“Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly.”  Mahatma Gandhi



UW Platteville administration mercilessly harassed Dr. Sabina Burton for almost five years. -  Maj. Roger Burton (webmaster, Sabina’s husband, former Marine Harrier Pilot, Gulf War Veteran).


Retaliation-short-timeline – A condensed timeline that contains only the most egregious violations by the university.  This timeline identifies laws and policies that were specifically violated. 


Scroll to the bottom for current events.


Public Timeline (excluding those events I choose to keep out of the public realm – Private Timeline): 

I have written the timeline in first person as though my wife, Sabina Burton, is speaking.  I have made every effort to write the things she has told me as accurately as possible but there is a chance that some of my writing could inaccurately reflect my wife’s exact words as she has not proof-read the entire timeline – Roger Burton.


This document contains hyperlinks to pertinent files.  It shows the chronology of events and provides a synopsis of each event.  Click the hyperlinks to view the associated documents, which shed more light on the events. 

If a link is broken please let me know so I can repair it.  If you need a document that is not provided by the hyperlinks please email and let me know which document you need.

The easiest way to find discussion about a particular subject is to do a keyword search.  For example, if you are looking for information concerning the cancelled class search for “cancel.”  You will find multiple references to that keyword throughout the timeline that tell the story of the cancelled class.  Similarly, using names as keywords will show that person’s involvement in various situations.


Sex Discrimination Documents (interactive exhibit i612)   Not completed

My qualifications:  include that I was involved at a young age in high level politics through my father’s work.  Here is an event in which I was involved (exhibit 624).   I received my PhD from UCI, named number one in CJ by USA Today (exhibit 625).

RST File Checklist:  [UW-P 000872]    says that Peer evals must be conducted and recorded before student evaluations. 


Burton DRB file as of Jan 7, 2015:   [RPD 5 (00187541xCECB9)]    It appears that Hawks failed to include this as evidence. 

(Subpoena-Fuller-January 9, 2015 2:29:26 PM )  Note:  -  (Subpoena-Fuller-September 8, 2015 4:15:58 PM)      Burton requested to see the rest of her evaluation form for Jan 2015 evaluation.  The request bounced around Throop, Liz Schall, Kory Wein and Fuller.  Fuller sends Strobl a copy of the DRB evaluation (BurtonEval-9-8-15).  This coincides with the same forms in Burton’s DRB (Dkt 41-57A, Dkt 41-57B.)  This eval is totally messed up.  See 8-28-15 on the timeline for more info.  Check out another form in Burton’s DRB to see how the fourth years do not coincide with the Jan 2015 marks (Dkt 41-57C).  Also, note that Jan 2015 was Burton’s 6th evaluation so the marks for that year should go into the 6th year row but that row is empty.  A closer examination of previous scores shows other disparities.    Burton’s former attorney Tim Hawks failed to ask Fuller any questions about these disparities.   He let her off easy.  I wonder why?   Hmmm.


Burton appealed the decision of the DRB committee (Jan-2015Appeal-DRB).  After reconsideration the DRB recommended the same results with no explanation why (Jan-2015-evals).   


Dutelle and Gibson evals [RPD 6 (00188678xCECB9)]  Dutelle’s CV – Dkt 40-17,  Dkt 38-4

Burton CV – [RPD 9 (00187649xCECB9)Dkt 43-8  Dkt 38-3.     [UW-P 000349


Definitions:  In an effort to explain some of the complex issues within our dysfunctional department to someone who has not been indoctrinated into the sort of politics that have been going on in our department I present some general thoughts to keep in mind as you attempt to understand the various aspects of my claim. (never sent Definitions)


My professional aspirations have been damaged due to the corruption I face.   (i-MyProfessionalAspirations)


Public Timeline:

May 13, 1999 – Caywood gets activated as a Warrant Officer in the Army and the school says your pay will end when you leave.  Lana Caywood gets upset about that and writes a letter to Senator Kohl cc to Governor Tommy Thompson, President of UW System and to Chancellor Markee.      In this letter she writes “I understand that Tom’s military activation requires him to take an unpaid leave of absence from UWP.  However, Tom completed his classes and turned in his final grades just as other faculty were required to do.  Many of the faculty do not return to their offices the last week of their contract but their pay is not jeopardized.  Two faculty members in the UWP Engineering Department left Monday, May 17 for their condo in Florida but their pay, along with the many others who are absent this week, will not be cut because their departure is not documented as Tom’s is.”    (LanaCaywood-LastWkPay)  

Assistant Staff Judge Advocate Terence McArdle agreed that Caywood should be paid for the last week.  Essentially agreeing that it is ok for him (and the others Lana Caywood refers to) to miss the last week of class or at least that if others miss the last week and are paid then Tom Caywood should be paid too.

The university decided to pay Caywood the difference in pay essentially agreeing that many people miss the last week of class and that it is ok to pay people who miss the last week of class as long as they get their papers graded.  Why was I singled out when it is a documented and agreed to fact that many people miss the last week of school.   I am one of the very few who actually teach up to the last day.

This shows that others are gone the last week of class often.  It is a common practice by many of my colleagues to be absent the last week of the semester yet Dalecki reported me absent the last day and Throop threatened me.  Why did they single me out?  Retaliation.

 July 28, 2003 – The Office of Civil Rights published a “Dear Colleague Letter” which stated:   No OCR regulation should be interpreted to impinge upon rights protected under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or to require recipients to enact or enforce codes that punish the exercise of such rights. There is no conflict between the civil rights laws that this Office enforces and the civil liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. With these principles in mind, we can, consistent with the requirements of the First Amendment, ensure a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for students that is conducive to learning and protects both the constitutional and civil rights of all students.”     See Chancellor Shields’ admonitions of (Date) and see if his instructions to me misinterpreted this. 

Aug 2004 – Mr. Dutelle was hired as academic staff. This is when his teaching career began. His resume shows no prior teaching experience. March 2007 Resume – [UW-P 000818]

April 11, 2006 – Fuller suggests that Caywood and her Co-Chair.  Fuller would chair the online program and Caywood chairs the CJ program.  [UW-P 000977

10-27-06 -  Dkt 46-110.  Fuller writes to Caywood [UW-P 000975]  saying “According to HLC, we need to have over 50%+ of “on campus” faculty teaching in the online programs (there can not be more adjuncts than “on campus” faculty).”   She also wrote “hoping more permanent assignments can be made when the new faculty hires are on board at UWP.”  This was a reference to me.  I was hired with permanent assignment of .25 online teaching.       In Fuller’s deposition she said this:

Page 24

2 Q. You write that the HLC recommends that

3 there should be more on-campus faculty teaching

4 online in the online programs than adjunct

5 off-campus faculty?

6 A. Correct.

7 Q. Is that still the case today?

8 A. Correct. As part -- as overloads.

Sabina made a table showing that this is not what Fuller has been doing.  (graduate teaching)

11-02-06     Dkt 41-45.   Fuller sends email to Caywood.  Dkt 46-111.    [UW-P 000973]  She discusses online release time rule.  “For any given semester, an online course must have 20 students enrolled in that course for the faculty instructor to get release time (.25).  This was the number that Fuller misquoted on Jul 16, 2014   and Dalecki misquoted on Aug 04, 2014 01:31 PM       


11-13-06 –  Dkt 46-112.  Dkt 46-119.    Fuller sent an email to Caywood describing how on campus faculty were assigned percentage teaching online.  [UW-P 000970]  This was before my time but it shows how the online program was set up to be given percentage of time as online.  It also shows that Fuller wanted more help with online teaching.  This supports my claim that I was hired to teach .25 online. 

1-14-07 – Dkt 46-130.  Handwritten note by (Caywood?) about Fuller’s “personal attacks” on Dutelle. [UW-P 000965

1-18-07 – Caywood directs Fuller to create two binders that describe her relationship and duties as grad pgm director.  [UW-P 000966] We should ask for this binder in discovery. 

Feb 17, 2007 – Dutelle was congratulated for being one of three finalists for the position of “Forensic Lab Director” at Greeley Colorado.  Annual Salary for the position was $82,044.  [UW-P 000823]  Obviously he didn’t get the job.


Feb 19, 2007 Fuller sent an email to Caywood about split appointments. [UW-P 000958-959


11/26/08 – Review of applicants began.  Job announcement (exhibit 509)

June 6, 2008 - (exhibit 681) HR report from UCI – sent by Chris Park on 4/14/15.


The job advertisement to which I applied:  (Ad-teacingonline-2009)   This ad says “Responsibilities include teaching undergraduate courses on campus, undergraduate and graduate courses via distance learning, supervising internships, student advising, and a willingness to participate in institutional and public service.”   This shows that my online teaching was to be part of load.

The contract request (ContractRqst-2009)  lists Principal Assignment for the job I was offered as “Teaching on campus and online courses.”    This was explained to me to mean that I would teach at least one out of my four core courses.

8-24-09  My original contract:  (Dkt 39-24 pg43-44)

3/18/09 6:15 AM   Dkt 46-114.   Caywood sent me my visit itinerary.  (Caywood-sendsitinerary3-18-09)  Attached was the itinerary:  (exhibit 538b).  Fuller had 15 minutes with me.  This is because my position also entailed .25 teaching in the MSCJ program as part of load.   This was taken away from me by Caywood and never given back.    On  Jan 28, 2011 03:35 PM   -  Fuller asked me to give her 15 minutes to talk to candidates of my search because the position entails .25 teaching in the MSCJ program (online).  (exhibit 538



Mar 27, 2009 - My job interview was conducted.   A list of the candidates is in (exhibit 640) (exhibit M.a) (exhibit M.b).


April 15, 2009 –  Dkt 54-3.  Dkt 46-109. The date on the letter offering me the job.  (UW-P 004035)   Why did they wait so long to send me the offer?  And why not call me.  I didn’t get the letter until at least April 18, maybe later.  I remember it took a very long time.

Shows that my primary duty involved online teaching.


18 May 2009 10:50:26 – Caywood sent me an email saying “I know it is early but I am working on the spring 10 schedule. It is due July 10th.  For spring 2010 I was thinking;   law as social control (on line), 2 sections of women and the law,  and a current topics course ( 3 credits) in something of your choice (terrorism).  Also would you be interested in teaching an overload class on US courts and the cj systems?”  This shows that he was assigning me an online course as part of load.   (spring 2010 schedule)

20 May 2009 10:36:11 -  Dkt 46-115.   Caywood sent me an email with my fall and spring schedules. This shows that I was assigned online as part of load. (exhibit 533).


July 1, 2009 – Caywood wrote a letter to Nemmetz explaining why she was not eligible for the position she sought.  He wrote “If you seek employment elsewhere I wish you the best of luck.  I will be more than happy to write a letter of recommendation for you.” 


July 29, 2009 – Throop was named dean for Humanities and Sciences of St. mary’s University in winona Minn (exhibit 660). (exhibit 660a)  Part of her job was dealing with students’ complaints.     July 27, 2011 Buena Vista University announced that Throop came on board with them as interim dean of the Harold Walter Siebens School of Business and visiting professor of anthropology.   (exhibit 660c).   On Jan 25, 2012 she was a finalist for Univ of Colorado Springs. (exhibit 660b)   The article says that she was currently interim Dean at Buena Vista University since July 2011 and previously served as dean of St. Mary’s Univ of Minnesota.   Julyish 2012 Throop came on board with UWP.



Oct 15, 2009 – Caywood asks Fuller if she wants to be on the DRB or CRST.  Can’t be on both he writes. [UW-P 000950

11-13-09 -  Caywood asks Dean Nimmocks/Den Herder questions about Fuller’s position.  [UW-P 000947]  This explains some of the confusion in reporting that I came into as a new hire.

