Rebuttal to Chancellor Shields’ Letter of Direction
(Shields-LOD-6-3-16), (Shields-LOD-6-3-16-Attachments)
Related rebuttals located here: (Appeals-Schedule).
Chancellor Shields seems to have misinterpreted the OCR July 28, 2003 “Dear Colleague Letter” which states: “ No OCR regulation should be interpreted to impinge upon rights protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or to require recipients to enact or enforce codes that punish the exercise of such rights. There is no conflict between the civil rights laws that this Office enforces and the civil liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. With these principles in mind, we can, consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment, ensure a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for students that is conducive to learning and protects both the constitutional and civil rights of all students.”
Chancellor Shields’ LOD is void for Vagueness:
Davis v. Williams, 617 F. 2d 1100 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1980 - “Municipal employees must not be discharged pursuant to a scheme that stifles the exercise of fundamental personal liberty. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976). The vice in the ordinance is that it is overbroad in reaching first-amendment-protected conduct, and vague in its definition of what kind of expressive conduct is or is not prohibited.”
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 96 S.Ct. 2673, 49 L.Ed.2d 547 (1976). - “"[A] State may not choose means that unnecessarily restrict constitutionally protected liberty. `Precision of regulation must be the touchstone in an area so closely touching our most precious freedoms.' If the State has open to it a less drastic way of satisfying its legitimate interests, it may not choose a legislative scheme that broadly stifles the exercise of fundamental personal liberties." Kusper v. Pontikes, supra, at 59 (citations omitted). See United States v. Robel, 389 U. S. 258 (1967); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479 (1960). In short, if conditioning the retention of public employment on the employee's support of the in-party is to survive constitutional challenge, it must further some vital government end by a means that is least restrictive of freedom of belief and association in achieving that end, and the benefit gained must outweigh the loss of constitutionally protected rights.[17]”
Public Employee Discharge and Discipline
This book has some good stuff in it but it is only partial unless you buy it. Good info on vagueness.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is Dr. Burton’s letter to Chancellor Shields
which was never sent to anyone:
Attachments (570a
- Letter of Direction Oct 28 2014), (Rebuttal-Throop-LOD)
9/5/2016
Dear Chancellor Shields,
This is my response to the Letter of Direction (LOD)
dated June 3, 2016, that I received in the mail on June 6, 2016 from Chancellor
Shields.
Chancellor Shields’ LOD is based on Dean Throop’s LOD
from Oct. 28, 2014. Here is Throop’s LOD
(Throop-LOD-Rebuttal)
and Dr. Burton’s rebuttal to it.
Because Throop’s LOD is based on fabrications and bogus charges
Chancellor Shields’ LOD is void for lack of substance.
I repeatedly asked for a grievance hearing to address
the issues of Throop’s LOD but the UW-Platteville administration blocked my
hearing without cause and without good reason for the indefinite delays. For almost a year I was promised a hearing
but it was never even scheduled. Policy
entitles me to a hearing within 20 days.
Now Chancellor Shields is investigating me for trumped up charges by Deb
Rice. I deserve a fair, open grievance
hearing against Dean Throop before Chancellor Shields investigates any new
allegations against me that deal with any of the issues of Dean Throop’s letter
of direction. Dr. Caywood stated in his sworn declaration that he “was more
comfortable putting the cart before the horse” as explanation for his
retaliation against me. Chancellor
Shields has put the cart before the horse by writing this letter of direction
and issuing an investigation against me as both concern matters of Dean
Throop’s letter of direction which still has not been addressed by a grievance
committee. It seems that Chancellor
Shields, like Dr. Caywood, wants to “put the cart before the horse.”
I asked for a grievance hearing to address Dean
Throop’s LOD again in May 2016. I had obtained evidence from a sworn deposition
from Nov. 2015 that showed even more clearly the absurdity of Dean Throop’s
allegations against me. I was again denied a grievance hearing concerning Dean
Throop’s LOD for invalid reasoning based on vaguely written grievance hearing
procedures that were written on false authority, violate Wisconsin Open
Meetings Law and were never discussed, commented on or approved by the Faculty
Senate or faculty body. Shortly after I
made my grievance request the CJ chair Dr. Strobl, without giving me a reason
why, removed me from a COPS project.
