Rebuttal to the Statement of Charges 3-30-17

Rebuttal to other charges at (Appeals-Schedule)

Below is Chancellor Shields statement of charges (sburtonstatementofcharges3-30-17) in italics, with Dr. Burton’s rebuttal in standard font with bold “Rebuttal” header:

March 30, 2017

Dr. Sabina Burton

5768 Maple Glen Lane

Platteville, WI 53818

Re: Charges for Dismissal

Dear Dr. Burton:

On December 16, 2016, Interim Provost Elizabeth Throop and Interim Dean Melissa E. Gormely filed a complaint pursuant to Wisconsin Administrative Code UWS 4.02(1) seeking your termination from your position as tenured professor in the Department of Criminal Justice.

Rebuttal:

The complaint against Dr. Burton: (Chancellor-Suspends-Burton-1-3-17)

Rebuttal to the complaint: (Rebuttal-Throop-Gormley-complaint-12-16-16).

I concluded that the charges were substantial and that, if true, might lead to dismissal.

Rebuttal:

Chancellor Shields admitted that others created dysfunction in the department (besides Dr. Burton) and he admitted that he didn’t recommend termination for any of them (Hearing transcript of 9-19-17 pg 73 ln 11-16). – Disparate treatment.

Chancellor Shields admitted that he knew that people said Sabina’s father was a Nazi and called her mentally ill and questioned her credentials but he just called that “childish stuff.” (9-19-17 hearing transcript pg122 ln22 – pg 123 ln4). None of those people faced any discipline for all of the things they said even though he admitted that they bore some responsibility for it (9-19-17 hearing transcript pg123 ln23 – pg124 ln5). So, again, it’s ok to insult Dr. Burton but she gets fired for being falsely accused of insulting someone, which she didn’t. Disparate treatment.

Just Cause is addressed in a separate document (JustCause-Standards)

Dr. Burton did not do anything that would warrant dismissal. The charges, even if they were true, are not substantial and certainly do not rise to the level of just cause for dismissal.

Study of UW System Confirms Tenure was a “Job for Life” This article includes the statement “Records provided to the Speaker’s Office show only six tenured faculty have been dismissed for just cause in the last 20 years.”

The fact that the university administration attempts to strip Dr. Burton of her tenure re-opens discussion about Judge Peterson’s decision to dismiss the case in summary judgment. Dr. Burton’s award of tenure did not protect her so there is a material adverse action that has resulted from the incident in question. Causation analysis in the prior case seems warranted if Dr. Burton loses her tenure.

Chancellor Shields’ order to suspend Dr. Burton: (Chancellor-Suspends-Burton-1-3-17).

Rebuttal to Chancellor Shields’ order to suspend Dr. Burton: (Rebuttal-Shields Suspension-1-4-17).

I appointed Dr. Petra Roter, of UW System Administration, to investigate the matter. Dr. Roter submitted her report to me on March 1, 2017. In her report, Dr. Roter found that:

Rebuttal:

On 11-6-17 Attorney Lattis wrote “The Roter investigation is not the same as the live testimony as regards how it must be treated by the committee. It forms the basis of the charges, but the charges themselves must be proven in the hearing where the chancellor bears the burden of proof…the Roter report may be neither excluded nor relied upon to support the committee’s fact finding.”

(Lattis-RoterArguments-11-7-17).

At the 9-19-17 hearing (Transcript-hearing-9-19-17)

1. Attorney Lattis said “it's clear from the writing that he was relying on Dr. Roter when he lays out this statement.” Pg44 ln9-11

2. Chancellor Shields said “I used the report that Dr. Roter provided as the basis for what I wrote here.” Pg46 ln 3-4

3. Shields was asked “do you have firsthand information about disrespectful, harassing, or intimidating behavior toward colleagues that you are using to form a basis for your recommendation to this panel?” Shields replied “It's the -- the basis is the report that Dr. Petra Roter provided and, you know, the documents that were developed at the point of which those Letters of Direction were provided.” pg56 ln24 to pg57 ln6

4. Shields said “And so the basis for what I moved on is the report that Dr. Roter provided.” Pg57 ln25 to pg58 ln1

5. Shields stated that he did not have a conversation with Dr. Roter that formed a basis for his statement of charges. He said he never talked to Dr. Roter about her report and that he did not consult with Dr. Roter as she performed her investigative work. pg71 ln25 to pg72 ln4

6. Shields said he never sent Roter an email. Pg109 ln1-6

The Chancellor admitted that he relied upon an investigation report that his own attorney said the panel cannot rely upon.

Chancellor Shields delivered to Dr. Burton, on 3/4/2017 1:38 PM, a report that he identifies as “Dr. Petra Roter’s report” which is hereinafter identified as the “Roter report” (EmailfmShields-3-4-17), attachment (RoterInvestigationReport-3-4-17). The “Roter report” was not signed. The “Roter report” did not come to Dr. Burton from Dr. Roter’s email account but from Chancellor Shields’ email account. The “Roter report” was delivered to Dr. Burton by a person she has publicly accused of being corrupt, Chancellor Shields, and it was not cc’d to Dr. Roter. Chancellor Shields had motive and opportunity to alter Dr. Roter’s original report and there is evidence that previous reports have also been “edited by a third person” as explained in the rebuttal. Dr. Roter declined to respond when asked if the “Roter report” was her final version. Authenticity of the “Roter report” is still in question. A sworn statement from Dr. Roter as to the authenticity of the document is needed to positively identify the person(s) responsible for the misrepresentations in the “Roter report.”

Rebuttal to “Roter report” (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17).

1) You recorded a series of UW-Platteville internal conversations, meetings and proceedings without prior consent or notification, your husband published them to the public with your knowledge and consent, and some of the recordings related to confidential personnel matters.

Rebuttal:

Case Law: Heller v. Champion Int’l Corp., 891 F.2d 432, 436-437 (2nd Cir. 1989). - Heller made tape recordings and the court found:

31. Second, in finding that Heller's conduct was "disruptive", "disorderly", "deceptive", and "thoroughly unprofessional", the district court necessarily involved itself in the resolution of credibility issues such as how much taping occurred, what Heller said about it, whom he spoke to, and whether his conduct and statements were actually disruptive to the company, not to mention whether Champion was acting in good faith when it purported to rely on the taping as the reason for terminating Heller. For example, the district court credited much of the testimony of Mark Davenport, Heller's unfaithful confidant, who testified that Heller had "consistently and very strongly" bad-mouthed Parker in front of other Champion employees. But the jury was entitled to disregard Davenport's testimony and believe other witnesses, including Heller, who testified to the contrary. Credibility issues of that nature are for the jury not the court to resolve.

33 Even in the absence of a procedural bar, we would not agree that Heller's conduct justified his dismissal as a matter of law. Notwithstanding the credibility issues inherent in deciding what Heller's conduct actually involved and in the absence of clear indications in Connecticut law, we do not accept the proposition that an employee would never be justified in tape-recording conversations with his superiors and discussing a possible lawsuit, indeed a "big-time case", with two of his colleagues.

34. At the time the events of this lawsuit were unfolding, Heller believed that Champion was not only in the process of breaking its promises to him, but that it was also discriminating against him because of his age. His surreptitious tape-recording, to be sure, represents a kind of "disloyalty" to the company, but not necessarily the kind of disloyalty that under these circumstances would warrant dismissal as a matter of law. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits employers from discharging individuals because they have "participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under this chapter." 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) (emphasis added). Under this provision, we have held that it was protected activity to draft a memo containing evidence of age discrimination, ask the company's president to approve the memo without revealing its true purpose, and then use the signed memo in a subsequent lawsuit against the company. See Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569-70 (2d Cir.1989). Other courts have found similarly "disloyal" acts to be protected under Title VII. See EEOC v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 720 F.2d 1008, 1012-14 (9th Cir.1983) (writing letter to customer of employer complaining about inadequacies in employer's affirmative action program); Payne v. McLemore's Wholesale & Retail Stores, 654 F.2d 1130, 1136-37 (5th Cir. Unit A 1981) (boycotting and picketing of store), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1000, 102 S.Ct. 1630, 71 L.Ed.2d 866 (1982); Coleman v. Wayne State Univ., 664 F.Supp. 1082, 1092 & n. 5 (E.D.Mich.1987) (stating repeatedly in public and private that employer was engaging in discriminatory employment practices); EEOC v. Kallir, Philips, Ross, Inc., 401 F.Supp. 66 (S.D.N.Y.1975) (discreetly obtaining written job description for use in investigation by New York City Commission on Human Rights), aff'd mem., 559 F.2d 1203 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 920, 98 S.Ct. 395, 54 L.Ed.2d 277 (1977). Considering the range of factors that might have justified Heller's conduct, especially his belief that he was gathering evidence in support of a possible claim of age discrimination, we cannot say that Champion had sufficient cause, as a matter of law, to dismiss him.

Chancellor Shields is not critical of Dr. Burton making the recordings (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 43 lines 14 – 19) Shileds said in the appeal hearing on 9-19-17 that the only charge that would warrant dismissal is the posting of confidential material.

He was also not critical of the act of recording in the hearing before the Board on 5-10-18.

Chancellor Shields is not aware of any rules of UWP that addresses the publishing of recordings issue (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 50 lines 16 – 25).

Chancellor Shields made no offer to resolve the issue of dissemination of recorded information (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 51 lines 7 – 19)

Chancellor Shields believes that Dr. Burton responded promptly to take down the recordings off the website when requests were made to take them down (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 54 lines 8 – 12). But he is not aware of any request that the recordings be taken down because there were none.

Chancellor Shields said that he told Dr. Burton to take down the recordings off the website (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 114 lines 13-16), (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 115 lines 14 – 21). But nobody ever asked Burton to take down the websites. Don’t give him credit for something he didn’t do. In fact we should press this and ask him to prove that he instructed her to take them down, which he can’t do because he did not, nobody did (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 118 lines 1 – 10).

Dr. Burton did not record any confidential discussions. The meetings she recorded were open meetings as described in Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. None of the recordings were of closed meetings.

This allegation does not meet the standard of just cause as established in UPS OPERATIONAL POLICY - GEN 14 :

• Dr. Burton did not have notice of workplace expectations and potential consequences about recording meetings or of publishing the recordings;

• The investigation report did not determine that Dr. Burton violated any expectations or policies but was vague and biased;

• The investigation was NOT conducted fairly or objectively and the biased and inaccurate investigation report seems to be a forgery;

• The employer relies on only verbal statements from discredited witnesses and has produced no solid evidence of Dr. Burton’s guilt and in fact accuse her of something that is not a violation of any law or policy;

• Workplace expectations were applied unfairly and demonstrate severe discrimination against Dr. Burton; and

• The degree of discipline sought is unreasonable for the alleged offense and Dr. Burton’s stellar past record.