11-23-09 – Caywood sat in on my class.  This is the only time he observed me teach. [UW-P 000699]

2009 through 2013 – Dr. Dalecki was in the Sociology Department:  Dalecki seems to have taught only three courses in Sociology.  He told me that he never got any release time.  During his time as head of Sociology several women faculty and staff members came and quickly left their jobs.  Women who work for him suffer an extremely high turnover rate.  I believe he targets women for job termination on a routine basis.

Dalecki told me that he never got time off for being coordinator of the Sociology dept.  But it appears that he only taught three courses.  He also seems to have forced many students out of his classes, probably so he would have an easier teaching load for the same pay.

Dalecki’s student ratings on are poor.  This supports my assertion that students have bad things to say about him.

In contrast, my ratings are high:

1/12/10 -  Caywood writes a letter to Dutelle saying things Dutelle needs to goals to accomplish for advancement. [UW-P 000914]   I never got one of these.


2/24/10 -  Nimocks/Den Herder explained the removal of Dalecki from my DRB as a “conflict of interest in him serving on the DRB at the same time he is applying for a CJ position.”       (exhibit 591)

2-24-10 -  Nimocks/Den Herder writes follow up description of meeting among Kate Kelley, Mittie Nimocks, Caywood, Fuller. [UW-P 005920]   -  In this meeting they discussed that Dalecki could apply for a position and he could also request a transfer to CJ.

2-24-10 -  Caywood goes to bat for another of his ‘men.’  He writes a letter trying to help Bob Roberts stay employed. [UW-P 001130]  

2-26-10 -  Joe Lomax writes a letter to CRST Members about their decision to reverse the CJ DRB’s unanimous vote for retention of Bob Roberts.  [UW-P 001126]   He writes that the CRST membership included Dalecki and John Rink.  It looks like Dalecki and Rink wanted Roberts out for some sly reason.



Mar 2010 - (exhibit 507) – Report showing some things done by department members etc. 

 26 March 2010 – Dkt 46-129.  Memo from office of dean dealing with complaints.

 April 26, 2010 -   [UW-P 005923-932]  Nimocks/Den Herder’s notes about the issues surrounding the conflict between Caywood and Fuller.  She wrote that she interviewed S Burton, A Dutelle, S Elmer, S Kratcha, J LeFevre, J Lomax, A Nemmetz, D Rice and E Ross.  She wrote “All individuals acknowledged the conflict and believed it was of long standing rooted in differences of philosophy regarding the future of the program as well as in more personal conflicts – conflicts regarding who should be the department chair, the creation of the forensic investigation program, the hiring of Aric Dutelle and the control and oversight of the CJ online program.”  She continued “Most individuals reported that others and/or they themselves perceived preferential tereatment.” She wrote “ One person did perceive that women were not treated fairly and had a sense of a “good ol’ boy’s club from which the females in the department were excluded.”  She wrote “several people felt that the “quality” of their degree was questioned and their credentials ridiculed.”  She wrote “One person indicated concern about the manner in which searches were handled and believed that the inconsistencies in process were a “lawsuit waiting to happen.”

Nimocks/Den Herder wrote as the second of Fuller’s complaints that Fuller argued that “Tom has over-reached his authority and his behaved with discrimination toward female faculty and prospective faculty members.” [sic]   [sexual discrimination]

There are many complaints that Den Herder answers in these notes.  Many of them concern Dutelle. Also they talk about Dalecki stepping down from the DRB due to a conflict of interest.


Fuller argued that  “Tom has over-reached his authority and his behaved with discrimination toward female faculty and prospective faculty members.” (Fuller deposition exhibit 129 page 2 para 2)  UW-P 005924   (Fuller Tr. 61.16 to 62.2)

Dkt 46-133.  Dutelle expense report where he gets money.  Date unsure.

April 26, 2010 -    Dkt 40-23.  Dkt 46-132.    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)  also  [UW-P 005916]   SB000028]  This communication training never took place.  Caywood scoffed at the idea in the department meeting after Nimocks/Den Herder left the room.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 29.         Memorandum from Dean Mittie Nimocks to the faculty and academic staff of the CJ Department, regarding departmental conflict, dated April 26, 2010, Dkt 53-7


Tue, May 04, 2010 08:33 AM – Email from Dr. Caywood (exhibit EZZZZZG-3)   SB000031]  stated: “Our next department meeting is scheduled for 9:00 AM Tuesday May 11th in 1137 Ullsvik Hall. The Dean spoke with many of you about what is going on in the Department. She will present her findings.”




Mon, May 10, 2010 08:44 AM -  Dkt 40-22.   SB000027]   SB000032]  Email from Dr. Caywood (exhibit EZZZZZG-1) with an attached report from Dean Nimmocks (Den Herder). (exhibit EZZZZZG-2)        SB 000028-30


In the report the Dean discussed the conflict in the department. She said that for some of the faculty and staff it is “a hostile environment that is paralyzing and makes being at work frustrating and miserable.” And “Dr. Banachowski-Fuller’s complaint is that she feels harassed, is stymied in the performance of her job, and is treated in a discriminatory manner. In addition, she perceives that Dr. Caywood’s leadership is overly authoritarian and that he is not sensitive to appropriate protocol in following university policies as well as legal process specifically in the workings of searches in the department. Because Dr. Banachowski-Fuller expressed that she was experiencing harassment, discriminatory behavior, and a hostile work environment I agreed to investigate this claim.”


She also wrote: “I found no evidence that Tom was harassing Cheryl, however, it is clear that these two are having great difficulty communicating and working together.“ The Dean could not find evidence of harassment because Dr. Fuller did a poor job of collecting, processing and supplying evidence, relying instead on her ability to persuade, and coerce me and others to testify on her behalf. I have not made the same mistake.

The Dean Continued: “It is for this reason, that I am having Cheryl report to me for the next year. Tom will be privy to all reports, requests, and communications between Cheryl and me. This decision does not reflect on Tom’s leadership of the department generally but is an attempt to create a buffer between Cheryl and him.” This decision impacted me greatly. As I began my career at UWP I found myself working for two bosses who hated each other. I was caught in the middle of a horrible situation.


Dr. Fuller worked hard to get me to act with her but I was not tenured and wanted to be accepted in the department. I didn’t know anything about the harassment issue except what Dr. Fuller told me. She provided me with no proof. I had to see it for myself before I could make a decision. Dr. Fuller acted poorly in some instances so I rightly opposed her actions. Dr. Caywood and Mr. Dutelle seemed to treat me well in my first year (typical bullying behavior). I leaned toward their side and did not support Dr. Fuller’s accusations when asked by the Dean because to that point I had not seen it personally. This seemed to put me in good stead with Dr. Caywood and Mr. Dutelle, but they were using me from the beginning.


The Dean wrote: “Sensitive discussions, arguments, or decision making should be conducted face-to-face, never via email,” This is the same foolishness the Chancellor wrote in his July 26, 2013 communication with the department. (exhibit ZA-7) (Dkt 101-7)   My remarks concerning the Chancellor’s letter are in timeline at Aug 8, 2013. 


Dean Nimmocks (Den Herder) wrote: “I also charge Aric Dutelle with cross-training colleagues in the Forensic Investigation area.” This was never done. The dean did not follow up to ensure it was done.


The dean wrote: “Finally, 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.” Dr. Caywood failed to make this workshop happen and the dean did not follow up to ensure compliance with the instruction.


Mon, May 10, 2010 04:18 PM - Mittie Nimocks (Den Herder) sent an email to Dr. Fuller and Dr. Caywood. (exhibit EZZZZZG)  SB000025]  She wrote that she “abhors using email for this type of communication.”   Probably because she didn’t want to leave a record that someone could use in court.  She informed the department members that she will be attending the department meeting the following day. She wrote “The purpose of tomorrow's meeting is for me to share quite plainly my perception of the present conflict among the faculty, to allow anyone and everyone to ask and answer questions, and to make recommendations and plans for improving the climate within the department.” (Communication Training)


Tue, May 11, 2010 – Department meeting.


Dean Nimmocks (Den Herder) iterated the charges and instructions she had emailed previously.


Dr. Caywood joked immediately after Dean Nimmocks (Den Herder) left the room that he had no intention of having a workshop.


The minutes of this meeting do not seem to exist. Dr. Caywood may have destroyed them to cover up his failure to comply with the Dean’s instructions.


In spring 2010 LAE did an investigation on sexual harassment charges brought forward by Dr. Fuller against Dr. Caywood.  As a result, then Dean Nimocks Den Herder ordered that Dr. Fuller would no longer be required to report to Dr. Caywood, the chair of the department.  This shows that serious problems in the department existed before my troubles with Dr. Caywood began.

The following year another accusation of discrimination was brought forward by Dr. Amy Nemmetz.  Her applications for a tenure track position in spring 2010 and again in spring 2011 was strongly opposed by Dr. Caywood.

Former Associate Dean Dr. Bunte investigated charges against Dr. Caywood.  As a result of that investigation Provost Nimocks Den Herder informed the department at a department meeting that the CJ department had communication problems and ordered us to undergo a communication workshop.   The fact that this communication training never occurred shows Dr. Caywood’s disregard for the provost’s office, shows that he is not interested in improving communications within the department and supports my claim of gender discrimination.  I have looked through all the minutes of previous meetings and this discussion is not mentioned.  I believe Dr. Caywood removed the comments from the minutes.


Aug 20, 2010 – Laura Anderson, Interim Dean, wrote a letter to Nimocks/Den Herder revising her duties.  Fuller no longer reported to Caywood but reported directly to the dean. [UW-P 005690]    The new reporting structure was to be reviewed at the end of the 2010-11 year but it wasn’t.

Fall 2010 - In a DRB review, on which Dalecki sat, my student evaluations added up to over 4.2 (outstanding) but I was ranked “above average.” Both Mr. Dutelle and Dr. Gibson received “outstanding” with similar student evaluations. I brought up this double-standard in a letter to former DRB chair Joe Lomax on 1/21/2011 to which Lomax responded on 1/23/2011: “I received and read your concern and I lean in favor of your argument.” (exhibit EZZZS)  Dalecki said I needed “room to grow” and would not agree to change the score.  He gave no reason why I needed “room to grow” and I still want to know.  I have asked him but he refuses to answer the question.  Why did I need “room to grow” but my male colleagues did not?  Good deposition question.



Oct 26, 2010 – Tenured faculty recommend retention for me. [UW-P 000040]

 Nov 15, 2010 – Dkt 53-18 -  Fuller writes me about a blue form for Caywood’s signature.  She says to have Tom sign it then he should forward it to the dean’s office.

November 16, 2010 8:51:21 AM -  Dkt 53-18  I inform Fuller that Caywood refuses to sign my online program forms.    (CaywoodRefusestoSign)  Fuller replies “No problem ... thanks.”

Rule 26 Disclosure - 40.         November 15 and 16, 2010, emails regarding blue form for Sabina Burton for CJ 7920, between Dr. Cheryl Fuller and Dr. Burton Ex. Dkt 53-18


2010 - 2011 Dalecki applied for a position in CJ but his application was withdrawn.  Fuller opposed him.  I was the chair of the search and screen committee in 2011.  He was never a finalist.  He was not qualified to teach in Criminal Justice.  I believe Dalecki holds a grudge against me for chairing the committee that did not allow him into the CJ department. 

