Sabina
Burton’s comments to Dean Throop’s
memorandum to the Grievance Committee of Dec 1, 2014
Related rebuttals located here: (Appeals-Schedule).
The text of Dean Throop’s memorandum of Dec 1, 2014 is in italics
and my Rebuttal: is in standard font with a bold header.
---------------------------------------
RE: Dr. Sabina Burton’s Grievance
Rebuttal:
(quote employee
handbook or UWS 6.02 saying 20 days)
On Nov 12, 2014 Dr. Burton filed a grievance with Dr. Balachandran, the grievance commission chair. The grievance was against then-dean Throop and addressed her letter of direction, which Throop had issued to Dr. Burton on October 29, 2014. In this communication Dr. Burton wrote “I look forward to a prompt resolution as provided under UWS 6.02.” (exhibit 600)
UWS 6.02 states: “The faculty of each institution shall designate a committee or other appropriate faculty body to hear faculty grievances under rules and procedures established by the faculty of the institution in conjunction with the chancellor. The committee or faculty body shall have the power to conduct hearings and fact-finding related to the grievance and to recommend solutions to the grievance to the chancellor. If the committee or other body makes recommendations to the chancellor, the chancellor shall act on the recommendations within 30 days. The decision by the chancellor on the recommendation of the committee, or on the grievance in the absence of committee recommendation, shall be final except that the board, upon petition of a grievant or the committee or other faculty body, may grant a review on the record.”
On Nov
12, 2014 Article IX of the UW Platteville Employee Handbook stated “Section
2 Grievances: 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.“
University of Wisconsin Platteville Faculty Handbook 6.3.16.3 Grievances has the same wording (Faculty_Handbook_Spring2016-pg115).
The arguments in then-Dean Throop’s memo of Dec 1, 2014, (exhibit 595), were
presented the day before the university’s deadline to conduct the grievance
hearing.
Timing suggests that the grievance committee’s decision to miss the 20-day
deadline for hearing the grievance was based on then-Dean Throop’s memo.
The university is in violation of its own policy on grievance
procedures for missing this 20-day deadline.
In Dr. Burton’s grievance she wrote “On October 29, 2014 I received
a letter of direction from Dean Throop, which contains untrue, unfair,
unwarranted, cruel, vindictive, nonsensical, absurd, exaggerated and inaccurate
statements. Her directions are not in
keeping with school policy and attempt to suppress my due process rights.” Dr. Burton provided irrefutable evidence and
arguments to support her claim.
At issue today is not whether the letter of direction was fair or
unfair; reasonable or unreasonable; appropriate or inappropriate, but whether
the letter of direction was in force after the passing of the mandatory 20 day
deadline for a hearing to address it.
Dean Throop purposely influenced the grievance committee by requesting
that they violate university policy. She
did this so Dr. Burton would not be afforded a grievance hearing. She did this because she knew that Dr.
Burton’s arguments against the letter of direction were irrefutable.
By asking the grievance committee to violate university policy Dean
Throop invalidated and voided the letter of direction. Dr. Burton was damaged by the letter of
direction and she was damaged again by the university’s violation of
policy.
For these reasons the letter of direction must not be considered in the
decision whether to dismiss Dr. Burton.
The arguments in then-Dean Throop’s memo of Dec 1, 2014 are invalid, as
explained in this rebuttal.
Dr. Sabina Burton, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice, has filed a
grievance against me. I wish to respond to this in writing, prior to any
hearing.
UWP 6.02 defines a grievance as “a personnel problem involving an
employee’s expressed feeling of unfair treatment or dissatisfaction with
aspects of his/her working conditions within the University which are outside
his/her control.” It stands to follow, under this definition, that the subject
of the grievance must be a matter that can be meaningfully remedied.
Rebuttal:
No rational, thinking, educated and fair person could arrive at the conclusion Dean Throop draws from the definition above. Dean Throop’s point is invalid, misleading and unfair. I have expressed, and now reaffirm, my feelings of unfair treatment and dissatisfaction with aspects of my working conditions within the University, which are outside my control.
In this instance, Dr. Burton has filed a grievance over a letter of
direction that I gave her (“Issue #1”). A letter of direction is not “a
personnel problem,” because, at this point, nothing adverse or unfair has
happened to Dr. Burton. A letter of direction is similar to having a code of
behavior—it does not create a personnel problem until there is a violation.
Were Dr. Burton to violate the letter of direction in such a way that I would
be forced to take disciplinary action she would be entitled to the full array
of due process prior to any imposition of discipline.