943.39 States: “Fraudulent writings. Whoever, with intent to injure or defraud, does any of the following is guilty of a Class H felony:

(1) Being a director, officer, manager, agent or employee of any corporation or limited liability company falsifies any record, account or other document belonging to that corporation or limited liability company by alteration, false entry or omission, or makes, circulates or publishes any written statement regarding the corporation or limited liability company which he or she knows is false; or

(2) By means of deceit obtains a signature to a writing which is the subject of forgery under s. 943.38 (1); or

(3) Makes a false written statement with knowledge that it is false and with intent that it shall ultimately appear to have been signed under oath.”

943.38 States: “Forgery.

(1) Whoever with intent to defraud falsely makes or alters a writing or object of any of the following kinds so that it purports to have been made by another, or at another time, or with different provisions, or by authority of one who did not give such authority, is guilty of a Class H felony:”

Wisconsin State Statute 968.31 says: “(2)It is not unlawful under ss. 968.28 to 968.37:

(c) For a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.” I did not make the recordings without consent. I gave the consent as allowed by law.

Chancellor Shields has not identified any law against publishing records that had already been published in court documents. Audios identified by the Chancellor had been delivered to the Board of Regents and to the court in 2015. The Board did not voice any objection to the audios. Chancellor Shields had not mentioned audio recordings or disclosure of confidential material in his letter of direction. Throop had not mentioned audio recordings or disclosure of confidential material in her letter of direction.

As of 4/19/17: Interim Provost Throop has never asked Dr. Burton or her husband, who maintains universitycorruption.com, to remove anything from universitycorruption.com; Interim Dean Gormley has never asked Dr. Burton or her husband to remove anything from the website; Chancellor Shields has never asked Dr. Burton or her husband to remove anything from the website; Nobody has asked, or demanded, that Dr. Burton or her husband remove any material from the website due to legal concerns of confidentiality or accuracy.

Dr. Burton knew that her husband was publishing documents on UniversityCorruption.com but did not have knowledge of everything he was publishing. Dr. Burton has never uploaded anything to UniversityCorruption.com or to Youtube.com. She gave her husband general consent to use his discretion to post evidence he thought was appropriate online. Audios identified as confidential have already been publicized during discovery and in form of publicly available court records. Immediately after Dr. Burton was issued Throop and Gormley’s complaint she asked her husband to remove the audios mentioned in the report from universitycorruption.com and he did so.

More about this in: (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17).

Defense did not redact the student’s name from Dkt 37-15 (exhibit J-pg39). Was the person who failed to redact this student name fired? If not, there seems to be a double standard.

2) All of your colleagues who were interviewed reported feeling threatened and/or harassed by you or witnessed you engage in those kinds of behaviors towards others. Your threats were focused on undermining the professional integrity of your colleagues and harming their future employment opportunities including tenure and promotion decisions.

Rebuttal:

Shields did not personally conduct interviews of colleagues of Dr. Burton (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 44 lines 20-22). He relied solely on the unsigned and uncorroborated hearsay report in this matter.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The only colleague interviewed by Dr. Roter was Dr. Solar. The other interviewees were not Dr. Burton’s colleagues but her bosses. Dr. Burton had previously filed legitimate complaint against Dr. Solar, that he had violated policy and lied about it. Dr. Burton’s complaint was never investigated, instead Dean Throop issued a Letter of Direction against Dr. Burton. Dr. Solar’s testimony cannot be relied upon as he has motive to lie against Dr. Burton. It is telling that Dr. Solar was the only colleague interviewed, yet the charges wrongly indicates that multiple colleagues had been interviewed. However, the only people the Roter report identifies as interviewees are Provost Throop, Dr. Mike Dalecki, Dr. Patrick Solar, Dr. Cheryl Fuller, Dr. Staci Strobl, HR director Janelle Crowley, Dr. Mary Rose Williams and Dr. Sabina Burton. Only one of these people are Dr. Burton’s “colleague” and that is Solar (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17). Bosses are not generally considered to be “colleagues.” Given a looser definition of the term one could admit that Fuller and Strobl are also colleagues but they are also Dr. Burton’s bosses.

The already biased “Roter report” states: “All those interviewed in the Criminal Justice program noted the department environment was “chilling” and “dysfunctional” and “Interviews of all parties, including Dr. Burton, report that they felt threatened directly and indirectly.” The threats came directly and indirectly from the administration, not from Dr. Burton. The “Roter report” was vague about the origin of the threats and Chancellor Shields twisted the findings of the already biased “Roter report” to indicate, unfairly, that Dr. Burton was responsible for the interviewee’s fears. He misrepresented the facts. He misrepresented the unfair and vague statement from the “Roter report” to indicate that Dr. Burton was responsible for his own intimidation. It is worth noting here that the author of the “Roter report” claims to have interviewed only individuals Dr. Burton has previously filed complaints against, thus circumscribing the report unfairly. Dr. Burton believes department members have every reason to feel threatened by the corrupt Chancellor Shields and his corrupt minions like Dr. Dalecki and Interim Provost Throop. She believes that Attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis is also, and perhaps mainly, responsible for the threats and undermining of professional integrity.

There is no supporting documentation to indicate this is true. Wrong: We need to re-write this. The Roter report says “All Dr. Burton’s colleagues interviewed reported feeling threatened and/or harassed by Dr. Burton or witnessed Dr. Burton engage in those kinds of behaviors towards others in the department, many of whom are no longer at the University. “ I didn’t see this previously – Roger.

How many votes are there in the final decision regarding tenure, many. Why would Sabina’s one vote matter? Sabina doesn’t make the decision, the whole faculty does. If Sabina votes against Dr. Solar’s tenure that is just one vote against him. He can still get other votes to become tenured.

California Bauer v Sampson identifies / defines the word “threat”. https://www.leagle.com/decision/20011036261f3d7751967 useful in demonstrating that their use of the word “threat” in describing Sabina’s emails is ill-informed, and Sabina’s alleged “threats” are not “true threats” (As I said, her one vote isn’t going to decide things, so it’s not a threat), and as such are protected by the First Amendment.**

3) You have strayed from or violated the letter of direction provided to you by Provost Throop.

Rebuttal:

Chancellor Shields used Throop’s LOD as part of his evaluation in recommending termination (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 45 lines 13 – 18).

Chancellor Shields has heard of the principle that when one is issuing a Letter of Direction, one should be specific so that the recipient of the LOD knows exactly what a quantifiable offense is (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 63 lines 20 – 24).

The Faculty Bylaws, Part III, Article IX, section 2 states: “The following procedure shall be followed: A faculty member with a grievance may submit his or her grievance to the Complaints and Grievances Commission. The aggrieved faculty member is entitled to a hearing before the commission within twenty calendar days of the written submission of the grievance to the commission chair.”

Dr. Burton requested a hearing to address the letter of direction on November 12, 2014 3:15 PM –(Dkt 54-17). The grievance hearing was not conducted within 20 days, in fact, it was delayed unreasonably and in violation of policy for eleven months. The letter of direction should be considered void on Dec 1, 2014, the day after the 20-day deadline for hearing Dr. Burton’s grievance concerning the letter of direction.

On December 1, 2014 3:54 PM then-Dean Throop wrote flawed arguments why Dr. Burton’s right to a hearing should be violated (Dkt 42-70). These arguments are unfair as explained in this rebuttal (Rebuttal-to-Throop-memo-12-1-14). The unfair arguments led to violation of Dr. Burton’s due process rights, denial of fair and timely requested grievance hearings and ultimately to the current charges threatening her dismissal.

Dr. Burton has not strayed from or violated any of the directions in then-Dean Throop’s letter of direction. Even though the directions were based on fabrications or protected activities Dr. Burton still followed the directions.

Dr. Burton was never given a grievance hearing to address the Letter of Direction. She asked for the hearing repeatedly and was promised a hearing multiple times but none was ever scheduled. Dr. Burton withdrew her grievance almost a year after she filed it because she had become convinced that she would never be given a fair hearing. Dr. Burton was denied a grievance hearing for almost a year even though she was entitled to a hearing within 20 days.

Rebuttal to Throop LOD – (Throop Letter of Direction Rebuttal) Audio of Sabina explaining why the Throop LOD was unacceptable (Roter-Burton-discussLOD-40min)

The court never considered whether the Letter of Direction was fair or unfair, right or wrong. In its decision (Dkt 90 – District Court decision – Judge Peterson pg 24 para2) the district court stated correctly that: “Burton responded to the letter of direction by disputing Throop’s factual assertions and accusing Throop of misconduct. See generally Dkt. 37-15, at 30-38. She takes the same approach in opposing defendants’ motion for summary judgment, essentially inviting the court to determine whether Throop was right or wrong to write Burton the letter. But this is not the court’s role in a Title VII case. Federal courts “do not evaluate whether the stated reason [for an adverse action] was inaccurate or unfair.” Harden v. Marion Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 799 F.3d 857, 864 (7th Cir. 2015) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).”

However, that is a role of the appeal panel. The panel needs to look at Dr. Burton’s rebuttal to the Letter of Direction to determine whether Throop was right or wrong to write Burton the letter.

These things need to be decided now, before the Letter of Direction can be relied on as a basis to dismiss Dr. Burton. More details: (DenialofHearing-Nov2014-Oct2015)

Agents of the Board violated Dr. Burton’s due process rights and acted unethically to delay her hearing and to deny her a fair hearing process by creating a Seriously Flawed and Discriminatory Grievance Hearing Procedures (SFDGHP). This narrative explains why the policies applied to Dr. Burton were long expired and should not have been used in her case. The administration still advertises, as though applicable, policies on its website that are no longer in effect and have not been for many years. They unfairly held Dr. Burton to those expired, invalid “rules.” They also misinterpreted and misapplied those “rules.” Dr. Burton suspects that the expired policies still exist on the uwplatt.edu website to give them the appearance of legitimacy so corrupt administrators can use them against unsuspecting employees to quietly get rid of them under a guise of authenticity.

4) Your “mission to expose corruption” has pulled students into matters and conflicts that are outside of the academic mission/environment of the university.

Rebuttal:

Why is “mission to expose corruption” in quotes. This is unclear. Who stated this such that the Chancellor put it in quotes? Dr. Burton is trying to defend herself from retaliation she has received because she helped a student victim of sexual harassment. Any corruption she has exposed is a result of her attempts to gain fair treatment. Her primary effort is to keep her job and to protect students and faculty from unfair treatment.

Chancellor Shields did not personally interview any students regarding this (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 46 lines 7 – 9). So, he relies on the Roter report and nothing else.

Shields admitted that all the evidence the administration was able to gather is in included in the exhibits (Hearing transcript of 9-19-17 pg74 ln24 – pg75 ln1).

Shields has no reason to doubt “Daisy Colin” who wrote and signed that Dr. Burton did not speak of the issues in class. (Hearing transcript of 9-19-17 pg75 ln 13-23).

Shields admitted that any students who indicated that there was any mention of personnel issues by Dr. Burton in class have been included in the exhibit (Hearing transcript of 9-19-17 pg94 ln 21-25).

