is an ad hominem attack. Dr. Burton doesn’t even know who this student is because the name was redacted.
2 concern about how the university isn't doing what
3 it's supposed to be doing and that she is ashamed
4 to be associated with it. She refers to --
5 although she doesn't identify people, she refers to
6 cowardice, and it is almost verbatim some of the
7 things that I saw on social media that Dr. Burton
8 had herself posted.
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton did not write those sorts of things in social media. Why didn’t Throop include Dr. Burton’s social media posts in her complaint? Is it because lied just lied again? Yes. What did Dr. Burton post online? Can you prove it? Do you have any legitimate evidence? No. This student was likely stirred up by the public affairs officer emailing a copy of the court decision to students. She/he may have been influenced by Dr. Burton talking at the meeting that Dr. Strobl called. But the student is his/her own person.
9 Q And then also on that page 45 there's a little
10 snippet of a Facebook post?
11 A Yes. That's Dr. Burton's Facebook page, and this
12 was a screenshot that was sent to me -- I know
13 that it was sent to me. I believe it was a faculty
14 member from Criminal Justice, but I don't remember
15 who sent it to me right now.
16 Q And can you -- what do you think is going on in
17 this Facebook post? And what's -- what was
18 disturbing to you about this?
19 A What really disturbed me is that she is telling her
20 students, who are Facebook friends, one, a number
21 of falsehoods, two, that she is urging them to get
22 involved in her campaign against whatever it is
23 against. She's -- she's involving a student, a
24 former student, someone who has now graduated, and
25 asking other students to somehow -- she's not
46
1 specific, but somehow be involved in this. And –
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Throop didn’t describe what she felt were falsehoods. Dr. Burton did not state falsehoods. Dr. Burton did not urge students to get involved in her campaign. Dr. Burton was not given an opportunity to explain this post because she wasn’t even present at an appeal hearing where she is guaranteed by law the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses. The whole hearing was an ad hominem attack on Dr. Burton and this is just one of the small parts of that incredible injustice.
2 but again, sort of she played a very small role in
2 the 2012 Gibson incident and yet has now four years
Rebuttal:
How big a role Dr. Burton played in the sexual harassment incident is immaterial. Dr. Burton advocated for the student, there is no denying that. Even Judge Peterson agreed. One could argue that she is still playing a role in that sexual harassment complaint because the matter has been swept under the carpet by the administration.
4 later made it all about her and not about the good
4 of the students. I know that, as Chancellor
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton did not make it all about her. That is absurd. The administration is trying to fire Dr. Burton. She is trying to defend herself. The sexual harassment incident started the whole ordeal so Dr. Burton is right to include it in the discussion.
6 Shields said, involving students in our personal
7 disputes as professors is about as inappropriate
8 and unprofessional as anybody can get, and it hurts
9 the students. First and foremost hurts the
10 students. It's not right to do this.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton did not include students in her personal disputes. Dr. Burton is a mother of two daughters who attend UW System schools. One of them goes to UW Platteville. She has as much a right as any students’ mother to warn of dangers to students.
11 Q You mentioned Dean Gormley. She's -- do you know
12 why she is unable to be present today?
13 A Yes. She's actually leading a May term trip, long
14 planned. I believe she has about 20 students, and
15 I think it's Dr. Holden, I don't remember who her
16 partner in crime is, so to speak, but she has a
17 number of students with her in London, so she can't
18 be in two places at once.
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Gormley probably was not available because she did not want to testify. I can’t prove Throop lied about this but she probably did. Maybe this is why the scheduled the hearing for May 25-26; so Gormley had a good excuse to miss it. It is telling that Dr. Gormley was not mentioned in the seemingly fraudulent Roter investigation report as an interviewee. Why didn’t the administration have the hearing before Dr. Gormley left on her trip? Policy mandates that the hearing be held within 20 days of the request for an appeal but that deadline came and went without any comment from the administration. Does Throop have any evidence that Gormley was indeed on a trip on May 25, 2017? Isn’t it interesting that Dr. Burton has never filed a complaint against Dr. Gormley? Hmm.
19 Q The last thing, so turning back to the letter of
20 the complaint, it's page -- C, page 3.
21 A Umm hmm.
22 Q The third thing that you talked about was -- or in
23 the context of the Letter of Direction violation is
24 the failure to treat colleagues with respect and
25 then you cite some examples, so I'd like to just
47
1 look at a couple of those. In particular, the
2 second -- not really a bullet point, but the second
3 dash here, it says "unprofessional and insulting
4 conduct towards Dr. Solar, and that is C, pages 38
5 through 40, and describe what you know about her
6 treatment of Dr. Solar.
Rebuttal:
Throop’s bogus Letter of Direction is rebutted here (Throop Letter of Direction Rebuttal).
7 A Dr. Burton, I think almost since Dr. Solar's
8 arrival here, has treated him with disdain, with --
9 she's bullied him, quite frankly. One of the first
Rebuttal:
Seriously? Dr. Sabina Burton, all 125 pounds of her, bullied a former male police chief weighing about 200 pounds? Hmmm.. Dr. Burton has been called a bully on several occasions throughout the course of this matter. Jean Durr said she bullied Dr. Caywood, male chair of the CJ department, but Dr. Caywood admitted he owed Dr. Burton an apology in a deposition. Jennifer DeCoste said Dr. Burton bullied Dr. Dalecki, male chair of the CJ department, but an audio recording reveals that Dr. Dalecki is the real bully (Audio of the meeting), (Transcript of the meeting). Dr. Burton has provided evidence proving that Dr. Solar excluded her from a search and screen function in violation of policy and then lied about it. Dr. Solar threatened Dr. Burton with “consequences of his choosing” if she did not give him what he demanded. Dr. Solar bullied Dr. Burton, not the other way around. Throop has offered no evidence that Dr. Burton bullied anyone.
10 instances was when Dr. Solar was actually the chair
11 of a search committee, and she was -- she kept
12 telling him that he was doing things wrong. And he
13 wasn't doing things wrong. But I actually came to
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Yes he was, and Dr. Burton provided evidence to prove it. Throop knew he was doing things wrong and that is why she wouldn’t allow a fair grievance hearing to address the letter of direction.
14 learn that she actually called the -- and I don't
15 know what it's called in Wisconsin, but as part of
16 the Department of Justice there's a Bureau of
17 Investigation, I don't know the name of it, she
18 called them and wanted to file a criminal complaint
19 against Dr. Solar for violating personnel processes
20 or something like that. Of course nothing came of
Rebuttal: (Lies)
False. Dr. Burton requested an investigation into many violations of policy and law. The DOJ said refused to investigate because of the lawsuit. What does she mean by “of course nothing came of that?” It should have been investigated but it was not. The reason for lack of investigation had nothing to do with the events complained of.
21 that. But she threatened his tenure because she --
22 because she said he had done the search process
23 completely wrong, which again, he hadn't. In fact,
Rebuttal:
False. Dr. Burton never threatened Solar’s tenure. Here is the email that Throop and Solar claim is “bullying” (exhibit 571e).
24 he performed very well, and we were able to hire a
25 couple wonderful junior faculty members. And she
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Solar’s search for three new faculty members failed. He was not able to hire any new faculty members in that search.
48
1 put it in e-mails. So that sort of bullying
3 behavior is just anathema. And, again, I don't
Rebuttal:
Dr. Solar filed a false complaint against Dr. Burton claiming that she was bullying him. That is bullying. His allegations were false and Dr. Burton’s allegations were true, yet Throop issued a bogus LOD against Dr. Burton and nothing against Dr. Solar.
As evidence that Dr. Throop is off base: Dr. Burton recorded an open CRST meeting because she expected to be unfairly blamed for sabotaging Dr. Solar’s career. In the recording, Dr. Burton advocated for Dr. Solar at a time when he might have been marked down. She convinced the panel to raise his score. Even though Dr. Solar had lied to, and about, Dr. Burton she treated him fairly (cite). Not surprisingly Dr. Throop did indeed unfairly blame Dr. Burton of threatening Dr. Solar’s tenure. On top of that she unfairly complained that Dr. Burton recorded the open CRST meeting.
Dr. Throop’s ad hominem attacks are anathema and attempted cover up.
3 know how we are able to have a process of shared
4 governance around personnel issues if someone is
5 doing this kind of thing on a really continual
6 basis. There's no basis in fact for anything that
7 she has said. So I think that that's part one,
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Throop doesn’t know how to have a process of shared governance. She violated policy by appointing Dr. Dalecki as CJ department chair (cite Grievance committee findings).
8 but, and I'm looking --
9 Q Oh, are you looking at the wrong page?
10 A Yah. It's my page 42. A second thing that was
11 really disturbing was Dr. Solar sent a very calm
12 e-mail to Dr. Burton, really objecting to this
13 university -- this website that her husband has put
14 up. She then clearly forwarded that e-mail to her
15 husband. Under no stretch of the imagination --
16 who then wrote back and he was very nasty in an
Rebuttal:
A comparison of the email exchange between Dr. Solar and Roger Burton will show that Dr. Solar threatened Dr. Burton and her husband with “consequences of (his) choosing.” How Dr. Throop characterizes Solar’s emails as “calm” but Roger Burton’s emails as “nasty” is confusing (cite).
17 e-mail writing back. He has no standing with
18 regard to any sort of personnel decision on this
19 campus; he is not an employee of this campus. It
20 is absolutely astounding to me that she would
21 violate the trust of her junior colleague. It's
22 appalling that she would treat her colleague with
23 such disdain. Again, this is -- this is a textbook
24 example of bullying.
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Throop is saying that forwarding Solar’s email to her husband is textbook “bullying.” That is absurd. By this standard, anyone who has ever forwarded an email to their husband is a bully. Ridiculous. Even Throop can’t believe this.
25 Q Could you look at Exhibit C, page 40, and that's
49
1 the e-mail to Amy Nemmetz.
2 A Yes.
3 Q And who is Amy Nemmetz?
4 A Amy Nemmetz is an assistant professor in the
5 Criminal Justice Department; I believe she's -- I
6 don't remember, second or third year.
7 Q And what's disturbing to you about this e-mail?
8 A She, Dr. Burton, writes to Dr. Nemmetz, repeating
9 testimony that I had given in her lawsuit in a
10 deposition about how a -- about various personnel
11 matters within the Criminal Justice Department, and
12 she -- I mean every single sentence is an insult
13 pretty much to Dr. Nemmetz, telling her kind of –
Rebuttal:
Dean Throop testified, under oath, that all of the members of the CJ department, except Joe Lomax, had complained about Dr. Burton (cite). That seems to have been a lie. At the time, Dr. Burton assumed that Dr. Throop had told the truth and that Nemmetz had indeed complained about her. Knowing that Dr. Nemmetz had no reason to complain about Dr. Burton she wrote this email that was not insulting but demonstrated Dr. Burton’s hurt feelings that her friend would file a complaint about her to Dr. Throop. Throop lied in the deposition, under oath, about many things.
14 deliberations made by the search committee that
15 hired her is completely unprofessional. Those are
16 supposed to be confidential discussions about
17 determining of pay and so forth. She reveals those
18 discussions. In addition, she's wrong. She was
19 not involved in the hiring of Dr. Nemmetz except as
20 a faculty member within the department. She did
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton was chair of the search that hired Nemmetz and Stackman.
21 not get Amy Nemmetz more money. She didn't do any
22 of this. She's -- she's misrepresenting her role
23 and her importance on the search committee and in
24 the department.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Throop is wrong about this too. See the timeline for the details and evidence of the issue.
25 She then continues to talk about
50
1 retaliation from October of 2012, which again is
2 untrue and is impugning her motivations about her
Rebuttal:
Throop fails to point out what she feels is untrue about Dr. Burton’s statements. The fact is that Dr. Burton has been very truthful and that Dr. Throop has been fabricating and launching ad hominem attacks against Dr. Burton for years.
3 interactions with me as Dean, her, that is,
4 Dr. Nemmetz's, interactions with me as Dean. So
5 she's -- Dr. Burton is being very unprofessional,
6 incredibly inappropriate. And again, this is an
7 e-mail that just shocks me. In my 25 years in
8 academia, I haven't seen a note like this.
Rebuttal:
Seriously? How about the note from Dr. Gibson you did nothing about? What about the audio of the meeting between Dr. Dalecki and the grad student where Dalecki threatens the student. How about Dr. Burton’s email about Dr. Throop’s failure to follow policies (Dkt 42-79)? How about the email from Dr. Solar threatening Burton with “consequences of (his) choosing?” This is absurd. See rebuttal (cite)
9 Q And one more, the e-mail to David Couper, which is
10 page 41?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And who is David Couper?
13 A David Couper is the -- and please note the
14 spelling, that it's COUPER. It's not the David
15 Cooper in our Music Department. David Couper is a
16 retired Chief of Police of Madison and is academic
17 staff in the Criminal Justice Department. He also
18 has a national reputation and was key in bringing a
19 major conference to, along with Dr. Strobl, the
20 current chair of Criminal Justice, a major
21 conference to this university. It was -- he was
22 key in getting nationally recognized speakers. So
23 he's quite an asset for our department, for the
24 Criminal Justice Department, and I -- so that's who
25 he is.
51
1 Q And what's disturbing about this e-mail from her to
2 Mr. Couper?
3 A Again, it's demeaning, it's bullying. She
4 misrepresents his -- sort of who he is and what his
5 position is. She accuses him of kind of dastardly
6 things, misrepresenting himself to students, and
7 somehow he's not her equal, as though he had
8 asserted something. So it's an insulting and
9 bullying e-mail. Yet again another example of her
10 believing herself to be justified in saying these
11 kinds of things to her colleagues.
Rebuttal:
Where is the email in question? What does it say? Why did Couper address himself as “faculty” when he is not? What is wrong with pointing out that a person should not refer to themselves as a “faculty member” when they are not a “faculty member?” Dr. Throop fails to explain why she thinks Dr. Burton did anything wrong. This is another ad hominem attack against Burton. Dr. Throop should instead have admonished Dr. Couper for puffing up his status in the university by falsely advertising himself as a member of the “faculty” when he clearly is not. This is a sign of a systemic problem and not necessarily Dr. Couper’s major failing. The fact that the administration promotes people without proper promotions is disturbing and is a threat to those individuals who gain their positions fairly. See (Rebuttal-Throop-Gormely-complaint-12-16-16).
12 Q And the last one of those is the e-mail to
13 Dr. Strobl, C, page 33?
14 A Yes. Yes, I saw this.
15 Q And who is Dr. Strobl?
16 A Dr. Strobl is the Chair of the Criminal Justice
17 Department, hired after a national search.
18 Q And Dr. Strobl is available, so she will be able to
19 talk about this e-mail herself.
20 A Correct.
Rebuttal:
So, it appears that the only email that Dr. Strobl based her comments on is C, page 33 (circled page number in lower right corner) (admin-exhibits-9-14-17). This email needs to be closely examined. This seems to be the only email presented to support Strobl’s statements later in the hearing. This email was not to Strobl but was to Gormley and Strobl was copied. Strobl did not talk about this email later in the hearing as suggested. This email was not read to the panel. Nothing Dr. Burton wrote was identified as problematic.
21 Q But just briefly, why did you find this e-mail
22 about Dr. Strobl to be disturbing?
23 A Name calling; again, numerous falsehoods; she is
Rebuttal:
Throop did not identify what Dr. Burton wrote that did these things. He makes generalizations and claims that Dr. Burton stated numerous falsehoods without identifying any falsehoods. He did not identify any Name calling. What did Burton write that Shields considers “name calling?” Without knowing what Dr. Burton actually said how can the panel judge whether her actions were even impolite?
24 impugning Dr. Strobl's character, which is beyond
25 reproach. She involves -- she cites things that
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton offered her opinions about Dr. Strobl’s fitness for duty as chair of the CJ department. Dr. Strobl herself considered herself unfit for the position and blamed the administration for her decision to step down. Dr. Burton was agreeing with Dr. Strobl that she should not be chair. Chancellor Shields, Dr. Throop, Dr. Strobl and several others have impugned Dr. Burton’s character. Why does Chancellor Shields consider Dr. Burton’s opinions to be “beyond reproach” while these employees are allowed to impugn Dr. Burton’s character without consequence? This is disparate treatment. Impugning someone’s character is only wrong if the statements are false. Dr. Burton’s statements were not false. Many of the statements, made over a five-year period, that impugn Dr. Burton’s character were false. Google defines “impugn” as “dispute the truth, validity, or honesty of (a statement or motive); call into question.” By stating that Dr. Burton made false statements Chancellor Shields himself, by definition, impugns Dr. Burton’s character. Chancellor Shields impugned Dr. Burton’s character by filing his statement of charges against Dr. Burton. Were Chancellor Shields’ actions “beyond reproach?” Will the hearing panel recommend that Chancellor Shields lose his job?
52
1 have happened before Dr. Strobl was even here. She
Rebuttal:
Throop didn’t identify what he was talking about. What did Dr. Burton say that didn’t apply? It is impossible to rebut something as vague as this.
2 essentially reveals personal details about her
3 colleagues in this e-mail that she should not have
Rebuttal:
Again, he didn’t identify what personal details. The complaint lists comments about Dr. Stackman that are rebutted in the complaint rebuttal (Rebuttal-Throop-Gormley-complaint-12-16-16).
4 done. She's accusing Dr. Strobl, completely
5 incorrectly, of illegal behavior. It just -- it's
6 appalling that were the kinds of things that she
7 has written.
Rebuttal:
What exactly did Dr. Burton write that is incorrect? Dr. Throop does not identify this because she is wrong.
8 Q And on page 33, the first page of the e-mail there
9 at the bottom, who are those people that she is
10 sending it to?
11 A Dr. Strobl, the department chair; I believe that
12 the second is a blogger who runs a website who has
13 -- she has developed a close relationship with in
14 that she talks with -- I don't know, but he gets a
15 lot of things from her, as I understand it, and
16 that's apparently her personal e-mail.
17 Q So that person, M. Kittle at Watchdog.org is not a
18 member of the UW-Platteville campus?
19 A Oh, no. No, he's not. And of course it's
20 addressed to Melissa Gormley, who is the Interim
21 Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Education.
22 So we see, yet again, the dissemination of
23 materials in very inappropriate and unprofessional
24 ways.
Rebuttal:
Nothing was inappropriate or wrong about Dr. Burton’s email. She was correct, accurate and truthful. Copying an investigative reporter is not wrong. Dr. Throop is concerned because she wanted to keep all the truth hidden. Dr. Throop wanted to cover up the truth. Dr. Burton wanted to expose the lies.
25 Q Do you believe that the Criminal Justice Department
53
1 can function with Dr. Burton in it, teaching in it?