There has been a gag order on me since I assisted a student in reporting
a sexual harassment incident by a UW-Platteville faculty member. Chancellor Shields has ignored my questions
and unfairly denied my requests for relief from severe retaliation. Dean Throop has actively avoided answering my
questions, Dr. Dalecki threatened a student for talking to me and then-Provost
Den Herder told a union representative not to talk to me (Dalecki
threatens grad student).
In my Rebuttal of Chancellor Shields’ LOD below I ask
several questions that I would very much like to have answered.
My
line by line rebuttal to Chancellor Shields’ LOD: Chancellor
Shields’ LOD is in italics, his quotes of my emails are in underlined
italics and my rebuttal to his LOD is in standard
font.
I
am writing this Letter of Direction because I have received reports that you
have engaged in unprofessional and concerning interactions with your campus
colleagues.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
From whom did Chancellor Shields receive these reports? Why did he not
mention the name of the person who reported that I acted unprofessionally? Did CJ department chair Dr. Strobl report
that I acted unprofessionally? Can Chancellor Shields produce evidence of this? If so, why did Dr. Stroble
not explain that to me when I asked for her reasons for her discriminatory
actions against me? Dean Throop excluded
me from consideration for department chair because I “wasn’t solving problems
at the local level” referring to my complaints about Dr. Caywood’s retaliation
against me for helping a student victim of sexual harassment. So why is Dr. Strobl not handling the
Chancellor’s concerns at a local level but instead the Chancellor of the entire
university is acting on them? Why did
Chancellor Shields write the LOD instead of Dr. Strobl? Will the Chancellor and Dean/Provost Throop
now remove Dr. Strobl for her inability to solve problems at the local level as
Dean Throop and Provost Den Herder removed Dr. Caywood? I am the victim, retaliation is the problem
and I am attempting to solve my problem and to protect future victims.
Dean Throop wrote of Dr. Caywood “I was very hopeful
that [Dr. Caywood] would have been willing to acquire the management skills
necessary to allow the [Criminal Justice] department to run at a minimally
acceptable level.” (Dean Throop’s Notes produced in Discovery in 2015) Dean Throop did not have a very high
aspiration for quality in the CJ department and now she has been promoted to
Provost. Did Chancellor Shields promote
her because of her amazing ability to intimidate faculty into sheep like
compliance?
Chancellor Shields seems to classify my requests for
grievance hearings as interactions with my campus colleagues. But how is asking Mr. Fairchild, chair of the
grievance committee, for a grievance hearing an “interaction with my
colleagues?” UW-Platteville HR Director Dr. Crowley agreed with me that I had
the right to a grievance hearing against Ms. Rice, even according the seriously
flawed and discriminatory grievance hearing procedures that were published on
false authority a few days after I filed my grievance against Dean Throop. But Mr. Fairchild denied me a grievance
hearing, probably because Chancellor Shields made it clear that I am not to
receive any grievance hearings. There
is no valid reason why I cannot be given fair, open grievance hearing within 20
days of my asking for them.
Chancellor Shields seems to classify an email I sent
to my department chair as an interaction with my colleagues. But according to Vocabulary.com a person’s
boss is not usually considered to be a colleague. I expressed concerns to my chair. I asked for
an explanation for an action that directly affected me. How is that
unprofessional? Chancellor Shields
attached emails as “evidence” in which I apologized for having been stressed
and ill. It appears to me that Chancellor Shields is admonishing me in an
attempt to intimidate and harass me into silence.
Dean Throop and Provost Den Herder failed to conduct
the department communication training that Chancellor Shields mandated in July
2013. Dr. Caywood failed to conduct the
department communication training that was ordered by then Dean Den Herder in
spring 2010. Chancellor Shields now
holds me to standards of communication that have never been disseminated to the
department as he and his administration ordered. English is my second language. The Chancellor has not issued a similar
letter of direction to anyone else in my department that I know of. This seems to be very disparate
treatment. Deb Rice has made complaints
against me but has the Chancellor issued a letter of direction to Deb
Rice? Why does Chancellor Shields
consider my emails and complaints to be “unprofessional and concerning
interactions with [my] campus colleagues” but he does not consider Deb Rice’s
complaints against me to be the same?
That seems to be disparate treatment.