Jan 27, 2011 – Dkt 38-4.5 (mislabeled) – Recommendation for Retention of Dutelle and covers of his books.   The textbook I worked with in FI is really not good quality.  It has some serious mistakes in it.  Dr. Strobl asked me to find a new book to replace it after she took over as chair.  Maybe the reason I was kept out of the FI program was so I wouldn’t be able to identify all of the serious mistakes in that program.  Dkt 39 Deposition of Sabina Burton taken on 10-22-15 (00218299xCECB9)


January 21, 2011 8:38:12 PM:  I sent an email to Joe Lomax, former CJ department chair and DRB chair asking him to intervene in what I considered an unfair mark in my evaluation (exhibit EZZZS). SB000001]   My request to change my score was not granted but my request to remove Dalecki from the DRB was granted, as it was clear to Joe Lomax, DRB chair, that Dalecki was biased against me. I learned that Joe was forced into retirement by the administration shortly after expressing his opposition to Dalecki. (He still teaches as an adjunct.) It seems that the administration forced Lomax into retirement shortly after he removed Dalecki from the DRB.       

January 23, 2011 1:18:46 PM (exhibit EZZZS) SB000001]  Joe Lomax wrote.  “I received and read your concern and I lean in favor of your argument.  With your permission, I will forward this information to the other two members of the DRB and request that we meet and upgrade the evaluations to reflect your outstanding work as opposed to trying to calculate a future impression.  Thank you for expressing how you are feeling.  You already have one of the three DRB members in favor of the change.” 


Jan 27, 2011 –  Recommendation letter for my retention. [UW-P 000041

Jan 28, 2011 03:35 PM   - Dkt 46-113.   Fuller asked me to give her 15 minutes to talk to candidates of my search because the position entails .25 teaching in the MSCJ program (online).  (exhibit 538)  This is significant because one can see, on the itinerary for my visit as a candidate, (exhibit 538a) attached was (exhibit 538b) that Fuller had 15 minutes with me.  This is because my position also entailed .25 teaching in the MSCJ program.   This was taken away from me by Caywood and never given back.


Monday, January 31, 2011 6:17:07 PM – Mr. Dutelle sent an email to Dr. Caywood (exhibit EZZZZZK) that seems to imply that Mr. Dutelle was in charge and felt responsible for the ethics and power within the department. This email shows that Mr. Dutelle felt he held much power within the department. It was a clear sign that he felt “In Charge” even then, and was an effort to secure even more power.

In his book “Ethics for the Public Service Professional” Dutelle wrote: “Ethics- or lack thereof-has been found to permeate all areas of the criminal-investigative process. With very little research effort, the reader will find that there are ethical transgressions that occur at all steps in the evidentiary process:… These issues are not isolated to particular geographic regions or to particular departments. They are instead a product of training (or lack of) and personal values (or lack of), that can be present in any setting.” … “An examination of unethical issues relating to crime-scene work shows a variety of motivations for committing unethical acts. Sometimes the motivation is greed; other times, it is power, status, or promotion. But more often it is a case of the individual forgetting that his or her obligation is to the truth.“


In his position as teacher Dutelle will influence students who will one day become law enforcement professionals, handle evidence and hold someone’s freedom in their hands. Dutelle is not the right person to teach these students about ethics. Dutelle is someone who has stepped on people in order to advance himself. He made decisions based on how they affected him rather than how they affected the school or our students.  


February 9, 2011 8:00 a.m. – a department meeting was conducted. The minutes are (exhibit P).  Caywood announced that he and Dutelle would travel to Austrailia.  I was never considered for this opportunity.  Caywood wanted to go on vacation with Dutelle.  There are other interesting bits of info in these minutes as well.


March 15, 2011 – Dutelle gets a $2,000 grant to be used for grant writing. [UW-P 000910]  


Spring 2011? - Dr. Bunte, former Associate Dean, conducted an interview into charges against Dr. Caywood, then chair of the CJ department.  As a result of that investigation Provost Nimocks Den Herder informed the department at a department meeting that the CJ department had communication problems and ordered us to undergo a communication workshop.   The minutes for department meetings show no such order.  I believe Dr. Caywood removed reference to Dean Nimocks Den Herder’s order from the minutes.  (cover up) (communication training)


April 1, 2011 –   Dkt 40-13.  Caywood signed a letter saying he would not call upon me to serve in a faculty governance or service activity which conflicts with my sabbatical project work. (exhibit W)  SB001354]  Caywood later assigned me to do the study abroad trip to Germany in violation of this agreement.  He also redirected my efforts to cyber-crime and away from Terrorism. (see Feb 2012)


Rule 26 Disclosure - 65.         Letter of Dr. Caywood to University of Wisconsin System Institute on Race and Ethnicity, Ref: Letter of Guarantee for Grant Application for Dr. Sabina Burton, dated April 1, 2011, Dkt 53-43



Apr 4, 2011 (18 months prior to Dr. Gibson’s sexual harassment of a student) – HR Director, Jean Durr, sent an email titled “Letter from the Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights (OCR)“ to Chancellor Shields, Mittie Nimocks, Laura Anderson and others. On the same day Dr. Caywood forwarded the email with attachment to me and other members of the CJ department.  (exhibits EZZZZZP, EZZZZZP-1, EZZZZZP-2)   I found these documents around 3/10/14 and copied some of the highlights to (exhibit EZZZZZP-3)

There is nothing in the UW-Platteville employee handbook about a timeline for investigations concerning grievance procedures. The grievance procedure states “All parties are due as prompt a resolution of the matter as practicable.” This does not satisfy the guidance to “specify a timeline.”

The school has been notoriously slow or dismissive of its obligation to investigate both my grievance, and Dr. Gibson’s sexual harassment of a student. I informed Dr. Caywood and Kate Demerse of the sexual harassment issue on Oct 11, 2012.


 The Office of Civil Rights wrote a “Dear Colleague Letter” on April 4, 2011 in which they define  Sexual harassment” as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. It includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual violence is a form of sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX.”


Spring 2011 - Caywood violated my contract by removing me from the online teaching.  He did so because Cheryl Fuller had accused him of sexual discrimination and he was retaliating against her by removing me from her program.  I was not ok with this but I could see there was a lot of anger and power playing going on and I did not feel safe voicing my objection at the time.   After that time any online teaching I did was paid as overtime.  Caywood would not sign the necessary paperwork for me to teach and Fuller would not take it to him for me.  I had to get the Dean to sign a document normally signed by the Chair.   Caywood would not let me teach online as a primary class.  This violated my contract.  I was originally hired to teach 75% in classroom and 25% online.



Some time around 2011 Joe Lefevre left the school.  He feels unfairly treated.   Someone put a note by my reference to him in my grievance [UW-P 000457] saying that “Joe’s pay doubled when he left UW-P.  Since Joe and his wife had just become the parents of twins the increase in pay was welcome.”  Sure, that’s what the corrupt administration says about their targets who they have railroaded.  ‘They are better off and happy as clams.’  Maybe he is paid more but he wanted to stay and he was kicked out, probably because he was competition to Dutelle.

June 13, 2011 –     Dkt 39-19.  I received a sabbatical [UW-P 000369].  This grant required that I not work on other things but Caywood made me do advising and work on the study abroad program and cyber security program.  I was unable to do the research and publishing I’d hoped to do because he used me for other things.  


Rule 26 Disclosure - 25.         Letter to Dr. Burton from UW System Institute on Race and Ethnicity, regarding FDRA-04 Working Profiles of Domestic Terrorists, June 13, 2011, Dkt 53-3


June 17, 2011 – Nimocks/Den Herder writes to Shields about a complaint by Caywood against Fuller about her teaching online with University of New Mexico. [UW-P 005919]


July 11, 2011 – [UW-P 000649]  Bob Roberts wrote to Caywood “The rest of the faculty over there should really take the time to understand and appreciate what a great opportunity this will be for Sabina and how good it will make CJ look.”  These kinds of remarks are what really made Dutelle jealous and fueled his anger toward me.  He saw his chance to get me when Caywood was upset with the way I handled the student complaint.

Aug 22, 2011 – Dkt 34-1.  Policies and Procedures for the Criminal Justice Department were approved. There are lots of things Dalecki violated in this policy.

Sep 28, 2011 – The National Association of Scholars (NAS) published an article: “OCR’s New Sexual Harassment Guidelines Threaten Academic Freedom, Due Process.   In the article Glenn Ricketts wrote: “A local cadre of enforcers in the faculty and administration were commonly the most aggressive movers and shakers: drafting their school’s code, monitoring faculty members and students, “planting” student observers in ideologically suspect courses, encouraging complaints, and staffing the administrative bodies charged with adjudicating them.”   It almost seems like the UW-Platteville administration read this and thought to themselves “hey, we should do that to Burton,” that is exactly what they did as shown by this timeline.

Sexual harassment,” OCR states, “[is] unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. It includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual violence is a form of sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX.”


Oct 26, 2011   Dkt 39-20.   [UW-P 000371].  I explained why I wanted to teach Domestic terrorism additional to my sabbatical in spring 2012.   Caywood heaped work on me to spoil my efforts and later pulled me from prestigious assignments because he “worried I did too much.”  He set me up from the beginning.


12-15-11 – Dkt 36-8 -  Nimocks/Den Herder signed a grant for Caywood, Gibson and Dutelle authorizing then to receive $55,000 for a two year initiative.  Deposition question for Caywood and Den Herder:  Why did they get this initiative and not Burton or Deb Rice?  Was it voted on in the department?  Dr. Burton didn’t even know of this grant until 10-6-15.   Why was Dutelle included with no military service?  Why was Dr. Burton not included?      All three of the recipients are male and one has no military service.  Why was this grant never even discussed in the department?  [PRIORLEARNINGPROJEC]   How were the funds applied?  Who got how much?  It seems that Dutelle got a lot more than one third.  Did they neglect to tell Gibson about this grant?  Was Gibson paid anything out of the grant?  Why not as much as Dutelle?    See Dutelle’s increased salary on 5/18/12



Around 2012 - Dalecki was removed from his position as head of the city council.  It seems that he was not well liked by others on the council.   Scuttlebutt has it that he was too harsh and overly authoritarian.   Myron Tranel, who knows everyone in town, said “there are only ten people in Platteville who like Mike Dalecki.”


January 10, 2012 2:47 PM -  (Demaree-FlyinEmail-1-10-12)- Bob Demaree sent an email about the flyin interviews for the Dean position.   Attached were three documents:  (Demaree-Fly-inintschedule) (Demaree-GradingRubricFly-InInts)( Demaree-interviewQs—hybrid)


January 27, 2012 12:28 PM – (Demaree-DeanJobDesc-email-1-27-12) Bob Demaree sent an email with information about the dean search.  Attached were:  (Demaree-Qs-campus interviews)  (Demaree-ph_intvw_Qs)   50 % of the dean's job was in the area of fundraising. Also, we were looking for a dean who would intercede bullying of junior faculty by senior faculty which was identified as a problem in LAE by the search committee.



Jan, 2012:  When Mr. Dutelle put in for promotion to associate professor, in his 2nd year of faculty employment, he was approved by the DRB quickly. At the same time, when I put in for promotion, with a 16 year teaching record and in my 3rd year of UWP faculty employment, the DRB rejected my request giving as a reason that there was not enough evidence of teaching history.  My DRB file contained teaching evaluations dating back to 1996 and 3 letters of support naming me as one of the most efficient and flexible instructors in UC Irvine’s CJ department.  After I pointed out the oversight and filed an appeal my promotion was finally approved.

Jan 31, 2012 –   My eval sheet obtained from defendants in discovery [UW-P 000039

Feb 8, 2012 – Dr. Caywood wrote a letter to the College of LA&E CRST stating: “The Criminal Justice Department approved that Aric Dutelle’s Master of Forensic Science degree is considered as a terminal degree for tenure track forensic investigation position (LAE CJ TSI 01).”

Neither Dr. Burton nor Dr. Fuller concurred with this. It is not true that Dutelle’s degree is a terminal degree.