2 A I do not.
3 Q Why?
4 A With her absence this past semester, the department
5 has been incredibly productive. They've -- they've
6 been very successful in teaching. They're much
7 more relaxed. The atmosphere, just simply the
8 atmosphere when I have been down there, is calm,
9 whereas in the fall faculty members and academic
10 staff members were either not coming in because
11 they feared having to interact with Dr. Burton or
Rebuttal:
Dr. Throop cannot make this statement without some evidence to back it up. Dr. Strobl didn’t come in during the fall semester because of “lack of institutional support.”
12 they were closing their doors and locking them, so
13 that meant that in the fall they were not as
14 available to students as they wanted to be, as of
15 course we want them to be, because they were scared
16 of what she was going to do next.
Rebuttal:
Seriously? Dr. Burton exposed the truth and all of her colleagues locked their doors? That is outlandish. That is hogwash. A fair panel would ask each and every one of the department members to testify about this. A fair hearing panel would investigate by talking to department members individually and confidentially. A fair hearing panel would not take the word of someone who lies under oath.
17 Q Do you have anything else that you would like to
18 add to your statement today?
19 A I think I'd like to just reiterate what Chancellor
20 Shields said. This is a very unusual happenstance.
21 The dismissal and withdrawal of tenure from a
22 tenured faculty member is not something anybody
23 should take lightly, and I do not. I've never been
24 involved in anything like this before; again, 25
25 years. The UW-Platteville has never had this kind
54
1 of situation. It's very rare across the
2 university. But in this situation I firmly believe
3 that it's warranted. Dr. Burton has made a mockery
4 of tenure. She has made a mockery of the
5 professor- -- professoriate. Her accusations are
6 unfounded, just completely unfounded. And she has
Rebuttal:
Dr. Throop has made a mockery of due process rights and tenure rights. She has routinely violated Dr. Burton’s rights and lied on numerous occasions. Dr. Burton has been upright, honest and accurate in her allegations of wrongdoing by Dr. Throop and others. Throop has never identified anything at all that Dr. Burton has said that was untrue. Dr. Burton has not made a “mockery” of tenure she has “championed” tenure rights.
7 resisted all attempts on the part of Chancellor
9 Shields or me or Dr. Strobl to resolve issues. She
Rebuttal:
Shields, Throop and Strobl have made no attempt whatsoever to resolve any of Dr. Burton’s complaints. They have only tried to harass and fire Dr. Burton. The letters of direction are based on lies and are completely bogus. Dr. Burton’s requested grievances were delayed way past reasonable amount of time (11 months) and were denied on bogus grounds. An attempt to resolve these matters would have included fair grievance hearings.
10 simply refuses to do that. And at this juncture
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton has asked for resolution many times. It is absurd to say that she has refused to try to resolve the issue. Dr. Burton has only asked to be treated fairly.
11 our students, I believe, are being actively harmed.
Rebuttal:
The students are being harmed by corrupt administrators and their attempts to cover up their own legal and policy violations.
11 And again, as Chancellor Shields said and I want to
12 reiterate, the effect of our faculty and our
13 academic staff here are astounding. I've really --
14 I've never met -- and again, I've been in other
15 institutions -- I have never met such a hard
16 working, dedicated group of folks. Never. And
17 Dr. Burton's presences really puts a lot of that at
18 risk. We know that because of all the hubbub, the
Rebuttal:
In what way does her presence put the institution at risk? She did nothing wrong. She has threatened nobody. She has not made threatening gestures. Even Throop admits that Dr. Burton is an outstanding instructor (cite).
19 numbers of students coming here for Criminal
20 Justice has declined. There were reports that she
21 was spreading this to high school counselors,
22 various students in the local high schools were
23 spreading all this stuff around. And again, if
Rebuttal: (Lies)
There is no evidence of these reports. Why was this not included in the complaint? Because Sabina didn’t spread this to high school counsellors.
24 there was something accurate to it, that would be a
25 different matter, but none of this that she has
55
1 said is true. So she has not only damaged her own
2 reputation, but she, again, is actively harming our
3 students, and I believe she's actively harming our
3 institution and our faculty.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton’s statements are true and she has provided evidence to back up her statements. Throop fails to even identify what she feels Dr. Burton has said that is untrue. The thing that harms the institution, students and faculty is the corrupt actions of a few corrupt people in positions of power.
5 CHAIRPERSON: Does the panel have any
6 questions?
7 EXAMINATION
8 BY MR. MASOOM:
9 Q Just for clarification. A few minutes ago, I mean
10 quite a few minutes ago, you said, and you -- I
11 have forgotten the capacity, at what -- under what
12 capacity you initiated the raise for her. Was it
13 as a dean or --
14 A Yes. It was as dean.
15 Q Okay.
16 A And that was twice.
17 Q Twice?
18 A Yes.
Rebuttal:
This is interesting. Some new pay records magically appeared in Sabina’s personnel file that seem to indicate another “raise.” This will need to be researched.
19 Q This was subsequent to 2012?
20 A Yes.
21 Q And before 2016?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Okay. And in any way were the colleagues and the
24 department chair involved in that process of
25 deliberation or was it done by the dean only?
56
1 A The College Compensation Committee was involved. I
2 don't know what involvement -- prior to it getting
3 to the College Compensation Committee, I don't know
4 what involvement the department had.
5 Q Okay.
6 A So I can't speak to that one.
7 MR. MASOOM: All right. Thank you.
8 EXAMINATION
9 BY CHAIRPERSON:
10 Q Do you have a rough estimate in the decline in the
11 number of students coming into Criminal Justice?
12 I believe you stated that you felt like they were
13 not coming to Platteville. Do you have a sense of
14 what that might have been?
15 A I don't. I think maybe Dr. Strobl will be able to
16 address that.
17 Q Okay.
18 A But it's my -- and it's just a vague and hazy
19 impression, but it's my impression that our normal
20 enrollment in our face-to-face programs is about
21 800, and we are down.
Rebuttal:
Nobody seems to have even asked Dr. Stroble about this even though she testified later in this hearing. Why does it matter whether the number of students was reduced? How is that attributable to Dr. Burton? Throop didn’t provide any evidence linking lower numbers to her but just a vague and hazy impression. Maybe the students decided they didn’t like the department chair resigning. This is not Dr. Burton’s doing. Besides, Throop didn’t provide any evidence that the enrollments were even down at all.
22 EXAMINATION
23 BY MS. BARNET:
24 Q You referred to this on the Facebook post. I
25 believe I have a very rough idea of the date. Do
57
1 you have any better idea of what date that was?
2 A It was in October sometime of last year.
3 Q 2016?
4 A Yah.
5 CHAIRPERSON: Other questions?
6 (NO RESPONSE.)
7 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
8 THE WITNESS: Thank you all. I apologize
9 for us having to go through this, but -- and with
10 that, I appreciate your service.
11 (WITNESS EXCUSED.)
12 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Attorney Lattis, go
13 ahead.
14 MS. LATTIS: All right. So the other
15 three witnesses are here, and I hope to go through
16 them as efficiently as possible. And we'll start
17 with Dr. Strobl.
18 EXAMINATION
Strobl Testifies beginning here:
19 BY MS. LATTIS:
20 Q So, Dr. Strobl, could you state and spell your name
21 and then introduce yourself to the committee?
22 A My name is Staci Strobl. S-T-A-C-I. S-T-R-O-B-L.
23 I am faculty, tenured faculty here at
24 UW-Platteville as an associate professor, and I'm
25 also Department Chair of Criminal Justice.
58
1 Q And how did you first come to meet Dr. Burton?
2 A I believe the first interaction I had with her
3 directly was an e-mail before -- about a month or
4 two before I arrived to take the position as
5 Department Chair. I was hired externally, so I was
6 coming in as a chair, and she congratulated me in
7 an e-mail and said "I look forward to working with
8 you."
9 Q Was the situation with Dr. Burton already tense
10 when you got there?
11 A Absolutely. So I was taking the helm from Interim
12 Chair Mike Dalecki, and we had talked about this
13 problem between us that she had an ongoing lawsuit
Rebuttal:
Strobl talked with Dalecki about this but never talked to Dr. Burton about it. She only got one side of the story from someone who had abused Dr. Burton for a prolonged period.
14 against the university and that it was something to
15 be aware of as I was moving into the role.
16 Q I want to really focus on these things that are
17 going on in the fall of 2016. So by that time how
18 long had you been in your role as chair?
19 A In the fall of 2016, about a month and -- I'm
20 sorry, a year and a few months.
21 Q Did you receive any complaints from students about
22 Dr. Burton during that time?
23 A I did in late October receive some complaints, so
24 the student -- and I did meet with some students, a
25 handful, who claimed to be representing others, and
59
1 through other sort of rumors there were complaints
2 that in a seminar class, Dr. Burton was expressing
4 her dissatisfaction with the university.
Rebuttal: - This is a lie (Lies). We can prove that Dr. Burton did not talk about her dissatisfaction with the university because Dr. Burton did not speak of her dispute with the administration in class (Burton-no-speak-in-class).
Dr. Strobl did not name any students. Why would students complain to the chair that a teacher did this anyway? The first watchdog.com article was published on Oct 26, 2016. Dr. Stroble resigned from her position on Nov 3, 2016 (Stroble_Resigns_11-3-16). So, did she receive these complaints between Oct 26 and Oct 31, 2016? Before that, students didn’t even know of Dr. Burton’s issues with the university. We have statements from former students of Dr. Burton’s who testify that she never talked about the issues in class (cite). Dr. Stroble does not provide any evidence that supports her claim. It seems she is referring to students who attended the meeting that Strobl called to address the issues. But Stroble never showed up for the meeting.
4 Q Do you remember anything more specific than that?
5 A Well, students were coming in and they were worried
6 about sexual harassment, they were worried about
7 the events of 2012, which do predate me, but I'm
8 aware of some of what may or may not have occurred.
9 And so there was a lot of anxiety as to whether the
10 university would protect students in the event that
11 they unfortunately encountered harassment, which I
12 believe is part of her overall critique, and so
13 students were coming to me as the chair and saying
14 "What are you doing to protect students?" And it
15 was pretty -- they were polite, but they also had
16 an agenda. And when I, you know, sort of went
17 through what the process was and, you know, what
18 the university has to protect them, they were --
19 continued to be concerned in many cases because
20 they felt that Dr. Burton's critique held water
21 despite our procedures. They also, when I asked
22 them if they would like to go on the -- sort of on
23 the record, it helps me to have a record of people,
24 student names, it's how we track on a spreadsheet
25 for student complaints, the students were not
60
1 comfortable with that, so they wanted to remain
2 anonymous with me, which sort of -- I understand
3 and I respect that, which is why I will not give
4 names now if -- to the extent that I do know at
5 least first names of these students, but it
6 actually created a situation where it was difficult
7 for me to verify what was going on because it was a
8 lot of allegations and a lot of anxiety and not a
9 lot of folks that really wanted to necessarily
10 follow through with it as an individual. So it was
11 sort of a group hysteria problem, as it turned out,
12 that seemed to have been drummed up in the
13 classroom.
Rebuttal:
So, Dr. Strobl has no record of anyone making any of these claims. And how does she support the allegation that it “seemed to have been drummed up in the classroom?” She has not presented any evidence that Dr. Burton talked about these issues in her classes. Dr. Burton has evidence that she did not talk about her disputes in the classroom (Burton-no-speak-in-class). Dr. Strobl presents these arguments as though they came up over the entire fall semester but the involvement of students seems to have become an issue after the public affairs officer sent an email to students informing them of Dr. Burton’s dispute with the administration (2-No-speak-in-class-8-17-17-redacted-sig).
14 Q Did Dr. Burton -- well, how did Dr. Burton interact
15 with other colleagues in the Department of Criminal
16 Justice in the fall of 2016?
17 A Very strangely. She was in the fall of 2016
18 engaged in routinely, on a daily basis, name
19 calling and bullying, using various social media
20 outlets, including Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus,
21 and her own -- or her husband's, excuse me, but
22 perhaps she had a hand in that as well,
23 universitycorrection.com. She also was working
Rebuttal: (Lies) Dr. Burton did not engage in name calling. Dr. Burton did not bully anyone. She did not engage in these activities on a daily basis or at all. She did not use social media or any website to daily bully anyone.
Strobl makes this assertion as though Dr. Burton had engaged in these activities over the entirety of the fall semester 2016 but the Watchdog article came out on Oct 26, the university informed students of Dr. Burton’s complaints on Nov 1 and Strobl resigned on Nov 3. It seems that Strobl is complaining of the events of this 9 day period, not the entire fall semester. Dr. Strobl was absent from the university for weeks after Nov 3. She appears to have received full pay and was not charged leave for that time.
So, claims of bullying but no evidence. What exactly did Dr. Burton write that you are calling “bullying?” How do you even know how Dr. Burton was acting during that time? You resigned on Nov 3 and didn’t come back. If you kept track of Dr. Burton’s facebook posts and twitter etc. where is the evidence of this?
24 with Matt Kittle, a journalist who writes for
25 Wisconsin Watchdog, and there were a series of
61
1 articles that were going on about her overall
2 critique of the institution and its sexual
3 harassment policies and so on. But she was
5 bullying staff members, and so she would also
Rebuttal:
In what way was Dr. Burton “bullying” anyone? It seems you might have been coached on the use of this word. Hmm. Dr. Burton did not critique the sexual harassment policy but the failure of the administration to follow policies.
5 send -- and there's, you know, various examples we
6 can get into, but she would routinely send pretty
7 disparaging e-mails about people throughout the
8 department. By the fall of 2016, now this was
Rebuttal:
What emails? What did she write? There is no evidence of any disparaging emails from Dr. Burton. Who did she disparage? Why don’t you provide evidence of this?
9 something that was popping up throughout my time
10 running the department, it suddenly was coming at a
11 very steady clip, and day by day folks were coming
12 in that I am responsible for their safety and their
13 well-being, upset, angry because something had been
14 up on social media, and even if they didn't follow
15 it, somebody else followed it and would give them a
16 call and say, "Oh, did you know that you are being
17 accused of this or that on social media?" So it
Rebuttal:
What was on social media? Who said it? So, Strobl is blaming Dr. Burton for something someone told her someone else told that person that someone put on social media and Strobl blames Burton for it? That is outlandish.
18 was -- could you -- yah, sorry. Could you --
19 Q That's fine.
20 A Could you remind me what the question was.
21 Q Sure.
22 A I think I --
23 Q Yah, I think you answered the question.
24 A Okay.
25 Q Just some specifics about that. Who is Deb Rice?
62
1 A So Deb Rice is an academic -- a full-time academic
2 staff member of our department. She teaches
3 Corrections in juvenile justice classes.
4 Q And could you describe some of Burton's treatment
5 of Deb Rice?
6 A Burton's treatment of Deb Rice is particularly
7 problematic and had been sort of -- ever since I
8 got there sort of an axe that she was grinding. So
9 she had sent e-mails to -- I think this was not
10 this past year but the academic year before, that
11 an e-mail to all the members of the faculty senate
12 that Deb was a criminal, she was in violation of a
13 Wisconsin statute for defamation, which was a false
Rebuttal: (Lies) There exists no such email.
Chancellor Shields dismissed Deb Rice’s complaint as stating “I am dismissing your complaints against Dr. Burton. I have concluded that your complaints do not warrant disciplinary action or further investigation” (DebbieRice’s complaint Dismissed) (DebRice-Complaint808016).
14 allegation. She also would routinely tell me in
15 e-mail and verbally that Deb Rice -- I believe she
16 used the term "evil" at one point, which is pretty
17 strong language. But she definitely was very, very
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton did not call Deb Rice “evil.” She called Deb Rice “a nasty person” in an email to Dr. Strobl and to nobody else (Shields-LOD-6-3-16-Attachments-pg1). This email was used in Chancellor Shields’ bogus LOD of 6-3-16 (Shields-LOD-6-3-16), (Shields-LOD-6-3-16-Attachments), (ShieldsLOD-Rebuttal). In this email, Dr. Burton explained to Strobl that Dean Throop swore under oath that Deb Rice had filed a false allegation that Dr. Burton had cancelled class. This false allegation formed the basis for a UWS Chapter 6 complaint against Dr. Burton. Dr. Burton also explained to Dr. Strobl that Deb Rice had spread “nasty” rumors among students that Dr. Burton had a mental illness and that she refused to apologize when former HR director Lohmann asked Rice to apologize. She said “hell no.” Lohmann recommended that Rice be reprimanded but she never was ((exhibit 708)).
18 focused on trying to discredit and make me believe
19 that Deb Rice was a horrible individual who didn't
20 deserve her job.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton has been trying to make many people believe that she is telling the truth. Unfortunately Dr. Strobl seems to have decided to believe lies instead of truth. Dr. Burton was not trying to convince Strobl that Deb Rice didn’t deserve her job she was trying to convince Strobl to protect her from Deb Rice’s lies. Strobl mischaracterized Dr. Burton’s statements.
Chancellor Shields wrote to Dr. Burton “I am dismissing your complaint against Ms. Rice. I have concluded that your complaints do not warrant disciplinary action or further investigation” (Burton Complaint v Rice Dismissal Packet).
21 Q And did she at one point send Deb Rice a greeting
22 card that you founded disturbing?
23 A Yes, that's right. So just to recap, publicly
Rebuttal:
Where is this greeting card? What was on it? How is any of this to be believed when none of it is substantiated? Dr. Burton sent Rice a sympathy card after she learned that her father had passed away. How is that “disturbing?” Did Dr. Burton write something hurtful? No. She wrote a very nice card in hopes that it would soften Rice’s rampant rumor mongering. Bring in the card if you want to use it as evidence against Burton. Why wasn’t this card mentioned in either the Burke report or the Roter report? Why wasn’t it mentioned in Rice’s complaint? It wasn’t anything more than Dr. Burton’s genuine effort to console a grieving colleague.
24 within social media and then later in blog articles
25 and in person when I talked to her as well, she had
Rebuttal:
Again, where are these “blog articles?” What did Dr. Burton write that is problematic? These vague statements are not even close to legitimate evidence. They are lies.
63
1 been on this campaign that Deb Rice was very, very
2 terrible. It made Deb very uncomfortable. Deb
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton asked for a grievance against Deb Rice in the proper manner. How is that a “campaign” against Rice? It was a legitimate request to address a serious problem. Deb Rice was uncomfortable because she did not want to answer for her actions. Dr. Burton was attempting to gain relief from Rice’s harassment and Strobl misrepresents Burton’s legitimate requests for grievance hearings and protection from retaliation.