Specifically, you have sent the attached
email some of which I view as uncollegial and inappropriate at our campus.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
What standard of decorum does the Chancellor cite as basis for
determining that my email(s) were uncollegial and inappropriate? Do these same standards apply to Deb Rice,
Dean Throop, Dr. Dalecki and Provost Den Herder? If so, why did the Chancellor not issue Rice
a LOD after Rice called me “mentally ill,” or words to that effect, and falsely
reported to Dean Throop that I had cancelled class? Dean Throop called me “labile” in a high
level meeting to explain why I was not eligible for department chair, according
to John Lohmann, Interim HR Director but Chancellor Shields did not admonish
her but promoted her to Provost. Then
Provost Den Herder said in a public place, and was heard by a grad student,
that I was “alone on a sinking ship,” or words to that effect but Chancellor
Shields did not admonish her for saying uncollegial or inappropriate things to
a student. Dr. Dalecki threatened a grad
student for talking to me, according to a sworn testimony by that grad student
but Chancellor Shields did not write Dalecki an LOD (Dalecki
threatens grad student). Why has
Chancellor Shields not disciplined these others? Why only me?
Why am I the brunt of his double standard? Is it because I helped a student with a
sexual harassment complaint and later complained of the severe retaliation I
suffered for it? Why am I held to
vague, changing and hidden standards of communication but Throop, Den Herder,
Dalecki and Rice are not?
Chancellor Shields is not very specific in the
sentence he begins with the word “specifically.” I have noticed a tendency of his
administration to falsely accuse me of vague violations of non-rules that
require no proof or evidence to affect me greatly while silencing my valid
allegations of blatant policy and law violations by agents responsible to
Chancellor Shields. Specifically, what
statement(s) does Chancellor Shields find to be “uncollegial and inappropriate”
in the emails I wrote? It is difficult
for me to explain why he is wrong without knowing the answer to this
question.
I
note that these are behaviors that Dr. Elizabeth Throop, Dean of the College of
Liberal Arts and Education, directed you to cease in a Letter of Direction
dated October 28, 2014.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal: By
bringing Dean Throop’s LOD into the discussion Chancellor Shields validates my
desire to have the false allegations in Throop’s LOD addressed. Chancellor Shields refused to allow me to
address Throop’s LOD in a fair and open grievance hearing yet he investigated
her UWS 6.01 complaint against me, which she filed after I filed my
request for a grievance hearing to address her LOD. Chancellor Shields pushed forward with haste
the investigation against me but failed to act on the investigation results for
almost a year. I was never given a copy
of the investigation results. When he
did finally close the investigation he vaguely claimed that the allegations
against me had merit without specifying what had merit and made it seem as
though he was doing me a favor by closing the investigation without
disciplining me for doing nothing wrong.
After almost an entire year has passed Chancellor Shields put together
what appears to be a hastily written response to the 6.01 Complaint
investigation that he mailed to me on Aug. 31, 2016 and only after I pointed
out to the UW-Regents that he had failed to produce a report or act on the
results of the investigation.
Some
of the statements in your email that I find concerning include:
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal: By
stating that “some of the statements” concern him Chancellor Shields implies
that he believes there to be more statements besides the few he highlighted
that are “concerning.” It is difficult
for me to explain why his vague implication is wrong without more
specifics. He also does not explain why
he considers my statements to be “concerning.”
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
This statement is taken from an email I sent to my boss, the CJ chair
Dr. Strobl, and to no one else. Deb Rice falsely stated publicly and behind my
back in front of colleagues and to at least one student that I have a mental
Illness, that I am prejudiced against East Germans and that I would not be
around much longer (fired), or words to that effect. That is prima facie defamation. Wisconsin
lists defamation as a misdemeanor offense. Deb Rice is a lecturer and an “at
will” employee in the criminal justice department. She shouldn’t be able to make
such defamatory statements about a tenured faculty member in front of the
interim CJ chair, the Provost, a student and others. Former HR Director John
Lohmann investigated the incident, confirmed that Rice made the defamatory
remarks and asked her to apologize to which she replied “hell no.” (Lohmann
deposition Nov. 2015). Apparently Rice
feels that defamation is protected by the First Amendment right to free
speech.
Dean Throop revealed under oath in her deposition of
Oct. 28 2015 that Rice falsely accused me of cancelling class on Dec. 12, 2014.
Rice’s defamation resulted in Throop issuing a threat of discipline and an
official UWS 6.01 complaint against me even though I had conducted my classes
and Throop knew Rice had previously defamed me.