The exhibits do not support this allegation: (admin-exhibits-9-14-17). Just show them the emails from Dr. Burton. Read a few of them to show how ridiculous the allegation is. Hand them a stack of all of the communications from Sabina and remind them that this represents the entire universe of communications from Dr. Burton for which the Chancellor seeks her dismissal.

Dr. Burton is trying to protect herself from severe corruption and she is trying to protect students and other at risk employees from the severe systemic corruption that she believes infests UW Platteville and UW System Legal. Dr. Burton has exercised her first Amendment right by making public statements about her perceptions of the situation she is in and the state of the university as she believes them to be. The university has ample resources to rebut Dr. Burton’s statements but they can’t rebut her charges with truth so they resort to firing her on trumped up charges. She has done nothing wrong. Firing her for exercising her First Amendment rights would be un-American.

On March 2. 2017, I sent you a letter enclosing a copy of Dr. Roter’s report.

Rebuttal:

The “Roter report” that Chancellor Shields sent to Dr. Burton is not signed. It seems that

Chancellor Shields, Attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis, or some other undisclosed “third person” has altered Dr. Roter’s final report. The “Roter report” that Chancellor Shields delivered to Dr. Burton seems to be forgery. It also is extremely biased and contains opinions when it should only contain facts. (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17).

Chancellor Shields and Attorney Lattis both refused to provide the original for Dr. Burton to compare to the report in the record. There is a law that requires provision of the original (find it).

I also, as provided for in UWS 4.02(1), offered to meet with you for an informal discussion before I made a decision as to whether to issue a charge. That meeting was scheduled for March 16, 2017, to be held by Skype, but you objected to the presence of my chosen attorney, Jennifer Lattis, while insisting on the presence of your chosen attorney, and did not attend the meeting.

Rebuttal:

This is a false statement for the following reasons:

1. Chancellor Shields proceeded with the statement of charges without another attempt to meet (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 47 lines 8 – 13)

2. Chancellor Shields is required to offer to meet with Dr. Burton “informally.” A meeting with an attorney in the room is not informal. No meeting such as this, with attorneys in the room, can be considered “informal.”

3. Dr. Burton objected to the presence of Attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis because she has been instrumental in the retaliation Dr. Burton suffered since 2012 and Burton filed a complaint against her with the Office of Lawyer Regulation for harassment and retaliation.

4. Even though Dr. Burton didn’t want any attorneys in the room she offered to allow Chancellor Shields to bring a different attorney, just not Jennifer Sloan Lattis. He refused to bring any other attorney and because he would not agree to allow any other attorney he declined to meet with Dr. Burton.

5. UWS 4.02(1) states that “the chancellor” shall “offer to discuss the matter informally with the complainant.”

6. UWS 4.02(1) also states “the faculty member … shall have the right to be accompanied by an advisor of their choice at any meeting or proceeding that is part of the institutional disciplinary process.” Nowhere in the statutes is the Chancellor afforded the right to be accompanied by an attorney. The Chancellor is not the one being investigated. Why would he need an attorney? Chancellor Shields should be the person under investigation, not Dr. Burton.

7. Chancellor Shields put words in Dr. Burton’s mouth, in an apparent attempt to discredit her for requesting fair due process. Dr. Burton never insisted that she be allowed to bring her attorney because UWS 4.02(1) mandates that she be allowed to bring an advisor of her choice to any such meeting. If Chancellor Shields had denied Dr. Burton’s reasonable request to bring her attorney he would be in violation of this law.

8. Contrary to Chancellor Shields’ statement Dr. Burton insisted that Attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis not attend the meeting and gave very good reason. Dr. Burton has alleged severe retaliation and harassment by Atty Lattis and she was not comfortable in any meeting with Lattis in the room. Chancellor Shields did not offer an “informal” meeting but set up an “intimidation” meeting. Chancellor Shields knows that Dr. Burton suffers from severe ulcers that are aggravated by stress. Dr. Burton made clear to Chancellor Shields that a meeting with Lattis would be stressful and therefore not “informal.”

9. Dr. Burton never agreed to a Skype meeting. She wanted a face to face meeting with Chancellor Shields. She does not recall agreeing to a March 16 meeting or even that the date was suggested by anyone.

10. In the Hearing of 5-25-17 Chancellor Shields twisted this issue further stating that Dr. Burton believes wrongly that she can decide who he would use as an attorney. But that is not at all what Dr. Burton was trying to accomplish. She was trying to get Shields to follow policy and meet with her in an “informal” meeting. Having an attorney who makes Dr. Burton uncomfortable in attendance cannot be considered “informal.”

11. Chancellor Shields’ unwillingness to accommodate Dr. Burton’s simple request that a hostile attorney not be at the meeting indicates his unwillingness to provide an informal atmosphere for the meeting.

Having received and evaluated the information I have just described, I find that the evidence supports dismissing you for cause from your tenured faculty position at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville.

Accordingly, pursuant to section UWS 4.02(1), I issue this,

Rebuttal:

Dr. Burton has alleged that Chancellor Shields engages in severely corrupt activities. The obvious conflict of interest should preclude Chancellor Shields being the final decision maker in this matter. Unfortunately, he holds sway over any hearing committee staffed by UW-Platteville employees. The policy violations of the appeal panel formation and appointment of its chair demonstrates that the Chancellor used his influence to sway the panel to deliver an unfair decision.

STATEMENT OF CHARGES

At all times relevant to this matter, you have been a tenured faculty member of the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville(UW-Platteville).

Faculty members of UW-Platteville are expected to conform to all University of Wisconsin System and UW-Platteville expectations, and to provide quality service to the students and university community.

Comment:

Even the “Roter report,” which is heavily biased against Dr. Burton, states “everyone interviewed agreed that Dr. Burton is an excellent teacher” (RoterInvestigationReport-3-4-17 – pg6 para3). So, it is apparent that Dr. Burton has provided quality service to students. By exposing corruption Dr. Burton is providing quality service to the university community.

Essential to that service is the necessity that faculty members perform their duties in a manner that engenders the trust of the university community.

Rebuttal:

This is an ironic statement. Dr. Burton is trustworthy and is exposing the truth while Chancellor Shields has tried to cover up the truth.

I. You have publicly disclosed confidential personnel information of colleagues.

Rebuttal:

Whistleblower law –. Wis Stat 230.80 to 230.85 - The Chancellor wants to fire Sabina for disclosing material that is not “expressly prohibited by state or federal law, rule or regulation.” There is no express prohibition to disclosing the audios. 230.81(1) says: “Any disclosure of information by an employee to his or her attorney, collective bargaining representative or legislator or to a legislative committee or legislative service agency is a lawful disclosure under this section and is protected under s. 230.83.”

230.83(3) says: “Nothing in this section restricts the right of an employer to take appropriate disciplinary action against an employee who knowingly makes an untrue statement or discloses information the disclosure of which is expressly prohibited by state or federal law, rule or regulation.” Sabina did not knowingly make an untrue statement. The information is not expressly prohibited. So, the Chancellor can’t take disciplinary action.

230.81(1) says: “An employee with knowledge of information the disclosure of which is not expressly prohibited by state or federal law, rule or regulation may disclose that information to any other person. However, to obtain protection under s. 230.83, before disclosing that information to any person other than his or her attorney, collective bargaining representative or legislator, the employee shall do either of the following….” The other stuff is not necessary because Dr. Burton gave it to her attorney and he disclosed it to everyone, including Roger Burton (see Sabina’s testimony on 11-30-18).

Sabina gave the audios to her attorney. The attorney made them public by putting them in court records. After they were already public, Roger Burton (not Sabina) published then online.

Free Speech:

Dr. Burton did not disclose confidential personnel information of colleagues. The audios and/or transcripts identified: 1. were not confidential personnel information as defined in the statutes; 2. had already been made public in court documents; 3. were never objected to when they were originally disclosed a year before Dr. Burton’s husband put them on the website; 4. were published online by Dr. Burton’s husband and not by Dr. Burton herself; 5. were published, unredacted, by Provost Throop, Dean Gormley in the complaint against Dr. Burton, by Chancellor Shields, in the suspension notice, by the author of the investigation report in the in the unsigned investigation report and by the five hearing panel members, in the record to the Board of Regents. 6. Dr. Burton is not an authority assigned to maintain these records. She is as such not required to even be aware of this statute. Therefore, the statement that she “should have known” is wrong.

Attorney Lattis doesn’t even seem to understand the Open Meetings Law. She told the Board, on May 10, 2018, that it is “complicated” to explain her inability to answer questions about it.

Chancellor Shields disclosed the same material he accuses Dr. Burton of disclosing. He cannot argue that Dr. Burton should be fired without arguing that he, Throop, Gormley and Roter also be fired. Of course, nobody should be fired for disclosing this document.

Dr. Burton recorded the meetings to protect herself from retaliation and lies. She did not record the meetings to gather any confidential information. She did not disclose the material to harm anyone. Her husband make some audios available to protect Sabina, not to harm anyone. Her husband took the files offline immediately after the Chancellor issued the investigation order against Sabina. Nobody ever asked Sabina to take the files offline. Nobody ever asked her husband to take the files offline, except Sabina. Also see: Heller v. Champion Int’l Corp., 891 F.2d 432, 436-437 (2nd Cir. 1989) for case law concerning audio recordings as protected activity.

According to “The Municipality – A publication of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Sept 2014, Volume 109, Number 9, Closed Sessions Under Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law.” https://www.lwm-info.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/89 page 295 center column, paragraph 1. “If a member discloses decisions made or information considered at a closed session, it is not a violation of the open meetings law. “ Certainly it is likewise not a violation if the meeting was never closed (and therefore still open). The university did not have any policy against such disclosure.

Wisconsin Statute 19.90 allows a person to record open meetings, in fact it states that “the body shall make a reasonable effort to accommodate any person desiring to record, film or photograph the meeting.” The meeting was an open meeting of a governmental body. The audio evinces that the meeting was never closed, therefore it was open per Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.

Roger Burton told Dr. Burton he was going to publish part of the material he maintained. Dr. Burton never knew what her husband would publish but trusted him to use his own discretion.

Roger Burton published his website about Oct 26, 2016.

The record shows audio recordings were downloaded on 11-9-16.

11-19-16 – Dr. Solar wrote “Your failure to comply will result in consequences of my choosing.” He did not request that any of the audios be taken down.

11-23-16: Dr. Solar issued his hidden complaint against Dr. Burton. He did not request that any of the audios be taken down. His complaint did not mention audio recordings.

12-16-16: Dean Gormley and Interim Provost Throop issued their complaint against Dr. Burton. They did not request that any of the audios be taken down. Throop/Gormley could have asked that the recordings be taken down but that does not seem to be what they were cared about. They just wanted something to fire Dr. Burton over. Throop/Gormley published the unredacted transcripts, showing that the content of the transcripts was not of concern to them. They did not provide Dr. Burton with the audios at that time, just the transcripts.

On 12-16-16 Roger Burton took the identified audios offline. Nobody ever asked Dr. Burton or her husband to take them down.

1-3-17 – Shields bans Dr. Burton from campus and suspends her. No mention of audios. No request to take audios offline.