3 felt unsafe in her workplace. She often came and
4 sat in my office and asked me to help her with this
5 problem, and I tried to do that throughout my time
6 here. It was upseting to her. It was very, very
6 upsetting to her. And she felt that she had this,
Rebuttal:
Did Dr. Strobl ever talk to Dr. Burton about this issue? No. Why not? Strobl’s husband admonished Dr. Burton that she never talked to his wife about the issue (A37-Forum-Cancelled-11-1-16), (A37-Forum-Cancelled-11-1-16-Trscpt). So, there is evidence that Strobl failed to even ask Dr. Burton for her side.
8 you know, enemy, this mortal enemy, you know, just
9 two doors down, and no matter what she did, it
10 wasn't changing. And I had never personally
Rebuttal:
Maybe if Rice had apologized for falsely accusing Dr. Burton for cancelling class and spreading malicious rumors it would have changed. Maybe if Strobl had demanded Rice to apologize things would have changed.
11 witnessed Deb do anything to maintain the
12 animosity. In fact, quite to the opposite. She
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton informed Strobl that she possessed a sworn testimony from Dean Throop that Rice had falsely accused Dr. Burton of cancelling class. This led to a formal complaint against Burton that she is still dealing with.
13 really tried to keep her distance from Dr. Burton
14 and tried to, you know, be open to perhaps a better
15 future where they could coexist. Anyway, so there
16 had been this long campaign that Deb Rice was so
17 terrible, and Deb was in fear. And suddenly one
18 day she goes to her mailbox in her office and she
19 has a Hallmark card from Sabina Burton. It turns
20 out -- so Deb, I think, had just lost her father,
21 her father had just passed away, and there was an
22 obituary in the Platteville Journal and so on, and
23 so she got this card that's saying, you know, "I'm
24 sorry that your father passed away. This is how I
25 felt in 2012," or something to that nature. And I
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton can’t even be sorry for someone’s loss without being attacked for it. Where is the card? If it is so problematic bring it in and let’s see what it says. That might be more accurate than a vague recollection of it. Dr. Burton did not find out about Deb Rice’s father’s death from an obituary. She found out because Dr. Strobl placed a sympathy card for faculty and staff members to sign. Beside the card was a note about the passing of Rice’s father. Dr. Burton went a step farther and delivered a separate sympathy card showing her caring for Rice as a human being even through all the issues between them. Strobl is saying that sympathy for someone’s loss is a terrible thing. Jesus teaches us to love sinners and saints.
64
1 found it to be very problematic. So in the context
2 of what was going on, here was somebody who had
3 been bullying you for at least two years, if not
Rebuttal:
Deb Rice had been creating a hostile work environment for Dr. Burton by spreading false rumors and falsely accusing Dr. Burton of things she didn’t do. These lies led to serious harm to Dr. Burton. Deb Rice had contributed to an extremely hostile work environment for Dr. Burton. Dr. Strobl sided with the aggressor and now blames the victim.
4 longer, very, very relentlessly, getting a card
5 like that is confusing and it's probably not
6 sincere, given the context of things. And I was
Rebuttal:
So, Dr. Strobl is trying to get Dr. Burton fired on a “probably not sincere?” Wow. How does Strobl know what was in Dr. Burton’s heart? How can she keep bringing up a thing that Dr. Burton did to try to bridge a gap as a negative? This is absurd. When did insincerity become an offense worth firing?
7 really concerned about that because she used the
8 work mailbox to reach out to a colleague in a way
9 that I thought created a level of fear. And again,
Rebuttal:
So, dropping a Hallmark sympathy card in the work mailbox creates fear? Wow.
10 it's the context of it that matters. I think, you
11 know, if they didn't have the history they had, but
12 it -- but it just didn't make any sense. It just
13 didn't make any sense. And I think we were all on
14 edge after this because we had somebody who was
15 bullying us in social media, myself included, and
Rebuttal:
Again, there is no evidence of any social media bullying. When did Dr. Burton bully Dr. Strobl on social media? How does one bully their boss? That is absurd. Dr. Burton was asking her boss for protection from Deb Rice.
16 then getting, you know, delightful Hallmark cards
17 in our office. It was very complicated, to say the
18 least.
Rebuttal:
This is very confusing. How is getting a “delightful” Hallmark card offensive? This may be more absurd than reprimanding Dr. Burton for asking a colleague to house-sit. Where is this delightful card? Wow, this is ridiculous.
19 Q Did she -- well, first of all, who is Dr. Pat
20 Solar?
21 A Dr. Solar is a tenure track faculty member of our
22 department and --
23 Q Did she --
24 A Yah. Go ahead.
25 Q Did she -- can you describe her interactions,
65
1 negative interactions with Dr. Solar?
2 A Yes. So she appeared to be determined to discredit
3 Dr. Solar as somebody who -- she accused him of
4 racism, I believe, in an e-mail. Certainly --
5 Q An e-mail to who?
6 A It was -- I'd have to look through the packet.
7 Q Okay.
8 A But it went around to many people within the
9 department. He also -- she also came to me to
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Did she look through the packet? What packet? Where is this email? Dr. Burton never sent an email to anyone accusing Solar of racism. Dr. Burton did not accuse Solar of racism. Strobl may be talking about one of these emails (Exhibit 657b, 657a), (Exhibit 657a), (exhibit COPS-Grant-Submission) (Shields-LOD-6-3-16-Attachments-pg9) (CopBeatsUnarmedBlackMan-Solar) But who knows what she is referring to.
10 express frustration with him, that he was teaching
11 things in class that were inappropriate because --
12 I don't know how she knew that, she doesn't sit in
13 his class, but that was another person that she was
14 definitely critical of routinely. And it was
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton sent Dr. Strobl this assignment from a student (Shields-LOD-6-3-16-Attachments-pg9), (StudentRept-Solar-ShootforHead). Dr. Strobl knows right where Dr. Burton got her information because Dr. Burton attached the student paper to the email and referenced it in the allegation.
15 specifically around name calling and specifically
16 the name of "he's a racist," unfounded in this
17 case.
Rebuttal: Again, there is no evidence that Dr. Burton called Solar a “racist” but just that she pointed out some things that indicated that he had made statements and posted signs that seemed to portray a racist message. Dr. Burton has not called Dr. Solar a racist.
18 Q Who is Valerie Stackman?
19 A Valerie Stackman is another untenured faculty
20 member of the department; assistant professor.
21 Q And has Burton made any accusations or engaged in
22 any mistreatment of Valerie Stackman?
23 A Absolutely. So one of the most disturbing things
24 that I think occurred is, on social media she
25 referred to Valerie's partner, Jenna, and in
66
1 essence outed her, her sexual orientation, in a
2 very public way. I think that this gives cause for
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Where is this social media post? Where is the evidence of this? What is Strobl talking about? She is just making wild accusations without any evidence in a hearing where Dr. Burton is unable to even cross-examine or confront the witness. Did Strobl complain about this? What country are we in now? Is this North Korea? What did Dr. Burton write that “outed” Dr. Stackman, whom everyone in the department already knew was lesbian? How can someone “out” a homosexual person who has already come out of the closet? Dr. Strobl knew that everybody already knew that Stackman was gay but is trying to portray this as a terrible thing for Burton to do. Dr. Strobl seems to be exploiting the stigma of homosexuality to get Sabina fired and in the process makes the false claim that Sabina “outed” them.
3 alarm just in general, but Dr. Stackman did confide
4 in me that this is something, though she's proud of
5 who she is, it's also something that she would want
6 to tell people herself that she has a wife, and
7 that she -- in the context of this thing she had
8 been disparaged before by Dr. Burton, she felt that
Rebuttal: (Lies)
So, where is Stackman’s written complaint? Where is the evidence that Stackman actually made this complaint? The administration has been using Dr. Stackman as a pawn against Dr. Burton from the beginning. She is in an uncomfortable position and they are trying to bring her into the mix against Sabina. Dr. Stackman is probably not strong enough to tell the truth against the administration’s pressure. We should argue that she never filed a written complaint so there was no complaint. Also, Stackman testified favorably for Sabina in a deposition. Throop and Dalecki have had a heavy influence on Stackman. Hours before her deposition Throop had a “talk” with Stackman.
So they want to fire Sabina because Stackman wants to be selective about who she tells about her marriage?
9 this was very upsetting that this person would put
10 on social media something that is a personal story
11 to tell, should she choose to tell it to the world
12 or not.
Rebuttal:
What did Dr. Burton write on social media? There is no evidence and not even a quote. This is an absurd witch hunt.
13 Q Did you -- you've already described this, but how
14 did you go about dealing with this situation in the
15 department?
16 A It was difficult and it's honestly one of the worst
17 things that's ever happened to me in a workplace
18 ever. So I've been in the workplace for 20 years,
19 I'm been in academia for 13 or 14 years at this
20 point, I have never experienced something so awful.
21 I was suffering. The people that work with me were
22 suffering immensely. It went on for days and
23 months, and for many people who have been in the
24 department, it's been going on for years. I
Rebuttal:
The harassment and retaliation against Dr. Burton has been going on for years.
25 couldn't claim years. I can probably just claim
67
1 months because I came in in the middle of the
2 things.
3 Q But one of the first things that happened, so after
4 I sort of got the sort of story that -- that I was
5 entering a department where somebody was currently
6 involved in legal action against the university,
7 you and I met, Attorney Lattis, and that was in
8 2015, it would have been August or September, and
9 spoke about the issue because there was an ongoing
10 litigation. You had advised me not to engage with
11 her in any details or any content that had to do
12 with the lawsuit generally speaking, and that in
13 fact if something like that came up, I was to alert
14 then Dean Throop or you and you would take care of
Rebuttal:
So, Attorney Lattis advised the chair of the department never to talk to Dr. Burton about any of her complaints. That sounds like bad advice. That sounds like the worst form of leadership I’ve ever heard of. Let’s just assume Dr. Burton is wrong no matter what she has to say, no matter what. Let’s let attorneys run our university. That was not good legal advice. It is of course, not surprising. It seems that Throop and Lattis advised Dr. Strobl to retaliate against Dr. Burton for filing legitimate complaints. That is against the law. Rather than addressing Dr. Burton’s complaints Lattis advised Strobl to complain about Dr. Burton’s complaints.
15 it. So I was coming in as supervising somebody for
16 which some aspects of what they might talk to me
17 about, I could not talk to them about, which is a
18 unique situation. And it is a little tricky, to be
19 honest. So that was the first thing. So what I
20 tried to do was I tried to engage her in the
21 department in ways that were, first of all,
22 positive. I tried to keep an open mind. I tried
23 my very best not to think of her any differently
24 than anybody else, and I think I succeeded in that
25 pretty well. I was, you know, I put her on
68
1 committees that she wanted to be on or that were
2 things that I had the power to do. She, I believe,
3 was elected to one of the committees that we had at
4 one point. So my stance, so to speak, was that she
5 was just like any other faculty member with all the
6 same rights and responsibilities, but I couldn't
7 engage in conversation with her around certain
8 issues.
9 Q At some point the stress of dealing with Dr. Burton
10 really got to you. Can you describe how that
11 happened, what happened?
12 A I was pretty much in an impossible position once we
13 get into 2016 because she was routinely bullying
14 members of my staff, who I feel a great
Rebuttal:
There is that word “bullying” again. What exactly did Dr. Burton do that you feel was “bullying?” Aren’t you just calling legitimate complaints “bullying?”
15 responsibility to their professional and personal
16 well-being and safety, and because it was happening
17 on social media and it was happening in -- some of
18 it on e-mail, but a lot of it in sort of the public
19 domain, I didn't have a lot of control. I can't
Rebuttal:
Again, this vague reference to “bullying” on social media and emails. What exactly are you referring to? This should be in the statement of charges if it is legitimate. Why isn’t this in the statement of charges? Is it because you have no evidence to support your claims? Yep.
20 tell Facebook to do something. I can't tell
21 Twitter to do something. I can't tell Matt Kittle
22 to be a real journalist and, you know, actually
23 report a story accurately. I can't do any of those
Rebuttal:
What would you tell facebook or Twitter to do? What posts would you have them change and why? Where are these posts? What did Dr. Burton write? In what way did Kittle report the story inaccurately? Exactly what did he get wrong? It seems you are claiming his story was inaccurate. What about his stories were inaccurate? Vague allegations without any evidence are not a fair way to present a case against someone.
24 things from my role, and it was starting to -- this
25 whole sort of story was starting to take a life of
69
1 its own. It really occurred after -- I mean
2 there's a direct correlation between when she lost
3 her legal case in summary judgment and her very,
4 very public crusade for justice and her bullying of
5 any member of the department. And her -- and I'm
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton did not bully anyone. Exactly what did she do that you consider “bullying?” Are you saying that exercising her first amendment right to free speech is “bullying?”
6 being a little interpretive here, but anybody who
7 wasn't on her side was against her. Okay. Well, a
Rebuttal:
What does this mean? In what way did she “bully” anyone who had not already violated policy or law? Who did she “bully” besides the people she has listed as violators? Coincidentally, all of the witnesses in this hearing are on the list of people Dr. Burton has alleged to have committed serious violations of policies and law, including Dr. Strobl.
8 lot of people either didn't know about this,
9 because there's been a lot of turnover in the
10 department, or it wasn't really their business or
11 they weren't interested, and if -- and she saw that
12 as a negative: These people were against her. She
Rebuttal:
Who are “these people?” Why didn’t they file complaints against Dr. Burton? Why are these issues not included in the statement of charges?
13 was recording -- secretly recording department
14 meetings and then posting them on
15 Universitycorrection.com or her husband was doing
16 that. He may have been the actual physical poster
17 but would have had to receive those recordings from
18 her. It got to the point where the department
19 couldn't hold a meeting because folks were not
20 talking about anything. I pride myself on using
Rebuttal: (Lies)
There was an emergency department meeting on 11-4-16 (A36-EmergDeptMtg-11-4-16) (A36 - Partial transcript). This was anything but a quiet meeting. There was a great deal of yelling and arguing and accusations were hurled at Dr. Burton from many sides. Dr. Strobl was not in attendance as she had resigned the day prior. Dr. Burton never attended any subsequent department meetings because the Chancellor suspended her shortly afterwards. So, Strobl must be talking about the environment before the 11-4-16 department meeting. But Roger Burton didn’t post the website until late October. None of the members of the department had any indication that Dr. Burton had ever secretly recorded department meetings. Timing proves that Dr. Strobl lied.
Why should anyone be concerned if their statements at a department meeting are recorded? Were they worried that their lies would be exposed? Would it be a bad thing to expose their lies?
Also, consider that Roger Burton didn’t post the audios to the website until late October, 2016 so how could anyone have known Sabina was recording meetings? Dr. Burton recorded only about four department meetings since 2012.
Dr. Fuller admits, in this hearing, that she didn’t know that Dr. Burton had recorded any meetings until November of (2016). This throws Strobl’s timeline all out of whack.
21 Robert's Rules, on transparent conversation about
22 issues that are important to the department. This
23 couldn't -- couldn't be done. In particular we
Rebuttal:
Dr. Strobl asked Dr. Burton to record a department meeting on about Aug 28, 2016 because Deb Rice was not at the meeting.
Dr. Strobl sent an email to Dr. Burton asking her to make the recording available to Steve Elmer in late August 2016. Dr. Burton emailed to Steve Elmer and Dr. Strobl thanked her for doing so.
Dr. Stackman recorded a department meeting on a computer in about spring of 2016.
In a westsidetoastmasters.com faq about Robert’s rules the answer to one question included the statement “you need a digital voice recorder because everything goes into the minutes word for word” (http://archive.is/JRIsz). So, how is it that the toastmasters allow digital voice recorders but the CJ department cannot even conduct a meeting with a recording device in the room? This is just ridiculous.
A student recorded a meeting with a discussion of Roberts Rules that led to resignations in a Colorado high school (http://archive.is/Zv0rZ). Recording meetings can help weed out criminals.
24 were trying to work on our by-laws. When I came
25 into the department we inherited by-laws that were
70
1 nonsensical and actually named people, which should
2 never be named in a by-law. Rules can be named,
3 but not people. So there was a lot of weird things
4 like that. We really needed to clean up those
5 by-laws. Well, I couldn't get the faculty to
6 transparently discuss nor agree on anything because
7 they were so worried that if they said something
8 that Dr. Burton didn't like, it was going to be on
9 social media the next day. And this is
Rebuttal: (Lies)
This is proven wrong by looking at the department minutes for 2017. Dr. Burton was banned from campus starting 1-18-17. The meeting minutes of 1-20-17 do not mention any sort of bylaw discussion (CJMinutes-01-20-17). If Dr. Burton had been hampering this discussion then it would have been openly discussed at the meeting two days after she was banned from campus. It wasn’t discussed. If that’s not proof enough then look at the 2-16-17 CJ dept meeting minutes too (CJMinutes2-16-17). The bylaw changes were not discussed at that meeting either. The first meeting with mention any sort of bylaw changes was on 3-9-17 (CJMinutes3-9-17). It is clear that Dr. Burton did not hamper any discussion about bylaw changes because those discussions began sometime after the 2-16-17 meeting, long after Dr. Burton was banned.
(discovery – Ask for any timestamped evidence that anyone on campus complained about Dr. Burton making recordings of dept. meetings and/or any recordings on universitycorruption.com prior to Oct 26, 2016.)
The website was online in October 2016 but nobody knew about it. The watchdog article came out on Oct 26, 2016. Dr. Strobl resigned on Nov 3 (citing lack of institutional support), The Throop/Gormley complaint was filed on Dec 16, 2016. Strobl did not return to work until after Dr. Burton had been suspended. There was only one department meeting between Oct 26, 2016 and Dec 16, 2016 and that was not a quiet meeting. Department members did not know that Dr. Burton had secretly recorded any department meetings before Oct 26, 2016. Timing proves this to be a lie.
How were the department members communicating their concern to you while you were not at the department because you had resigned. There are serious problems with this statement that become evident when one looks at a calendar of events. The discussion about the bylaws is new to me. Where did that come from? I didn’t see that coming. Why is it relevant? Is Dr. Strobl somehow blaming Dr. Burton for the bylaws being messed up? Very strange.
10 particularly problematic for junior faculty who she
11 had already, as Dean Throop had mentioned, I heard
12 the tail end of her testimony, she had already done
13 things to bully and intimidate junior faculty, all
14 right? Academic staff also feel vulnerable, they
Rebuttal:
So, Strobl is just repeating the unfounded diatribe that Throop earlier made. This is why witnesses are not supposed to be allowed to hear other witnesses speak. They just repeat what they hear and try to make their bogus stories match the other bogus stories they have heard. The panel should be disbanded due to this one statement.