Rice has not been reprimanded for her defamatory, damaging and false
statements against me nor has she apologized to me. She grimaces at me and acts
defiantly towards me. I wrote in an email to my chair, Dr. Strobl and no one
else, that Rice is a nasty person based on her illegal activities and the way
she has treated me even though I did nothing to her. I believe she benefitted financially while
Dr. Dalecki was interim chair because she helped Dr. Dalecki in his campaign
against me. Dalecki moved her into a full academic teaching position without requiring
her to go through the standard search & screen vetting process. In summer
2014 Rice, who was hired for undergraduate advising, received an academic staff
position that just weeks prior was nationally advertised without having to
officially apply or interview for the position. I have a right to express my valid concerns
about Rice to my chair. My chair is not
my colleague, but my boss. I have
avoided working with Rice wherever I can and I wanted Dr. Strobl to know that I
don’t want to work with Rice so she would not assign me to work side by side
with her thereby creating further problems.
Dr. Dalecki admitted, under oath, that he wrongly
informed Dean Throop that I had cancelled class. He was cc’d on Throop’s accusatory email
that promised me discipline so he was an involved party. Chancellor Shields’ decision regarding the
matter exposes his knowledge that Dalecki was involved in the conspiracy to
frame me for cancelling class.
Dalecki further stated under oath that, during Chancellor Shields’
investigation into Dean Throop’s UWS 6.01 complaint against me, nobody
contacted him about the matter of the cancelled class. Sworn testimony links
Throop, Dalecki and Rice to the false accusation that I cancelled class. How much more evidence does one need to
conclude that there was a conspiracy to do me harm? How much more evidence is needed to justify
the stated opinion to my boss that Deb Rice is a nasty person? She lied to get me fired. That is a nasty thing to do.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
guarantees freedom of speech to its citizens, with a few exceptions such as yelling
“fire” in a crowded theater and defamation.
I do not believe my statement above falls under any exceptions to my
guaranteed right to freedom of speech.
This is one of the most basic rights of all Americans. I am an American citizen. Chancellor Shields does not cite any law,
policy or best practice guidance that trumps the First Amendment or that
specifically restricts my right to make such a statement.
Chancellor Shields threatened to discipline me for
reporting a crime, filing a lawsuit for a crime or sharing my story of
injustice with the public. That
doesn’t sound like America, that sounds like something that might happen in
North Korea.
I have waited a long time for Chancellor Shields and
his agents to do the right things but they choose time and time and time again
to do the wrong things. I have shown
great restraint in this matter, in fact I waited to request a grievance hearing
against Rice until the end of the spring semester so as not to interfere with
teaching business. When issues are
not properly addressed often the right thing is to escalate them.
I have the right, even an obligation, to take this to
the public. Chancellor Shields is
trying to silence me to keep his shadowy agenda hidden.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal: My
grievance requests have been delayed for months without good reason. I am held to “Rules” that are not properly
cited or authorized. The new Grievance
Hearing Procedures were contrived to thwart my attempts to gain fair hearing,
were based on false authorizations and contradict the Wisconsin Open Meetings
Law. The 300 day window is an example
of a limitation on filing grievances that did not exist before this bogus new
Grievance Hearing Procedure was contrived.
I was held to this bogus new “rule” but the university did not comply
with the requirement to give me a hearing within 20 days after I requested it.
They delayed my hearings well past 300 days and now they say I can’t have it
because it is past the bogus 300 day limit.
That’s not fair in anybody’s book.
UWS 6.02 says that “the faculty of each institution
shall designate a committee or other appropriate faculty body to hear faculty
grievances under rules and procedures established by the faculty of the
institution in conjunction with the chancellor.” I reviewed the Faculty Senate
minutes and there were no discussions or votes on a 300 day window. The faculty
did not establish the new bogus Grievance Hearing Procedures but Dr.
Balachandran did. Shortly after I called
out Dr. Balachandran for these new procedures he retired. I am being held to
rules and procedures that should be written by the entire faculty but were
written by one man who is not even accountable to the procedures. Dr. Balachandran is not the faculty of UW
Platteville. Neither the Faculty Senate,
nor the faculty as a whole has ever discussed, debated, considered, voted on or
approved the bogus grievance hearing procedures that were used as reason to
deny my fair, open grievance hearing.
Chancellor Shields is admonishing me for asking to
have my legitimate complaints heard before a fair, open grievance committee.