3-1-17 – Investigation report is published with the unredacted transcripts.

3-31-17 – Shields sent a statement of charges. He did not ask for the audios to be removed.

12-14-17 – The hearing panel sent their findings to Kasieta. They included (published) the unredacted transcripts (pg 316ish) but not the audios. They did not ask for the audios to be removed (Kasieta-ThumbDrive-OCR-DocScan).

2-21-18 -The audios, dated 11-9-16, were published by Jess Lathrop. They were included in the record of the hearing on 5-10-18. They were mailed to Dr. Burton by Jess Lathrop. Lathrop probably also sent them to the Board’s committee. The Feb 9, 2017 audio of the interview with investigator Roter was not included in the record. This recording proves that the Roter report is fraudulent.

So, the audios and transcripts were published by many people in public records at an open meeting. And Nobody ever asked Dr. Burton to take down the audios or transcrtipts.

1. In October of 2013, you attended a Department Review Body (DRB) meeting during which the evaluations of probationary faculty members Rex Reed and Lorne Gibson were discussed. You secretly recorded this meeting.

Rebuttal:

Wisconsin State Statute 968.31 authorizes Dr. Burton to give herself permission to make such recordings. Dr. Burton did not record this audio to injure anyone, but to protect herself. After Dr. Burton was suspended and made aware of the university’s objection to these audios being on the website Dr. Burton asked her husband to remove them and he did.

Rex Reed did not object to this audio being on the website.

See above rebuttal.

2. In October of 2014, you attended a meeting of the College Rank, Salary and Tenure Committee (CRST) at which the evaluation of probationary faculty member Pat Solar was discussed. You secretly recorded this meeting.

Rebuttal:

Wisconsin State Statute 968.31 authorizes Dr. Burton to make such secret recordings. Dr. Burton did not record this audio to injure anyone, but to protect herself. After Dr. Burton was suspended and made aware of the university’s objection to these audios being on the website Dr. Burton asked her husband to remove them and he did.

As the audio and transcript of the meeting demonstrates Dr. Burton advocated for Dr. Solar and got the committee to award him a higher mark than they would otherwise have awarded. No damage came to Dr. Solar as a result of this audio being made public. Dr. Solar did not object to this audio being on the website.

See above rebuttal.

3. In January of 2014, you attended a DRB meeting at which the evaluation of Lorne Gibson was discussed. You secretly recorded this meeting.

Rebuttal:

Wisconsin State Statute 968.31 authorizes Dr. Burton to make such secret recordings. Dr. Burton did not record this audio to injure anyone, but to protect herself. After Dr. Burton was suspended and made aware of the university’s objection to these audios being in the public realm Dr. Burton asked her husband to remove them and he did.

Chancellor Shields disclosed the same material he accuses Dr. Burton of disclosing. He cannot argue that Dr. Burton should be fired without arguing that he, Throop, Gormley and Roter also be fired. Of course nobody should be fired for disclosing this document.

See above rebuttal.

4. In the fall of 2016, your husband, Roger Burton, with your knowledge and consent, posted these recordings in public places on the internet including a website that you and he maintain called “universitycorruption.com.”

Rebuttal:

Chancellor Shields admitted that the posting of universitycorruption.com was an expression of First Amendment rights and that its existence is not any justification for termination. (9-19-17 hearing transcript pg 111 ln 4-14). Listen to the 5-10-18 hearing audio at 1:13:30. He places all his eggs in the fact that Dr. Burton published the audios. But she didn’t. First her attorney did, then her husband did, then her dean and Provost did, then the Investigator did, then the hearing panel did, then the Board did, all unredacted. So, if Sabina is fired for this then so too should be all of those people.

Dr. Burton was aware that her husband was publishing universitycorruption.com and she had asked him to be discreet and to be careful about publishing student information or anything that might cause the administration to target innocent individuals who had supported Dr. Burton. Dr. Burton asked him to be careful with his posting and trusted him to do so. She did not supervise what he published but had a general idea of what he placed online. Dr. Burton never maintained the website “universitycorruption.com.” It is clear at the bottom of the homepage that her husband is the webmaster and maintains the website.

See above rebuttal.

5. You also prepared partial and edited transcripts of the meetings and allowed those to be published on “universitycorruption.com.”

Rebuttal:

Dr. Burton’s husband, Roger Burton prepared the partial and edited transcripts. They were not all complete and may contain inaccuracies. For the exact wording of the conversations one should refer to the audio recordings.

The transcripts in question were included in the complaint by Interim Provost Throop, Interim Dean Gormley, Chancellor Shields and the “Roter report.” If the administration were concerned about the confidentiality of information in these transcripts they would not have re-published them in these documents. This indicates that the confidentiality of these documents is pretext for the real reason for the complaint, the investigation and for the filing of charges. The real reason Dr. Burton is threatened with termination seems to be that Chancellor Shields wants to silence a vocal advocate for student rights.

There is no policy or law against making such transcripts.

See above rebuttal.

6. You admitted to Investigator Roter that you had recorded these meetings and that the recordings were posted on the internet with your knowledge and consent.

Rebuttal:

Incorrect. Dr. Burton knew that her husband was posting material on the internet but was not aware of which files he had posted. She had a vague awareness of what he was posting, and she consented that he post files that he felt appropriate using his own discretion.

Even if she had known her husband had published those audios Dr. Burton is protected by the First Amendment and the Whistleblower law and other points made throughout this rebuttal.

7. The files were archived on the internet by another source and remain available for public review despite your having removed them from the “universitycorruption.com” website.

Rebuttal:

Incorrect. Some of the pages of UniversityCorruption.com were archived here: http://archive.is/universitycorruption.com. Someone besides Burton or her husband archived these webpages. There is a name of the person who archived them in the timeline I think. (cite) This archive does not seem to contain any of the audio files mentioned above. The archive does not seem to contain any of the transcripts that Dr. Burton’s husband removed from the website. The Chancellor has provided no evidence to support his allegation that these audios were archived on the internet. Even if the recordings were archived by someone else, Dr. Burton is not responsible for that. Many agents of the Board published the transcripts and audios.

8. You knew or should have known that performance evaluation data is considered highly confidential, personnel information. See e.g. Wisconsin Public Records Law, Wis. Stat. 19.36(10)(d) (Records keeping authorities prohibited from releasing public employee performance evaluations in response to public records request)

Rebuttal:

Wis. Stat. 19.36(10)(d) states: “Employee personnel records. Unless access is specifically authorized or required by statute, an authority shall not provide access under s. 19.35 (1) to records containing the following information, except to an employee or the employee's representative to the extent required under s. 103.13 or to a recognized or certified collective bargaining representative to the extent required to fulfill a duty to bargain under ch. 111 or pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement under ch. 111:

(d) Information relating to one or more specific employees that is used by an authority or by the employer of the employees for staff management planning, including performance evaluations, judgments, or recommendations concerning future salary adjustments or other wage treatments, management bonus plans, promotions, job assignments, letters of reference, or other comments or ratings relating to employees.”

This statute deals with “Employee personnel records.” The audio of the open meeting had not been entered into any personnel records so the statute is not applicable.

Even if the audios were considered personnel records Dr. Burton holds no liability under this statute because: 1. The files were already public so Dr. Burton’s husband did not “disclose” them as they had been already disclosed in public records. 2. There is no confidential information on the audio or transcript as demonstrated by the fact that the complaint, investigation report and statement of charges all included the audio transcripts with nothing at all redacted. 3. No harm was done to anyone. This is reinforced by the fact that Throop and Gormley knew about the audios on the website on Dec 16, 2016 but Dr. Burton was never made aware of any objection to them until January 4, 2017. If there was a concern about these documents and audios someone would have, or should have asked Dr. Burton or her husband to remove them but nobody ever did. 4. The employees whose alleged confidential information was allegedly disclosed have never complained about the alleged disclosure. Nobody, as of 4/19/17, ever asked Dr. Burton or her husband to remove the audios or transcripts. 5. The meetings were open meetings as defined by the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law and were therefore not confidential. 6. Dr. Burton is not an authority assigned to maintain these records. She is as such not required to even be aware of this statute. Therefore the statement that she “should have known” is wrong.

Even if Dr. Burton is found to have liability for her husband posting these audios online: 1. the penalty as set out in the statutes is minor and certainly does not warrant dismissal 2. Her liability is mitigated by the fact that she asked her husband to remove the audios immediately after receiving information that there was an objection to them being online, even though nobody ever actually asked her to remove them. 3. Dr. Burton’s husband immediately removed the audios and transcripts after Dr. Burton asked him to do so. The allegation of posting this material fails the test of “just cause” for many reasons. 4. Dr. Burton was never ordered not to record such meetings or to disclose the audios. 5. There is no policy prohibiting such recordings or disclosure of the audios.

Wisconsin Public Records Law, Wis. Stat. 19.85(1)(c) (authorizing closed session for considering performance evaluation data of public employee).

Rebuttal:
Dr. Burton did not violate Wis Stat para 19.85(1) (c) (the open meetings law). 19.85(1) (c) is not applicable. It describes considerations for which a closed session may be held.

According to the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law all meetings must begin in open session and then they can be closed under certain circumstances. None of the audio recorded meetings were closed. This can be easily verified by listening to the audio recordings.

On a side note: None of the grievances Dr. Burton was afforded nor the grievance that Caywood had against Throop were advertised in the Platteville Journal or the Exponent as required by Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. The Wisconsin Open Meetings Law is routinely violated by the grievance committee chairs. It is unfair that Dr. Burton is falsely accused of violating the Open Meetings Law when she has repeatedly asked the university to follow the Open Meetings Law but they have refused to do so. The administration even wrote a new “grievance hearing procedure” that was written on false authority and is not in keeping with the open meeting law (Dkt 42-78, Dkt 37-15 (exhibit G) pg 23). Nobody has been punished for this and the “Grievance Hearing Procedure,” which is not in compliance with the Open Meetings Law, and was written on false authority, has not been removed. This flawed document has been used repeatedly to deny Dr. Burton fair due process as though it is an approved part of the Employee Handbook. Employees are still subject to this policy that does not comply with Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. The university can do the same thing to others. The open meetings law is intended to prevent what the administration is doing to Dr. Burton, not what the administration falsely alleges Dr. Burton did to her colleagues. The complaint against Dr. Burton misapplies and misinterprets the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.

Your decision to publicly post confidential evaluative information about junior colleagues at the university constitutes a serious breach of trust by you, a tenured faculty member, and violates the reasonable expectations of the UW-Platteville for its faculty.

Rebuttal:

Dr. Burton did not post confidential evaluative information about junior colleagues. She posted proof that she had been assaulted and she posted proof that she advocated for Dr. Solar. No statement on any audio was identified as “confidential.” The meeting was open to the public and as such there can be no expectation of confidentiality. The meeting was open because it had not been closed.

II. You have engaged in disrespectful, harassing and intimidating behavior towards your colleagues in an attempt to undermine them professionally and damage their reputation and careers.