15 don't have the opportunity to achieve tenures, so
16 people were feeling like "I am just going to sit
17 here and not say anything because this is going to
18 be recorded and it's going to be up on social media
19 for the world to listen to" if it wants to. Or
Rebuttal:
It is unclear how Dr. Strobl connects posting on social media with achieving tenure. This seems very strange. Why would people be afraid that what they say in an open meeting is posted on social media? If they say things that are truthful and meaningful shouldn’t they be happy to see their comments on social media? It seems that only people who lie or act badly would be worried about being recorded at an open meeting.
20 it's going to be a Wisconsin Watchdog article. We
21 were also covered in the Dubuque Telegraph Herald.
22 Our situation was covered in the Dubuque Local
23 news. And so folks were not using the department
24 meeting, and in a way we could not issue
25 governance, so faculty governance, department
71
1 governance is really, really important, that's how
2 people participate in the life of their department,
3 and we did not have that. We had people who were
Rebuttal:
How would Dr. Strobl know? She wasn’t even at the meeting in question. This is very strange. Dr. Strobl seems to be making some vague argument that Dr. Burton was interfering with a normal exchange of dialogue at a monthly department meeting. But the meeting she was accused of recording was an “emergency department meeting” that was called because Dr. Strobl had resigned her position as chair the day prior. Very strange.
It could be that Strobl is talking about department meetings that occurred after Dr. Burton had been suspended and which she did not attend.
4 scared, who were angry, who were professionally
5 unsafe, who were bullied, who were disparaged
6 routinely. This would have been -- had been going
7 on for months and years. So we were pretty much at
8 a standstill by fall 2016. We couldn't have a
9 meeting that was meaningful. Folks were completely
Rebuttal:
Why wasn’t any of this included in the statement of charges? If it had been going on for months why wasn’t any of this ever addressed? Why are there no emails concerning this? Why is there no evidence of this? It is because Dr. Strobl is making this stuff up.
10 distracted -- they did a great job of going into
11 the classroom anyway, but folks felt distracted by
12 getting disparaging e-mails from Dr. Burton or
Rebuttal:
What disparaging emails is Dr. Strobl talking about? Where is the evidence to support this? Why wasn’t any of this included in the complaint of Dec 16, 2016 or the Statement of Charges of 3-31-17? Because it didn’t happen. If it had happened surely this would have made the cut for those bogus documents.
13 looking at their Facebook and seeing something
14 horrifying. It was a pretty high intensity time.
Rebuttal:
What was horrifying? What caused the high intensity? What is Strobl saying? This is not a fair hearing but it is an opportunity for a terrible liar to tell incredible, unsubstantiated lies about Dr. Burton while she is too sick to even respond.
15 So I didn't have any control over it. I wanted to
16 achieve control over it in some way. I looked to
17 my supervisors to try to help me with this, and
18 that help was not forthcoming in a timely way. The
Rebuttal:
This seems to be why Dr. Strobl resigned her position (Stroble_Resigns_11-3-16). She cited “lack of institutional support” as the reason why she resigned.
19 situation was urgent. I couldn't get my job done.
20 So if we roll over into October of 2016, I was
21 spending my entire day talking to students, faculty
22 and staff, coaching them, mentoring them,
23 commiserating with them, because I was also a
24 target, and literally could not get through a to-do
Rebuttal:
Is the chair of the department claiming that Dr. Burton was “targeting” her? What idiot “targets” their boss? What idiot “bullies” their boss. It is absurd to believe that Dr. Burton was harassing her boss and others who had more secure standing than her. Absurd.
Throop said, under oath in Oct 2015, that Strobl had a good relationship with Dr. Burton. On 12/08/15 Dr. Strobl sat in Dr. Burton’s classroom to evaluate her teaching. She wrote a very good evaluation of Dr. Burton and recommended that she should put in for promotion (Strobl-evalofBurton).
The timing of these bogus allegations is inconsistent with reality. Dr. Burton went from a really good relationship with Dr. Stroble to a bad one almost overnight. This happened just after Dr. Burton filed grievances against Rice and Throop on April 26, 2016. Before that time Strobl had no problem with Dr. Burton and after that time Stroble turned against Dr. Burton. She did so because Dr. Burton filed these grievances.
25 list for three weeks. I would go home at night and
Rebuttal:
It seems Dr. Strobl is blaming Dr. Burton for her own inability to complete her “to do” list. How is that Dr. Burton’s fault? Absurd.
72
1 I would catch up on the 40 e-mails I'd normally get
2 every day as a chair and do the job in the evenings
3 because I couldn't do it during the day because I
4 care about my staff, and if somebody needs to come
5 in and talk about this, they need to come in and
6 talk about this. It was the most important thing
7 going.
8 And in fact, I had people feeling unsafe.
Rebuttal:
Who was “feeling unsafe?” What does that mean? Did Dr. Burton do something to make these unnamed people feel unsafe? Dr. Strobl provides no evidence of Dr. Burton doing anything wrong.
9 I reached out to campus security. We've since
10 resolved our issues, but I don't believe that they
11 were very responsive at certain times. So it was a
12 pretty horrible situation.
Rebuttal: (Lies)
The campus police did not provide any record of Dr. Strobl’s contact.
This vague statement says nothing of substance. It seems to blame Dr. Burton for something but does not say what that is. There is no evidence of any of this. Where are the campus security reports? When were they made?
13 And a lot of -- I'll be completely
14 honest, the dean and the -- the then dean -- no,
Rebuttal:
This constitutes an affirmation and therefore makes Dr. Strobl liable under perjury law.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/906/03
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/946/III/31
15 she wasn't dean at that time, the Interim Provost,
16 Dean Throop often minimized my concerns, to be
17 completely frank. A lot of the attitude was that
Rebuttal:
Dean Throop admonished Dr. Burton in a letter of direction that threatens her employment today. Throop threatened Dr. Burton with discipline based on a false allegation that Dr. Burton cancelled one single class without even asking why (Dkt 41-42). Throop issued a UWS Ch 6 complaint against Dr. Burton because Throop falsely accused Burton of cancelling class (exhibit 619b), (i619d-RebuttalThroopcomplaint-1-5-15). Throop perjured herself in a federal investigation that there was a logo on Dr. Burton’s website. Throop is not someone to “minimize” any complaint against Dr. Burton. This is impossible to believe given Throop’s history with Dr. Burton. When someone says “I’ll be completely honest” they are probably about to tell a big lie. That is the case here.
18 social media didn't matter, nobody looks at it,
19 don't worry about it, she's just really angry,
20 she's not going to do anything. There was a lot of
21 minimization. I had been going into the dean's
22 office, Dean Throop's office for at least ten
23 months, every monthly meeting, saying, "This has to
Rebuttal:
On 12/08/15 Dr. Strobl sat in Dr. Burton’s classroom to evaluate her teaching. She wrote a very good evaluation of Dr. Burton and recommended that she should put in for promotion (Strobl-evalofBurton). There is no written indication that Dr. Strobl ever had a problem with Dr. Burton until May 25, 2017. This hearing is the very first time Dr. Strobl has told anyone of these complaints about Dr. Burton. They were not included in the Throop/Gormley complaint of Dec 16, 2016 and they were not included in the statement of charges of 3/31/17. These issues were not in the Burke report. They were not in the Roter report. Why is Strobl suddenly making all of these unfounded and false allegations? Is it because Dr. Burton filed a federal lawsuit naming Dr. Strobl as a defendant?
Strobl could not have been going to Dean Throop’s office for ten months because Dean Throop was promoted to Interim Provost in April 2016 after Chancellor Shields forced Provost Den Herder to resign (ProvostResigns.pdf). Dr. Gormely became the Dean when Throop vacated the position. So, either Strobl kept bringing her complaints to Provost Throop, which would not be appropriate, or she took the complaints to Dean Gormley, but that is not her claim. She claims to have brought her complaints about Dr. Burton to a Dean Throop who did not exist for the last seven months. This is absurd. See more arguments in (FearMongering).
Throop said that Burton could not be Chair because she couldn’t handle things on a local level. So, why was Strobl bringing these issues to the Dean on a monthly basis.
Strobl’s timing is way off. Dr. Burton was under threat of being fired for Deb Rice’s bogus and false charges of 8/8/16 until they were dismissed in November 2016. How can Strobl argue that no action was taken against Dr. Burton when this was the case?
The 3-4-17 “RoterReport” (pg4) states “All those interviewed (Burton, Throop, Dalecki, Solar, Fuller Strobl) described threatening and harassing emails and interactions examples are in the materials. Though none were reported feeling afraid that Dr. Burton would inflict bodily or physical harm on them or their property.”
24 stop. We are in trouble here. My people are
25 suffering." And that did not -- there was no
73
1 action taken. So when I'm spending my whole day by
2 October 2016 in a highly emotionally charged and
3 potentially personally unsafe situation because of
4 the kinds of anger that are going on social media,
5 when it's only escalating and everything I know
6 about workplace violence means that once you start
7 -- once it starts escalating, if there isn't an
8 interruption of that. And I want to be really
Rebuttal:
What workplace violence are you talking about? What escalation? Do you have any evidence of any of this? No. It seems Dr. Strobl is blaming Dr. Burton for “workplace violence” but cannot produce any evidence whatsoever. She can’t even point to any specific event of this. There is no email record of this. There is no record of any kind.
9 clear, I wasn't allowed to interrupt because my
10 legal counsel told me I could not take any action
11 nor did anything come out of it. So it could be an
Rebuttal:
This argument is incredibly weak. How would Dr. Burton’s lawsuit prevent a chair from asking an employee about these sorts of issues. There is no evidence that Lattis told Strobl these things. If Lattis were to tell Strobl not to talk to Dr. Burton a reasonable person would realize that this is unethical advice. Dr. Strobl seems smarter than that.
12 incredibly powerless position, and I was completely
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton was in a powerless position. Dr. Strobl was the chair of the department. This is an absurd statement.
13 frustrated, and I decided I didn't need to be the
14 chair of such a department, that I had been put in
15 a really bad position and nobody was helping me.
16 I was also on the nightly news, which I didn't
17 appreciate either, and nobody was helping me with
18 that.
19 Q And so what did you do?
20 A I resigned. I am a tenured faculty member. I
21 don't have to be the chair. I love teaching. I
22 said, you know, I wish everybody luck, I'm still in
23 the department to do my part, but I decided that I
24 could not accomplish safety. I felt that my people
25 were actually personally unsafe. They certainly
Rebuttal:
Dr. Strobl seems to be claiming that Dr. Burton was threatening the personal safety of the department. This is absurd and completely unfounded.
Dr. Strobl resigned due to “lack of institutional support” as described in her resignation email. This is further explained in the recording of the emergency department meeting of 11-4-16 when Dean Gormley agreed that Strobl resigned because she wasn’t getting support from the administration. Gormley also said that she couldn’t say that there was institutional support for the CJ department. A male instructor said that lack of institutional support was the “scariest thing.” He used the word “scary” three times to describe lack of institutional support. He did not say he felt threatened by Dr. Burton who sat quietly nearby. Gormley also said that she was acting as Strobl’s advocate to the administration because Strobl felt that protected her from the administration (audio exhibit A36 – 24:27-27:00), (A36-partial transcript of audio). Why would Strobl need protection from the administration if she was afraid of Dr. Burton? It appears that the administration made a deal with Strobl for her cooperation in railroading Dr. Burton. It appears the administration threatened Dr. Strobl into lying about the issues. It appears that someone, probably Lattis, fed Dr. Strobl an alternate truth (lies), that Dr. Strobl swallowed and then regurgitated in this hearing. This appears to be “witness tampering.” Dr. Strobl is threatened by Dr. Burton’s lawsuit and by the administration’s power over her career. She seems to feel beset on two sides and she seems to have chosen to lie for the administration rather than tell the truth. Perhaps she did this because she believes the UW Sysem will protect her from the courts if she helps them fire Dr. Burton unfairly. She appears to have made her steps up the slippery slope. Dr. Strobl seems to be the submissive corrupt type. She seems to have succumbed to the pressure from aggressive corrupt people like Attorney Lattis, Dr. Throop and Chancellor Shields. She probably wants to do the right thing but is unable to bring herself to face the possible consequences of telling the truth. She is probably afraid that she will be treated as Dr. Burton is being treated if she sides with her.
74
1 were professionally unsafe. I don't see how any of
2 these treated people were going to get tenure, even
3 if they deserved it, under these circumstances. I
Rebuttal:
What? Strobl seems to be saying that Dr. Burton was threatening everyone’s tenure. But she doesn’t explain how. She doesn’t provide any evidence.
4 even had, and this was the most heartbreaking
5 thing, we had hired two awesome amazing new junior
6 hires, and both of them at different times
7 independently came in and said, "I don't know what
8 to do with this. Did I make the wrong decision by
9 coming into this department? Is my career over?"
Rebuttal:
Who are these people? Were they talking about Dr. Burton threatening them or were they talking about someone else threatening them? What is this about? This is strange. No evidence. No names. Wow.
10 So it was -- it was horrible to have to sit there
11 and -- I mean I was in a very, very bad position
12 because I was losing faith that anything was going
13 to change, but as a leader I was obligated to help
14 people keep a sense of safety and well-being and
15 optimism. "No, you didn't make the wrong decision
16 by coming here," but I wasn't actually in
17 October 2016 sure of that. I actually felt like,
18 wow, something really horrible is going to happen
19 here on my watch and, you know, if I can't believe
20 what I am telling my people, then I can't lead
21 them, and I began to not believe that everything
22 was going to be okay. Therefore, I did not want to
23 be in the position to have to pretend down the
24 chain to my staff, "oh, everything is fine here."
25 I couldn't do that anymore. It was -- it was a
75
1 horrible time. I mean just thinking about it, you
2 know, it was a horrible time. I'm going to take a
3 drink of water with that.
4 Q Please do. And then that will allow me to focus on
5 the last thing here, although it's a lengthy thing,
6 and that is our Exhibit C, page 33. Oh, sorry. So
7 "see page 33."
8 A Okay.
9 Q And let me get there on my copy. So can you
10 identify what that exhibit is, the page that starts
11 out "see page 33."
12 A So this is an e-mail that went to my supervisor,
13 Dean Gormley, after I had resigned and after
14 Melissa, Dean Gormley, had had a meeting with the
15 staff to sort of calm folks down and check in with
16 them on the snowballing situation at this point
17 that was in this department, that Dr. Burton had
18 drummed up all of this anxiety and fear, and I
Rebuttal:
Strobl seems to be referring to the emergency department meeting of Nov 4, 2016, which Dr. Burton recorded (A36-EmergDeptMtg-11-4-16) (A36 - Partial transcript). In the meeting, Dr. Burton defended herself against angry verbal attacks from many angles. She did tell Dr. Fuller that Fuller would be “held accountable.” Perhaps accountability for wrongdoing brought fear and anxiety to Dr. Fuller. There is no law against accountability. Only people who violated policy and/or law had reason to be anxious or fearful about what Dr. Burton said at this meeting. It seems Dr. Strobl was protecting corruption.
19 guess during that meeting, which I was not present
20 at but, because it was posted on
21 universitycorrection.com by Dr. Burton, I know what
Rebuttal:
Roger Burton posted the audio.
22 happened at the meeting. At least I was able to
23 listen to it. And apparently there was support --
24 first of all, she had not accepted my resignation
25 at that time, eventually, she did, and that they
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton accepted Dr. Strobl’s resignation right away and did not argue for her to return.
76
1 had hoped that I would return to the role. And she
2 was checking in, I think, as I heard it, with the
3 department, among many other things, to make sure
4 people felt safe but also that that was the tenor
5 of the department, that people want me as chair and
6 that -- because she wanted to support me as chair.
7 And so Dr. Burton apparently went to that meeting.
8 I don't recall her saying anything against me
9 during the meeting, but then she fires off this
10 e-mail to Dean Gormley, showing her lack of support
11 for me. And it is also cc'd to the journalist,
12 Matt Kittle, at Watchdog.org. So she's essentially
13 engaging in an internal sort of dialogue with the
14 dean but cc'ing the media right off, which I find
15 to be incredibly unprofessional, so it didn't give
16 Dean Gormley a chance to respond to this before
17 it's already in the public domain, so that's
18 upsetting.
Rebuttal:
The email Dr. Burton sent to Dean Gormley is on pgs35-39 of (Chancellor-Suspends-Burton-1-3-17). It is not a violation of any law or policy to send an email to a reporter. It is not a violation of any law or policy to express an opinion. It is against the law to defame someone as Dr. Strobl did in this hearing.
19 Q So there are some pretty serious accusations in
20 this e-mail, and I'd like you to respond to a
21 couple of them.
22 A Sure.
23 Q Well, more than a couple, I guess, because there
24 are more than a couple in here. First of all, on
25 page 34 she talks about -- or she -- the third
77
1 bullet point says "you elevated Dr. Valerie
2 Stackman to a confident position." Can you talk
3 about that?
4 A I don't believe I did elevate her. I believe this
5 to be a false allegation. I do work alongside
6 Valerie Stackman in a couple research projects, we
7 have very similar interests and so we were often
8 working on our -- we just got a grant for a
9 treatment court evaluation, Grant County OWI
10 Treatment Court, so we were putting a proposal
11 together for the county so that we could help them
12 run some numbers on the efficacy of their treatment
13 court. We had -- specifically in fall 2016 was
14 when we were really working on that proposal, and
15 we did three different academic conferences
16 actually on sort of some of what we were working on
17 methodologically, there's some really interesting
18 statistical problems in terms of what we were
19 doing, so we were starting to talk to our
20 colleagues in our fields about some of those
21 things, so we were spending time working together.
22 That may be something she observed, but I don't
23 think this is correct.
Rebuttal:
The point of that bullet was that Strobl treated Dr. Burton as though she was under some secret scrutiny. Dr. Burton, a senior faculty member, was kept in the dark while a junior faculty member was relied on for major departmental decisions. Dr. Burton gave Stroble an opportunity to explain this but Strobl did not answer her questions. (cite)
24 "Stephan (sp.) hasn't been included in
25 major decisions but kept the department in the
78
1 dark." I mean we make decisions in meetings, in
2 department meetings. And I'm really into
3 transparency and really into -- I know Roberts
Rebuttal:
Dr. Strobl just finished talking about how she had been complaining about Dr. Burton to the Dean for over ten months but she never mentioned anything to Dr. Burton. Dr. Strobl now tries to claim that she was being transparent? She was not transparent to Dr. Burton and that is the point of this specific complaint. Dr. Strobl admitted that she didn’t talk to Dr. Burton because Atty Lattis told her not to. So, Dr. Burton complained that she had been kept in the dark. Strobl can claim that she was transparent but that contradicts her prior statements.
4 Rules. I was almost certified as a
5 parliamentarian, but I didn't finish. But, yah, I
6 think that this is a misrepresentation of a
7 collegial partnership.