Dean
Throop has a lot to hide and I have a lot to expose.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal: If
then-Dean Throop acted correctly then a fair grievance hearing shouldn’t be a
problem for her. Aren’t all citizens of
the U.S. entitled to Due Process? Isn’t
UW-Platteville a public institution? Even our worst criminals have rights and
are granted hearings and appeals. Chancellor Shields has taken my rights
away. He has enabled, encouraged and
participated in disciplinary actions against me without granting me an
opportunity to defend myself as provided by university policy and law.
Chancellor Shields deprived me of my right to present my evidence and confront
my accuser. He deprived me of the right
to fair hearing. He allows accusations
against me on shaky or no evidence; he is looking for that one sliver of
evidence of wrongdoing that he can embellish to justify his retaliation against
me.
Chancellor Shields just promoted Dean Throop to
provost despite her being named a defendant in 2 Civil Rights lawsuits and also
being named in a third ERD complaint. Throop agreed under oath that she owed me
an apology for her false accusation that I cancelled class but instead she
issued a bogus UWS 6.01 complaint against me less than three weeks later. Chancellor Shields investigated Dean
Throop’s 6.01 Complaint against me and produced a report in Oct. 2015. I was not given a copy of the report. Instead of acting on the report and issuing
discipline against me, as Throop requested, Chancellor Shields sat on it for
almost a year. The reason for his inaction is that the report made clear that
Throop was the problem employee and not me.
But Chancellor Shields promoted her to Provost. I am convinced that if Chancellor Shields
had found incriminating evidence against me he would have imposed swift and
severe punishment against me.
Chancellor Shields’ agents have kept close tabs on my
communications. Emails that establish protected activities or proof thereof
have been routinely deleted from my account. Fortunately, I saved them all.
In Chancellor Shields’ letter to me of 8/31/16 he
erroneously wrote “This letter is my
resolution regarding the Chapter 6 complaint filed against you by then-Dean
Elizabeth Throop on October 28, 2014.” But her Chapter 6 complaint was
filed on Jan 5, 2015 and her Letter of Direction against me was dated Oct 28,
2014. I believe Chancellor Shields
mixed up the dates purposely to make it seem as though Throop’s complaint was
filed BEFORE she falsely accused me of cancelling class on Tuesday, December
16, 2014 4:51 PM. This is another
“glitch in the process,” “administrative oversight,” or “office error” that he
used to cloud the issue just as he attempted to do by omitting the date on his
letter of 8/31/16, as I explain in my response to that letter. Anyone with a calendar can see that Dean
Throop filed the Chapter 6 complaint against me just 20 days AFTER she falsely
accused me of cancelling class. Instead
of apologizing for her false accusation she filed a complaint against me. I want to ensure this is clear in the
record.
Who
are you protecting?
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
This is a question I asked Mr. Fairchild after he unfairly denied my
request for grievance hearings for invalid reason. Why does Chancellor Shields admonish me and
threaten discipline for asking Mr. Fairchild who he is protecting? Is it because Fairchild is protecting
Shields? I believe we need an
investigation by an independent, uninterested third party to determine the
answers to these and other important questions.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal: I
didn’t make this statement lightly. Withholding grievance hearings, changing
grievance hearing findings, reprimanding me for protected activities, defaming
me, taking my responsibilities away, threatening me with physical violence and
giving me undeserved low performance scores while someone I am suing sits on my
evaluation board are a few of the adverse employment actions perpetrated
against me that were intended to make me leave and remain quiet. I have spoken to several other people who
have experienced similar constructive termination efforts all of whom have left
the university because of it. Dr. Eugene Alcalay, who
was a full professor in the Music Department under Dean Throop, is one of the
more recent victims of constructive termination. She wrote him a letter of direction and had
to withdraw it. She later falsely stated
in her deposition that she withdrew it as a condition of the memorandum of
understanding. So, it appears that
Throop committed perjury to cover up the fact that she was wrong to issue the
letter of direction in the first place.
Likewise, Throop and other agents of the Chancellor have denied my
access to fair, open and timely due process to hide the fact that Throop should
not have issued me the letter of direction in the first place.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
This statement was directed at the grievance committee chair Mr.
Fairchild after he denied my grievance hearing request. Chancellor Shields admonished me for exercising my right to due
process.
Provost Den Herder called AFT campus representative
Dr. Ray Spoto and told him not to communicate with me on this matter. HR Director Crowley stated in her May 9, 2016
meeting with me that I had a right to a grievance hearing against Deb Rice. Yet
again, I was denied my rights.