Rebuttal:
The letter of direction is a very adverse personnel problem that sets
me up like the Joker sets up Batman. The
Joker ties Batman to a chair, which is connected to a gun that is pointed at
Batman’s head. If Batman so much as
wiggles in his chair the hairpin trigger will be pulled and Bang! No Batman. The Joker believes it would be
Batman’s fault for terminating himself by wiggling in the chair. Similarly, Dean Throop has tied me to unfair
directives, which are connected to her authority to fire faculty members for
insubordination that is pointed at my career.
If I so much as violate the smallest unfair directive Dean Throop will
be “forced (as though she is an inanimate object with no freedom of choice,
like a trigger) to take disciplinary action” and Bang! No Dr. Burton. Dean Throop wants you to believe that it
would be my fault if I “wiggle in the chair.”
Even Judge Peterson listed the letter of direction as an adverse action
in his decision to dismiss on summary judgment (Dkt 90 – page 2).
It is not Dean Throop’s place to decide whether I feel unfairly treated
or dissatisfied. She is trying to circumvent
due process. I perceive a problem therefore, I have a grievance. If there were no problems I would not have
filed a grievance. I have been denied
due process in the past and Dean Throop is attempting to do it to me again.
At this state, though, there is no remedy available to Dr. Burton so I
question whether the letter of direction meets the requirement for a valid
grievance.
Rebuttal:
Dean Throop’s misperception that there is no remedy available to me is
not valid reason to deny me due process.
Remedy is available as outlined by the requests in my grievance package.
As Dean of the College to which Dr. Burton is assigned, I have both the
authority and responsibility to attempt to point out and help to correct
employee behaviors that interfere with the normal course of work.
Rebuttal:
Dean Throop does not have the authority to deny due process! Let her make this point in a grievance
hearing.
My letter of direction is aimed at Dr. Burton’s disruptive and erratic
patterns of behavior towards colleagues in her department. What I hoped to accomplish with this letter
was to change Dr. Burton’s behavior for the better so that the Criminal Justice
Department can better function and carry out its mission.
Rebuttal:
Dean Throop needs to be made aware that she cannot violate law in order to “change a person’s behavior.” Let her defend her letter of direction in a grievance hearing.
Dr. Burton complains as well about the appointment of an outside search
committee chair for the permanent department chair (“Issue #2”). She provides
no evidence that I am “violating policy in an attempt to ensure that Dr.
Dalecki becomes the next permanent chair of the CJ department” and I therefore
reject this claim. Nor does this matter constitute a “personnel problem” as Dr.
Burton is a member of the search committee and is not being excluded.
Rebuttal:
Dean Throop selected a personal friend of Dr. Dalecki, not just from
outside CJ but from outside LA&E, to
chair the search committee. This is a clear conflict of interest. She did not allow the membership of the
department to approve her appointment or consider any other search chair
candidates. I suggested some good
candidates but she did not consider them.
Dean Throop’s actions violate the faculty’s right to govern itself.
Dean Throop stifled communication within the CJ department for
decisions regarding the search for a new chair.
She supports and enforces a “gag-order” on me. She has a personal agenda to get Dr. Dalecki
selected as the next permanent chair of the department and is willing to turn a
blind eye to violations of policy and law in order to achieve her goal. I have
evidence of my claims. Let me present them in a grievance hearing.
This is a “personnel problem.”
If hiring decisions are not “personnel issues” I don’t know what
is. Legal and policy violations, and
administration’s blatant encouragement of those violations, is clearly a
“problem.”
My complaint is not that I am excluded from the chair search but that
Dean Throop has violated our department’s right to govern ourselves by forcing
us to accept an outside chair for the search and by denying us the ability to
chose that chair.
Dr. Burton alleges that there are tenured members of the CJ department,
including herself, willing and able to fill the search chair position. I
disagree with this statement. Dr. Fuller is able but not willing. Dr. Caywood
opted to sit on the search committee for three tenure-track faculty members.
Rebuttal:
There is no legitimate reason why Dr. Caywood could not sit on the
faculty search and also chair the CJ search.
I have exercised my authority to bring in an outside chair, applying my
judgment that Dr. Burton would not make a reasonable and effective committee
chair. In Dr. Burton’s case, the fact that she has engaged in the behaviors
towards the acting chair that I described in my letter of direction render her
unfit to serve as the search committee chair.
Rebuttal:
Dean Throop has misapplied her judgment and authority and done me great
harm by basing her decisions on lies.
The letter of direction is wrong so her reasons to consider me unfit are
faulty. Let me demonstrate that in a
grievance hearing. She also has denied
me the opportunity to run for chair in a fair election within our
department. Dean Throop is unfit to be
dean.