Rebuttal:
Strobl seems confused. She seems to be saying that there is some misrepresentation but doesn’t explain what the misrepresentation was or even who might have made it. Confusing. Interesting that nobody asked her to clarify this.
8 Q How about the next one regarding Dr. Stackman's
9 partner Jenna Grady, can you explain that?
10 A I can. So we were working on a big federal grant
11 in, let's see, it would have been 2016, in the
12 spring of 2016, and we had a very short deadline on
13 that project, and I needed somebody that was very,
14 very good at pulling together a project. I needed
15 a Gantt chart because there's -- if you're familiar
16 with those kinds of things, I needed spreadsheets
17 of when I was allegedly going to do when over two
18 years and so on and so forth, and Jenna actually
19 had just graduated from the business program at
20 UW-Platteville, and actually those are the kinds --
21 that project management, sort of pulling together
22 of a proposal, is very, very similar to what those
23 undergraduates learn, and so she helped me on it.
24 It was a two-week, I think I paid her maybe $500,
25 something very quick to help me with the very
79
1 specific task issues, which I have the power to do
2 as a chair. So that was the extent of that.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton volunteered to help with this for free. Why would Dr. Strobl pay her close friend’s wife for something Dr. Burton was willing to do for free? Gantt charts are not hard to create. Any CJ student could have done this. Strobl is saying that CJ students are too dumb to learn how to make a Gantt chart? The procedure to make a Gantt chart should take five minutes to explain to a good student. Dr. Strobl and her husband seem to be very friendly with Dr. Stackman and her wife, Jenna. This seemed to Dr. Burton to be a case of cronyism that is a violation of the terms of the grant. All she did was point that out.
3 Q Why didn't you hire a Criminal Justice student to
4 do that work?
5 A I was really looking for somebody who had the skill
6 set for the kinds of charts and project management
7 skills that I needed. I know there's good Criminal
8 Justice, my faculty knew the Criminal Justice. We
9 don't teach -- in our undergraduate program, we
10 don't teach project management-types of things; we
11 don't teach our students how to get grants. It's
12 much more in our field that's something you learn
13 in a doctoral program because that's something that
14 you may do. So what I really needed was somebody
15 whose core skills, and if I was going to use a
16 student, their core curriculum had to do with that
17 kind of skill set, and so this was really the right
18 person. I mean she literately had that Gantt chart
19 sealed up in two hours. I'm not sure our students
20 would know what that chart is because we don't
21 teach that. It's a totally different skill. Yah.
Rebuttal:
Aren’t you here to teach your students how to do things? Why not teach a CJ student how to do this? Why would you use a student to do something this complex? Why didn’t you do it yourself? Were you unable to do it? Why didn’t you ask Dr. Burton to do it? There are students in CJ who could have accomplished the task and it would keep the money in CJ. This is an absurd rationale, and it is probably false.
22 Q One of the next bullet points refers to you using
23 endearments with Dr. Stackman. Can you just answer
24 that?
25 A I do not use endearments. I'm not a -- I've spent
80
1 20 years in New York City, so I'm not very
2 endearing anymore. I don't know what that is
3 referring to. Dr. Stackman is a more endearing
4 person than I am, and she sometimes will say things
5 like "my dear" or "hello, darling," I mean to
6 everyone, like it's just her way. That could be
7 what's being referred to here with the "my dear."
8 I do not say "my dear." Sadly. I might be a more
9 pleasant person if I did.
Rebuttal:
Sabina – answer this one.
10 Q Regarding this -- regarding sexism, her -- she has
11 a couple of allegations against -- accusing you of
12 being a sexist. The first one is your treatment of
13 Dr. Couper, here misspelled, or Mr. Couper. Could
14 you explain who Mr. Couper is and what your side of
15 that story is?
16 A Sure. Mr. Couper is a part-time academic staff
17 person that I was able to hire when I came on as
18 chair. He's the former chief of the Madison Police
19 Department. He runs a really, really popular blog
20 called "Improving Policing," which is a really
21 interesting, awesome, progressive take on the
22 future of policing that I find to be really, really
23 useful and a lot of practitioners do as well,
24 really well-versed in a lot of the management --
25 police management and police leadership literature,
81
1 and has developed some of his own techniques
2 obviously throughout his own must have been 35- or
3 40-year career, and so he was just a really, really
4 outstanding person for our students to learn from
5 and to interact with these super moms, and so it's
6 this year that I elevated him as a professor. He's
7 super involved. And so it says here that I
8 elevated him as a professor, which I think is a
9 false allegation here. Sometimes I refer to
Rebuttal: She elevated him in a federal grant. So, this was not an informal, general sense document. It was a request for a significant grant that identified him as a “professor” more than once. He is not a professor. Dr. Burton is being threatened with dismissal for the vague allegation that she “misrepresented” something but Dr. Strobl’s misrepresentation is fine? That seems to be disparate treatment.
10 professors in a bit more general sense. At my
11 former institution anybody standing in front of a
12 classroom was a professor, regardless of rank, and
13 so a lot of that culture is still in my -- so I may
14 have referred to him as a professor, meaning in a
15 general sense, not in a ranked sense. Actually,
16 I'm not even a professor, if we're going to go
17 there. I'm only an associate professor if we're
18 going on rank. So this was just an appellation,
19 very general. Couper has never been hired through
20 a search and screen. I don't have to search and
21 screen. He teaches one or two class, so I'm
22 allowed to hire part-time academic staff of my own
23 volition. As a courtesy I often speak with other
24 tenured faculty members about him. I do know that
25 I had a conversation with Dr. Burton about
82
1 Dr. Couper and how glad I was that we had him, and
2 she had a chance to weigh in or weigh out in
3 person, and I didn't hear anything. So I'm not
4 sure what this -- what this allegation is.
Rebuttal:
The allegation was that Dr. Strobl referred to an adjunct lecturer as a “professor” in an application for a federal grant. This falsely indicated to the grant agency that the university had more “professors” than they do. It is a violation of the rules applicable to the grant. There were many other problems with the grant as well.
5 Q It does talk about the -- about this federal grant
6 application and your having replaced her with
7 Mr. Couper on a federal grant application, so I'd
8 like to have you explain to the committee what was
9 going on with this grant application.
10 A So we learned that there was a federal grant call
11 for applicants from the Community Oriented Policing
12 Service, known as COPS, which is an arm of the
13 Department of Justice, and they were specifically
14 going to fund police community dialogue kinds of
15 events, and we had one going on, the policing
16 conference. We had already had a conference at
17 that point. We had over 350 folks coming in from
18 the community, from police officers, public
19 officials and so on. We had a really awesome event
20 that we were hoping to continue, and it seemed to
21 fit the call for this particular grant application,
22 so we decided to go for it. As these things go, we
23 had approximately two months to pull it together,
24 and so I took all volunteers who were interested in
25 pulling this together with me, I was taking the
Rebuttal:
Dr. Strobl refused to allow Dr. Burton to work on the grant even though she offered. Strobl instead used CJ dept money to pay a business student to help with the grant when she could have used Dr. Burton.
83
1 lead, it was the end of the semester, a terrible
2 time for the program, I think it was due June 1st.
3 I mean trying to get people organized to do
4 something by June 1st was quite a task. And so she
5 -- we had Dr. Burton on the team, so to speak, and
6 we decided who would write what parts and, you
7 know, we got a Google Doc thing going, who was
8 going to share what and so on and so forth. About
9 two weeks into the writing process, after
10 Dr. Burton took one round and maybe wrote a couple
11 paragraphs, she indicated to me, I believe in an
12 e-mail, that she had a lot going on with the end of
13 classes and some other responsibilities and she
14 couldn't work on it. So I said "okay," and so
15 other people sort of took on her aspects of the
16 job. So we also had another situation that related
Rebuttal:
Tuesday, May 10, 2016 4:37 PM - Dr. Burton wrote an email to Strobl saying “I may have to bail out of the project. ☹I think I have too much on my plate right now until grades are due. Not sure if I can't find time to rewrite my CV before that deadline. I threw up some blood last night. My ulcers are acting up right now” (exhibit DidNOTResign). Dr. Burton did find time to re-write her CV.
17 to that, so that might be what she is referring to,
18 but there's also another piece of this. So the
19 Department of Justice COPS grant application
20 indicated that no matter how many people are going
21 to work on this project, if you get the money, we
22 only want to see three CVs, so I had to choose
23 among the team members whose CV would be put
24 forward. So what I decided to do was to choose the
Rebuttal: (Lies)
I don’t remember reading this in the rules for the grant. I think it is a lie. We should require Strobl to produce this requirement. I doubt she can.
25 faculty members who had the sort of best records in
84
1 police studies and police careers and so on, so at
2 first blush that would be myself, Dr. Solar and
3 Dr. Burton. That was the intention. Because I was
4 going for a federal grant, and as a former federal
5 probation officer I know the Federal Code a little
6 too well, I knew that I had to be very, very
7 accurate in what I put forth to the Department of
8 Justice because if I put something forward that's
9 inaccurate and I know about it, it can actually be
10 a felony violation of false statement. So what I
Rebuttal:
You called Couper a “professor” in the grant application (exhibit COPS-Grant-Submission). Now you say you were trying to be very very accurate? That doesn’t jive.
11 did for due diligence, which I would do on any
12 grant that I was going for, is to go through the
13 CVs and just verify people's claims of the things
14 that they had written and the jobs that they had
15 had and other wonderful skills that they had, and
16 so I did that for myself, Dr. Solar and Dr. Burton.
17 And I had Dr. Stackman look at mine to see, you
18 know, to make sure all my citations were correct
19 and so on. I knew that I did not have a false
20 statement in my CV, but -- and for due diligence,
21 she actually found a typo, a page number that
22 wasn't right, which was really helpful. Anyway,
23 throughout that process I worked on Dr. Solar's CV;
24 everything checked out there. Dr. Burton's CV was
25 a confusing mess, to be honest. I could not follow
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Liars will say “to be honest” to try to compensate for their obvious lie. This is a sign of a poor liar. Dr. Dalecki is a fantastic, very accomplished liar but Dr. Strobl seems to be a novice. However, in this hearing she swallowed her integrity and spewed many lies. This diatribe contains many lies including the comment that Dr. Burton’s CV was a mess. Dr. Burton graduated from UC Irvine, one of the top universities for Criminal Justice in the United States. She graduated third out of the University of Munich, a school of 66,000 students. Dr. Burton’s CV is sharp (exhibit improvedved-CV), ( exhibit CV-Burton2016). Dr. Strobl was nit-picking Dr. Burton’s CV because Dr. Burton was asking for grievance hearings against Deb Rice and Dean Throop. Ultimately she took Dr. Burton off the grant because Dr. Burton had filed these grievances.
85
1 what her publications were, I couldn't find them,
2 and she often dropped coauthors, she put things in
3 her professional experience category that were
4 misleading. For example, she indicated that she
5 was revising a textbook of Dr. N. C. Aree (sp.),
6 who is a big criminologist in our field and has
7 written one of the introductory textbooks, and it
8 was an edition, I can't remember what number it
9 was, like the 8th Edition, so I went looking for
10 this book, looking for this book online. That
11 edition had not come out yet. And through more
12 digging I realized that the person who was revising
13 it wasn't Dr. Burton, it was another criminologist.
14 So I asked her to verify, I think I did this by
15 e-mail, I asked her just to verify what she meant
16 by revising this textbook because I couldn't find a
17 -- couldn't find what she was talking about, and
18 she indicated to me that she had received money to
19 review a chapter of the book, which isn't the same
20 ball of wax, right? That is not a revision. Her
21 name is not going on that book. She's actually
22 being paid by the publisher to peer review it.
23 That can go on her CV. I personally don't put it
24 on my CV, it's not that big a deal, but you could
25 put it there. But you don't put it under
86
1 "publications" because it's not your publication,
2 it's someone else's. So there was a ton of
3 inconsistencies like that. There was some German
4 stuff I couldn't find. I asked the research
5 librarian to find an item in German that she had
6 allegedly written in the 1990s. It doesn't --
7 she's not a part of the book that that was, that
7 citation was. And then the other thing that was --
9 that also came up was a couple of her publications
10 in German; I asked her just to provide them to me.
11 The response I got was very curious: They were on
12 a German federal police intranet, meaning that they
13 could not be publicly shared, and in fact there was
14 an ongoing case since her time in the federal
15 prison of the 1980s, it was highly secret, and I
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Sabina was never in a federal prison.
16 couldn't ask any further. And it was a very, very
17 strange response and in a very, very unlikely
18 scenario. I can't independently verify any of
19 that, which is part of the problem. But
20 nonetheless, it seemed a little strange. So – and
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton worked for an agency in Germany that is the equivalent of the FBI. She did work she was not allowed to discuss. This is not strange, it is classified.
21 even when I said "why don't you come in," because
22 at this point she was grading papers, we were in
23 final exams, "and we'll go through your CV line by
24 line so I can put this in a form, you can tell me
25 what's going on, we can verify it, we can put this
87
1 in a form that can go forward that is a correct
2 representation of the nature of your work." And
3 she said that she was too busy and declined the
4 offer essentially. So I said, "Okay." And so I
Rebuttal:
Tuesday, May 10, 2016 4:37 PM - Dr. Burton wrote an email to Strobl saying “I may have to bail out of the project. ☹I think I have too much on my plate right now until grades are due. Not sure if I can't find time to rewrite my CV before that deadline. I threw up some blood last night. My ulcers are acting up right now” (exhibit DidNOTResign). Dr. Burton did find time to re-write her CV and turned it in by the deadline.
5 decided I needed to pull the CV. She was still on
6 the team. I never removed her from the team. She
7 is mentioned in the grant application. There's a
8 whole paragraph in the grant application about the
9 things that I could verify. And to be clear, it's
Rebuttal:
Dr. Strobl removed Dr. Burton from the part of the grant that pays but left her name on the grant application to make the school look like it had a quality instructor. Strobl told the grant agency that Dr. Burton would work on the grant project but not get paid (exhibit COPS-grant). When Dr. Burton tried to discuss this with Strobl she said “it’s beyond that.” She would not talk about it.
10 -- if she is exaggerating or being untrue, it's
11 almost not necessary because there's a lot of cool
12 stuff that she has done that we can put in the
13 paragraph, so I took those cool things that I knew
14 really happened and I knew were legitimate and put
15 those in her paragraph for her, and so she was not
16 dropped from the team. And in fact, most of the
17 team didn't have a CV attached. Like I said, it
18 was only three people. So then I had to look
19 for -- since I dropped her CV for lack of being
20 able to verify all parts of it and her lack of
21 coming in to help me work with her on it, I had to
22 replace it. And I apologize for this long story,
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton turned in her CV on time even though she didn’t think she would be able to. The CV had already been verified. There was nothing untrue on Dr. Burton’s CV.
23 but I'm just trying to give you the context of how
24 this went. So I had to replace it, and so I
25 decided that the next person that I thought might
88
1 look good to the Department of Justice, because
2 they already know him, they know -- he's been to
3 Washington talking about community policing many,
4 many times, was David Couper, former Chief of the
5 Madison Police Department, and so I took his CV and
6 put it in there. I did verify it. I had him walk
7 me an article from 1995 because I couldn't find it
8 online because the internet was only beginning in
9 '95, and so he provided that to me, so I also did
10 due diligence on his CV. So in the end it was
11 Dr. Solar, Mr. Couper and my CVs that went to the
12 grant. But that has nothing to do with being
13 dropped from the grant or dropped from the team.
14 Again, they asked for only three.
Rebuttal:
The grant was to be paid to only those three people. So, Dr. Strobl took Dr. Burton off the grant and put Dr. Couper in her place, as she claimed. Dr. Strobl went a long way around this issue to eventually validate Dr. Burton’s argument that she took Dr. Burton off the grant and replaced her with Dr. Couper. She decided Dr. Couper should be paid instead of Dr. Burton. She did this because Dr. Burton had recently asked for grievance hearings against Deb Rice and Dean Throop.
There were other allegations in the email that Strobl didn’t address and Lattis didn’t ask her about. I wonder why? Why was this even part of the hearing? It wasn’t part of the charges against Dr. Burton. These were charges against Dr. Strobl.
15 Q Subsequent to receiving this e-mail, what happened
16 as far as your position as chair in the department?
17 A So I had resigned a day or two earlier. Let me see
18 the date of this here. This is November 7th then,
19 so I had resigned about four days before that. And
20 so she had gone to the meeting, as I stated that I
21 was not at, but that the department had to discuss
22 events, and she apparently here is weighing in that
23 she does not want me to be -- she would like to
24 accept my resignation, I think is what the overall
25 tenor of this is. And in fact worse than that, I'm
89
1 cronyist, sexist and exhibiting bias. Yah.
2 Q So was your resignation accepted?
3 A Ultimately, it was accepted, but not for quite some
4 time. It was at least three weeks, maybe even a
5 month before it was accepted.
6 Q And are you currently chair of the department?
7 A I am currently chair of the department. Dean
8 Gormley has been really wonderful in this
9 situation, really having a lot of patience. She
10 also inherited a department that was in turmoil.
11 And she inherited me; I was in turmoil, as it turns
12 out, because the department was in turmoil. And so
13 she eventually did accept my resignation but worked
14 with the department so that the right thing would
15 happen in the end, so to speak, so that we could
16 heal. As you know, she's the one who put her name,
17 along with Dean Throop, on the official complaint
18 that led to the administrative leave. It was my
Rebuttal:
It’s not just administrative leave. Dr. Burton was suspended and banned from campus. Ultimately she was banned because she asked for grievance hearings to address severe retaliation.
19 recommendation that this person was so disruptive
20 that the administrative leave was the only thing
21 that was going to save this department from being
22 able to ever function again. We barely made it
Rebuttal:
Dr. Strobl seems to believe the department can’t function if department members are held accountable for what they say. She seems to believe that telling lies and keeping them covered up is the only way to ensure the smooth functioning of the department. This is a sign of dysfunction.
23 through the semester, fall semester where this all
24 happened. If we were going to have a sane and
25 healthy and safe -- safe spring semester, we needed
Rebuttal:
What has Dr. Burton done to cause Dr. Strobl to feel unsafe? Why does Strobl blame her feelings of insecurity on Dr. Burton? Is it because Dr. Burton named her in a federal lawsuit?
90
1 to have this person not be in the daily life of the
2 department. And so she worked with the department,
3 realized that folks were willing to have me back.