Dr. Caywood also lied about this in a letter of recommendation for Retention and Promotion of Mr. Dutelle on Jan 19, 2012  when he wrote: “Aric’s Master of Forensic Sciences is considered as a terminal degree by the Criminal Justice Department.”

In the UW-Platteville RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REAPPOINTMENT OR TENURE FROM THE DEAN TO THE VICE CHANCELLOR form under the paragraph labeled “For tenure recommendations only.” the form states: “Tenure should be recommended only in those cases where the candidate has received the appropriate terminal degree and is deemed to be an exceptional present and future asset to the department and university.” In order to satisfy this terminal degree requirement Dr. Caywood falsely informed the CRST, in writing, that Mr. Dutelle’s degree is a terminal degree.

On Mr. Dutelle’s Recommendation for tenure form there are some omissions.


In contrast to this statement Caywood recommended Aric Dutelle for promotion even before he was eligible.  Dutelle was hired in 2004 and promoted to Associate Professor in 2012.  Dutelle had a Master’s degree and not a PhD. 


The promotion was approved because Caywood signed a document stating that Dutelle had a terminal degree. Caywood did not discuss the terminal degree issue with the department.  Dutelle’s one year online Master’s degree was not and is not a terminal degree.



URST guidelines for promotion to Assoc Prof are:  “a master's degree in an appropriate discipline plus at least 10 years of documented effective teaching at the college level. (At least 7 years at UWP). To be interpreted as 10 years (at least 7 at UWP) at the time of receiving the promotion. Also to be interpreted as 9½ years (6½ years at UWP) at the time of applying for the promotion.”    (appendix IXa- 2014-2015 URST PC guide)


 Notes on page two:

- The question “Was there a contractual agreement for the completion of a terminal degree or equivalent?” was not answered.

- The question “If yes, has this contractual obligation been met?” was also left unanswered.

- The instruction “If no, please explain:” was answered with “MFS is terminal degree for the forensic field.” Since this instruction was followed it seems that the answer to the first question must have been “no” indicating that there was no contractual agreement for completion of a terminal degree or equivalent. Whether or not this is true does not diminish the fact that a PhD or equivalent was required to receive tenure.

- The Signature of the Dean and date is missing from page two.

The omissions on this page leave one wondering; exactly what is the status of Mr. Dutelle’s contractual agreement?

Why was the form not filled out properly? Why did the DRB, CRST and Dean accept the form in an incomplete state? Poor record keeping or shady practice? Was someone trying to keep others from noticing that Mr. Dutelle’s contractual agreement had not been fulfilled?

Feb 9, 2012 – Caywood sends a letter to CRST about my teaching effectiveness.  [UW-P 000042]      Caywood might have sent a similar letter about Dutelle however, it is not in Dutelle’s files that we received from discovery.  We should ask specifically for Caywood's letter for Dutelle in document request. 

If Caywood did not write a letter for Dutelle how was his promotion granted one week later?  Why was my promotion denied even after Caywood wrote this letter?   Did he fail to deliver it to the CRST?   Why wright it and not deliver it?   Who was on the CRST?   How did Caywood know that the letter was needed five days before the CRST denied my promotion?   Why was my promotion denied for lack of evidence of teaching when Caywood wrote this letter?

Feb 14, 2012 – CRST recommends that I not be promoted with the statement “Has not shown evidence of effective teaching for the number of years required by URST Procedures.”  [UW-P 000618]  Deadline for reconsideration was listed as Feb 22, 2012. I was not given this document until defense discovery submission in 2015.     Why was my promotion denied even after Caywood wrote the letter for me on Feb 9?     Note:  There is no signature on this document.    Maybe the CRST recommended promotion but someone intercepted the document and changed it.

Feb 14, 2012 – CRST recommends that Dutelle not be promoted with the statement “Has not shown evidence of effective teaching for the number of years required by URST Procedures.”  [UW-P 005661]  Deadline for reconsideration was listed as Feb 22, 2012. 

Dutelle was hired in 2004 to teach at the college level and they assumed his one year online master’s degree was “terminal” because Caywood lied to that effect in a document that falsely claimed that the department had agreed. 

Feb 16, 2012 – A letter is drafted to Dutelle from Kory Wein (but not signed by anyone) recommending him for promotion to Assoc Prof.  [UW-P 000869]  

  Where are the documents noted on the recommendation?  What were they?  Who provided them?  What did they say?  This will show that someone falsified records, that Caywood allowed the falsification and that the CRST turned a blind eye to the infractions or that the CRST did not agree that Dutelle should be promoted and that the authorization letter was falsified    


February 16, 2012 4:59:58 PM - See (exhibit ZB)  [UW-P 003324]  for the notice of promotion denial email I received from Kory Wein which came after the deadline for appeal. Perhaps someone "intercepted" the original memo that Kory sent to me after it was delivered to my inbox in an attempt to make me miss the deadline?    I responded that I didn’t get the memo and asked this question “Why was Aric Dutelle contacted by you more than one week before me and he also got a heads up from Cheryl Fuller?”  I never received an answer.  Good deposition question for Kory Wein.  Also ask him why my teaching evals going back 41/2 years was not considered.  Ask him why Caywood’s letter of Feb 9 was not considered. 



About Feb 17, 2012 there was an informal meeting in Caywood’s office with Dutelle, Roberts, Caywood and me.  This was while I was working on my sabbatical on terrorism that was approved April 1, 2011.     My focus was on Terrorism but they wanted me to work cybercrime because it fit better into their plans and they thought they would be better able to keep me down in that field.  They decided that I would do the cyber-forensic thing.  All this would be under the umbrella of the FI super center that was to be Caywood’s legacy.  Caywood wanted to find a way to keep Roberts in the dept.  Roberts would be the coordinator of the big forensics center and would help get grants.  Caywood had Roberts listed as the head guy, Dutelle as the head of FI/fingerprinting and me as head of cyber-crime.   Cyber-crime would be a part of the FI program headed by Dutelle.   Caywood drew the organization plan on a piece of paper.

Roberts, Dutelle, Caywood, talked a lot about the future of CJ around this time.  I wasn’t really a part of that group and my input was not solicited.  They had many meetings to which I was not invited.  They just let me in because they needed credibility.  Roberts told Caywood that cybercrime had the highest chance of gaining funding so he was all for it.  Dutelle alone couldn’t pull it off.  He couldn’t get the funding because he lacked the credentials.  They needed me, with a PhD, international experience and intelligence background to get the funding.  But their plan seemed to be for Dutelle to benefit from the credibility I brought.  The feasibility study of Aug 10, 2012 supports this (exhibit 648). 

Note that in this study Dutelle was listed first, and erroneously listed as having a PhD, and I was listed last.

February 24, 2012 (9-10 am) FI/CJ planning meeting with Dr. Caywood, Dutelle, Burton, Roberts, Michael Gay and someone else, legislative person for fundraising, about cyber-program idea and forensic expansion plans.


Feb 28, 2012 – CRST recommends Merit pay for me. [UW-P 000034]  

Mar 10, 2012 – Dkt 39-10.  Sabina sent Throop a nice email to welcome her.

March 27, 2012 (1-4:30 pm): Meeting with DOJ (Jack Heinemann and Ed Wall), Caywood, Dutelle, Burton, Roberts, Michael Gay to get DOJ support for forensic program and cyber-crime program proposals.


March 28, 2012 (1:13 am): Dkt 53-19.  Michael Gay sent email to Ed Wall, David Matthews (DOJ), cc’d to Caywood, Dutelle, Burton, Roberts, Heinemann.  Refers to “our expanding CJ program under Department Chair Caywood’s direction” referring to Cyber Scholar Project.  (exhibit EZZZW) (exhibit EZZZW-1)      SB000846]  New Ventures. 

 This shows that Caywood did not believe his stated reasons for the letter he sent to Throop on Jan 24, 2013.  He did support the project from the beginning, this visit.

Rule 26 Disclosure - 41.         March 28, 2012 email from Michael P. Gay, Director, UW-Platteville Center for New Ventures to Edward F. Wall, Wisconsin Department of Justice, copy to Dr. Caywood, Dr. Burton and others, Re: In response to your site visit to UW-Platteville, with 3 page attachment, Dkt 53-19


March 29, 2012 (12-1:15 pm): Cyber-scholar grant initiative meeting. Attending: Roberts, Burton, Hasker (CS), Carothers (Bus), Nelson (PS).


Mar 30, 2012 – Nimocks/Den Herder initialed a letter to Dutelle saying that she concurs with the CRST’s recommendation that he be retained.  No mention of promotion.  [UW-P 005658]


Mar 30, 2012 – Nimocks/Den Herder initials a letter to me recommending retention but no mention of promotion. [UW-P 004023]    Roger – I don’t remember ever getting this letter until reading it in discovery. 


Mar 30, 2012  - Nimocks/Den Herder signed a letter to Gibson about retention [UW-P 005531].   In this letter she wrote “I want us to provide for our students and ourselves a place where civil debate flourishes and where civil resolution of conflict is the norm.”    Deposition question for Den Herder:  What steps have you taken to make UW-Platteville a place where civil debate flourishes and where civil resolution of conflict is the norm?    Why didn’t you provide the training mandated by Chancellor Shields on July 26, 2013?  Hypocrite!

April 3, 2012 4:33 PM – Caywood sent an email to Dutelle, Me, Charles Cornett suggesting that we all meet with Mark, from Ron Kind’s office when he came to campus on April 5. (Fw_ meeting with Representative Ron Kind's people)  This shows that Caywood was supportive of the cyber-security initiatives and that he was not just supportive of my efforts but that he was facilitating the program.  He saw it as his program.


April 3, 2012 – Chancellor Shields signs a letter to me saying that I was reappointed but no mention of promotion.  [UW-P 004022].   Roger doesn’t remember ever seeing this letter before getting it in discovery.    


April 5, 2012 (1-2 pm):  Mark Seitz & Liz Stower meeting arranged by Rose Smyrski. Attending:  Caywood, Dutelle, Burton, Roberts, Michael Gay (discussed among others: cyber-program initiative) (exhibit 701)


Apr 9, 2012 –     Caywood emails me about the S drive for cyber scholar activity.  SB000850]    

4/10/2012 11:24 AM – I wrote to Caywood asking to teach cybercrime and to get a domestic Terrorism course through the curriculum committee (exhibit 702).

April 10, 2012 Dkt 53-20.   Dr Caywood established an online working folder in support of my cyber scholar efforts. (exhibit EZZN) (exhibit EZZO) SB000851] 

This shows Caywood did support my cyber security efforts by creating an S drive to support easy flow of information for the purpose of creating the cyber security program.  So it also shows that he didn’t believe his stated reason for the letter of Jan 24, 2013.



Rule 26 Disclosure - 42.         April 9 and 10, 2012 emails from Dr. Caywood to Dr. Burton and others regarding establishment of a work group folder for cyber security activity, Dkt 53-20



April 13, 2012: Dr. Caywood asked department members if we had any good computer forensics graduates for DNR (exhibit EZZM).

April 17, 2012: NSF proposal (exhibit EZZJ, - SB001214- 1218]  - Dkt 53-49)     EZZJ-1,    SB001218 – 1240]     EZZJ-2). “Institutionalization of Cyber-security” at UW-Platteville submitted. Proposed was a program that would offer a BS degree in cyber-security.  Dr. Caywood signed this statement on the proposalI certify that I have reviewed the proposal and found it to be complete, including required clearances, budget, and commitments involving space, faculty/staff time, and matching funds.  In addition, I certify that all resources and other provisions of any award will be fulfilled.”  Proposal was also signed by Dr. Wein for LAE, and Dr. Nimocks Den Herder and supported by EMS Dean Hudson, Rob Hasker (Computer Science), Todd Carothers (Business/Accounting), and Travis Nelson (Political Science).  This proposal achieved peer-review and received overall favorable consideration. However, NSF does not fund curriculum development so the grant was not awarded.   I planned to gain other funding to create the curriculum then come back to NSF for funding expansion of the program.


