Rebuttal to Dr. Dalecki’s notes:
Dr_Mike_Dalecki, was instrumental in the retaliation against Dr. Sabina Burton.
If this document is printed the hyperlinks will be broken. To view the citations go to http://universitycorruption.com/uw/platteville/Public_Timeline.htm and search for the link name or the date. An electronic version of this document, with hyperlinks to citations, is posted at: http://universitycorruption.com/uw/upaft-3-7-17-pub/Rebuttal-DaleckiNotes.htm.
Dalecki’s notes are headed by “Dalecki’s notes:” in italics. Rebuttal
is in standard font headed by “Rebuttal:”
Below, Roger Burton re-typed Dr. Dalecki’s notes and entered the rebuttal between the lines on behalf of Dr. Sabina Burton:
Dalecki’s notes (Dkt 34-2 Exh C- Meeting Notes), (PersFile-8-22-17 - pg 110):
September 13, 2013
Met w/ Sabina Burton
for about an hour, wide range of topics.
Talked about where she wanted to go, whether being a department chair
was something on her radar, something she’d like to think about doing some day.
We talked about the
kind of things that she thought upper administrators would want to see in a
faculty member they thought would be an effective chair. That part of the conversation didn’t go so
well, didn’t seem to get though that she was auditioning for the part by the
way in which she carries herself and the kinds of demands, reasonable or
otherwise, she makes of those in upper administration.
Rebuttal:
It appears that Dalecki was implying that Dr. Burton’s demands, even the reasonable ones, disqualified her from being chair.
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
We ended by focusing
on the kinds of things she is now doing that she was not involved in before,
such as the DRB, being the chair of a search, and so on. I noted that I wanted her to be the model I
could point probationary faculty toward, to tell them “this is how you do it.”
Rebuttal:
So, Dr. Dalecki was pointing out that Sabina should stop complaining about discrimination because she was not chairing a search committee and was on a DRB committee. But later, Dr. Dalecki took away Dr. Burton’s mentoring assignment and gave three searches to a junior faculty member instead of Dr. Burton. He later argued that being on a committee was not something that helped a person become qualified to be chair (Public_Timeline – Aug 8, 2014).
Why was Dr. Dalecki keeping
these kinds of notes on Dr. Burton? Was
he keeping similar notes on other department members? On Aug 21, 2013 – Dalecki BCC’d
Dean Throop, an email that he sent to Dr. Burton [UW-P 000101]. The fact
that he was keeping such a file on Dr. Burton and bcc’ing his communications
about Dr. Burton directly to the Dean contradict his advice to Dr. Burton about
keeping matters on a “local” level. It
also contradicts his advice to deal with issues without setting them to email/writing. I think he didn’t want Sabina to put her
complaints in email because it is easy to twist words that are not written down
and harder to disprove what someone said when it is. Dr. Fuller later wrote to Dr. Dalecki “..ignore..NO email trails!”
( Ignore-no-email-Trails). This seems to have been an attempt to hide
the truth by not allowing it to be set in writing for later exposure. It seems that Dr. Dalecki wanted Sabina not
to write about her legitimate complaints, but to keep them only verbal, while
he was setting down in writing anything he could later use against her. He seems to have wanted all the written
documentation to support what he had to say.
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
September 19, 2013
I received two emails
(attached below) from Sabina Burton late on the 18th, demanding to
know why a second-year faculty member (Rex Reed) was receiving the college
Professional Development Award, and requesting that the nomination be
withdrawn. She indicated she believed
the decision to give the award to Professor Reed and not her “is just another
retaliation against me.” Further, she
noted “This action just validates my desire to have this matter resolved on a
higher level.”
As it turns out,
Professor Reed is receiving an Alumni award not the Professional Development
Award.
I had a conversation
with Sabina this afternoon shortly after lunch, where I showed her that what
she claimed was in fact for a different award than she had assumed.
I asked her to try to
not sweat the little stuff, to talk to me if she has a concern before
committing things to email-most things are simple misunderstandings or result
from a lack of complete information.
I also discussed the
idea of keeping things at our “local” level more where most of them could be
solved easily instead of moving them up the chain.
Sabina was a bit
contrite, for her at least.