Rebuttal:

Dr. Burton was not disrespectful, harassing or intimidating towards her colleagues. However, some of her colleagues might feel intimidated by Dr. Burton’s efforts to protect herself and in doing so, expose their corrupt actions.

Dr. Burton has not attempted to expose corruption to undermine her colleagues professionally or to damage their reputations or careers. She is attempting to protect herself from corrupt actions that threaten her employment and in so doing she has exposed some corrupt actions of others at UW Platteville and in the UW Legal department. She also has exposed activities in order to protect students, to gain fair due process for herself and to protect other employees. She is exposing corruption so quality employees, good honest effort, accomplishment and good teaching will be rewarded rather than punished.

1. You received a letter of direction from Dean (now interim provost) Elizabeth Throop dated October 28, 2014 instructing you to, among other things, treat your colleagues with respect and cease all email activity making groundless and unwarranted accusations against members of the university community.

Rebuttal:

Dr. Burton treated her colleagues with respect, unless one considers valid accusations of legal and policy violations to be disrespectful. In that case, the law and policy has priority over the Throop letter of direction. Throop cannot legally order Burton not to report violations of law and policy and to expose corruption.

As explained in the rebuttal Dr. Burton could not “cease” emailing groundless and unwarranted accusations because all of her accusations have been grounded in truth, were warranted and were backed by solid evidence. Rebuttal to Letter of Direction: (Letter-of-Direction-Throop-Rebuttal).

2. You made statements to the effect that you had no intention of complying with the letter of direction.

Rebuttal:

Wrong. Dr. Burton never made such a statement.

It appears that Chancellor Shields got this from Dean Throop’s Complaint of January 5, 2015 in which she wrote “Shortly after she received the letter, (of direction) Dr. Burton indicated to me that she had no intention of complying with my directions (November 12, 2014 email, Exhibit B), and she has continued with the same behaviors.” (Dkt-37-15 – pg1 para2) My rebuttal to the Complaint (i619d-RebuttalThroopcomplaint-1-5-15).

Exhibit B is Dr. Burton’s email to Dean Throop informing her that she had filed a grievance to address the LOD and indicating that she “cannot accept” the LOD. Dr. Burton never indicated that she would not comply with the LOD but that it was “unacceptable” because it contained false statements and bogus reasoning. This is further supported by the fact that Dr. Burton also informed Dean Throop in the same email that she had filed a grievance to address the unacceptable LOD and resolve the unacceptable issues it posed.

Dr. Burton made a commitment to comply with the LOD in her grievance package of November 12, 2014 in which she wrote “I will continue keeping students uninvolved in my complaints and grievances.” (Dkt-37-15 - pg38 D#5) She has continued to comply with this commitment.

Dean Throop twisted Dr. Burton’s statement and then Chancellor Shields used Throop’s statement, not Dr. Burton’s to support this false allegation.

Shields never heard Dr. Burton say she had no intention of complying with the LOD (9-19-17 – hearing transcript pg 65 lines 3 – 6).

Throop told HR Director Lohmann, on the same day that she issued the letter of direction, that Burton had already “rejected” the Throop Letter of direction and that she planned to file a chapter 6 complaint against Burton at that time (RE_Letter-of-Direction). . Burton had not rejected the letter of direction but merely pointed out to Throop that her constitutional rights had been violated (exhibit 570b). also [UW-P 005845]. Throop’s intent seems to have been to file a chapter 6 complaint against Burton, even before she issued the letter of direction. Her reason for filing the chapter 6 complaint seems to hinge on Burton’s complaint that her constitutional rights had been violated. Burton’s complaint that her constitutional rights had been violated was a protected activity.

In the hearing of 9-19-17 Lattis said that this was in the federal court decision which is true. The appeal court got it wrong and said that Dr. Burton made this indication but she didn’t. (LOD-Refused-Rebuttal) The court was fooled by Dean Throop and Chancellor Shields’ little word games. They twisted Dr. Burton’s words and the court didn’t look at what Dr. Burton really said, but relied on the false statement of Dean Throop. The court swallowed the lie. That doesn’t make it a truth. That Dr. Burton’s attorney, Tim Hawks, failed to counter these lie does not make it truth. There is no evidence to support this statement other than Dean Throop and Chancellor Shields’ assertions. Their statements cannot be taken as fact at face value due to the conflict of interest and motive to lie and the evidence that they have lied on numerous other occasions on the record, including under oath.

On 11/12/2014 3:34 PM – Dkt 37-15 (exhibit B) pg 7 (exhibit 583). Dr. Burton sent an email to Throop cc to Dalecki, Lohmann, Shields, Den Herder saying “I am sorry, but I cannot accept your letter of direction dated Oct 28, 2014 and delivered on Oct 29, 2014. I have filed a grievance against you concerning your letter of direction and look forward to resolving the issues soon.” This does not indicate an intention of non-compliance but of inability to accept. Even though the Letter of direction is completely unfair and biased against Dr. Burton she did comply with the directives, even in the face of severe retaliation and violation of her due process rights.

Dr. Burton meant that she needed to resolve the issues with the LOD in a grievance hearing and could not accept the directives the way they were written because they were based on bogus reasoning and falsehoods. She did not say that she wouldn’t follow the directives. She did not refuse to follow them. She wanted to address her concerns but she was not allowed to do so.

Shields used the plural as though Dr. Burton had made multiple statements of intention not to comply yet no such communications have been presented in evidence to support his allegation that there was even one.

The unfair letter of direction should be considered void, as of Dec 1, 2014, since Dr. Burton was denied a hearing to address it within 20 days as required by policy as explained here (Throop Letter of Direction Rebuttal)

3. You received a letter of direction from Chancellor Dennis Shields detailing activities that violated Dean Throop’s letter of direction and were otherwise unprofessional and harassing of colleagues. Chancellor Shields advised you to cease using University resources to harass, intimidate or threaten your co-workers and supervisors.

Rebuttal:

Chancellor Shields admitted that the exercise of First Amendment rights, is often perceived as being disrespectful and threatening (Hearing transcript of 9-19-17 pg79 ln19-25).

Here is Chancellor Shields’ letter of direction: (Shields-LOD-6-3-16), (Shields-LOD-6-3-16-Attachments).

Rebuttal to Chancellor Shields’ letter of direction: (ShieldsLOD-Rebuttal).

Rebuttal to Throop’s LOD: (Throop Letter of Direction Rebuttal)

Chancellor Shields’ LOD should also be considered void for the reasons cited in the rebuttals.

Dr. Burton was always respectful and never harassed or threatened anyone, except that her protected activities may have been perceived by wrongdoers as threatening or intimidating.

Chancellor Shields never offered mediation in regard to the LOD (9-19-17 hearing transcript pg120 ln2-10). He offered mediation between Rice v Burton but not for the LOD issue. So, he seems to have lied to the hearing panel.

4. You have repeatedly failed to comply with these letters of direction.

Examples include:

· Posting or publicly sharing secretly made recordings (in addition to the ones described in Part 1) on the internet, including after having promised not to do so.

Rebuttal:

Neither of the letters of direction contained any direction not to post or publicly share recordings.

Dr. Burton was well within her rights to secretly record those audios. Posting them did not violate the unfair directives in Throop’s LOD.

Dr. Burton did not promise to not secretly make recordings. She did not promise not to post recordings. No evidence has been provided to support the accusation that Dr. Burton made any such promise.

Deposition question for hearing panel member: “Did Dr. Burton promise not to record or publicly share audio recordings?” If they answer yes, ask them whether that was a material fact in their decision and ask them where they got their information. It’s not in the documentation.

· Engaging in unprofessional and insulting conduct towards Dr. Solar, a junior colleague.

Rebuttal: Catch 22

Chancellor Shields admitted that he did not investigate the statement in the RoterReport that "Dr. Burton reports being cursed at, belittled, misrepresented, and felt she was being retaliated by her colleagues" (9-19-17 hearing transcript pg112 ln15- pg114 ln5). This shows disparate treatment. Dr. Burton gets fired for insulting a colleague but colleagues are allowed to insult Dr. Burton.

Now Provost Throop is asking that Dr. Burton be dismissed because she followed Throop’s own direction.

This evinces that 1. Dr. Burton tried to follow the directives in the letter of direction; 2. the letter of direction was retaliatory (in that it limits Dr. Burton’s right to petition the government with her grievances); 3. that the letter of direction was intended to put unfair stumbling blocks before Dr. Burton that could later be used to dismiss her unreasonably; 4. that Throop wants to fire Dr. Burton, contrary to her sworn statements (Throop depsition pg 114 line 11 to pg 115 line 2).

Dr. Solar violated policy by excluding Dr. Burton from a search and screen and lied about it. Dr. Burton reported Dr. Solar’s violation and then Dean Throop wrote Dr. Burton a letter of direction instead of correcting the person who violated policy. Dr. Solar has posted arguably racist material outside his office. Dr. Solar threatened Dr. Burton with “consequences of his choosing.” Dr. Solar falsely alleged that Dr. Burton gave her husband access to her UW Platteville email account.

Chancellor Shields has not identified what “insulting conduct” he alleges Dr. Burton committed. Dr. Burton did not insult Dr. Solar. Dr. Solar threatened Burton and lied in a retaliatory hidden grievance.

· Engaging in unprofessional conduct towards Dr. Nemmetz, a junior colleague.

Rebuttal: Catch 22

The FIRST directive of then-dean Throop’s letter of direction says “You will actively work to resolve your complaints and issues on the most local level possible: your department, before invoking assistance from the administration” (Throop Letter of Direction Rebuttal). Dr. Burton attempted to follow that direction by addressing her colleague, Dr. Nemmetz, directly, on the departmental level rather than complaining about the matter to higher authority, as directed by Throop in her very FIRST direction. Now Provost Throop is asking that Dr. Burton be dismissed BECAUSE she followed Throop’s own direction. This evinces that 1. Dr. Burton tried to follow the directives in the letter of direction; 2. the letter of direction was retaliatory (in that it limits Dr. Burton’s right to petition the government with her grievances); 3. that the letter of direction was intended to put unfair stumbling blocks before Dr. Burton that could later be used to dismiss her unreasonably; 4. that Throop wanted to fire Dr. Burton contrary to her sworn assertion (Throop depsition p.114 l.11 - p. 115 l. 2).

Throop also complained in the 1/5/15 complaint that Dr. Burton violated her directives by filing a formal complaint against Deb Rice. See (exhibit 619b). Put this front and center beside the other things to show the stark contrast.

Then-dean Throop stated, under oath, that Dr. Nemmetz had complained about Dr. Burton (Throop deposition p.115 – p.116). After learning this Dr. Burton asked Dr. Nemmetz about the matter. Dr. Burton wrote to Nemmetz: “Why would you do that? What did I do to you?...I will continue to treat you fairly. I don’t retaliate and I don’t backstab. I am just disappointed. I guess you are entitled to your opinion about me.” (admin-exhibits-9-14-17 – PDF pg54) Dr. Burton’s communication was direct but not unprofessional. Dr. Nemmetz did not respond but somehow Dr. Burton’s email found its way to Dean Throop even though Dr. Burton sent her email only to Dr. Nemmetz, in keeping with Dean Throop’s directive #1. It seems that Throop does not require Dr. Nemmetz to handle matters on the departmental level as she does Dr. Burton. This is disparate treatment. (Chancellor-Suspends-Burton-1-3-17- Burton ch. 4 complaint attachments page 036), (Rebuttal-Throop-Gormley-complaint-12-16-16)

This is called “entrapment.”