4/20/12 – Caywood signed my NSF proposal indicating his support of my efforts to institutionalize cyber education at our school.  Korey Wein also signed. (exhibit ZHSB001241]



April 24, 2012 – Dutelle gets a letter from Nimocks/Den Herder [UW-P 000860]   recommending him for promotion and concurring with the CRST.   

Dutelle was given promotion because Caywood signed a form saying he had a terminal degree when he did not.

April 24, 2012 – Den Herder initialed a letter saying that she concurred with the CRST recommendation that I be promoted to Assoc Prof.  [UW-P 000613]


April 26, 2012 – Dutelle gets letter from Nimocks/Den Herder [UW-P 000859]  congratulating him on his $4,000 grant that can be used for release time so he can write a grant proposal.    

April 30, 2012 – Chancellor Shields praises me in an official letter of congratulations. Shields-congratsSabina-4-30-12   [UW-P 000617]

May 1, 2012 – Dutelle gets letter of promotion recommendation from Chancellor Shileds [UW-P 000861]  

May 1, 2012 – Chancellor Shields signs my promotion recommendation letter.  [UW-P 000614]

Dutelle was promoted to Associate Professor in violation of UNIVERSITY RANK, SALARY, AND TENURE (URST) PROCEDURES for 2013-2014 (appendix IX) which states:
“Promotion to the Rank of Associate Professor

The candidate must have demonstrated significant achievement in teaching effectiveness, scholarly and professional activities, and university service and also must meet one of the following criteria:

2) a master's degree in an appropriate discipline plus at least 10 years of documented effective teaching at the college level. (At least 7 years at UWP). To be interpreted as 10 years (at least 7 at UWP) at the time of receiving the promotion. Also to be interpreted as 9½ years (6½ years at UWP) at the time of applying for the promotion.”

Mr. Dutell’s teaching career began in Aug 2004. Mr. Dutelle is not eligible for promotion until Aug 2014 yet he was given promotion in Aug 2012, two years earlier than allowed.

The CRST committee applied the limits for someone with a PhD, or equivalent, not a Master’s degree. Dr. Caywood’s false written claim that “the Criminal Justice Department approved that Aric Dutelle’s Master of Forensic Science degree is considered as a terminal degree for tenure track forensic investigation position (LAE CJ TSI 01)” was used as a “PhD equivalent” thereby lowering the requirement for Dutelle’s promotion from ten years to five years. This was not appropriate because: a) his Master’s degree is not terminal in his field and b) the department members (at least myself and Dr. Fuller) did not agree that it was terminal. There was not even a discussion about this. Dr. Caywood seems to have lied. His apparent lie allowed Mr. Dutelle unfair advantage over me, violated ethics and it was aparently intended to violate the URST guideline. He did this with deliberate intent to defraud the administration into awarding promotion two years before it was allowed and it worked.

Dutelle’s promotion to associate professor request was initially denied on Feb 14, 2012 because of a lack of evidence of teaching experience with a deadline of Feb 22 to submit evidence for reconsideration.  Mr. Dutelle was obviously informed of this quickly because he received final approval for promotion on Feb 16, 2012.   I never received a rejection letter or memo. I was informed by Kory Wein, by email (exhibit ZB) on Feb 16, that my promotion was denied and that the deadline to request reconsideration was Feb. 14. 

URST for 2014-2015 (Appendix IXa)
Faculty Handbook (
Appendix IXb)   Dutelle’s promotion was allowed because Caywood fabricated his “terminal degree” letter.

5/18/12 – Caywood and Den Herder approves Dutelle to get $16,407 in pay above base salary. [UW-P 000856]      Deposition question for Den Herder:  Why did Dutelle rate all of these increases?  See Prior Learning Credit Initiative approved by Nimocks/Den Herder on 12-15-11 .   Why was the Prior Learning Credit Initiative not listed on this page?   Did Dutelle have dirt on you?  Was he sleeping with you?

On May 31, 2012 8:42 PM -   Dkt 36-1.   SB000216]    I wrote of my concerns to Dr. Caywood. In that email I told him that I had received an unsolicited job offer that I turned down because I wanted to stay at UW-Platteville and that I was happy here.  In his response Dr. Caywood stated “if you are unhappy I understand the need to relocation.” [sic]  (exhibit EZZZK)     In his written response to my grievance charges Dr. Caywood said he saw this email as a “veil threat.”  [sic]

Note also in this email that Caywood writes “You’ve had the freedom to pick classes, to pick current topic courses, and have a say on class times and overloads.”   This is not correct.  I was not given the online teaching I requested and was hired for.  I was not given the Comparative CJ course I requested.

I pointed out that I had been working hard on the Germany trip without reimbursement. 

June 1, 2012 10:31 AM – SB000215]  SB000225]  Caywood sent an email to me about concerns about intern assignments.  (exhibit EZZZK)  

Jun 1, 2012 11:02 AM –  SB000225] I wrote to Caywood about promises of opportunities to earn extra pay that were made to me that have not been kept.   (Email-Burton-Caywood-6-1-12)

Jun 01, 2012 10:00 PM - SB000214]   I sent a respectful email to Dr. Caywood that explains my concerns about the internship assignments.  (exhibit EZZZK)   Caywood wrote back “The issue of interns is becoming more of a problem in recent years.”


I was a member of the search for a new dean.  I saved a copy of the questions we asked Dean Throop in her job interview.  Questions included questions about Conflict Resolution.  Her answers to the questions were what we wanted to hear but she did not act in the way she responded to the interview questions.  She lied in her interview.  She later fired one of the members of the search committee and tried to fire me. (exhibit ZZ)

June 8, 2012 – Chancellor Shields signs Dutelle’s letter of promotion to Assoc Prof. [UW-P 000855]  

Julyish 2012 I think: Dean Throop came to UWP as dean.  At some point early in her employ she sent an email, according to Ray Spoto, saying that she would summarily fire people who didn’t follow some set of rules she had for them.  I have not seen the email.  Ray was unable to locate it.

7/19/2012 11:02 AM -  Fuller responded “If he earns a grade C, or lower, please grade accordingly.”  (exhibit 703b)



July 30, 2012 2:52 PM – Dkt 54-4.   Kory Wein sent an email to me, Dutelle, Evan Larson, RJ Rowley, Elmo Rawling with subject “URGENT.”  He asked if we had ideas for projects that Michael Gay could submit for research, development or creating a prototype.  (Fw_ URGENT)  


(Rule 26 Disclosure - 5.          July 30, 2012, Kory Wein, LA&E associate dean, emailed an urgent request to me and others seeking our immediate project ideas to support grant requests through the Center for New Ventures.   Dkt 54-4) This is the kind of support the university was giving the cyber-security program before Oct 10, 2012.  


August 2, 2012 3:29:06 AM - Mario Rogus, Referent für Inneres, Policy Officer for Internal Affairs, Vertretung des Landes Brandenburg, bei der Europäischen Union, Representation of the Land Brandenburg to the European Union, invited me to speak at their special event on the subject "Protection of Children and Minors in the Internet - Perils of Virtual Worlds" on Wednesday, 19 September 2012, at 14.00 h, in the Representation of the Land Brandenburg to the European Union in Brussels.    [cyber expert] (Invite to Cyber event in Brandenburg)

August 2, 2012 8:19 AM -  I sent an email to Caywood, throop Wein, Nimocks, Lomax cc to Weinbrennar and weber asking if I could go to the cyber-crime event.  I was politely denied due to funding by Dean Throop.  I felt this was reasonable.  It is expensive to send someone to Europe.


Aug 10, 2012 – A city of Platteville and University of Wisconsin-Platteville Innovation Center market analysis and feasibility study was published. [SB000915 to SB001077] (exhibit 648)  On page 26   SB000944]  (Dkt 101-5 Dutelle was listed as having a Dr. degree and was listed well above Dr. Burton under “Key UW-Platteville Resource” showing that the administration was minimalizing me while puffing up Dutelle.  The report noted “the synergies with innovation and cross-disciplinary collaboration will lead to the establishment of UW-Platteville as a leader in Forensic Science, Cyber Security and Criminalistics.”    This shows strong backing for the Cyber Security program.


(Rule 26 Disclosure - 6.          August 10 and 17, 2012, Ms. Smyrski emails funding opportunities cyber Dkt 54-5)

August 10, 2012 2:49:32 PM –  Dkt 54-5, pg 2.  National Science Foundation sent an email (exhibit EZZZZR) to Smyrski subject: Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC).  Smyrsky passed it on.


Rule 26 Disclosure – 79.   


Aug. 11, 2012: Rose Smyrski, Assistant to the Chancellor, sent NSF update on Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace (SaTC) to Hudson, Wiegman, Sherer, and me (exhibit EZZZZR).

August 12, 2012 7:56:14 PM: Dkt 54-5, pg 1.   EMS Dean Hudson sent email (exhibit EZZZZR) asking “I have to wonder if we could find opportunities for the investigation of cyber crimes??”

August 17, 2012 9:25:20 PM – I received an email from Katherine J. Denniston, Acting Division Director Division of Undergraduate Education, saying they could not support my cybercrime proposal (exhibit 700).


Aug 17, 2012 01:51 PM – Dkt 54-5, pg 1.      Smyrski wrote an email (exhibit EZZZZR) to Hudson cc to me, Riedle, Clifton, Roberts, Center for New Ventures, DeCoste saying “When this came across my desk, that was my thought exactly and the reason I included Sabina Burton in the initial email list, which by the way she too expressed interest in exploring this further.”


Aug 17, 2012 9:25 PM – Dkt 54-6.  NSF sent regret we are unable to support you email.


August 21, 2012 3:38:47 PM    Dkt 54-6.  – I forwarded the message from Denniston to Smyrsky and wrote “Bob Roberts told me though that "the success rate on NSF proposals is 11 to 15 percent. The average Prof, from an R1 university, submits 3 times before getting considered. It is a major success just to get a peer review on your first proposal. Most don't." Well, I'm still disappointed but will try again.”  (exhibit 700).


8/21/2012 4:23 PM: Dkt 54-6  Rose Smyrski, Assistant to the Chancellor, encouraged me to prepare another cyber-security grant application to NSF. (exhibit 700).She wrote “you can use the information to prepare for your next grant application!  Please let me know how I can assist you in the future!”

Rule 26 Disclosure - 7.           August 21, 2012, Ms. Smyrski encouraged me to use the NSF information to prepare another grant proposal. Dkt 54-6,

Aug 21, 2012 – dkt 41-46.  Class Schedule Listing spring 2012. 


Aug 22, 2012 10:11 AM   Dkt 42-76 - SB001976-77  -  I sent an email to Dean Throop expressing some concerns and asking “Am I being punished for taking my job seriously and upholding the standards espoused by graduate school?” (exhibit EZZZI(Complaints 8-22-12)   Perhaps she saw this email as a sign that I am a whiner.  I don’t know, but she never responded to the email. 

Aug 28, 2012 10:49 AM - Dr. Caywood ignored Dr. Burton’s topics for department meetings emailed to him.  (exhibit 552)   SB000217]  These topics were never placed on the department meeting agenda.

Aug. 30, 2012 (10:33 pm): With Dr. Caywood’s knowledge and approval I asked Representative Travis Tranel for assistance in finding potential donors to develop a cyber-security program at UW Platteville.


8/31/2012 11:28 AM - Dkt 54-6 I emailed my Cyber Proposal to Rob Hasker, Travis Nelson, Todd Carothers and cc to Robert Roberts. (Folder Exhibit 634).