Rebuttal:
For context see (Public_Timeline -
9/18/2013). To put this matter in a
nutshell: The award announcement put the
award under the heading “College of Liberal Arts & Education” and did not
identify Rex Reed’s award as being an alumni award so Dr. Burton’s confusion is
understandable. Dr. Burton mistook the
“Professional Achievement Award,” which is an alumni award, with the
“Professional Development Award, which is an LA&E award. Dr. Burton had plenty of legitimate things to
complain about and didn’t need to waste her time on issues that were not
discriminatory so, after she was informed of her misunderstanding, she dropped
the matter and apologized for bringing it up. Dr. Burton brought this matter to
the interim chair and did not move it “up the chain.”
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
I told her I needed
her productivity and drive, she does a lot of great things with students, did
the Germany trip last summer-and we need to move beyond what happened
before. I asked her to drive a stake in
the ground representing August 20th, when I started, and to only
think about what moved ahead from that, instead of what happened before it.
Rebuttal:
A common thread in this story is that the administration repeatedly pressured Dr. Burton to ‘let bygones be bygones.’ However, Dr. Burton had been cheated out of her rightful opportunity to be chair of the department. This could have been a very significant increase in pay and other opportunities for her. Instead of advancing her career she became a persona non-grata. She was placed in a subservient position beneath an interim chair who was not qualified for the position over her and who seemed biased against her. She was also concerned that the retaliation she had experienced, and continued to experience was because she had advocated for a student victim of sexual harassment and asked for fair treatment. She was concerned that if she backed down other faculty members would be fearful of advocating for victims of sexual harassment and sexual violence victims. She was fearful that by accepting the abuse herself she would be demonstrating to others that she too condoned the acceptance of sexual harassment and sexual violence and unfair practices in the workplace. Dalecki seems to be telling her: ‘Just stop asking to be treated fairly because it’s not going to happen. We will do whatever we want, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it. We’ll continue to cover up sexual harassment/violence incidents by pressuring you and anyone else courageous enough to stand up to us. You might as well just shut up and take it. If you do, maybe there is a small place for you here. If you don’t, we’ll get rid of you by harassing you till you can’t take it anymore. I want you to model the submissive faculty member. We want you to show others that we can break anyone, so we can break everyone.’
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
October 17, 2013
Met with Sabina Burton
today regarding her email/grievance sent to the chancellor yesterday.
The conversation was
very long, and during it I was able to get Sabina to think a little bit how all
this looks to others.
I started the
conversation with asking why she was doing this stuff. Didn’t she see the changes happening that
were to the department’s, and her, benefit?
Things like changing offices, putting her in charge of a search,
supporting her PACCE project, and the like?
She is still very
angry about her perceived defamation (her word), and her complaint/grievance to
the chancellor was about the Dean’s letter to the CJ faculty noting that there
was no one in the department qualified to do the department chair duties.
Rebuttal:
This is in reference to the Dean’s letter (Public_Timeline – Oct 3, 2013).
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
Sabina thinks she is
qualified for department chair, and much of the conversation centered around
whether she truly was qualified. I noted
that the chair serves at the Dean’t pleasure and
asked did she understand what that means.
[I have had a bit of trouble in the past using colloquialisms with
Sabina, and am careful to ensure I don’t do that, or ask if she understands the
colloquialism]
She said she
understands what “At the Dean’s Pleasure” meant, but I explained it anyway,
that I am an “at will” employee of the dean in this position and that she may
remove me at any time.
Rebuttal:
Policy clearly outlines the process whereby the chair is to be selected and a grievance committee found that the dean violated the policy, and law, in appointing Dalecki as interim chair (Public_Timeline - December 13, 2013).
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
I asked Sabina if she
had experiences of serving on a real DRB-not what has passed for one in the
department for these years-and suggested that her experiences here were not
particularly good preparation. I asked
what other committees she’d served on, whether she’d served on any
university-wide committees, whether she’d ever been involved in a negative
decision for a DRB, whether she’d ever had to make a firing decision.
Rebuttal:
So, here Dalecki seems to be saying that the DRBs for the past years were not “real;” that they were not good preparation to be chair; that there were major problems with the way the DRBs were handled. So why would he not want to resolve past problems? Cover-up?
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
I noted that I felt
she had the qualities where some day she would be qualified to be chair, but
given her lack of experience in those areas here, asked was she really
qualified.
Rebuttal:
This is a question that the department as a whole should answer in an election. This is not a decision for an illegally appointed interim chair who is trying to secure his position as permanent chair, and who is not qualified even to teach as a department faculty member, let alone department chair. Dr. Burton was qualified to be chair of the department. In fact, she was probably the only member of the department who was willing and qualified.
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
[I think some of this
is seeing herself in comparison to Lorne Gibson, who is also not qualified to
be chair, but I suspect she probably sees his “candidacy” for interim chair to ultimately
reflect on her.]