Interim Provost Throop committed perjury in a federal investigation, falsely accused Dr. Burton of cancelling class and threatened Dr. Burton with imminent discipline while ignoring, condoning and/or encouraging Deb Rice’s attempts to damage Dr. Burton’s reputation (Throop deposition p.14 l.6 – p.16 l.2 and p.114 l.23 – p.116 l.12). Dr. Burton’s actions do not amount to unprofessional actions but Throop’s actions do.

· Falsely accusing Dr. Staci Strobl, chair of the Department of Criminal Justice of presenting misrepresentations on a federal grant application and engaging in sexism.

Rebuttal:

The charges make the claim that Dr. Burton’s representations were false without any investigation into their validity. No statement was identified as being false.

Dr. Burton did not falsely accuse Dr. Staci Strobl of presenting misrepresentations on a federal grant application and engaging in sexism. She filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) concerning this issue (OCR-Complaint-6-20-16). This is a protected activity. The complaint has not been decided on so the Chancellor calls the allegations “false” without any indication from the OCR about their validity. Dr. Burton contends that her allegations are completely true and warranted. Dr. Burton’s complaints are protected activities.

· Engaging in unprofessional conduct towards David Couper, adjunct faculty member.

Rebuttal:

David Couper has repeatedly referred to himself as a “Professor” and faculty. He is not a Professor or a faculty member, he is an adjunct employee who is being artificially elevated while Dr. Burton is being artificially diminished. He had a “faculty” badge that he does not rate. Using an identification card that identifies you as a faculty member when you are not a faculty member is fraud, as defined in Wis. Stat. (cite). Couper seems to be guilty of fraud. Burton simply pointed that out. It is easy to see why Couper could feel threatened or intimidated by this but it is not illegal to do. In fact, it is in the public interest to expose this sort of corruption.

Dr. Burton pointed out that Couper should not refer to himself as a “faculty member” since he has not earned that title. In contrast, Dr. Burton has earned the title of “Dr” yet her title has been routinely truncated from her name in communications and conversations. This is a problem that has been evident in the CJ department since Dr. Burton joined it in 2009.

As another example of this problem then-dean Throop, under oath, referred to Deb Rice as “Dr. Rice,” but Rice is not a Dr.; she has no PhD (Throop deposition p.14 l.22). Later Throop referred to Rice as “Professor Rice,” but Rice is not a Professor (Throop deposition p.15 l.11 – l.13). There are many other examples of this sort of “title manipulation” that has damaged Dr. Burton’s reputation (Titles Mean Something).

Asking David Couper to refrain from referring to himself as a “faculty member” is not unprofessional. It is in the public interest.

5. You admitted to investigator Roter that you are direct and short with colleagues, and that you could be perceived as threatening.

Rebuttal:

Incorrect. Dr. Burton never said that she has a tendency to be short or that her tendency to be direct could be perceived as threatening.

Dr. Burton told Dr. Roter that she has a tendency to be direct due to her German heritage. She never admitted that she was short with colleagues. She is very respectful in her dealing with colleagues. This can be verified by listening to the interview between Dr. Burton and Dr. Roter (Roter-Burton-Intvw-Pt1) (Roter-Burton-Intvw-Pt2) (transcript).

Dr. Burton said she was “kinda direct” and “kinda short” and “brief” in one specific email to Deb Rice because Deb Rice had “cussed her out over the phone.” Burton also said that she “wasn’t accusatory.” Listen to the audio of the meeting (Roter-Burton-Intvw-Pt1) (Roter-Burton-Intvw-Pt2) (transcript). (Start listening to Pt2 at 5:35).

Chancellor Shields relies on an unsigned uncorroborated hearsay report that contains numerous factual errors and mistakes and errant opinions. He then twisted the words of the biased report and, from nowhere, added the false accusation that Dr. Burton admitted that she ‘could be perceived as threatening.” Chancellor Shields seems to have committed Fraud (943.39).

See (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17). The administration bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that the “Roter report” was actually written by Dr. Roter. It was probably not. An assertion from Chancellor Shields and Attorney Lattis is not enough.

Chancellor Shields and his agents have been practicing discrimination based on Dr. Burton’s German nationality. Burton became an American Citizen in 2009. Dr. Burton said she has a tendency to be direct due to her German heritage and she said she tries to be careful (Roter-Burton-Intvw-Pt2 at 41:20). By attacking her for a trait that is commonly known as a national trait of Germans, that they are direct, this complaint and investigation is further evidence of bias against Dr. Burton for her German/American heritage. (Burton-Complaint-3-7-17). The audio recording of the Burton-Roter interview is important here.

6. You have either admitted or not denied, writing the emails to or regarding Professor Solar, Strobl, Nemmetz, and Couper that I have determined are demeaning, intimidating, and unprofessional.

Rebuttal:

Dr. Burton’s emails were not demeaning, intimidating or unprofessional. Even if they were, there is no policy that Dr. Burton would have violated. The Criminal Justice Department had been described as “dysfunctional” many times but this was not Dr. Burton’s fault. It was the fault of leadership.

On April 26, 2010 - (Dkt 40-23), (Dkt 46-132 – pg2 para5). Dean Mittie Nimocks (Den Herder) sent a letter to the Faculty and Academic Staff of the CJ department in which she wrote: “I charge Dr. Caywood with inviting a speaker/workshop leader to conduct a workshop with department members on conflict resolution, civility, and team building to take place at some date before or near the beginning of the fall semester 2010. This will be a mandatory event for everyone in the department.” (exhibit EZZZZZG-2) This communication training never took place.

April 19, 2013 - Dkt 42-88 pg13, Complaints and Grievances committee issued their first findings in Dr. Burton’s grievance against Caywood. (exhibit ZA) (Dkt 101-21 – pg2) They recommended that; “the Criminal Justice department take steps to resolve the dysfunction within the department, such as communication training.” This training has never been accomplished.

July 10, 2013 – (exhibit ZA-5) (UW-P 000046) (Dkt 101-22) The grievance committee issued a second finding. The Grievance Committee wrote to Chancellor Shields “At our June 20 meeting, you indicated that Provost Nimocks Den Herder will meet with the Criminal Justice Department in order to help the members resolve their differences. This is consistent with one of our earlier recommendations.” This communication training never happened.

On July 26, 2013 Chancellor Shields wrote a letter to Dean Throop, Director Jeanne Durr, Human Resources and the Faculty of the CJ department. In that letter he wrote: “I also urge them (VC Den Herder and Dean Throop) to assist the department by employing outside consultants to work with the entire Criminal Justice Department to build a stronger team, work on communication and conflict resolution skills, and begin to resolve some of the conflict that has built up over time. This consultation shall take place as early in the academic year as possible.” The consultation and communication training he called for was never conducted. Chancellor Shields did not follow up on his instruction and Dr. Burton suffered for it. (exhibit ZA-7). (Dkt 101-7 – pg1 para3) Dr. Burton is now threatened with dismissal because she is being held to communication standards that have never been established or taught.

Apr 28, 2014 12:22 PM - Dr. Burton sent an email to John Lohmann, HR director, informing him that Caywood was instructed to bring in a speaker to talk about conflict resolution but he never did. (exhibit 550) She asked the HR director to provide communication training due to the severe retaliation she was suffering, in hopes communication training would help. No communication training was conducted.

Dr. Burton’s communication style is professional. The administration seeks to fire her for what she said while pretending to seek her dismissal for the way she said it. They fail to identify any statement that was unprofessional but instead they throw up a smoke screen of many emails.

None of these emails rise to a level that would warrant dismissal of a tenured faculty member. They are well within the normal communication style of a professional. See (AAUP-Termination_Discipline_2004.pdf) pg 6 bottom of page- define “unprofessional”. See notes: ( AAUP-Termination_Discipline_2004-Notes.docx) There was never any opportunity for Burton to “remediate” the perceived deficiencies before dismissal. She was not incompetent, didn’t neglect her duties, wasn’t insubordinate and didn’t commit any immoral or unethical acts. See the AAUP document at the top of page 7.

Your unprofessional conduct, threats and harassment towards colleagues has seriously harmed the functioning of the mission of the Criminal Justice Department and created a department environment that was chilling and dysfunctional.

Rebuttal:

Dr. Burton’s conduct was not unprofessional. She did not threaten or harass anyone and no evidence has been provided that supports this allegation. The functioning of the mission of the Criminal Justice Department was harmed by severe systemic corruption, not by anything Dr. Burton has done to expose that corruption or to seek fair due process. A grievance committee’s report of April 19, 2013 describes the Criminal Justice Department as dysfunctional (Dkt 42-88 pg13). The dysfunction is not Dr. Burton’s fault but is a result of poor leadership, including failure to provide communication training.

III. Dr. Throop’s letter of direction advised you to cease involving students in your personnel disputes and grievances. You have violated this letter of direction.

Rebuttal:

Rebuttal to Letter of Direction: (Letter-of-Direction-Throop-Rebuttal). Dr. Burton never involved students in her personnel disputes and grievances before the letter of direction was issued so the letter of direction was based on the fabricated assumption that she had done so, with no evidence. Dr. Burton has not involved students in her personnel disputes and grievances before or after the letter of direction was issued so she has not violated the letter of direction. Dr. Burton’s request to address the unfair letter of direction in a grievance hearing was denied in violation of university policy so the letter of direction should be considered void as of Dec 1, 2014.

1. You have made statements on social media and in other places wherein you have directly reached out to students to complain about your personnel situation at UW-Platteville.

Rebuttal:

Incorrect. There is no evidence of this because it is not true. The complaint against Dr. Burton includes a posting where Dr. Burton asks students to stand up for another student. Throop’s letter of direction did not direct Dr. Burton to refrain from asking students to stand up for other students. Also, it is a violation of Dr. Burton’s First Amendment rights to limit her Facebook postings in this way. Dr. Burton specifically tells students in her Facebook post that they should not to get involved in her issues with the university. The evidence presented to condemn Dr. Burton instead exonerates her.

2. You have publicly misrepresented the facts of a 2012 alleged sexual harassment incident to students (as exemplified by the “disappointed student” email.)

Rebuttal:

Incorrect. There is no evidence that Dr. Burton misrepresented any of the events of the alleged sexual harassment incident. Here is what Dr. Burton asserts happened: (TheSolicitousNote) There have been no specific requests for Dr. Burton or her husband, who maintains universitycorruption.com, to remove any allegedly false statements on this, or any other page of the website. Dr. Burton’s representations of events of the alleged sexual harassment incident in 2012 are true and accurate.