Rule 26 Disclosure - 8.           NSF, Dkt 54-7, August 31, 2012 email exchange with Mr. Roberts

Sept. 6, 2012 (2:30 pm): Tom Still, Wisconsin Technology Council, emails me in response to Travis Tranel’s inquiry in support for my cyber-security work and plans at UWP. “We have a strong interest in the cybersecurity sector and will soon embark on constructing the Wisconsin Information Security Center as a classified place to conduct certain types of work” he wrote.

Sept 7, 2012 I was prescribed Restasis for my severe eye condition. (exhibit U7)


September 10, 2012 8:53 AM (Ridge and Valley Restorative Justice) Robin  Cline wrote me about Restorative Justice in response to my interest in working in Restorative Justice.  There is more info about Restorative Justice and the way it was taken from me at  (8-27-15 – Restorative Just )


Sept. 10, 2012 (9:35 am approx): Dr. Caywood asked me to surrender my Search & Screen Chair position to CJ colleague Dr. Gibson so he could build his DRB file. Dr. Caywood told me that I would still be, in his words, the “token woman” on the search committee. Dr. Caywood also told me that I would get the next chair position.  In good faith and in the name of fairness I agreed to offer my chair position to Dr. Gibson.    I have been refused my subsequent requests to chair search and screen committees. 

September 11, 2012 9:23 AM   Dkt 53-8.   Dkt 40-24.    (exhibit EZZZZP)– I sent an email to James Jermain about Cyber Crime Program Funding.  SB000854]

September 11, 2012 10:16:34 AM. Dkt 40-24.     Jermain replied   SB000853]

September 12, 2012 1:36 PM    Dkt 40-24.     I sent him some info SB000853]

September 12, 2012 1:40:52 PM Dkt 40-24.      He replied again SB000852]

September 12, 2012 2:05:45 PM   Dkt 53-8.  Dkt 40-24.     I sent the email string to Caywood, cc to Kory Wein and Dennis Cooley on and informed him of the funding. 

Note that this string of emails refers to a “Cyber Crime Program.”  Caywood had no problem with the word “program.”   This shows that he didn’t believe that my mentioning the word “program” was a problem.  This shows that Throop didn’t believe her admonitions to me concerning the way I was presenting the status of the program in the department.

Sep 12, 2012 04:16 PM  Dkt 53-8.   Kory Wein wrote back saying “Congrats!”   Corey Wein was Throop’s assistant.  He didn’t have a problem with the word “program” in this email string.  This shows Throop did not believe her admonitions about the way I presented the status of the cyber crime program. 

Sep 12, 2012 – 136 -  email from me to Jim Jermain – Thanking him for his support in building a cybercrime program at UW-Platteville. SB000853]

September 12, 2012 1:40:52 PM –SB000852]   Jim Jermain wrote an email (exhibit 633) with subject “RE: Funding Cyber-Crime Program at UW-Platteville” and he used the word “program” in the body of his email.  This email was cc’d to Stacia Nemitz (Development Officer with UW-Platteville Foundation) and she didn’t have any problem with the word “program.”  It is clear retaliation for the university to suddenly have a problem with the word “program” after the student complaint.


Sept. 12, 2012 (2:05 pm): SB000852]  email from me to Dr. Caywood.   "I just secured between $5000 - $7000 in donations/funding from AT&T for getting a cybercrime program started in our CJ department (exhibit EZZZZ).“   This email proves that Dr. Caywood knew that the donation was for the purpose of getting a cybercrime program started in our CJ department contrary to his claim of Jan 24, 2013 (exhibit A).  He didn’t have any problem with me using the word “program.”


Rule 26 Disclosure - 30.         email from Dr. Burton to Dr. Caywood, dated Sept. 12, 2012, forwarding emails between Dr. Burton and James F. Jermain, AT&T, dated Sept. 11-12, 2012, Dkt 53-8


Sept. 12, 2012 – I informed Kory Wein about the AT&T grant for getting a cybercrime “program” started.  He didn’t have any problem with me using the word “program.”  (exhibit 633)


September 17, 2012 10:29:19 PM– (SusanHilal-9-18-12) -  I sent Dean Throop an email explaining that Susan Hilal was not providing good online instruction. Attached: (SusanHilal) Throop wrote back “This is quite troubling.”  


September 18, 2012 3:24:01 PM – (Promotionissue-Throop-9-18-12)  I sent an email to Throop explaining that the DRB had rejected my promotion initially due to Dalecki’s involvement.  I asked that he be removed from the DRB.


Sep 18, 2012 – I wrote an email to Diana Johnson explaining my hurt feelings about the way she and Dana had been treating me.  [UW-P 000540]


Sep 19, 2012 10:37 PM – I sent an email to Linda Jamison, cc to D Van Buren asking why my name was not on the member list.  I thought I would be serving on the Grad council.  I expected it to be on the list because of an email exchange from before the summer break. – [UW-P 000383 - 385


September 19, 2012 7:11:10 PM – (BriefThrooponProposals-9-9-12)  I sent Throop an email asking to meet to discuss my proposed projects.  She wrote back “Excellent work!”  This email shows that I brought opportunities in Restorative Justice to Platteville.  My work was later taken from me.


Sep 20, 2012 7:22 AM – [UW-P 000383 - 385]  David Van Buren emailed me and said that the Grad Council structure had changed.  He wrote “Cheryl notified us that she would be representing the criminal justice program.  Was this discussed at the department level?”  I wrote back that it wasn’t discussed. 


Sep 20, 2012 8:40 Am – [UW-P 000382]    I asked about Fuller’s move to appoint herself to Grad Council.  I expressed interest in doing it myself.   I wanted more “oversight and accountability.”  Maybe that was something that scared Caywood.  I told him I had evidence of poor work by adjuncts.


Sep 20, 2012 06:10 PM – I sent Dutelle an email (exhibit EZZZR) expressing my disappointment that I missed a deadline because he didn’t tell me when the deadline was as he told me he would.   He wanted me to miss deadlines so I wouldn’t look good and wouldn’t give him competition.  He replied accusing me of being snippy.


Fri 9/21/2012 12:57 PM -  Stacia Nemitz sent me an email (ATT-LetterofInquiry-9-21-12-email)  with a proposed letter to AT&T attached. (ATT-LetterofInquiry-9-21-12)  



Sat, Sep 22, 2012 08:41 AM – Dean Throop sent me an email with an interesting article about cyberology and asked my thoughts.


(exhibit 556 - email fm Throop to Burton-3-10-12 to 10-9-14)



Sept. 23, 2012 (10:30-11:00 am): NSF Cyber-Corps Program meeting. Roberts & Burton. Dr. Caywood was informed.


September 24, 2012 1:00:01 PM - Jim Jermain sent me an email inviting the UW-P Foundation to submit a funding application for $7,000.  (InvitetoSubmitFundingApp-9-24-12)  I forwarded this to Nemitz, cc Caywood and Throop.

Sep 27, 2012 – Dutelle sends an email to Throop [UW-P 000843]   asking for a grant for discretionary funding for cameras.

 Sept. 29, 2012   Rule 26 Disclosure - 43.         2012 Midwestern Criminal Justice Association annual meeting (partial) schedule, , and abstract of presentation by Dr. Burton, with email from Dr. Burton to Dr. Caywood and Professor Lomax, Dkt 53-21

This shows Dr. Burton giving a presentation titled “the Hacker-Community”


October 2, 2012 9:35:16 PM – Dkt 54-13,   Michael Gay, Center for New Ventures sent an email to Bob Roberts, Jen DeCoste, me and William Hudson about cyber-crime efforts.  He asked me " Sabina, how linked in to these grant efforts are Tom Caywood and Liz Throops at this juncture.”  He re-sent the message along with an attachment on October 4, 2012 10:55 AM.  (Fw cyber security initiatives on campus)

October 2, 2012 10:18:24 PM -  Dkt 54-13.   I sent an email to Michael Gay informing him that I had a meeting with Dean Throop to discuss cyber-security plans the following afternoon.   October 3, 2012 7:43 PM -  I sent an email to Michael Gay saying “I talked to Dean Throop today and she is 100% on board with the idea. I haven't been able to sit down with Tom Caywood but he was very supportive of our first cybersecurity proposal to NSF.”   (Throop 100 pct on board)


Oct 3, 2012 – Dkt 54-8.    I met with Throop.  This was the meeting where I showed her the links to the online journals and updated her on the status of the cyber security program.


Oct. 3, 2012 (1-1:30 pm): NSF Cyber-Corps proposal meeting

Oct 3, 2012 7:43 PM – Dkt 54-13, Email me to New Ventures about cyber security program.    Throop said she was 100% on board.  This was after my meeting with her.    This email also shows that the timeline included a course spring 2013 not 2012 as I wrote in the edit of the draft press release, showing that it was  typo.

Rule 26 Disclosure - 10.         Dkt 54-8, notice in my calendar program showing I requested the October 3, 2012, meeting with Dean Throop and she accepted.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 11.         Dkt 54-13, Dr. Burton email to Michael Gay, Center for New Ventures, Dean Throop was encouraging, 100% on board

Oct 4, 2012 –Dkt 54-15.   I asked Kathy Lomax to review my AT&T funding application: (exhibit EZZZZO). SB001084]   This shows that I was complying fully with the procedure and Throop didn’t believe her allegations against me.

The AT&T funding application that was reviewed by Kathy Lomax is (exhibit 573c).  

Rule 26 Disclosure 20.           October 4, 2012, Dr. Burton email to Kathy Lomax, UW-Platteville Foundation, to review the AT&T proposal. Dkt 54-15

Rule 26 Disclosure - 9.           AT&T funding request, Dkt 37-1,  Dkt 42-66

 Oct 4, 2012 10:06 AM - Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 06.       Email fm Fuller to me about new online course development.  Fuller forwarded the email to Caywood who responded.



Oct. 6, 2012 (10:14 pm):  Dkt 36-12 pg5.   Dkt 40-25.   My Email (exhibit EZZZZA)   SB000856(Dkt 101- 7) to Dr. Caywood with a Proposal for a Cyber Security Program attached  Dkt 40-26.     (EZZZZA-1). SB000857] Proposal includes announcement that I now own the following sites: Journal of Criminal Justice at and  Journal of Cyber Security at and  Dr. Caywood harshly cautioned me against the wording in these web pages and used it to turn Dean Throop against me on Jan 24,, 2013, well over 3 months later.   If he had a problem with the wording on the websites he should have said something in October rather than defaming me the following January.

This shows that Caywood did not believe his stated reason for the Jan 24, 2013 letter.



Oct 6, 2012 (10:16 pm):  Dkt 53-44   My email (exhibit EZZZZA-a) to Dean Throop with the same proposal I sent to Dr. Caywood. SB000861] 


Rule 26 Disclosure - 66.         Emails from Dr. Burton to Dr. Caywood and Dean Throop regarding a proposal for a cyber security program, with attached “A Proposal for a Cyber-Security/Homeland Security Program at UW-Platteville, identified as Bates # SB000856-SB000862, Dkt 53-44



Sun, Oct 07, 2012 01:50 PM – Throop sent me an email with subject line “Re: A proposal for a cyber security program” in which she informed me of someone she met who would be interested in pointing our students into good internships.  (exhibit 705)  She was showing support for a cyber security “program.”


Sun 10/7/2012 6:05 PM My email (exhibit EZZZZA-b) to Rose Smyrski with the same proposal I sent to Dr. Caywood and Dean Throop.   SB000863]

Oct. 8, 2012 – 8:32 AM:  Dkt 53-22.  Dkt 38-5.  SB000866]   SB001078]  I emailed Dr. Caywood a link to my planned journal for our CJ program: (exhibit EZZE) The web site was also mentioned in my NSF proposal draft, which Dr. Caywood was given. He did not indicate any concern about the wording of the web pages until Jan 24, 2013, well over three months later.  This shows that he had no objection to the wording on the web pages on Oct 6, or 8, 2012 but did object on Jan 24, 2013.   The wording never changed during that time.   I believe he retaliated against me because of the student complaint incident of Oct 10, 2012.