I filed a federal complaint on June 20, 2016 with the
Dept. of Education, OCR.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal: In
this passage I asked HR Director Crowley for help after Dr. Dalecki formed a
pistol with his fingers and pretended to shot me. Dalecki didn’t do this in a
joking manner and I understood it to be a threat of physical harm. I shared
this with Dr. Strobl. This was not the first time Dr. Dalecki threatened me in
this way and I included it in my sworn declaration to federal court on Dec. 1,
2015. Dr. Dalecki also threatened a graduate student who shared Rice’s
defamation with me in late 2014. The student recorded the threatening words and
the audio recording is on file with the Federal District Court. You can hear
the threatening conversation that Dalecki refers to as “mentoring” (Dalecki
threatens grad student).
Although Director Crowley promised me an investigation
into the threats on May 9, 2016 no investigation seems to have been conducted,
Dr. Dalecki has not been reprimanded or warned against such actions but instead
Chancellor Shields wrote me a LOD warning me not to complain about threats of
physical violence. Again, he blames me,
the victim, and protects the abuser. The harassment, intimidation, threats, and
abuse I suffered in fall 2014 led to very serious health problems that required
three surgical procedures and a prolonged sick leave in early 2015. Chancellor Shields shows no concern for my
situation. He threatens me with
discipline for trying to address the abuse I have suffered and continue to
suffer. I was wronged. Chancellor Shields didn’t discipline Dr.
Dalecki for intimidating and threatening the student or me instead Dalecki was
given another prestigious assignment.
Dean Throop attempted to influence Dr. Stackman’s
testimony shortly before her deposition.
Is this the kind of person who should be promoted to Provost?
The
Ethnicity department reported him [Dr. Solar] for his racially offensive
statements in class. Dr. Solar also excluded me from writing a job description
for three new faculty members in violation of policy and in violation of Dr. Dalecki’s
instructions and then he lied about it.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
These are true statements that I made in an email to CJ chair Dr.
Strobl. I have proof for my allegation against Solar that he excluded me and
lied. Dean Throop chose not to investigate my claims against Solar. Chancellor Shields admonishes me for making
true and accurate statements while he and his agents do nothing to correct Dr.
Solar’s dishonesty, policy violation and racially offensive statements.
I was shocked to read, in a student paper, that Dr.
Solar, a former police chief of a small police department with about 5 full
time officers, used to advise his officers to shoot at civilians’ heads in
order to avoid liability. I do not believe that we should allow our instructors
to train our students to execute people!
I also made reference to a picture that Dr. Solar posted outside his
office in response to the Ferguson and Madison shootings. This picture and
Solar’s statements offended many people on campus. I believe it was my right
and obligation as a senior faculty member to point out to my chair what I
believe to be a problem and not conducive to improving police-community
relations especially in minority communities.
I am open to debating my opinions if Chancellor Shields or Dr. Strobl
disagree with my opinion but admonishing me for informing my chair of facts and
drawing the conclusion that Dr. Solar is not the right person to be teaching
our future police officers is harassment.
I was entirely professional in my communications. Why did this admonishment come from the
Chancellor and not from the Chair?
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
This is taken from an email I sent to Dr. Strobl after she ignored my
previous email. At that time I had already invested time and effort into the
grant project and was shocked that she took me off so quickly for no reason. I
am still in recovery from deep gastric ulcers and the recent veiled threats I
had received from Dr. Dalecki and the continuous hostile treatment I have
received from Ms. Rice took a toll on me psychologically and physically. I
shared this in my email to Dr. Strobl. I was surprised that Dr. Strobl took me
off the project and replaced me with an elderly, retired police chief who is an
adjunct lecturer with no stable employment at UW-Platteville or research background.
The other main PI is the probationary faculty member Dr. Patrick Solar, who is
several years junior to me. Dr. Strobl failed to properly identify Mr. David
Couper as adjunct lecturer in the COPS grant application. Instead she referred
to him as professor, a title he has not earned. This is misrepresentation. She
also misrepresented two other lecturers as professors in the grant application
therefore embellishing the qualification of the people listed in the
application. On the other hand she listed me and my professional background in
the grant application as a resource despite having taken me off just 2 weeks
prior. I addressed Dr. Strobl directly and informed her of my concern. She
chose not to respond to me but it does appear she shared my emails with
Chancellor Shields. If I indeed was
mistaken in my assessment Dr. Strobl could have easily put my concern at ease
by communicating with me but she chose to obey the gag-order on me instead. Any
misrepresentation on a federal grant application is potentially a serious
problem that could cost the university grant opportunities for many years to
come.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields’ concern about my statement is misplaced. Jenna
Grandy is a personal friend of Dr. Strobl. She is not and has never been a CJ
student nor does she have a background in criminal justice. We have almost 900
students in the Criminal Justice program at UW-Platteville; Dr. Strobl could
have paid one of our students to do this work and gain experience in CJ grant
writing. I believe my question was justified but Dr. Strobl chose to ignore it.