4 I said to her that if Dr. Burton was not in the
5 daily life of the department, that I was willing to
6 return, and so she appointed me as an interim for
7 this past spring semester. During the spring we
8 conducted -- we have new by-laws now, I should say,
9 I should mention that, because once the
10 administrative leave occurred, suddenly we had
11 wonderful conversations about faculty governance
12 and people had great ideas about term limits and
13 what standing committees we should have, and we
14 passed our by-laws, which is a really big deal for
15 this department. And we did it in a collegial way
16 and we did it transparently and we did it in open
17 meetings and so on and so forth. So anyway, so
18 using our new by-laws, we had an election, and so I
19 stood for the election and was elected the chair,
20 so I'm interim this spring, I don't know what
21 semester we're in now, but -- because we're sort of
22 betwixt and between, but I am interim but back to
23 being permanent come fall.
24 Q Is there anything else that you would like to tell
25 the committee?
Rebuttal:
Of course they want to make it seem like everything is hunky dory because Dr. Burton is gone. They violated Dr. Burton’s rights to create that false impression. They removed an advocate of student rights. They allow students to be targeted without advocacy.
91
1 A I was scared. I know a lot about, unfortunately,
2 active shooters. I know a lot about workplace
3 violence. It's something I studied in graduate
4 school. It's something I keep abreast of as part
5 of my intellectual interest. And I saw somebody --
6 and a husband of somebody, to be completely frank,
7 Roger Burton, who fits the profile of somebody who
8 eventually snaps in a really violent way in the
Rebuttal:
And what profile leads Dr. Strobl to come to this conclusion? What have Sabina and Roger Burton done to indicate that they might “snap?” Did either of them threaten someone with “consequences of their choosing?” No, that was Dr. Pat Solar who made that threat. This crazy violence thing is an absurd attempt to make the panel feel unsafe. Dr. Burton and her husband have been stellar citizens.
Both Sabina and Roger Burton have had a lot of training and practice standing firm under pressure. Roger is a decorated Marine fighter pilot and veteran of the Gulf War. He has not snapped and he won’t. Sabina Burton was a member of the German Intelligence agency and has worked under cover.
New information obtained on 9-20-17 shows that Throop filed a complaint alleging that she felt physically threatened by Dr. Burton’s letter to Gov. Walker (UWPD-Reports-Comments). There was also a false report by an anonymous tipster that Dr. Burton was sighted on campus after she had been banned from campus. It seems that some people, Throop and Dalecki probably, were lying to people about Sabina being a danger to others. Strobl probably bought it because she heard it so often. Fuller just seems to go along with whomever is in power. They fed on the fear and that is how they probably managed to get Strobl and Fuller to make such outlandish statements in their testimony. Strobl and Fuller were probably manipulated into lying. Or, as outlandish as it sounds, maybe they even believed that Sabina had written all those emails that don’t exist. There seem to be some dangerous mind-games going on at UWP.
9 workplace, and for me it had to do with the
10 escalation and the verbal animosity and the
Rebuttal:
What “escalation?” What verbal animosity? These things were not part of the complaint against Dr. Burton and they were not part of the statement of charges and they were not part of the investigation report (biased as it is).
11 absolute steadfast commitment to a vague notion of
12 justice and "everybody is against me." And so I
13 would like to just convey, you know, it's really
14 easy to sort of look back on this and say "oh,
15 well, it all worked out and nobody got hurt." End
16 of October I was really, really worried that
17 something bad was going to happen, and I wasn't
Rebuttal:
What vague thing did Strobl think would happen? She seems to imply that Dr. Burton or her husband would hurt someone. They never gave any indication of this. In fact, Dr. Burton complained that Dr. Dalecki threatened her, and he admitted that he pointed a finger at her as though it was a gun and pretended to let the hammer fall. This is not an act of someone who is afraid of her. This is the act of a man who is pushing her buttons. Whether Dr. Strobl was for some reason worried for her safety is irrelevant. Dr. Burton did nothing and neither did her husband, to indicate any intent to violence or even angry words. There is absolutely no evidence provided to support Dr. Strobl’s statements.
18 getting the support I needed from the campus police
19 or the Administration to handle it. And it's
20 serious. It's serious. I was also targeted. I'm
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Strobl seems to be saying that Roger Burton “targeted” her as an “active shooter.” That is absurd.
21 not going to say I'm completely objective either.
22 I was also somebody that she was beating up in
23 social media, beating up in the department of
24 social media, and so that could have colored my
25 ability to see this objectively, but I was scared.
92
1 And I wasn't scared just for me, I was scared for
2 my department. And to be a leader in a situation
3 where fundamentally, if you are chair of a
4 department and you can't keep your people safe,
Rebuttal:
Wow. It sounds like she is trying to say that Dr. Burton is some sort of Freddy Krueger. That is absolutely insane. This would explain why there was a policeman at the hearing. But it is ridiculous. It is also not part of the charges against Dr. Burton. Something as serious as this seems to be something that would have been included in the complaint of Dec 16, 2016 but it wasn’t. Why not? Because it is a lie. This was not in the Burke report and it was not in the Roter report. Why didn’t Strobl say something to those investigators if she wanted Dr. Burton fired? The answer of course is because she is making this stuff up on 5/25/17. It was never brought up prior to that because Lattis and Throop had not yet told her what to say.
This probably has something to do with these outlandish comments (UWPD-Reports-Comments).
5 then you don't -- that's not okay. It's just not
6 okay. And I really, really tried for several
7 months to get the university to see that this
8 was -- that Dr. Burton was disruptive, that she was
Rebuttal:
Dr. Strobl did not try to get the university to see that Dr. Burton was disruptive. She can produce no evidence of this. She is now angry and scared because Dr. Burton named her in a federal lawsuit. She is lashing out at an innocent victim of prolonged retaliation. She was coached to say the things she is saying and it is not true.
9 escalating, that she was determined to have her
10 way, that anybody who didn't join her cause was
11 against her, whipping up students, using social
12 media, and what was, you know, something that would
13 crop up every couple weeks was daily. Daily
Rebuttal:
Strobl claims daily twitter comments that “whipped up students” but can produce no twitter statements from Dr. Burton. This is a crazy allegation with no evidence.
14 Twitter. "This one -- this one is corrupt, that
15 one is corrupt." Anger. It was -- it was
16 horrible. When I resigned, actually what really
Rebuttal:
So, where are these twitter statements? They are nowhere. They don’t exist because Dr. Burton did not do this. Dr. Strobl seems to be losing her mind.
17 creepy thing happened was when I resigned, I also
18 moved myself to -- we have some folks that are, for
19 lack of space, in having their office in the tower,
20 and when I resigned for my own personal safety, I
21 moved -- I had self relocated to a different
22 Criminal Justice office, because I was worried that
23 I was going to be the target of something because
24 she was so angry. And, yah, and I'm not, you know,
25 I think a lot of folks in the criminal justice
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Strobl stopped working when she stepped down. She seems to be saying that her office was empty because she was working out of another office. But that is not likely true. The others in the department and Gormley divided up her work because she was gone. Her office was empty and her flowers wilted because she didn’t come to work. Get her to produce all the emails she generated from Nov 3, 2016 through Dec 16, 2016 to see that she was lying.
It seems that Dr. Strobl has been influenced by Dr. Dalecki to believe that Dr. Burton is a physical threat to her. This could not be farther from the truth. Dr. Burton tried to use the university grievance system to address her grievances. She is now trying to use the courts to address her complaints. She has no interest in harming anyone physically and to say she does is just outlandish baloney. She has never threatened anyone. Dr. Strobl’s diatribe is untrue, unfounded nonsense. It is an ad hominem attack on Dr. Burton’s character and is an inexcusable form of harassment and bullying.
93
1 field are not comfortable saying that they're
2 afraid because we often have been trained to be the
3 first responders and to be tough. I was afraid. I
4 was afraid. And I am not scared to admit it. And
5 if it happened all over again, I don't care if
6 everybody thought I was not being objective, this
7 was scary. This was scary. And so I self
8 relocated because I was so afraid. And I just want
9 to be clear that I stand by that and I'm not
10 ashamed of that. And I'm not ashamed of anybody in
11 my department who felt scared. At a minimum,
12 everybody was professionally -- professionally in
13 danger. People's careers were literally going to
14 be that much more difficult because they were going
15 to have to answer to somebody who had power over
16 them, who was accusing them of all sorts of things
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton was an outcast. She was being processed for termination by the administration for bogus and false charges. She had no professional “power” to affect her colleague’s careers.
17 from racism to criminal behavior, doing it
18 publicly, doing it on social media. Minimum,
19 everybody was professionally unsafe. But beyond
Rebuttal:
Wow, Strobl is saying that Dr. Burton had power over “everybody” to make them “professionally unsafe?” She went on a rant about fear of physical violence and now is spouting nonsense about Dr. Burton’s “power” to affect people’s professional safety? How does Strobl even consider that a person who is appealing a complaint that could get her fired is in a position of power over other people’s professional safety? What? This is getting strange.
20 that, the level of anger, the name calling, the
21 language, the involvement of a husband, the
Rebuttal:
What name calling, what language? There is nothing specific about any of these unfounded crazy allegations. Sure, Dr. Burton is angry about the way the administration has violated her rights. That is why she filed a federal lawsuit.
22 creation of an entire website and the daily update
23 of the website, the taping of things, it's -- it's
24 beyond anything I've dealt with in a workplace, and
25 for me it symbolizes or signifies that something is
94
1 not right. And it wasn't being interrupted. It
Rebuttal:
Dr. Strobl is right. There is something wrong. But it is not Dr. Burton. It is the terrible corruption of the administration running UW Platteville.
2 wasn't being interrupted. It was a pattern that
3 was growing more urgent in the behavior. The
4 behavior was becoming more aggressive. It
Rebuttal:
What behavior? Exactly what happened that was more aggressive? Free speech?
5 correlated with the loss of a legal case, so there
6 was a trigger for why somebody would become more
7 aggressive, more angry. And so I stand by the fact
Rebuttal:
So by this standard, anyone who loses a legal case is going to start shooting from a bell tower? This seems to be what Dr. Strobl is saying. Dr. Burton lost the case because her attorney sabotaged her case. Now she is trying to keep her job but people like Dr. Strobl are lying through their teeth to try to take it away from her because they violated Dr. Burton’s rights. Let that sink in. Dr. Strobl is trying to get Dr. Burton fired because Dr. Strobl violated Dr. Burton’s rights. Does that seem fair? No.
8 that this was a very, very rare, as Dean Throop
9 mentioned, but also very terrifying situation for
10 those who were living it. And I just want to make
11 that really, really clear. This was absolutely
12 terrifying for many of us.
Rebuttal:
Well, how does Dr. Strobl think this feels to Dr. Burton and her husband. This is not a fun thing for them. They are trying to expose corruption and lies to make the system better and safer for students. Dr. Strobl is not in any physical danger from Dr. Burton and it is clear that Dr. Burton does not have power over her career. If she did Strobl would not be chair of the department.
This is absolute lunacy. I’m sorry but it sounds like Dr. Strobl has lost some marbles.
13 CHAIRPERSON: Does the panel have any
14 questions?
15 EXAMINATION
16 BY MS. WILLS:
17 Q Oh, I have a question on the time line. So when
18 did you step down as chair?
19 A I believe it was November 3rd or November 4th.
20 Q Okay. And then when did you start again, I guess?
21 A It would have been mid January.
22 Q All right. And when Sabina Burton was, you know,
23 told that -- not to come on campus, and so what was
24 that time line again?
25 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I didn't
95
1 hear what you said.
2 BY MS. WILLS:
3 Q When was Sabina Burton told not to, you know, come
4 on campus and she got the directive from our
5 Chancellor?
6 MS. LATTIS: I think that is page 2 of
7 Exhibit C. Yes. So January 8th, 2017, page 2 of
8 Exhibit C, is the letter notifying her of the
9 administrative leave pending the investigation.
Rebuttal:
On 1/4/17, not Jan 8, Dr. Burton received a certified letter with Chancellor Shields’ suspension notice. They keep calling it “administrative leave” but the policy and Chancellor Shields’ notice calls it “suspension” so there seems to be an effort to minimize the act. Dr. Burton is not on vacation. She has been suspended and banned from campus. There is no good reason for this (Chancellor-Suspends-Burton-1-3-17), (Rebuttal-Shields Suspension-1-4-17). The administratin can’t seem to keep their dates straight even with access to Dr. Burton’s timeline (Public_Timeline).
10 MS. WILLS: Thank you.
11 CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions?
12 (NO RESPONSE.)
13 MS. WILLS: Thank you.
14 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
15 THE WITNESS: Oh, that's it? Thank you.
16 I wasn't sure if you were going to ask a question
17 or not.
18 CHAIRPERSON: Sorry.
19 (WITNESS EXCUSED.)
20 MS. LATTIS: I have only two more
21 witnesses and they're both short, so I think if you
22 wanted to take a break, we could, and still finish
23 by noon, I would feel confident, but if you would
24 rather power through, we can do that too.
25 CHAIRPERSON: Can we take a five-minute
96
1 break?
2 MS. LATTIS: All right.
3 CHAIRPERSON: And then get right back to
4 work.
5 MS. LATTIS: Okay.
6 (A RECESS WAS HAD.)
7 CHAIRPERSON: Miss Lattis, you can call
8 your next witness.
9 MS. LATTIS: Thank you. Cheryl
10 Banachowski-Fuller.
11 EXAMINATION
Fuller Testifies beginning here:
12 BY MS. LATTIS:
13 Q Oh, welcome. Would you give your and spell your
14 name and then just tell the committee who you are?
15 A Very good. My name is Cheryl, they call me Cheryl
16 Fuller, but Cheryl Banachowski-Fuller. That's B-
17 as in boy -A-N-A-C-H-O-W-S-K-I, hyphen, Fuller,
18 F-U-L-L-E-R. All right, I am a tenured faculty in
19 the senior department, I'm probably -- I am the
20 most senior faculty in the department. I also
21 manage the online programs, but I'm a right hand to
22 the chairs, the many chairs that have been through
23 our department, and I help with, you know, faculty
24 evaluation. Because of the makeup of our DRB and
25 CRST being tenured --
97
1 COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Please --
2 just a minute. Give me the initials slower because
3 I don't know what they are, so.
4 THE WITNESS: Being a tenured faculty, I
5 am always on the RST committee and in most cases
6 the chair of the committee.
7 BY MS. LATTIS:
8 Q And what is the RST committee?
9 A That is the Department Review Committee, the review
10 board for tenure promotion.
11 Q Have you worked with Dr. Burton throughout her
12 tenure here at UW-Platteville?
13 A I have.
14 Q And were you here before Dr. Burton arrived?
15 A I was.
16 Q Did you come to learn that Dr. Burton had been
17 recording department meetings?
18 A I did not know she was doing that until I saw the
19 tapes and the transcripts on the university
20 website, universitycorruption.com, so that was
21 maybe in the time period of November.
22 Q Of this year?
23 A This year, correct.
Rebuttal:
This does not make sense. The hearing was on 5/25/17. Clearly Dr. Fuller meant November of the prior year, 2016.
This conflicts with Dr. strobl’s statement that these “terrifying” events happened over the course of the fall semester 2016. The timeline doesn’t fit.
24 Q And so tell us how you came to find those.
25 A I think in October there was an article written by
98
1 Watchdog News, and of course it hit the department.
2 At that point we were in some major, high-energy
3 anxiety, so everybody was reading these websites
4 because they focused on Sabina and her dislike for
5 the university and the corruption and the
6 conspiracy, so when I saw the website, I took a
7 look, I saw the recordings of the DRB, the CRST,
8 search and screens, any discussions I had with her,
9 any discussions she had with the dean, at least 25
10 tapes, so she's been taping -- well, the records
11 show in your packet all the tapes that she was
12 recording. I was shocked. Shocked. Never seen
13 that in my 26 years of teaching at the university.
14 So it was online. I thought it was probably in
15 violation of federal, state law. I know there was
16 an investigation going on, and so I forwarded them
17 to the HR. And not only were the tapes on there,
18 but all the evaluations of all the faculty, not all
19 the faculty but many of the faculty, so there were
20 peer evaluations, student evaluations of faculty,
21 nontenured and tenured, adjunct, as well as vetoes.
22 And the evals were summary evals with all the
23 comments. I was shocked.
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Fuller does not provide any evidence that the website contained evaluations of other faculty members. This statement cannot be relied upon without delivery of some evidence. The administration used all of the files they felt were problematic in the charges of Dec 16, 2016.
24 Q Did you seek any help to go through this material?
25 A As in --
99
1 Q As in from Valerie Stackman?
Rebuttal:
This is a leading question. Lattis seems to be directing the witness to provide specific testimony rather than asking a question.
2 A Oh, I did. So once again that was a time period in
3 which there was a lot of turmoil. Faculty are
4 feeling threatened. I had several faculty come
5 into my office, are petrified, mostly
6 professionally but many physically, for absolutely
7 faculty were scared to death, locking doors, coming
8 in when she wasn't there, making sure she was --
9 they would come in when she was in class so that
10 they wouldn't have to have face-to-face with her.
Rebuttal:
Who? What are the names of these people who were so afraid? Why is there no record of this? They didn’t seem afraid to confront Dr. Burton in the emergency department meeting of about Nov 5, 2016. They were attacking her verbally in that meeting. These reports of people being afraid is completely unfounded and unsupported. This was not included in the statement of charges, any of the investigations or any email chatter. Where did this come from? Dr. Fuller made this up. This testimony is coming from a person who harassed Dr. Burton in the past. This is a lie.
11 So everybody was aware of the website. They were
12 at some point aware of the recordings. Val sent
13 many to me, and I told her to put them together,
14 put them together on one page so then I can forward
15 them to HR.
16 Q So Val assisted you in doing that?
17 A Correct.
18 Q Okay.
19 A In putting that together.
20 Q Did Dr. Burton ever attack you personally?
21 A Umm, well, reading the universitycorruption, she
22 claimed that I documented some of her DRB
23 evaluations. There was no evidence, no taping.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton’s husband posted a web page on UniversityCorruption.com titled “Perjury” in which he described Dr. Fuller’s testimony in a federal deposition (Perjury – para 2 &3). Dr. Fuller was shocked that her misdeeds were exposed. Evidence is provided to support the claims.
24 And I learned that from universitycorruption.com.
25 Q What does that mean?
100
1 A I don't -- I don't know.
2 Q Okay.
3 A Like I said, they were tamper -- they were changed,
4 the numbers were changed.
Rebuttal:
She did not say before that something was changed. What was changed? What evidence does she have? It seems that Dr. Fuller is saying that Dr. Burton changed some personnel records. Is that what she is saying. It is vague. Interestingly nobody asked for clarification.