This shows that Caywood did not believe his admonition about the websites in his Jan 24, 2013 letter to Sabina concerning the websites.  He had seen them and knew of them and had the link.   

Mon 10/8/2012 8:42 AM – I emailed Rose Smyrski the link to my proposed journal. (exhibit EZZE-a) SB000867]   In this email I wrote: “Had another talk with Dr. Caywood this morning. Our big hurdle he says is money of course but I have some thoughts on what to do that I will hopefully get to talk to you today.”


Mon 10/8/2012 8:48 AM -  I emailed Fuller about a student paper dealing with white collar crime.  I wrote “. I studied under Pontell, one of the biggest names in White Collar Crime research :)  (StudiedUnderPontell)   Little did I know I was about to see the evidence of white collar crime I had learned about in Pontell’s classes.


Mon 10/8/2012 10:20 AM – I sent an email to a student with a link to the website (exhibit  EZZE-c).  SB000869]  I explained to her a benefit of the online open source journal for her and other students.  I pointed out that the website was still a work in progress but that I hoped to be able to publish first articles soon.

About 10/8/12 I showed the online open source journals to Throop.

 Mon 10/8/2012 12:55 PM I emailed Rob Roberts the link to the website (exhibit  EZZE-b)  SB000868]  Attached was the proposal I had given to Caywood and Throop.


Rule 26 Disclosure – 44.        October 8, 2012 email from Dr. Burton to Dr. Caywood regarding journal Dkt 53-22


Oct 8, 2012 7:12 PM – Dkt 54-10 -  I invited Throop to a meeting for Oct 15 about the cyber security program. 


Tues Oct 9, 2012  Dkt 54-16.  Dkt 36-12.  Michael Gay, New Ventures director, sent an email to Dean Throop and Provost Den Herder explaining that he and his staff were working with Dr. Burton and “burning the midnight oil” on an NSF grant submission due on Friday.  (exhibit EZZC)


Oct 10, 2012 – 6:36 AM – Dkt 54-16.  Dkt 36-12 pg1. Email from Throop about the tight timeframe for the NSF proposal.  This shows that she was not unwilling to sign the proposal but that it was too rushed.  This shows that she did not believe her admonition that she didn’t support me in cyber security. 

Oct 10 2012, 8:20 AM – Dkt 36-12 pg1.  Email fm Savoy to several.  About tight timeframe for NSF proposal. 


October 10, 2012 8:47:49 AM – Dkt 36-12 pg1.   Bob Roberts sent an email to Caywood and me in which he wrote “This grant is for a cyber scholar capacity building project and will total approximately 292,000.00. The indirect range will be $98,000 to $116,000 depending on some student stipend costs that we are still calculating.”   (exhibit EZZD SB001210]  (Dkt 101-1)


Oct 10, 2012 9:36 AM – Dkt 54-16.  This shows that Throop wanted to see the budget for the proposal as soon as possible.  This shows that Throop supported the project.


Oct 10, 2012 9:44 AM, Dkt 54-16.   Dkt 36-12 pg1.    hours before the student complaint incident:  Dr. Caywood wrote to Bob Roberts and cc to me “If there is another cycle in December then that should give us time to get everything ready and to the dean early enough for her satisfaction.”  (exhibit EZZD). SB001210]    This shows that Caywood did not believe his admonition that he never supported my efforts in cyber security,.


(Dkt 101-1)  I was not able to put the grant proposal together because of the student complaint and the hostility I suffered in its aftermath. After this date Dr. Caywood began his retaliation against me for the student complaint incident, all the while saying he supports me, until Jan 24, 2013.


Wed 10 Oct, 2012 6:36 am  – Dean Throop responded to Michael Gay’s email indicating that she was willing to sign the proposal but that it was rushed and she needed more information quickly. (exhibit EZZC)  Dr. Burton was not cc’d on this email.



Wed 10 Oct, 2012 9:36 AM – Michael Gay forwarded Dean Throop’s email to Bob Roberts and Kathy Lomax, cc to Dean Throop and Rebecca Savoy, saying “please see the email below from Dean Throops regarding Sabina’s grant proposal.  She would like to see the budget as soon as possible and please accommodate her availability schedule.” (exhibit EZZC)  Dr. Burton was not cc’d on this email.


Oct 10, 2012 1:41 PM – Dkt 54-16.  Throop wrote that she didn’t have time to deal with the issues so she asked that all work on the matter cease.  Not because she didn’t support it but because she didn’t have time to deal with it before the deadline.


Wed 10 Oct 3:26 pm Dean Throop wrote an email to Michael Gay, Savoy, Roberts, Katherine Lomax, Den Herder (but not to Burton) saying that the proposal was too slow in coming and “I’m sorry about this, but we must be much more deliberate and thoughtful in our granting strategies.”  (exhibit EZZC)



Rule 26 Disclosure -  45.        October 10, 2012 emails between Dean Throop and Dr. Burton regarding proposal Dkt 53-23


Oct 10, 2012 Dr. Gibson passed a note to a young female student in one of his classes  Dkt 51-1.  The student describes the incident in Dkt 51.


The Office of Civil Rights wrote a “Dear Colleague Letter” on April 4, 2011 in which they define  Sexual harassment” as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. It includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Sexual violence is a form of sexual harassment prohibited by Title IX.”


Oct. 10, 2012 (4:30 pm): The female student approached me with her friend and showed me a note that Dr. Lorne Gibson slipped to her during her Research Methods class in the morning. The note stated: “Call me tonight!! 642-0020.” (exhibit ZF) The phone number is Dr. Gibson’s private cell phone number.  (DeptPhNumbers) The female student was very upset and felt violated. I told her I would inform our Chair Dr. Caywood about the incident to which the student replied “I don’t want to talk to a man about it.” I replied that our chair must be informed but would also check with our Dean to see to whom I could refer her. .    It seemed very inappropriate for Dr. Gibson to do this and it seemed to be a very serious issue.  I wasn’t sure what the procedures were for this sort of thing so I went to Dr. Caywood’s office to discuss it with him. (confirmed in Caywood’s rebuttal) He was not in his office.  I know from past experience that Dr. Caywood often leaves the office early and seldom responds to emails after he goes home so I asked Dean Throop what I should do about the issue. 

Oct. 10, 2012 (5:01 pm)  Dkt 53-23.  I informed Dean Throop by email that a student approached me with an inappropriate note and asked whether I should take it to Dr. Caywood or Student Affairs.  SB001212]

Oct. 10, 2012 (5:12 pm): Dkt 53-23.   Dean Throop suggested that I direct the student, who received the inappropriate note, to Artanya Wesley, the dean of students.   (exhibit EZZB) SB001212-2113]

Throop also said that we needed to discuss the entire cyber security concept in much more depth with my colleagues.  So, I did.

Oct 10, 2012 – approx. 17:02 – 17:29 – I called Dutelle.  [UW-P 000574]   In Dkt 53-29, pg 1. I wrote that I talked to him after 5:29 pm . 


October 10, 2012 11:28:33 PM –  Dkt 53-25. Dkt 54-9, pg4.    I received an email from the student with a picture of the note attached. (exhibit EZZZY)


Rule 26 Disclosure - 21.         Dkt 54-16, emails October 10, 2012, regarding advanced notice on a tight timeframe for a CJ Department NSF proposal


Oct. 11, 2012 (8:15 am): I Informed Dr. Caywood in person about the student complaint.  I informed Dr. Caywood that the student had told me that she didn’t want to talk to a male about it.  Dr. Caywood asked me to send him a copy of the note.



Oct. 11, 2012 (8:25 am): I checked with Student Affairs to see if Artanya Wesley was available. Since she was not available I was referred to Kate Demerse, her assistant, whom I briefed on the incident. 

Thu, Oct 11, 2012 08:29 AM -Dkt 53-24. Dkt 36-5 pg1.  Dkt 40-8.   I sent the note as an attachment to Dr. Caywood.  I informed him that the student is “very uncomfortable around Dr. Gibson.” (exhibit EZY)

Oct 11, 2012 12:14 PM   Dkt 54-9, pg4.   Dkt 53-24.  Dkt 40-10.    Dr. Caywood sent me an email explaining the note as “part of a breach experiment to get peoples eractions.”   [sic] (exhibit EA) (exhibit EZZA)

 Oct 11, 2012 – Dkt 40-10 – I forwarded caywood’s explanation that it was just an experiment to Dutelle and said “I’m soooo relieved.” J


I told Mr. Dutelle about the note to get his input. 

On Oct 11, 2012 12:32 PM Mr. Dutelle wrote “if I was put in your position & found out I was a pawn in a game, there'd be hell to pay.” (exhibit EZU)

Oct 11, 2012 (12:47 PM):  Dkt 36-6.   Dr. Gibson sends an email to his class with his “apology” for the “experiment” (exhibit EZZZO).  He has still not acknowledged the impact his “experiment” has had on me nor has he apologized to me.  Note: that I was not listed in the addressees of his apology email.   The grievance committee later reported that this email is “beyond reprehensible.”  [UW-P 002846]  

Oct. 11, 2012 (1:50 pm): Dkt 53-24.  Dkt 54-9, pg3   I emailed Dr. Caywood “May I request that we are informed of such experiments in the future. It certainly interrupted my schedule having to attend to a student who was visibly upset. I wish I knew about it before and could have put her mind at ease right away.”

Oct. 11, 2012 (2:32 pm): Dkt 53-24.   Dkt 54-9, pg3. Dr. Caywood’s response: “I don't think we need to do that. That in and of itself could bias the results of the experiment. If a student is having a problem with a faculty member he or she needs to come see me and let me sort it out.” (exhibit EZZZZB)  This shows that Dr. Caywood believed the note to be part of an actual experiment and that the results extended outside the classroom.  If he believed the event to be merely a lecture about how to conduct an experiment he would not have been concerned about biasing the results.  Experiments with human subjects require IRB approval.  Both Dr. Gibson and Dr. Caywood know of this requirement. 

 This shows that Caywood believed the incident to be an actual experiment, otherwise he wouldn’t be concerned about results.   He contradicts himself when he tells Zupec that he had authorized the experiment.  He also contradicts himself when he claims that the incident was just a lecture about experiments.  These contradictions show pretext.

Oct 11, 2012, 4:10 PM - Dkt 53-24.   I wrote to Caywood that I was glad to her it was just an experiment.  I pointed out that Roger, my husband would have been furious if it involved one of our daughters.

Oct 11, 4:27 PM  Dkt 54-9, pg4.   I sent Dean Throop an email update. (exhibit EZX)  I informed Dean Throop that Dr. Caywood told me that the incident was just an “experiment.”   In this update I point out that Dr. Caywood doesn’t see the need for future “experiments” to be shared with other faculty.  I make the case that Dr. Caywood may be practicing sexual discrimination. 

October 11, 2012 4:43:48 PM – Dkt 54-9, pg2 & 3.      I wrote to Dean Throop “I may get a reprimand from Caywood for informing you and student affairs about the incident.What shall I tell a student who comes to me with a problem because she trusts me and is afraid to bring up such a sensitive matter to someone else next time? Shall I just tell her it's not up to me and send her to the chair? I just wanted to help a student who was upset.” (exhibit 556 - email fm Throop to Burton-3-10-12 to 10-9-14 - page 83)


Oct 11, 2014 4:57 PM - Dkt 54-9, pg2.  Throop asks if he knows that I did. 