I was and am concerned that our CJ chair is practicing cronyism, which is a
violation of the terms of the grant and something that has plagued our CJ
department under the leadership of Dr. Caywood and Dr. Dalecki. I had offered
my help on the grant proposal and Dr. Strobl rejected it. Why is a student from
another field more qualified to work on the COPS grant application than an associate
professor in CJ with a doctoral degree from one of the most prestigious
programs in the U.S.? Why wouldn’t Dr. Strobl at least make the CJ funds
available to a CJ student instead of a Business student? I asked Dr. Strobl these questions to give her
a chance to explain. I didn’t intend to take this outside of the department but
merely requested a response from Dr. Strobl. Instead of responding to me Dr.
Strobl seems to have forwarded the email to Chancellor Shields. Did she do this because he and/or Dean
Throop pressured her to take me off the grant?
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
This request to Dr. Strobl is appropriate as it follows the guidelines
outlined for the COPS grant. Dr. Strobl listed me in the grant application and
made it appear as if I would be working on the project if UW-P would be the
recipient of the grant. Yet just days prior to submitting the application
Strobl notified me that she took me of the project. Chancellor Shields included the email message
in which she took me off the project in his LOD attachments. Dr. Strobl did not
include me as a recipient of funds from the grant but just as a worker. She promised COPS that I would work on the
project without pay. Why am I expected
to work on a project that I was taken off of and not paid for? This is an adverse employment action as I
would miss out on being paid.
The COPS application requires that they must not fund
institutions that are currently under Civil Rights investigation. I had a Civil
Rights claim pending in federal court after having been subjected to
retaliation for helping a student report a sexual harassment incident by a male
professor. At the time of the grant application Florence Omachonu
had a federal lawsuit in court against Chancellor Shields and Dean Throop for
racial discrimination. Chancellor Shields reprimanded me for asking Dr. Strobl
to properly report those things to COPS. Dr. Strobl appears to be in violation
of the requirements not me. I was just
pointing out the oversights and asking her to correct them. If she felt that she was not in violation of
that rule why didn’t she just respond to me with her thoughts? I’m a reasonable person.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
None of the statements above were sent to my colleagues in the CJ
department so they cannot be examples of any type of communication with
colleagues. Neither are they unprofessional emails as I explained above. However, it is possible that they may be
perceived as threatening by someone concerned about covering up violations.
Whistleblower activity is often called all manner of terrible things by those
on whom the whistle is blown.
You
should not be accusing colleagues of criminal or illegal behavior, engaging in
name calling, attempting to foment dissention among colleagues, threatening
colleagues with lawsuits, or insinuating that death threats have been made.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal: Chancellor Shields seems to be ordering me not
to report criminal behavior even if one of my colleagues did commit a
crime. Threatening me with violence is
an assault. Calling me a person who has a mental illness, falsely stating that
I canceled class when I clearly didn’t are defamatory acts which are damaging
and illegal. Chancellor Shields is ordering me to just shut up and take the
abuse.
Such
behavior is not only unprofessional, it is also harassing.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal: It
is not unprofessional to speak the truth and to inform my chair why I don’t
want to work closely with Deb Rice. I
didn’t harass Rice, I exposed her defamation with sworn testimony. Chancellor Shields’ letter of direction is
harassment.
I
am directing you to cease using University resources to harass, intimidate or
threaten your co-workers and supervisors.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields’ direction is misplaced, discriminatory and based on
lies.
It amazes me how the UW-Platteville administration
holds a mirror to the power-differential and accuses lower level employees of
bullying their supervisors who decide over their appointments, schedules, pay
etc. Dr. Strobl took me off the
project not the other way around. Dr. Strobl refuses to respond to my questions,
not the other way around. Dr. Strobl hired a personal friend over me, not the
other way around. Asking for answers and pointing out violations are not
harassment. Dr. Dalecki threatened me, not the other way around.
Chancellor Shields’ LOD implies that he will
discipline me if I report criminal or unethical activity by one of his agents.