5 Q Oh. Oh, okay.
6 A Another incident is she contacted -- not only does
7 she personally attack faculty at the department,
8 but she also reaches out to faculty members. And
Rebuttal:
What “personal attacks” is Fuller referring to? There is no evidence. It is not true. Dr. Burton did not attack anyone. She has been trying to receive fair treatment, she advocates for students’ safety and she exposed corrupt activities by exposing the truth.
9 my husband is Chief Clerk of the Assembly in
10 Madison, so she contacted -- or Roger contacted him
11 and basically was saying, "Hey, you need to talk to
12 your wife. She's corrupt. She's unjust. You were
Rebuttal (Lies)
Roger Burton sent this email to Patrick Fuller (Email-RogertoPatFuller-11-18-16). This email does not call Dr. Fuller corrupt or unjust. Instead it asks Patrick Fuller to help his wife find the courage to do the right thing.
13 a marine and I was marine, you know, we" -- so he
14 received it, so yes. Those are probably two big
15 items.
Rebuttal:
Why not present this email as evidence? Why is this even part of the hearing discussion? It has no relevance to the charges. Why wasn’t this part of the charges if it is worthy of discussion here? Dr. Fuller’s husband: Wisconsin State Legislature, Patrick E. Fuller, Chief Clerk, (608) 266-1501, Patrick.Fuller@legis.wisconsin.gov.
16 Q And do you believe that the Department of Criminal
17 Justice can function with Dr. Burton in it?
18 A Absolutely not.
19 Q Why is that?
20 A I support the testimony of Dr. Strobl. I think she
21 said it in a very clear, descriptive. She couldn't
22 have said it any better. We had fear in our
Rebuttal:
The fear was a fear of exposure. Dr. Fuller and all of the other witnesses have been involved in corrupt activities and fear that their misdeeds will be exposed for what they are. They are trying to cover up the truth that is shining from Dr. Burton.
23 department. Dr. Burton is now gone, and the
24 department is at ease. We are productive. Prior
Rebuttal:
So, the university administration successfully hides the shining light of truth from view for a short time and they pretend that there is no longer a problem. The truth is that the corrupt people involved in this issue are hoping that Dr. Burton will quietly go away and let them continue to abuse students and other faculty/staff at their will, as they have done for years. There is no evidence that the department is productive or at ease. This is just a statement that attempts to put blame on Dr. Burton for turmoil that was caused by corrupt activities of others.
25 to her administrative leave, it was a nightmare.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton is not on “administrative leave.” She was “suspended” and “banned from campus” on vague, bogus and false charges (Chancellor-Suspends-Burton-1-3-17), (Rebuttal-Shields Suspension-1-4-17).
101
1 People were locking doors. They weren't -- like I
2 said, they would only come to their office when she
3 was in class. Everybody in the department was
4 professionally threatened. And several people, I
Rebuttal:
The only people in the department saying this are Fuller, Solar and Strobl. Three people who had been instrumental in retaliating against Dr. Burton in the past.
5 know exactly four, who are physically -- felt
6 physically threatened. Two-thirds of our
7 department, since she's been here, have been
8 threatened personally or physically. I would say
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Who are these four people who felt physically threatened? Why was this not part of the investigation report? Why is this even discussed in this hearing? Why are not all four of these people testifying? What has Dr. Burton done to physically threaten anyone? Where is the evidence? The 3-4-17 “RoterReport” (pg4) states “All those interviewed (Burton, Throop, Dalecki, Solar, Fuller Strobl) described threatening and harassing emails and interactions examples are in the materials. Though none were reported feeling afraid that Dr. Burton would inflict bodily or physical harm on them or their property.”
9 ten percent of the university campus has been
10 personally attacked. Ten percent of people at this
11 university, if not more, have been personally or
12 professionally attacked. When Dr. Strobl stepped
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Wow. What is Fuller talking about? This is absolutely insane. The university has 7,000 students or so. This is an absolutely ridiculous statement with no evidence whatsoever.
13 down, they asked me to step in for a couple months,
14 and it was a quiet time because it was around
15 Christmas, it wasn't too bad, but I had several
16 faculty members in my office, just "what are you
17 going to do," you know. I said, "Just relax, you
18 know, we'll get through this." But it was a tough
19 time for those years, especially getting close to
20 the time of October, November, December was a rough
21 time. And any policy we were trying to put forward
22 in the department, any procedure, any changes, any
23 -- I was the chair of Search and Screens; that was
24 a nightmare. It was so dysfunctional, I can't even
25 imagine Dr. Burton coming back. And, boy, that
Rebuttal:
The dysfunction comes from the lack of adherence to policy and law, not from exposure of corruption. The dysfunction has been plaguing the university for a long time. Dr. Burton merely opened some people’s eyes to it.
102
1 would cause the department to be a sad day.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton coming back to the department would signal to other good people that there is a chance to fight back against corruption. It would signal that students might be safe. It would signal a turn toward decency and away from cronyism and unfairness. Dr. Burton coming back would be the best thing that could happen to UW Platteville and the worst thing that could happen to each of the administration’s witnesses, including Dr. Fuller.
2 Q Do you have anything else you would like to add?
3 A I don't. I support Dr. Throop and Dr. Staci
4 Strobl's testimony. And I think at this point you
5 probably have enough information in front of you
6 and testimony to support or recommend that the
7 recommendations of the Chancellor for continuing
8 the process of termination.
Rebuttal:
Almost everything Dr. Fuller said was outside the scope of the statement of charges against Dr. Burton.
9 CHAIRPERSON: Does the panel have any
10 other questions? I think we'll wait one minute.
11 (A PAUSE.)
12 MR. BOCKHOP: I have a question.
13 MS. LATTIS: Yes.
14 EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. BOCKHOP:
16 Q Without names, okay, can you explain to us how
17 people were physically individually threatened?
18 A Well, they felt –
Rebuttal:
Why are we keeping names out of this? Why not get the names and verify what those people have to say? This should have been part of the investigation. It seems to be a biased panel member asking this question. Why not ask for verification instead of asking for unverifiable information? At least he asked for examples. He should also ask for the individual in question to testify. This is an example of an unfair hearing.
19 Q Do you have examples? I'm sorry. Do you have
20 examples?
21 A Well, they felt -- they were scared. Dr. Burton's
22 behavior was erratic, threatening. E-mails every
23 day; everybody got e-mails every day, coming in
24 daily. If you weren't copied on something, you
25 were contacted directly. It was a fear of her
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton did not send everybody an email every day. This is ridiculous.
103
1 husband. It was a fear of not wanting to be in the
2 area. Just -- and I'm not sure exactly why they
3 felt fearful, if it was -- I can't tell you. All I
Rebuttal:
If everybody got threatening emails every day there should be many examples and lots of evidence. But where is it? Fuller doesn’t know why they felt fear but she is comfortable telling a hearing panel that they felt fear because Dr. Burton sent emails? No evidence. This is ludicrous.
4 know is they verbally said, "I'm scared to come to
5 campus. I am scared." And they would lock their
6 doors. Once again, professional threats were
7 majority. Physical threats were minority. But
8 once you start seeing -- and when these adjunct
9 faculty, or excuse me, these young assistant
10 professors come in to you and they're saying, "I
11 just -- I don't know what to do. I'm scared," we
12 try to relieve -- we try to work with them, you
13 know, give them some calmness, but they never
14 really come out and say exactly why. It's the
15 atmosphere, it's the behavior of Dr. Burton and her
16 husband that is just so irrational, and so it's --
17 yah.
18 MR. BOCKHOP: Thank you.
19 EXAMINATION
20 BY CHAIRPERSON:
21 Q Do you know whether any of those individuals who
22 felt physically scared sought any help from campus
23 police or sought out some other --
24 A Yes.
25 Q -- venues for help with this?
104
1 A Yes. They have.
Rebuttal:
Who contacted campus police? Where are the police reports?
2 Q They have.
3 A They have. Some even went ahead and got attorneys.
Rebuttal:
Who? Dr. Burton has not been contacted by any attorneys. Where is evidence of this?
4 And then I'm not sure the extent of it because I,
5 you know, I only want to know so much, you know,
6 you're telling them. But once again, campus police
Rebuttal:
Dr. Fuller doesn’t know anything about this so why is she talking about it? She is not credible. Where are the campus police reports? Who filed these reports?
7 was called. And I think probably the chief can
8 testify on some of those elements. I know Staci,
Rebuttal:
Why didn’t the chief testify? There are some conflicting statements about him so it might be good to ask him some questions. For example: When he met Dr. Burton was he just meeting people on campus and it was a friendly hello, or was he admonishing her for her “behavior?” Either way we can prove inconsistency in his testimony.
9 because then she would come to me and say, "How
10 are, you know, what -- we need to do something."
11 So a lot of discussion. It escalated October, and
12 then that there was lot of quick action on, you
13 know, Staci's stepping down, me kind of taking over
14 on a temporary basis just to keep it, and then
15 Christmas break, and then January she was --
16 Dr. Burton was administratively assigned to be off
17 the campus, so it -- yah. It just was quick. I
18 don't know what these people did, but I know they
19 did something.
Rebuttal:
Which people are she referring to? Why is she talking about things she doesn’t know about? What is she saying? Her testimony is completely disjointed, confusing and irrational.
20 CHAIRPERSON: Any other questions?
21 (NO RESPONSE.)
22 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
23 MS. LATTIS: So the last one is
24 Dr. Solar.
25
105
1 EXAMINATION
Solar Testifies beginning here:
2 BY MS. LATTIS:
3 Q Good morning, Dr. Solar. Could you give your name
4 and spell it and then tell the committee who you
5 are.
6 A Patrick Solar. S-O-L-A-R. I'm an assistant
7 professor here at the Department of Criminal
8 Justice.
9 Q And how do you know Dr. Burton?
10 A She's one of my faculty colleagues. She was
11 actually on the committee that brought me here.
12 Q Dr. Burton was on a committee that hired you?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Has Dr. Burton ever treated you disrespectfully or
15 in a demeaning fashion?
16 A Yes.
Rebuttal:
False. Dr. Burton has always treated Dr. Solar professionally.
17 Q And can you describe those events?
18 A Well, the first event is one of my -- the other
19 things that I do professionally is I teach for
20 Northwestern School of Staff and Command, and I --
21 my area of specialization is policy and procedure
22 development. We look at areas of risk in policing
23 and we develop procedures to circumvent liability,
24 and one of the things that's classic is sexual
25 harassment, and I developed a policy and procedure
106
1 model that is just plain harassment, and I used an
2 example of an e-mail I got from Dr. Burton as an
3 early warning sign that you've got a problem, and
Rebuttal:
Where is this email? How does it show a problem? How is one single email an indication of a problem? Where is this email? Why wasn’t it included in the statement of charges?
4 if you know the problem, if you have people
5 treating other people in your organization like
6 this, make note of it and address it through policy
7 and procedure correction. And the e-mail I'm
8 referring to has to do with her displeasure with
9 the way a search and screen committee was set up
10 and the fact that I chaired it and she did not.
Rebuttal:
This is a mischaracterization. Dr. Burton complained that Dr. Solar violated policy and lied about it. She was concerned that Dr. Solar chaired a search for three positions when she was not given any searches. A grievance committee had recommended that Dr. Burton be allowed to chair searches but their recommendation was ignored by Chair Dalecki.
11 Would you like me to tell the story?
12 Q Sure.
13 A Okay. So in the beginning, the very beginning of
14 my second year here, I was asked by the then
15 department chair to chair a committee to search for
16 three full-time faculty members. We had a
17 tremendous turnover the previous year and we were
18 worried about how we were going to fill classes
19 down the road, so he asked me, because I have
20 extensive experience, I'm actually trained in
21 municipal management, that's what my Masters and
22 graduate work was in as well as organizational
23 development, so he asked me to chair an expedited
24 search, the idea being that we'll get our search
25 announcement out there quickly and get more
107
1 qualified applicants before the normal timeline.
2 And so I took the existing job announcement and I
3 submitted it via e-mail to all of the department
4 faculty because there was -- we would want that all
5 to be reviewed by all the department faculty
6 members, asking for input. I assembled a new
Rebuttal:
False. He did not send the job announcement to Dr. Burton. She was not given opportunity to give her input to the draft. He has not produced this email.
7 position announcement based on that input and sent
8 it out. It was about three weeks later that I get
Rebuttal:
False. Dr. Burton did not have opportunity to provide input. There was no email with the job description. Dr. Solar has not produced this evidence. This contradicts what Dr. Solar said previously. It also contradicts what Dr. Dalecki instructed Dr. Solar to do at a department meeting. This is a fabrication.
9 this incredibly nasty e-mail from Dr. Burton
10 demanding to know why she was not on the search and
11 screening committee and why I was chairing it, and
12 it was very terse and very demeaning. And I
Rebuttal:
Dr. Solar describes the email inaccurately. Dr. Burton explained to Dr. Solar that by excluding her from participation in the job description that he was violating policy. Solar also violated Dr. Dalecki’s direct instructions. Even his current explanation, which is different from his prior explanation, is in contravention to Dr. Dalecki’s instructions. Dr. Burton’s email was not demeaning, it was an allegation of violation of policy. It was a serious request that policy be followed. Dr. Solar did not want to include Dr. Burton in the hiring process so he purposely excluded her from it. This was a violation of policy.
13 responded to do her, "Talk to the department chair,
14 he'll answer your questions." And that was
15 followed up with a number of other e-mails. And
Rebuttal:
Dr. Solar seems to have lied in his email exchange (cite).
16 then down the road a few weeks or maybe a month
17 later, she accuses me of a policy violation for not
18 following correct procedure. I believe Dr. Strobl
Rebuttal:
Here is the email that Dr. Burton sent to HR Director Lohmann detailing the issue (cite).
19 alluded to that. I asked Professor Fuller, I said,
20 "What do you think?" And she said, "No. This is
21 fine. You did everything appropriately. It's just
Rebuttal:
Why would Dr. Fuller tell Dr. Solar that violating policy was appropriate? Dr. Fuller is one of the administrators Dr. Burton has complained about and one of the witnesses whose credibility is in question. This matter comes down to the question: Did Dr. Solar 1) violate policy by excluding Dr. Burton from the process of formulating the advertisement for new hires? 2) Did Dr. Solar lie to Dr. Burton about it? This is a simple matter. Just look at the evidence provided by Dr. Burton and see whether Dr. Solar is more deserving of dismissal than Dr. Burton.
22 not the way that" -- typically in the previous
23 years they had a face-to-face meeting with the
24 department where they -- with the entire department
25 where they chewed on this stuff. But in any case,
108
1 Dr. Burton wanted the whole thing canceled, every
2 level process shut down. We already had people
Rebuttal:
If Dr. Burton’s requests had been taken seriously the matter could have been resolved with an email to the department asking for input on the job description but that did not happen. Later, Dr. Burton asked for the process to begin again, with the formulation of the job description, because Dr. Solar had violated policy and had no intention of correcting his violation.
3 scheduled for Skype interviews. And I basically
4 said, "No." And she didn't like that, which
Rebuttal:
Interestingly, Dr. Solar’s search produced zero candidates hired.
5 prompted an e-mail about her "this is going to
6 reflect negatively on your tenure prospects and
7 would show a copy of that e-mail in your folder."
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Solar misquotes Dr. Burton’s statements. He also misidentifies what prompted Dr. Burton’s email. She did not even say that the matter would reflect negatively on his tenure prospects. She called his violation of policy a “little bump in the road.”
Dr. Burton’s email (exhibit 571e). She did not threaten Dr. Solar’s tenure as can be clearly seen by reading the email. It was a mentoring email that was intended to educate a junior faculty member on proper procedure. Since Dr. Solar had refused to correct his violation Dr. Burton felt it appropriate to advise the junior faculty member that he needed to follow policy. She called the violation a “little bump in the road.” Dr. Solar complained that this email was “bullying” and it ended up in a letter of direction from Dean Throop to Dr. Burton. There are several absurd elements in this matter (exhibit 570a) , (i571-DirectionRebuttal).
Dean Throop did not investigate Dr. Burton’s allegations that Dr. Solar had violated policy but still admonished Dr. Burton for her complaints against Dr. Solar.
Dr. Solar clearly ignored Dr. Burton’s request to correct the violation indicating that he was not at all intimidated by Dr. Burton. This 6’ 200 pound retired police chief claimed that this petite, 5’4” woman of 125 lbs was bullying him. Dr. Solar was acting like a little snowflake victim while he was ignoring the requests to follow policy. This makes one wonder how many policies he violated as a police chief. How much evidence did he plant on people he didn’t like? How many people did he illegally charge with violations they didn’t commit? Can he be trusted at all?
8 And, again, I used that e-mail as an example of an
9 early warning that we have a harassment situation
10 going on in the organization.
Rebuttal:
Compare Dr. Burton’s emails to Dr. Solar (exhibit 571e) with Dr. Dalecki’s discussion with a graduate student (Transcript of Dalecki-Jacobus meeting). The administration calls the discussion between Dalecki and the grad student simply a mentoring discussion but the tone was actually very threatening. By contrast, Dr. Burton’s email to Dr. Solar was very professional, yet firm. Put these two side by side and a reasonable person will realize that Dr. Burton was reasonable in her requests to Dr. Solar while Dr. Dalecki was very threatening to the grad student. Yet the administration claims the opposite is true. This is a twisting of facts. Why isn’t Dalecki being fired?
11 Q Was your pre-tenure performance among the ones
12 discussed on the tapes that Dr. Burton posted on
13 her website?
14 A Yes, it was. It was an RB meeting where they
15 discussed prospects for tenure and provided --
16 arranging for tenure track people, and I was amazed
17 to find that actual recording, I believe Dr. Fuller
18 pointed it out to me, where they were talking about
19 me, and it was out there for the whole world to
20 hear.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton’s husband posted the audios online. One of them was an audio of Dr. Burton in a CRST meeting where she advocated for Dr. Solar. At a time when the committee was leaning toward a lower score Dr. Burton convinced them to bring his score up. Dr. Burton recorded the meeting to be able to disprove the university’s false claims that she intended to injure his bid for tenure. There is no law against Dr. Burton recording this open meeting.
21 Q Has Sabina ever accused you of being a "liar," with
22 that word?
23 A Yes. She most certainly has. And in all honesty,
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton accused Dr. Solar of lying and provided evidence. That is not the same as the word “liar.” So, again, Dr. Solar is lying.
Though it is a small issue. Dr. Burton has not called Dr. Solar a liar. That is she has not stated that his character is that of a liar. She has stated, and given evidence that he lied. Dr. Burton has not stated whether he is a chronic or pathological liar, just that he lied. Dr. Burton has given evidence to support her statement. Dr. Solar has never apologized for his lies.