Rebuttal:
It is interesting that Dalecki saw Gibson’s bid for the chair position as a bid for an “interim chair” position. Unbelievably, Gibson was selected by the department as their choice for permanent chair of the department (TheSolicitousNote), (CriminalJusticeDept). Dalecki was wrong about Dr. Burton seeing Gibson’s “candidacy” reflecting on her. Dr. Burton was merely trying to get the administration to follow their own rules. She would have been satisfied serving under any chair selected properly in accordance with the policies and laws.
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
I also noted that
ultimately, since I work for the Dean, the Dean needs to have confidence in me
that it is the Dean’s agenda that must be supported. I can disagree, argue with her, try to change
her mind on something, but in the end, I have to be supportive.
Rebuttal:
One should not “have to be supportive” of a dean’s agenda that violates policy and law.
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
I asked if she felt
whether the Dean might have that kind of confidence in her, especially since
Sabina did things like send emails direct to the Chancellor. I noted that in all my years as a faculty
member, 27 in total, that I had *never* sent a complaint email to a dean or
provost or chancellor.
I said that had I
experienced what she had experienced, I might have felt little alternative
other than complaining to higher-ups-but that things are now different. While she may have been nervous about me as
interim chair, since Tom Caywood recommended me as his replacement, by now she
should have realized I was not the same guy, with the same policies.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Dalecki seems to be telling Dr. Burton that ‘you shouldn’t keep complaining about the retaliation; you should let it go because now you are under the authority of a completely different person who retaliates against you in a completely different way.’ He seems to want Dr. Burton to drop the complaints so he can enjoy his newfound position of power and can discriminate against anyone he wants. He seems to be telling Sabina that if she will do this he will give her the crumbs that fall from his table. He seems to be telling her that if she does not obey she will suffer the consequences of disobedience.
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
I also asked her if
she knew the colloquialism “Keep your powder dry.” I noted that the more one files complaints,
the less they might be taken seriously by higher-ups.
Rebuttal:
In the story of “The boy who cried wolf” the boy made
several false claims that a wolf was about to attack. He should have “kept his powder dry” because
in the end a real wolf came and the villagers didn’t believe him. Sabina’s story is very different. Sabina’s claims are true, accurate and well
documented. Another difference is that
the villagers in the story really wanted to help the boy. They came to his rescue several times before
disbelief set in. But the administration
of UW Platteville has not come to Sabina’s rescue for her true claims. Even Dr. Dalecki, in these notes, agrees that
Sabina’s claims are likely true. Dalecki’s “keep your powder dry” advice is not applicable
to this situation, yet he presses them on Dr. Burton.
To finish the
conversation, I noted that she needed to demonstrate that she was a team
player, someone we can trust, someone who has the background and experience
here to be a chair, and those qualities will take some time to demonstrate.
Rebuttal:
The issue of “trust” seems to be a common thread in this story. Trust seems to be a more important attribute than “ability” in consideration for advancement at UW Platteville. This is the sort of thing mafia bosses tell their people. Dr. Burton is a team player. She wants fair and equal treatment for all of the members of the department so it can flourish. She wants students to be safe. She views everyone in the university as part of her team. It seems that Dalecki sees the administration as his team.
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
We also talked about
what happened in the past a bit, and I reiterated my position that I wasn’t so
interested in what happened before, only what we do going forward, and that
ultimately, did she understand what it meant when I came here? In other words, Tom’s removal and my
replacing him was a tacit if not overt admission that at least some of her
complaints were likely valid.
Rebuttal:
Dalecki wasn’t interested in resolving what happened to Dr. Burton in the past. That is probably because he liked his new position, liked the increase in pay, and wanted to stifle Dr. Burton’s desire for resolution of the past because that would put him in good stead with the upper administration. He admitted that Dr. Caywood was removed but Dean Throop wrote publicly that Caywood had “stepped away” (Public_Timeline – July 10, 2013). This contradiction tells a story of the difference between public disclosures and private, closed door, discussions. This is an indication of cover-up. This is not transparency.
Dalecki’s notes (continued):
It seemed like I got
through a bit. For the first time, I saw
a little crack in her demeanor. I
suspect I will have to reinforce this several times, but it’s a start.
Rebuttal:
Dr. Dalecki wanted Dr. Burton to drop her complaints and mafia bosses want local business owners to pay for protection. A mafia boss might believe that a local business owner’s desire to pay for protection needs “reinforcement.”