Gandhi said that “silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out
the whole truth & acting accordingly.”
UW-Platteville has a sexual harassment problem. UW-Platteville has a problem with employees
and administrators routinely violating laws and policies. UW-Platteville needs a watchdog. The Chancellor and his administration have
engaged in unfair and illegal practices in order to keep me and others quiet so
he can continue to pretend there aren’t any problems with sexual harassment and
disparate treatment. I am exposing disparate treatment, cover ups and
retaliation. The Chancellor may consider my efforts to let in the sunshine to
be threatening but that is because he has much to hide. The fact is that I am the one who is being
harassed.
Lecturer Rice defamed me. Chancellor Shields knows
that but he ignored her violation because she has hurt me. For her acts against me she has found his
favor. His willingness to protect Rice
for her criminal action indicates that she acted on his behalf to foster a
hostile work environment that would force me to leave UW-Platteville.
In
addition, I am asking Human Resources Director Janelle Crowley to serve as the point
person at UW-Platteville to receive your complaints. Until further notice, you should direct all
informal complaints about colleagues or University administration to Dr.
Crowley.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal: HR
Director Crowley has already received my complaints and she told me that she
will not get involved with my grievance requests. When I first met with her she said that I
certainly was due a grievance hearing but then after talking to Dean Throop she
slammed the door in my face. Chancellor
Shields is telling me that my only available relief from retaliation is to
complain to someone who refuses to hear my complaints. Somehow that doesn’t seem fair.
This
direction relates only to informal complaints and communications and in no way
infringes upon your rights to submit complaints or grievances as provided by
the Wisconsin Administrative Code and university policy.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields admonishes me for having filed legitimate complaints,
threatens me with discipline if I perform a protected activity and assures me
that he is not infringing my rights? It
is an infringement of my rights to threaten me for exercising my rights. Saying it’s not is just ridiculous.
Chancellor Shields’ LOD is discriminatory and
retaliatory and does infringe on my rights. A grievant shouldn’t have to fear
discipline for filing a grievance. A grievant should be heard, not
silenced.
Chancellor Shields’ LOD and his actions indicate that
he has no intention of observing my rights as provided by the Wisconsin
Administrative Code and university policy.
Please
note that violation of these direction may result in disciplinary actions. If you have any questions regarding this
letter please contact my office and arrange an appointment through my assistant
Joyce Burkholder.
Dr.
Burton’s Rebuttal:
Chancellor Shields ignored me when I requested a meeting with him on
August 9, 2013 to address my concerns at the time. He could have easily corrected the problems
then. I no longer have faith in
Chancellor Shields to treat me fairly but rather I expect that he will attempt
to intimidate and harass me. Ever since I assisted a student in reporting a
sexual harassment incident by a CJ faculty member I have been exposed to
intimidation, ridicule, hostility and threats.
Chancellor Shields has ignored my pleas for help. He has denied my requests for investigations.
He has ensured that gag orders and unfair directives that violate my due process
rights have been kept in place.
I have chosen to stay at UW-Platteville despite the
harassment I still suffer. I care about my students and I want to do what is
right. Running from Chancellor Shields’
abuse will allow him to continue to choke out quality teachers and elevate
corruption.
In my opinion society cannot survive if Chancellor
Shields’ style of leadership is allowed to continue unopposed. I studied under Dr. Henry Pontell
and Dr. Gil Geis, nationally recognized experts on white collar crime and I
inherited their passion for fighting corruption. I carefully studied how Hitler
came to and stayed in power as I had family members who were victimized by the
Nazis. My parents drilled into me that we must oppose corruption even in the
face of death. I see corruption at
UW-Platteville and I won’t bow to it because I know what it can lead to. I want our students to learn to stand up and
fight for justice. Hitler wasn’t defeated by cowards. Corruption is disguised
as loyalty and it grows on cowardice and greed.
Teaching is my calling, justice for all is my
passion. I won’t let Chancellor Shields
destroy that fire in me. I believe I am doing the right thing. I ask the people
cc’d in this email to evaluate my claims in a fair and unbiased manner and take
whatever steps they feel are in the best interest of society.
Chancellor Shields’ Letter of Direction is an attempt
to intimidate, and silence me. I hope to bring acclaim to UW Platteville as a
pillar of transparency and accountability.
I want to help the school thrive as a fair and just place for all.
Respectfully,
Dr. Sabina Burton