24 I'm still trying to figure out exactly what she is
25 referring to. I believe it goes back to that
109
1 search where I told her that that job description
2 -- or job announcement as opposed to a job
3 description went out to all of the faculty via
4 e-mail, and I don't believe she believes that.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Solar is well aware of what Dr. Burton refers to. He lied about excluding Dr. Burton from the discussion to formulate the wording for the new CJ positions. Plain and simple.
Dr. Solar lied as described here (Dkt 53-14).
5 Q And did she make this accusation just to you or to
6 others?
7 A No. She's made it on the universitycorruption dot
8 website, claiming that I am a liar, among other
9 things.
Rebuttal:
The website does not say that Dr. Solar is a liar; it says that he lied on specific occasions and gives evidence and commentary (Public_Timeline). When Roger asked Dr. Solar to identify any untrue statements he was unable to do so (cite).
10 Q How about a racist?
11 A Yes. She's also accused me of being a racist. I
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Again, false. Dr. Burton’s husband published a picture of a poster that Dr. Solar posted outside his door. In the commentary of UniversityCorruption.com he wrote that the photo was “arguably racist.” That is not an accusation that Solar is racist. It was a condemnation of his choice of posters. His comments at a forum were called racist by someone else.
12 believe that stems to a faculty forum that was held
13 my first year here titled "Making Sense of
14 Ferguson" where I made comments that some people in
15 the audience found disturbing. Specifically, those
16 comments related to the fact that we all harbor
17 stereotypes, we all have predispositions and
18 prejudices, police officers have them, people who
19 engage with police officers have them, and that was
20 a contributing factor to what happened in Ferguson.
21 She was not at that faculty forum, but the
22 discussions that resulted from the engagement that
23 resulted she assumed meant that I was a racist.
Rebuttal:
False and unsupported. The website claims that others were concerned about the content of Dr. Solar’s speech. The site does not claim that Dr. Solar is a racist. At one point Roger Burton asked Dr. Solar if there were any factually inaccurate comments on the website and offered to correct them and issue an apology if anything was untrue or inaccurate. Dr. Solar never identified anything in the website that was untrue. (Solar-Threat) Dr. Solar is correct that Dr. Burton did not attend the forum about the Ferguson riots. That is why she cannot and did not say whether, or not, Dr. Solar’s statements were racist.
24 Q And has she told that to you publicly or has she
25 accused you in other contexts of being a racist?
110
1 I'm sorry, just limited that to you personally or
2 taken that challenge public?
3 A Well, she -- it's up on university.com. She made
4 that claim as well as another claim that I took
5 particular exception to.
Rebuttal:
Again, universitycorruption.com does not contain any statement that Dr. Solar is a racist. It contains commentary that describes a poster he put outside his office as “arguably racist.” This may seem a small distinction but the condemnation is on the message on the paper poster, and the decision to post it, but not on the person of Dr. Solar.
6 Q And then the second claim, was that related to
7 instruction that you were giving in your class?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Can you describe that?
10 A She claims that I preach to my students that -- who
11 are a year or so away from becoming police officers
12 that they should shoot people in the head, and
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton informed Dr. Strobl of a report she received from a student which indicated that Dr. Solar had said these this.
13 that's disturbing to me because, number one, she
14 was never in my class, and the content of that
15 lesson, that instruction, has to do with a policing
16 subculture and its dysfunctional elements, one of
17 which happens to be that if you as a police officer
18 have legal justification to employ deadly force,
19 the dark side of the police culture speaks to you
20 that you should do so. That is something that has
21 been with the subculture for decades. It's now
22 turning around. The intent, obviously, is to
23 inform my students of that and to be prepared to
24 meet it, face it, and defeat it. However, that
25 didn't get out.
Rebuttal:
Incorrect. Dr. Burton did not claim that Dr. Solar made this statement. She informed Dr. Strobl that a student had made this claim (StudentRept-Solar-ShootforHead). Roger Burton asked Dr. Solar to identify any errors in the website but Dr. Solar never mentioned any errors, mistakes, inaccuracies or falsehoods in the website. This seems to indicate that Dr. Solar was not able to find any. Solar misrepressented the content of the website.
111
1 Q Was that -- was that charge made publicly or just
2 to you?
3 A That was also on the university.com. She has never
4 actually confronted me in person to say these
5 things. It's all come over the internet from her
6 corruption website.
Rebuttal:
On May 11, 2016 12:08 PM Dr. Burton sent an email to Dr. Strobl concerning the student paper stating that Dr. Solar told his officers “if they are going to fire their side arm, shoot for the head.” Dr. Burton also included a picture of the arguably racist poster (StudentRept-Solar-ShootforHead), (CopBeatsUnarmedBlackMan-Solar). Dr. Burton asked Dr. Strobl to address the issue but she never did. Dr. Solar was not reprimanded. Dr. Solar was not even counseled on his choice of words in the classroom or his choice of adornment for his office. Instead, Dr. Burton received a reprimand from Chancellor Shields. This indicates that the Chancellor and Dr. Strobl believe exposing improper teaching and advocating for decency are far more problematic than what Dr. Solar did. If the matter had been handled appropriately universitycorruption.com would show that the university takes such matters seriously. As it stands, the website demonstrates that the administration has no interest in ensuring that instructors teach proper police procedures in their classrooms or in curtailing arguably racist behavior. Dr. Burton and her husband are committed to keeping the website as accurate and truthful as possible.
7 Q Can you look at that exhibit finder, and
8 specifically Exhibit C, page 40 -- lost my own
9 place -- page 42, I think.
10 A I have it, yes.
11 Q You've got it there?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Okay. And what is that?
14 A This is a copy of an e-mail exchange that I had
15 with Sabina, or at least I thought I was having
16 with Sabina, regarding the content on that
17 university.com website.
18 Q And your e-mail to her is on page 44?
19 A This is my original e-mail to her, Sabina, asking
20 her to remove me from her drama.
21 Q And how did she respond?
22 A She did not. I sent it specifically to Sabina as a
23 faculty colleague, and I got a response from her
24 husband.
25 Q And that is the e-mail that begins on page 42?
112
1 A That's correct.
2 Q And how did you react to this e-mail from her
3 husband?
4 A I asked again, very nicely, "please remove me from
5 the university.com website." I follow a procedure
6 that has served me well in the past where I ask
7 nicely, at least once, perhaps twice, and then I
8 make my expectations very firm, and if I still get
9 no response, as I did in this case, then I have to
10 act.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Solar’s procedure mandates that in the end Dr. Solar gets what he wants. He does not leave room in his “procedure” for acceptance of a negative answer but demands that he “act.” In this case, he did act. He sent his crony friend Joe Hallman, UW police chief to harass and intimidate Dr. Burton. He also is acting by testifying at this hearing as one of the “consequences of his choosing.”
11 Q And you responded to Roger Burton, did you not?
12 A I did. I responded, telling him, "Look, I was
13 appealing to a faculty colleague here, not to you,"
14 and it went downhill from there.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Solar considers a “no” answer to be a deterioration of the discussion when in fact it is simply a “no.” This is similar to the “no” answer that he gave Dr. Burton during the search and screen incident detailed earlier in his testimony. Roger Burton refused to remove the true statements from his website, which is his right. But that wasn’t enough for Dr. Solar, he had to threaten with “consequences of his choosing. Both Dr. Burton and Roger Burton took this to mean that he could act in any way manner against either of them. It was received as a threat.
15 Q It says "I would be surprised if the university
16 police -- policy allows you to access her official
17 e-mail." What did you mean by that?
18 A When I send an e-mail to a faculty colleague on the
19 university e-mail website, I expect it to go to
20 her, not to her husband.
Rebuttal:
So, why does the heading of the exhibit indicate that there was “Unauthorized use of University Email?” (Chancellor-Suspends-Burton-1-3-17 – pg 44), (Rebuttal-Throop-Gormley-complaint-12-16-16).This was a clear attempt to make it seem as though Dr. Burton had given unauthorized access to her campus email account. The administration shortly after blocked Dr. Burton’s email account.
21 Q Have you known Roger Burton before this exchange?
22 A I have.
23 Q And in what sense? Were you friends with Roger
24 Burton?
25 A Well, when I first came to campus, I was looking
113
1 for housing. Roger was a realtor, and I worked
2 with him, actually put a lot of money in his pocket
3 in buying a number of properties here in town. I
4 also took him out -- we have a university shooting
5 team, and since he was ex-military and I assumed he
6 might enjoy getting out with the students and other
7 faculty members and doing some competitive target
8 shooting, which we did on a couple of occasions.
9 Q Did his behavior at any of these other times that
10 you met with him concern you at all?
11 A Yes. His animosity toward the then department
12 chair was rather disturbing. And, of course, he
13 had nothing good to say about the former department
14 chair, Tom Caywood.
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Roger Burton never even spoke with Pat Solar about any of his wife’s issues until the exchange in the email in question. He never spoke ill of anyone to Dr. Solar. Roger did not display any animosity toward Dr. Dalecki or Dr. Caywood to Dr Solar. In fact Dr. Dalecki and Dr. Solar each drove Roger to the shooting range on two separate occasion and there was nothing but cordiality between them. Why would Roger go more than once if there was animosity? Both Dr. Solar and Dr. Dalecki tried to get intel out of Roger by asking about Sabina’s lawsuit but Roger did not talk about it except to say that Solar should get Sabina’s side of the story before making any decisions.
15 Q Did you feel that it was appropriate for Dr. -- or
16 for Mr. Burton, for Roger Burton, to respond to
17 your e-mail to his wife in this way?
18 A I thought it was completely inappropriate. As I
Rebuttal:
Solar did not identify any policy or rule or law that he felt Roger Burton or Dr. Burton violated. He didn’t identify how forwarding an email can be considered inappropriate. It seems Dr. Solar felt that Roger’s refusal to take his name off the website was inappropriate. He does not want his true actions to be displayed. It is understandable that he does not want people to know how he abused Dr. Burton. Dr. Solar’s opinion of the appropriateness of the exchange is not relevant to this matter. Roger Burton’s communication style was professional (cite).
19 mentioned, I was seeking to engage with a faculty
20 colleague. Very difficult to do in person because
21 she was never here, she was always absent, and at
Rebuttal: (Lies)
Dr. Burton met all of her obligations and was never “absent” from a required function.
22 the time she was here, she would be in her office
23 with the door closed, and so I never engaged her
Rebuttal: This conflicts with the statements of others who claim that other members of the department kept their doors closed out of fear of Dr. Burton. Dr. Burton acted normally, even though she was being severely harassed on a consistent basis.
24 personally except to say "hello" and "how are you
25 doing." But that's who I was hoping to reach, not
114
1 Roger.
Rebuttal:
But you did reach Roger and you continued the discussion with him. Somehow you seem to be implying that this was problematic. Doesn’t it make sense that the person responsible for maintaining the website would be the person to talk to about what is on or off the site?
2 Q What did you do, if anything, after receiving this
3 communication?
4 A Well, after getting -- you can, of course, see the
5 way he responded to my request -- I filed a
6 memorandum with the Human Resources Department,
7 alleging workplace harassment. And I saw the
Rebuttal: (Discovery Request – Ask for this document in discovery)
The answer to Dr. Solar’s request was no. So, because he didn’t like the answer he got he filed a complaint. How is it workplace harassment for Roger Burton to refuse to take your name off his website? It is his First Amendment right to publish what he chooses online.
8 absolute pain that Staci and everybody else in the
9 department, particularly the younger, newer members
10 of the department were going through. I mean I'm
11 happy to be referred to as one of those young, new
12 members of the department, but I have been around
13 the barn a few times, but I could see what it was
14 doing to the other folks. I mean these are --
15 these are people who -- you know, I've had two
16 careers, I've had two successful careers. These
17 folks are coming in, they're academics, they're
18 looking to be successful in this endeavor, this is
19 their life, and this is the kind of thing they walk
20 into? It was -- it was -- I've been managing
21 people, supervising and managing people since 1984.
22 I have never seen anything this bad. And so I sat
23 down and I drafted a memo outlining what I had seen
24 in the department to try and provide as specific
25 information as possible that would be actionable in
115
1 this case, and so that's what I did. I didn't file
2 an official grievance because I knew there were a
3 number of investigations ongoing, I didn't want to
4 delay this any more and cause any more pain for my
5 colleagues, so I just put it in the form of a
6 memorandum and sent it to the HR Director in the
7 hopes that it would help somehow.
Rebuttal:
We would like to get a copy of this memorandum. We have not seen it. We cannot respond to it without seeing it.
8 Q Do you have anything further that you would like to
9 offer to the committee today?
10 A This is an embarrassing situation. It's an
11 embarrassing situation for the Criminal Justice
12 Department, for the university, and I think for the
13 system as a whole with regards to tenure and tenure
14 protections, which is something that is so critical
15 and so valuable to our mission, and to have it just
16 trounced on by an individual in this way is just --
17 it's despicable.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Solar lied. He posted an arguably racist photo outside his office and he violated policy. He seems to have demonstrated poor judgment in the classroom concerning liability reduction and he has threatened Dr. Burton and Roger Burton with “consequences of his choosing.” He claims that Dr. Burton is embarrassing the university and the Criminal Justice program but it is Dr. Solar and the other witnesses and the administration who have embarrassed the university. It is they who have made a mockery of tenure protection. It is Dr. Solar who is acting despicably. It is the challenge of the hearing panel to make a fair recommendation.
18 CHAIRPERSON: Does the panel have any
19 questions?
20 (NO RESPONSE.)
21 CHAIRPERSON: Approximately when did you
22 send that memo to HR?
23 THE WITNESS: It was shortly -- I believe
24 it was shortly after Staci resigned.
25 CHAIRPERSON: Anything else?
116
1 (NO RESPONSE.)
2 CHAIRPERSON: Okay, thank you.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
4 (WITNESS EXCUSED.)
5 CHAIRPERSON: Attorney Lattis?
6 MS. LATTIS: That is all.
7 CHAIRPERSON: Has anyone received any
8 communication from Dr. Burton with regard to her
9 absence here or explanation?
Rebuttal:
Roger Burton brought a message from Dr. Burton and delivered it in person to Chancellor Shields, Attorney Lattis, Attorney Vaughan and Susan Hansen before the hearing began. The message was that Dr. Burton was too ill to attend; that she requested that the hearing be re-scheduled; that her illness was due to the stress created by the policy violations of the administration. Roger audio recorded the discussion and informed the others in the conversation that he was recording it.
10 (NO RESPONSE.)
11 CHAIRPERSON: You have not either?
12 MS. LATTIS: No, I have not. But then I
13 haven't looked either.
14 CHAIRPERSON: If you want -- would like
15 to make a brief closing, you may do so.
16 MS. LATTIS: All right. I think we've
17 been here long enough and I've talked enough.
18 But clearly you see the pain, you see the
19 dysfunction. You can recognize that this
20 department can't operate with Dr. Burton in it
21 anymore. It's gone on too far.
22 We've tried to correct it, that those
Rebuttal:
Hogwash. They tried to oppress Dr. Burton. They didn’t try to correct anything.
23 opportunities failed, or those -- those attempts
24 failed, and so we are brought to this -- this
25 difficult step that we would all choose not to be.
117
1 I remind you again that the standard of
2 just cause for termination of a tenured faculty
3 that the Board of Regents will apply, because it
4 has applied it in every other case, is that the
5 behaviors of the faculty member have impaired the
6 efficiency of the operation of the workplace. I
Rebuttal:
This is not the standard for just cause. See comments on page 14 above and (JustCause-Standards).
Attorney Lattis seems to blame the Board of Regents for her misrepresentation of the standard of just cause. Has Attorney Lattis advised the Board of Regents that this is the standard of just cause to fire a tenured faculty member? Did they believe her? Has the Board of Regents fired tenured faculty members using this standard of just cause, as Attorney Lattis alleges? Did they do so because of Attorney Lattis’ misrepresentation of the standard? Should there be an investigation to determine if other tenured faculty members have been unfairly fired due to misapplication of the standard of just cause? Discovery question for Lattis: “Please provide the names, contact info and description of issues for all the tenured faculty members to whom the Board of Regents applied Lattis’ stated standard of just cause. Also, please provide evidence that Lattis’ stated standard was applied in those cases.” If she can’t provide any we have her in a lie to the appeal panel. If she does provide some we have evidence that someone misapplied the standard in past appeals. That someone won’t want to be exposed. I seriously doubt she will be able to prove her statement to be true.
7 think there's no question but that that standard
8 has met, and I ask that you consider this matter as
9 -- with all due diligence and return a
10 recommendation of termination of Dr. Burton.
11 CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
12 I would ask whether you would allow
13 Dr. Burton's documents to be included in the
14 record?
15 MS. LATTIS: Yes.
16 CHAIRPERSON: And you have not received
17 any other -- Administration has not received any
18 other documents to add to what has been submitted
19 by Dr. Burton?
Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton submitted a link to the appropriate portion of the website. There are thousands of pages of evidence and discussion on the website. The way they ask this question seems to indicate that they only have a few emails. We need to ensure that they will use the whole website to deliberate.
20 MS. LATTIS: No.
21 CHAIRPERSON: Okay. Does anyone have
22 anything else?
23 (NO RESPONSE.)
24 CHAIRPERSON: If there is no further
25 presentation of questions, I declare this portion
118
1 of the appeal to be closed.
2 The panel will provide its report,
3 written findings and recommendations, along with a
4 verbatim record of the testimony, to the Chancellor
5 and the appellant pursuant to UWS .4.
6 Thank you for your attention and
7 participation in this process.
8 I will now entertain a motion to move
9 into a closed session for deliberations.
10 MR. MASOOM: So move.
11 CHAIRPERSON: So moved by --
12 MR. MASOOM: Okay.
13 CHAIRPERSON: -- Dr. Masoom?
14 MR. MASOOM: Masoom.
15 CHAIRPERSON: And seconded by Bockhop.
16 All those in favor, say aye.
17 THE PANEL: Aye.
18 CHAIRPERSON: Motion carries.
19 We excuse everyone.
20 ******************
21
22
23
24
25
119
1 STATE OF WISCONSIN )
) SS. CERTIFICATE
2 COUNTY OF LA CROSSE )
3
4 I, Beverly A. Rojas, Registered Professional
5 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State
6 of Wisconsin, do hereby certify that I have
7 carefully compared the foregoing pages with my
8 stenographic notes, and that the same is a true
9 and correct transcript;
10 I further certify that I am not a relative
11 or employee or attorney or counsel of any of
12 the parties, or a relative or employee of such
13 attorney or counsel, or financially interested
14 in said action.
15 Dated at La Crosse, Wisconsin, on this ____
16 day of ___________, 2017.
17
18 ________________________________
19 Beverly A. Rojas
Registered Professional Reporter
20 Notary Public
21 My commission expires July 10, 2020.
22
23
24
25