Throop even said it was “sexual harassment” (Dkt 53-24)

Neither Chancellor Shields, nor Interim Provost Throop nor anyone else has pointed to any specific alleged misrepresentations in Dr. Burton’s story. That is because Dr. Burton has been telling the truth all along. The administration has the burden of proving any misrepresentation by Dr. Burton.

The email by the “disappointed student” does not exemplify any misrepresentation by Dr. Burton but instead it shines a spotlight on the failure of university officials to address issues important to students. The evidence provided to condemn Dr. Burton instead exonerates her.

Defense admitted on October 18, 2017 that “Dean Throop stated that the note could be interpreted as sexual harassment.” (Dkt-10-para38), (Dkt-36-para38).

3. You have discussed your personnel concerns during class when they had no relevance to course topic.

Rebuttal:

Here are documents verifying that Dr. Burton did not talk about her personnel concerns during class (Burton-no-speak-in-class).

Chancellor Shields’ statement is false and misleading. Dr. Burton stated to Dr. Roter in the investigation interview “I never brought up any of my problems in class. Even after the articles were published. I never brought up any of it.” (Roter-Burton-Intvw-Pt1) (Roter-Burton-Intvw-Pt2) (transcript). There is no evidence to the contrary.

In the “Roter report,” the author wrote “I did not have a chance to interview students in this investigation and do not think it would be appropriate to do so.” Because, even this biased report admits that students were not interviewed there is no indication that Chancellor Shields’ out of the blue accusation has any merit whatsoever.

Chancellor Shields has never attended any of Dr. Burton’s classes so he has no way of possessing first-hand knowledge of his allegation. (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17).

Chancellor Shields’ allegation was not included in the original complaint and it is outside the scope of the complaint and the investigation. (Chancellor-Suspends-Burton-1-3-17)

There is no evidence to support Chancellor Shields’ baseless accusation. He just made this statement as if it were true but it is not true.

Chancellor Shields lied. Dr. Burton did not discuss her personnel concerns during class, ever.

4. You have involved a graduate student in your concerns who shared a recording he secretly made of a conversation with Dr. Michel Dalecki, which was then posted on line on the “universitycorruption.com” website with your knowledge and consent. As such you used a student’s secret recording of a mentoring conversation with a professor as a means to publicly air your personal grievances.

Rebuttal:

The graduate student brought the recording to Dr. Burton. The graduate student informed Dr. Burton of Deb Rice’s false rumors. Dr. Burton did not solicit these actions of the graduate student. The grad student had a conscience and acted on it. Disciplining Dr. Burton for someone else doing the right thing does not seem fair.

As explained in the rebuttal of the “Roter report” the recording was not of a “mentoring conversation” but it was instead a recording of a department chair threatening a graduate student against communicating with Dr. Burton concerning Deb Rice’s defamatory rumors about Dr. Burton (Rebuttal-RoterReport3-4-17). Listen to the conversation described by Chancellor Shields as “mentoring” and make your own determination whether Dr. Dalecki’s conduct was “mentoring” or “threatening.”

Why is Dr. Burton being threatened with dismissal but Dr. Dalecki is encouraged to talk to students this way without reprimand? Why hasn’t Chancellor Shields reprimanded Deb Rice for spreading false rumors about Dr. Burton? The wrong person is being targeted for dismissal.

Chancellor Shields is blaming Dr. Burton for an act by the graduate student. The student decided to record the meeting by his own volition. Dr. Burton had no knowledge of the meeting until months later. The graduate student came to Dr. Burton, not the other way around. Chancellor Shields is violating Dr. Burton’s, and the graduate student’s, First Amendment right to assembly. He is violating the student’s state given right to record the conversation. The administration has identified no policy or law that they claim Dr. Burton violated.

Chancellor Shields is wrong to accuse Dr. Burton of someone else exercising their right under Wisconsin State Statute 968.31.

Your behavior and involvement of students in your personnel concerns have negatively affected the learning environment for students and have undermined the university’s ability to recruit and retain students in the Criminal Justice Department.

Rebuttal:

Dr. Burton did not involve students in her personnel concerns as demonstrated by these documents (Burton-no-speak-in-class).

Dr. Burton’s behavior has been exemplary. She has not involved students in her personnel concerns. If the learning environment has been affected by Dr. Burton’s efforts to expose corruption the corrupt actors are to blame, not Dr. Burton. Corrupt people are to blame for the negative affect on the learning environment and the university’s inability to recruit and retain students in the CJ department, not Dr. Burton. Chancellor Shields blames Dr. Burton for telling the truth and is trying to fire her for maintaining integrity in the face of severe pressure to succumb to corruption.

If a rape victim complains of being raped and people begin to move out of the neighborhood because the rapist still lives there, who is to blame for home values going down? Is it the rapists fault or rape victim’s fault? .

---------------------

From the foregoing, I find just cause to dismiss you from your tenured faculty position at UW-Platteville.

Rebuttal:

Dr. Burton’s very serious allegations of severe systemic corruption are accurate and true; many people in Platteville know it. Chancellor Shields seems to be trying to railroad Dr. Burton and he seems to have a personal vendetta against Dr. Burton. Chancellor Shields should be fired immediately for cause, not Dr. Burton. UW Platteville needs new leadership and Dr. Burton should be included in the efforts to rebuild the university’s reputation.

Even if all of the charges against Dr. Burton were true, which they are not, there would not be sufficient grounds to warrant dismissal of a tenured faculty member (Rebuttal-Shields Suspension-1-4-17) because the requirements of “just cause” have not been met.

You are entitled to a hearing on this matter. If you wish to have a hearing, you must file your hearing request with the Faculty Senate within 20 days of your receiving this statement of charges as required by Wis. Admin. Code UWS 4.04.

Rebuttal:

UWS 4.02(2) says “Any formal statement of specific charges for dismissal sent to a faculty member shall be accompanied by a statement of the appeal procedures available to the faculty member.” Chancellor Shields violated this statute. His statement of charges does not mention the word “appeal.” He wrote “You are entitled to a hearing on this matter. If you wish to have a hearing, you must file your hearing request with the Faculty Senate within 20 days of your receiving this statement of charges as required by Wis. Admin. Code UWS 4.04.” He did not provide Dr. Burton with names and contact information for the recipient(s) of her hearing request. This does not seem to comply with UWS 4.02(2). Chancellor Shields seems to be hiding the appeal procedures from Dr. Burton in an attempt to make her miss her opportunities to appeal. It seems Chancellor Shields is in violation of UWS 4.02(2) by attempting to hide the appeal procedures from Dr. Burton.

In addition to violating policy by failing to provide a statement of the appeal procedures available Chancellor Shields fraudulently ordered Dr. Burton to provide her hearing request to the wrong person. Faculty Bylaw 6.3.12.3 Section 6 says: “Filing an appeal - Upon receipt of written notification that nonrenewal or denial of tenure at the completion of the maximum probationary period was affirmed in the reconsideration, the faculty member has 20 calendar days in which to request a hearing by the Appeals Commission (25 calendar days if notice is by first class mail and publication). An aggrieved faculty member who does not exercise his or her right to reconsideration still retains the right to appeal a nonrenewal or denial of tenure….The request must be in writing and addressed to the chairperson or convener of the Appeals Commission..”

Chancellor Shields ordered Dr. Burton to send her request to the Faculty Senate, not to the convener or chairperson of the Appeals Commission. By withholding the appeal procedures from her Chancellor Shields failed to inform her of the person to whom policy requires her to file the request. Without having been informed of her appeal rights Dr. Burton followed Shields’ order. In her request Dr. Burton pointed out that she did not know who to send the request to and asked that Dr. Anderson forward the request to that person. The correct recipient of the request of course was the chairperson or convener of the Appeals Commission and not the Faculty Senate.

Attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis seems to have advised Chancellor Shields that he does not need to follow Policies established by the Board of Regents (AttorneyJenniferSloanLattis). If Dr. Burton is fired on these charges tenure protects no one.

Dated this 30^th day of March, 2017.

Sincerely,

<signed by Dennis J. Shields>

Dennis J. Shields

Chancellor

Other stuff that applies to the rebuttal of the statement of charges:

(AppealRights-Highlights) - Applicable appeal procedures with comments:

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.

(Audio-Recording-Strategy) -

Note: UWS 4.06 allows us to disqualify people from the hearing committee. We should make a list of disqualified people. The list will include anyone who has served on the grievance committee, all administrators, anyone on the Faculty Senate, anyone in the CJ department, anyone who has participated in sham investigations or who has been instrumental in the Alcalay incident, anyone who may be influenced by the Chancellor or Provost (anyone in UW Platteville) and anyone identified by anyone we trust as being unfair.

Note: UWS 4.06 (h) says “if a faculty member whose dismissal is sought has requested a hearing, discontinuance of the proceeding by the institution is deemed a withdrawal of charges and a finding that the charges were without merit

Some stuff about Shields not delivering the appeal procedures as required:

Make a list for Closing Arguments:

1. Shields said that the only complaint that would warrant dismissal alone was the posting of material online. (he said that he was not critical of the making of the recordings)

a. He said there were three prongs:

i. Recording and publishing audios

ii. ?

iii. ?

2. Chancellor Shields suspended Dr. Burton on ridiculous grounds. (Rebuttal-Shields Suspension-1-4-17).

3. Shields said that the recording of the audios was not a violation of any law or policy but that only the publishing of it.

4. Dr. Burton did not publish the recordings. Her husband did. She gave them to him to catalog and knew he was going to post some of the materials.

5. Shields did not issue a warning about posting recordings.

6. Shields’ LOD was

a. too vague to inform Dr. Burton of impropriety of posting recordings of open meetings.

b. Based on Throop LOD and that is void because based on lies.

c. Feels personally attacked by Dr. Burton. (video clip of his saying he is attacked) He is too personally involved to make sound decisions.

7. Nobody ever asked or demanded Dr. Burton to take any recordings offline. (audio of recording with Roter) (Shields in 9-19-17 hearing)

8. Throop lied

a. about the logo (show evidence)

b. About the student Sexual harassment issue (show various different statements- biased student)

9. Solar lied (show evidence)

10. Fuller lied

a. Said that Sabina was threatening people but she was interviewed by the investigator and even the biased investigation report states that nobody felt physically threatened by Dr. Burton. (cite)

11. Strobl lied

a. Said Sabina was threatening people right and left for ten months, but she was interviewed by the investigator and even the biased investigation report said that nobody felt physically threatened.

12. The investigation and report was seriously flawed:

a. was circumscribed to include only antagonists of Dr. Burton

b. was not signed

c. contained inaccurate information

d. Misquoted Dr. Burton’s statements

e. Was vague

f. Etc.

13. The Statement of charges is seriously flawed:

a. Based on flawed investigation

b. Based on Shields LOD that is based on flawed Throop’s LOD for which Dr. Burton has never been given a grievance hearing.