I believe that the search
committee (on which Dr. Burton sits at present) must be able to conduct its
business fairly and objectively, and I have asked Dr. Burton to recuse herself
from consideration of Dr. Dalecki’s candidacy because it is very apparent that
she is unable to do that.
Rebuttal:
I explained to Dean Throop that I am able and willing to be completely
fair and objective in a search for a new chair and she was satisfied by my answer. There is no reason for her now to say that I
am unable to be fair and objective. If she felt I was unable to be fair and
objective why did she ask me to be on the chair search in the first place? If she feels I am unable to be fair and
objective now, why does she not remove me from the search? I believe the reason
is that the chair search is just a farce.
Dean Throop will do whatever it takes to keep her good friend Dr.
Dalecki in the position of chair. Maybe
she plans to use me as an excuse to fail the search so Dr. Dalecki will need to
stay on as interim chair. Maybe she
plans to “discipline” me for it. I will
be happy to discuss this matter in a grievance hearing.
I was not involved in “Issue #3” and am perplexed as to why Dr. Burton
is including this in a grievance against me. I did not choose the tenure-track
search committee. Moreover, offers have been extended to candidates and I will
not revoke those offers. There is no remedy available to Dr. Burton as a
result.
Rebuttal:
Dean Throop is involved in this matter.
She reprimanded me for complaining of policy violations committed by Dr.
Patrick Solar. In her letter of
direction Dean Throop wrote “only you believe that he(Dr. Solar) has improperly
carried out his duties as committee chair.” I have not been given the
opportunity to prove that I am right.
Give me that opportunity in a grievance hearing. I wish to demonstrate
that I was right to claim that Dr. Solar violated policy.
Dean Throop is pushing forward
the hiring of three new faculty members who have been selected primarily for
their loyalty to Dr. Dalecki and Dean Throop.
She refuses to revoke the offers even though she knows that at least one
person is willing to risk her job to prove that policy was violated in hiring
them. Denying me due process to prove my
claim violates employment law. My due
process rights have already been violated by delays and unfair practices. It is time to start affording me fair access
to due process. Let me prove my claims
against Dr. Solar in a grievance hearing and in so doing prove that Dean Throop
unfairly admonished me in her letter of direction.
By refusing to stop the hiring process Dean Throop opens the university
to possible litigation by candidates.
I am also troubled by Dr. Burton’s demand that the hearing, if there is
one, be conducted in open session. Any substantive discussion of the letter of
direction will necessitate discussion of sensitive personnel matters involving
other employees and, in particular, my concern with what I perceive as her
bullying of junior faculty. The Open Meetings Law provides for closed session
to discuss such matters and I believe a closed session would be the best course
here.
Rebuttal:
I am open to discussing the closure of the meeting at the beginning of
the meeting as outlined in the open meeting law. I will make my case for keeping the meeting
open at that time. I did not demand that
the hearing be conducted in open session.
I requested that the meeting be conducted in strict adherence to the
Open Meeting Law and school policy. It
was clearly not a “demand” but a reasonable “request.” This is one of many
examples of Dean Throop misinterpreting my words. It is not fair for her to refer to my
“request” as a “demand.” She seems to be unable to say the truth.
Finally, Dr. Burton provides a number of emails and other documents as
“evidence.” One additional item is purportedly a transcript and a tape of a
department meeting. Because the transcript and the recording were created by
Dr. Burton, there is no way to determine whether they are accurate depictions
of what was said. I ask that the Grievance Commission disregard them.
Rebuttal:
Of course there are ways to determine whether the recording and
transcript are accurate. Ask people
who are familiar with the individual’s voices if the speakers are in fact who I
claim them to be in the transcript.
Verify the transcript by listening to the recording. I do not guarantee that the transcript is
completely accurate or complete so you should verify it by listening to the
recording. Look at the agenda items
provided by Dr. Solar on Oct 16, 2014 (exhibit 562c) and
compare them to the discussions on the recording. You will find that they coincide; proving
that the meeting was conducted on 8/29/14.
In summary, Dr. Burton “grieves” three issues that do not amount to a
personnel problem or unfair treatment. None of these matters created a problem
that can be meaningfully remedied in this proceeding. I ask that the committee
give consideration to recommending dismissal of the grievance without holding a
hearing.
Rebuttal:
I have been treated unfairly. I
request that the grievance be held as I requested and as soon as possible. Nothing that Dean Throop writes in this
memorandum should have any bearing on any decision about whether or not to
conduct a hearing. It is not up to Throop to decide whether I have a grievance
or not. This is North America, not North
Korea.