14. This hearing process is flawed:

a. False and misleading procedures were given with statement of charges

b. Correct procedures were not given to appellant until XX days after filing of the statement of charges.

c. Hearing was not conducted within 20 days

d. Hearing was held during Dr. Burton’s summer break when the administration had no right to compel her to attend

e. Hearing was conducted without Dr. Burton present even though the panel had been informed that Dr. Burton was very ill.

15. The definition of the standard of just cause by defense is flawed.

16. Chancellor Shields delivered to Sabina on 1/4/17 a notice of suspension and initiation of the dismissal process pursuant to UWS 4. ~~He was at that time required by Wis Stat 19.85 (1)(b) to include a statement of Sabina's right to an open hearing.~~ Wrong. ~~He failed to do that on the Rice complaint in August 2016, and that may be why he dismissed the charges.~~ He did include this information in Jan 2017 when he suspended Sabina and initiated the dismissal process again. . (Rebuttal-Shields Suspension-1-4-17).

Wis Stat 19.85 (1)(b) says “The notice shall contain a statement that the person has the right to demand that the evidentiary hearing or meeting be held in open session.” Wis Stat 19.85 ~~also indicates that the same right applies to investigations~~. Nope - I misread this. Not right. The suspension letter was accompanied by notification of Dr. Burton’s rights which included UWS 4.06 which says that “The hearing shall be closed unless the faculty member under charges requests and open hearing, in which case it shall be open (see subc. V of ch. 19, Stats., Open Meeting Law).”

Chancellor Shields delivered to Sabina on 3/31/17 a statement of charges pursuant to UWS 4. He was at that time required by UWS 4.02(2) to include a statement of the appeal procedures available to the faculty member. This is not the same as the requirement to inform about the open hearing. It is different. We still don't know exactly what the appeal procedures are. I have been looking online for the appeal procedures but they seem to be kept in a vault, away from prying eyes. I have found procedures for other universities but not for UW Platteville. Sabina sent an email to Laura Anderson and the Faculty Senate asking for the appeal procedures. Maybe they will send them? If not, perhaps you could ask for them and they won't give you the runaround? They probably won't give them to you either. I think they want us to miss a short deadline or something.

Sabina requested an open hearing in an email to Laura Anderson and the rest of the Faculty Senate. If they follow this law they must provide her an open hearing. It has been our experience however, that Shields will not allow an open hearing. We anticipate some sort of trickery. We may need you to bring some pressure to bear to ensure that they don't snake their way out of allowing an open hearing. We intend to try to get a lot of people to attend.

Here is an interesting paragraph I found:

After this hearing process you will be convinced that Dr. Burton has done none of these things and that the dismissal charges against her must be dismissed. You will further be convinced that she has been the target of all of these things. It is up to you to decide whether it is appropriate to file charges against those who committed against Dr. Burton fraud or intentional misrepresentation of facts for personal benefit, gross abuse of authority or influence (e.g.,discriminatory or retaliatory actions, particularly where a pattern is evident), or willful and protracted violations of university rules or policies.

I plan to speak at the hearing to share the documentary evidence and Sabina will speak for herself too. We expect we'll be able to convince the committee easily that the charges are bogus if we are given a fair opportunity to do so. We have been warned that the administration will give the targeted employee only five minutes to address the allegations and then usher the target out of the room. With the target gone they will allow the prosecution to talk to the committee as long as is necessary to convince them to fire the target.

Even if we convince the committee Chancellor Shields can act to fire Sabina and we'll need to take it to the Regents for appeal. I expect he will do so. We'll need to know the procedures in time to make this appeal. I'll keep looking for the appeal procedures.

The statement of charges fails because it does not satisfy just cause for dismissal. (JustCause-Standards).

UWS 4.02(2) says “Any formal statement of specific charges for dismissal sent to a faculty member shall be accompanied by a statement of the appeal procedures available to the faculty member.” Chancellor Shields failed to include appeal procedures with his statement of charges so he is in violation of this statute (sburtonChargesforDismissal-3-3017-email ), (sburtonstatementofcharges3-30-17).

We are considering just letting the 20 days expire and force Shields to send it to the Regents. Then we can say, hey, we never got a statement of specific charges package. The email did not include the appeal procedure and his charges are crap anyway. He is just trying to run us out of money. He is trying to harass Sabina and get her ulcers to flare up. He has hand selected the committee and will give us a hard time with every single issue. There is no way it will be fair.

It is conceivable that Shields will try to discipline Burton by demoting her etc. We have the right under UWS 4.07(2) to ask that his discipline be considered by the Regents first. We can’t miss this opportunity.

So, we wait until the deadline expires and let him do what he will do. He misses the opportunity to harass Sabina and must elevate it to the Regents if he wants to withdraw it.

We miss the opportunity to spend exorbitantly, get stressed, miss out on the opportunity to work on the lawsuit and miss the opportunity to say, hey look, Shields violated policy for the millionth time. The only upside of going to the hearing is that we will have an opportunity to be heard. But we are now already being heard in the media so we don’t need that. We now have the case in court. This will give us the opportunity to prepare for the appeal to the Board of Regents rather than wasting time and money on Shields’ and Lattis’ little games.

UWS 4.07 Recommendations: to the chancellor: to the regents.

(1) The faculty hearing committee shall send to the chancellor and to the faculty member concerned, as soon as practicable after conclusion of the hearing, a verbatim record of the testimony and a copy of its report, findings, and recommendations. The committee may determine that while adequate cause for discipline exists, some sanction less severe than dismissal is more appropriate. Within 20 days after receipt of this material the chancellor shall review it and afford the faculty member an opportunity to discuss it. The chancellor shall prepare a written recommendation within 20 days following the meeting with the faculty member, unless his/her proposed recommendation differs substantially from that of the committee. If the chancellor's proposed recommendations differ substantially from those of the faculty hearing committee, the chancellor shall promptly consult the faculty hearing committee and provide the committee with a reasonable opportunity for a written response prior to forwarding his/her recommendation. If the recommendation is for dismissal, the recommendation shall be submitted through the president of the system to the board. A copy of the faculty hearing committee's report and recommendations shall be forwarded through the president of the system to the board along with the chancellor's recommendation. A copy of the chancellor's recommendation shall also be sent to the faculty member concerned and to the faculty committee. For complaints involving sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking, the complainant shall have all rights provided to the faculty member in this paragraph, including the right to receive a copy of the chancellor's recommendation, except as may be precluded by applicable state or federal law.

(2) Disciplinary action other than dismissal may be taken by the chancellor, after affording the faculty member an opportunity to be heard on the record, except that, upon written request by the faculty member, such action shall be submitted as a recommendation through the president to the board together with a copy of the faculty hearing committee's report and recommendation. For complaints involving sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking, the complainant shall have all the rights provided to the faculty member in this paragraph.

History: Cr. Register, January, 1975, No. 229, eff. 2-1-75; CR 15-061: am. Register June 2016 No. 726, eff. 7-1-16.

UWS 4.08 Board review.

(1) If the chancellor recommends dismissal, the board shall review the record before the faculty hearing committee and provide an opportunity for filing exceptions to the recommendations of the hearing committee or chancellor, and for oral arguments, unless the board decides to drop the charges against the faculty member without a hearing or the faculty member elects to waive a hearing. This hearing shall be closed unless the faculty member requests an open hearing (see subch. V of ch. 19, Stats., Open Meeting Law). For complaints involving sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking, the complainant shall have the same opportunity for filing exceptions to the recommendations of the hearing committee or chancellor, and for oral arguments, as the faculty member.

(2) If, after the hearing, the board decides to take action different from the recommendation of the faculty hearing committee and/or the chancellor, then before taking final action the board shall consult with the faculty hearing committee and/or the chancellor, as appropriate.

(3) If a faculty member whose dismissal is sought does not request a hearing pursuant to s. UWS 4.04 the board shall take appropriate action upon receipt of the statement of charges and the recommendation of the chancellor.

(4) For complaints involving sexual harassment, sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking, the faculty member and complainant shall be simultaneously notified of the board's final decision.

History: Cr. Register, January, 1975, No. 229, eff. 2-1-75; correction in (1) made under s. 13.93 (2m) (b) 7., Stats., Register, April, 2001, No. 544; CR 15-061: am. (1), cr. (4) Register June 2016 No. 726, eff. 7-1-16.

Witness list: The members of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee. What did Shields tell you? What did he ask you? Did you see the rebuttals? Did you see any documentation or evidence? Did Chancellor Shields thoroughly discuss the matter with you? (Ask questions they should know if the matter had been discussed throroughly.)

Current Appeals Commission Members

Faculty Members

Member	College	Email	Term Expires
Robert Demaree	LAE	demaree@uwplatt.edu	2017
Rami Reddy	BILSA	reddya@uwplatt.edu	2017
Adam Stanley	LAE	stanleya@uwplatt.edu	2017
Susan Hansen (Co-Chair)	BILSA	hansens@uwplatt.edu	2018
Michael Dalecki	LAE	dalecki@uwplatt.edu	2018
Qiong (June) Li	EMS	liq@uwplatt.edu	2018
Barbara Barnet	EMS	barnetb@uwplatt.edu	2019
Abulkhair Masoom	EMS	masoom@uwplatt.edu	2019
Brian Peckham (Co-Chair)	LAE	peckham@uwplatt.edu	2019

Alternate Members

Member	College	Email	Term Expires
Qi Yang	EMS	yangq@uwplatt.edu	2017
Laura Anderson	LAE	andersla@uwplatt.edu	2018
Rick Bockhop	BILSA	bockhopr@uwplatt.edu	2018
Joong-Jae Lee	LAE	leejo@uwplatt.edu	2018
Mark Zidon	BILSA	zidon@uwplatt.edu	2018
Corinne Enright	LAE	enrightc@uwplatt.edu	2019
Steve Vance	LAE	vances@uwplatt.edu	2019
Sheryl Wills	EMS	wills@uwplatt.edu	2019

---------------------------------

James KARINS, Appellant-Respondent, v. CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY, Respondent-Appellant. Decided: February 18, 1998

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1456597.html

“The ALJ concluded that Karins had no notice that his speech was subject to discipline because (1) the “fashions of behavior” are subject to change and differing interpretations, and (2) the City's speech code is unwritten, and therefore incapable of providing notice.”

So, no unwritten code can be used to claim that notice was given. - Shields never gave written notice that Sabina shouldn’t record these meetings or post them. In the appeal hearing of 9-19-17 Shields said he didn’t know of any written code (find it).

“A statute or regulation is facially unconstitutional for vagueness if it “either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.” Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322, 328 (1926); State v. Lashinsky, 81 N.J. 1, 17-18, 404 A.2d 1121 (1979). Last term, we observed that a vague statute or regulation “creates a denial of due process because of a failure to provide notice and warning to an individual that his or her conduct could subject that individual to criminal or quasi-criminal prosecution.” State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 581, 695 A.2d 236 (1997).”

So, Chancellor Shields’ LOD was too vague to apply to recording meetings and posting them. In addition it was based on the Throop LOD which was based on fabrications. (Get quotes from his LOD)

--------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------