Oct 11, 2014 5:04 PM -  Dkt 54-9, pg1.   I wrote that I didn’t think I told him but was pretty sure I mentioned that I talked to Student Affairs.


Oct 11, 2012 5:33 PM – Dkt 53-25.   I sent an email to the student asking if she was ok and letting her know I was available if she needed to talk. [UW-P 000558]


Oct 11, 2012 5:44 PM –   Dkt 53-24.  Dkt 36-5 pg5.  Throop sent an email to Caywood writing “Such a note could be rightly interpreted as sexual harassment regardless of intent.  This behavior must cease immediately.”  [UW-P 000565 - 566]

 This shows that Throop does not believe that the incident was a “lecture about experiments.”


October 11, 2012 6:30:58 PM – Dkt 53-25.   I received an email from the student explaining how she felt.  In this email she said that other professors should know about future “experiments;” that she still didn’t believe it was just an experiment; that she felt the experiment was inappropriate; that she did not think it was funny; that Dr. Gibson did think it was funny; that he had used the example of a breach experiment of him walking into class naked and this made her uncomfortable; that she will feel uncomfortable sitting in class; that she doesn’t think she can trust him.  (exhibit EZZ


Oct 11, 2012 7:16 PM –Dkt 53-24. Dkt 36-5 pg5.    Caywood writes Throop that it was not an IRB issue as no “research” was being conducted.  He said it didn’t require IRB approval.  [UW-P 000565


Oct 11, 2012 8:13 PM - Dkt 53-24.  Dkt 36-5 pg4.    [UW-P 000564]    Throop wrote to Caywood “This is a profoundly serious issue.”  She wrote “It could well be a significant HR and Title IX issue.


On Oct 11, 8:19 PM  Dkt 53-26, pg 2.   Dkt 53-27.    Dkt 54-9, pg1. Dkt 36-5 pg3.     Dr. Caywood asked for the student’s name so he could interview her.  He gave me a definition of a breach experiment that he copied from Wikipedia. “In the field of social psychology, a breaching experiment is an experiment that seeks to examine people’s reactions to violations of commonly accepted social rules or norms.”   He further explained that: “This sounds exactly what he (Dr. Gibson) did – pass a note to a student which is a violation of a commonly accepted norm.  Particularly inappropriate behavior since we all received the warning from the Dean about student contact.” [sic] (exhibit EZW)    Try to find the warning Caywood speaks of here. We are not in the department of social psychology, we are Criminal Justice.  Breach experiments are not even a topic that should be taught in a CJ class.  (exhibit EB)


Oct 11, 2012 8:39 pm -Dkt 53-24. Dkt 36-5 pg4.    Caywood writes throop saying that he is trying to find out the name of the student so he can determine exactly what happened.   Throop responds “This is very serious, Tom.”  [UW-P 000564]  

Oct 11, 2012 8:47 PM Thursday  –  SB000898]   Throop asked Caywood to set up a meeting with her, Lorne and Jeanne Durr as soon as possible.  She did not include me in this meeting request.  That is because she was more interested in how to quell the fire than in protecting the student or even hearing the student’s side.  If she truly wanted to learn what happened she should have arranged to hear both sides.  It was a setup from the beginning.  Caywood wrote back that he would set up a meeting for Tuesday.



Oct. 11, 2012 (9:31 pm): Dkt 53-26, pg 2. Dkt 36-5 pg3.  Dkt 40-4.  Dkt 40-7.   I asked Dr. Caywood if I was part of the experiment.  That question has never been answered.  (exhibit EZW, also exhibit EZZZY)

That night I got an email from the student saying that she was struggling to understand the experiment and felt violated.  I shared this information with Dean Throop. (exhibit EA). (exhibit EZZA)

October 11, 2012 11:01:06 PM  Dkt 53-26, pg 1.   Dkt 40-4.  Dkt 40-7.  I sent an email to Dean Throop with an explanation of what had been going on. (exhibit ED)


Oct 11, 10:08 PM   Dkt 53-25.     I sent the student’s email to Dr. Caywood so he could get a better understanding of how it had affected her. (exhibit EZZ)


Oct 11 2012 Emails on (Dkt 101-19)  


Rule 26 Disclosure - 12.         Oct 11, 2012, Dkt 54-9 email exchange with Dean Throop and Dr. Caywood

Rule 26 Disclosure - 46.         October 11, 2012 email exchange regarding note and IRB concern, between Dr. Caywood, Dr. Burton, Dean Throop, Director of Human Resources E. Jeanne Durr, and Provost Mittie N. Den Herder Dkt 53-24

Rule 26 Disclosure - 47.         October 11, 2012 email exchanges regarding note between Dr. Burton, Dr. Caywood, and Alexandra Zupec, Dkt 53-25

Rule 26 Disclosure - 48.         October 11, 2012 email exchange between Dr. Burton and Dean Throop regarding Lorne Dkt 53-26

Rule 26 Disclosure - 49.         October 11 and 12, 2012, email exchange between Dr. Caywood and Dr. Burton regarding Lorne, Dkt 53-27


Oct 12, 2012 05:06 AM –Dkt 53-26, pg 1.   Dean Throop replied to my email saying ” I have been in touch with Human Resources, the Provost, and the Chancellor about this (I was on the phone with Jeanne Durr until after 10 p.m. last night). I am meeting with Tom, Lorne, and Jeanne Durr on Tuesday. What you describe is completely unacceptable and I am taking all measures that I can to cure this situation. This is a profoundly serious problem. Please reassure the student that it will be resolved as quickly as possible. Again, I am very concerned about what is being described and I will make sure that proper action is taken. There is no need, at this juncture, to reveal the student's identity.” (exhibit ED)


This shows that I was excluded from the discussion about what happened.  I was not able to advocate for the student. 



Oct 12, 2012 06:48 AM –  Dkt 53-27.  I sent an email to Caywood asking him to keep the student’s name and email confidential.  I suggested that he may want to talk to Throop before contacting the student.  (exhibit EB)


I wrote that it was a serious matter and that there were concerns of a lawsuit.  At the time I didn’t think I would be the one bringing a lawsuit.


On Oct 12, 8:03 AM   Dkt 53-28.   I sent the student a reassuring email explaining what was being done about the incident. (exhibit EZV)

I wrote that Gibson got permission to run a breach experiment from Dr. Caywood.  Obviously this is the information that had been given to me at the time, not that it was a lecture about breach experiments.  The defense changed the reasoning later.  This shows that Caywood did not believe his reasons for attacking me stated on Jan 24, 2013.


On Oct 12, I sent Dr. Caywood an email asking for his discretion as it seemed there was concern of a law suit and suggested that he talk to the Dean about it (exhibit EB).    Dean Throop informed me that she had been talking to HR, the Provost and the Chancellor about the incident and that she would meet with Dr. Gibson soon  (exhibit EC).  She said “What you describe is completely unacceptable and I am taking all measures that I can to cure this situation. This is a profoundly serious problem. Please reassure the student that it will be resolved as quickly as possible.”  (exhibit EZZZZC)


Oct 12, 2012 – I got a letter from my doctor verifying that I had very sensitive eyes and that natural light would help and politely asked for me to move to an office with natural lighting. (exhibit U)  I delivered the doctor’s letter to Caywood on about Oct 14, 2012 but he ignored it.  My appointment is confirmed by (exhibit U-3).  An email exchange discussing the substandard lighting in my office is in (exhibit U-4).  


Oct 12, 2012 –Caywood wrote a handwritten account of their steps throughout the student complaint incident.  [UW-P 000559]


At some point Gibson produced an explanation of breach experiments:  [UW-P 000569]


Rule 26 Disclosure - 50.         October 12, 2012 email from Dr. Burton to Alexandra Zupec regarding follow up Dkt 53-28


Rule 26 Disclosure - 13.         Dkt. 54-10, notice in my calendar program showing that I requested October 15, 2012, meeting with Dean Throop.



Oct 16, 2012 8:30 AM:  Meeting with Dean Throop, Dr. Caywood, Jeanne Durr and Dr. Gibson (exhibit EZZZP).  I was not asked to be part of this meeting and did not know it was scheduled.  


 Oct 16, 2012 -  Dkt 42-88 pg 1&2,  Jeanne Durr wrote notes about the meeting and they were provided by the defense during discovery document request:  UW-P 000097    In this document Durr makes several incorrect and vague statements:

  1. She says the student “found” a note in class and “believed” it to be from Gibson. 
  2. She said that I spoke to the Dean about it.  This is incorrect.  I asked the Dean where to report it in an email on Oct 10 and had no conversations with Throop about it until well after I reported it verbally to Caywood on Oct 11.
  3. She states as though fact that “The issue that raised concerns for the female student was a breach experiment.”  She should have said something like “Gibson reports that the issue…”
  4. After defining a breach experiment she wrote “This is what Lorne Gibson did in one class.”  She should have written “this is what Lorne Gibson claims that he did in one class.”  Note:  Caywood reported that there were two sections of the same class.
  5. She wrote “A student received a hand printed note on a scrap of paper”  This is probably the way Gibson reported the incident but the student said under oath “Dr. Gibson walked up beside me and slipped a note under my books, in plain view of the other students in my group.   (Dkt 51)  Why didn’t Throop and Durr ask for more specifics about how the note was delivered?  Why did they accept such a vague account from Gibson?
  6. Again she makes reference as though it was a breach experiment instead of reporting that Gibson claims it was.
  7. She writes that other situations arose and the note was not discussed and students debriefed as though it was fact.   But it was Gibson’s rendition of events and a very convenient cover story.
  8. She reports a “provocative statement” on Gibson’s class schedule and Breaching Experiment Exercise Planning Checklist but does not identify the statement.  We should ask for this in discovery.
  9. Throop was concerned whether the “experiments” were approved by Human Subjects Committee, which of course they were not, but nothing was done to discipline Gibson.  He said “sorry” to Throop and Durr and Caywood and sent a beyond reprehensible explanation to the students but never apologized to me.  He provided a copy of the “apology to the class” and nobody had any concern over the wording of it yet a grievance committee called it “beyond reprehensible.” [UW-P 002846]  


In contrast to the way Durr gives all credit to Gibson I seem to receive the opposite treatment.  Look at Judge Peterson’s findings and you will see over and over that he says that I “perceived” something rather than saying that it actually happened.  That is a common theme throughout this story; I and my statements are minimized and agents of the university administration and their statements against me are maximized.  As an example, check out 4/2/2015 5:14 PM.


By using the wording Durr used it is clear that already she and Throop and Caywood had identified me as the problem employee and not Gibson.


Oct. 16, 2012 (10:20 am):  Dkt 40-11.  Dkt 40-18. Dkt 42-74    Dr. Caywood sent out a department email with attachment on “how we should deal with student complaints.” (exhibit EZO) (exhibit EZO-1).   His procedure is contrary to UW-Platteville guidelines the law.  He generated this procedure as a direct result of the student complaint of Oct. 11 and shows that he disapproved of the way I handled the event.   Rule 26 Disclosure - 28.         Memorandum from Dr. Caywood, dated October 16, 2012, Dkt 53-6    This does not conform to policy. 


On Oct 16, 10:58 AM   Dkt 54-12, pg 1.  I sent Dr. Caywood a friendly heads up that the news crew would be visiting the next day.  I told him what we were planning to do and that Mr. Dutelle had been informed.  I received no response. (exhibit EZP)


On Oct 16, 2012, 3:36 PM I wrote a draft response that I intended to send to Dr. Caywood with an in depth assessment of my perspective of the student complaint and subsequent events.  I was professional and the tone of my email was respectful though I explained that I felt that he was unhappy with the way I handled the student complaint. (never sent - EZR) I never sent the memo to Caywood because Dean Throop asked me not to send a response.   My draft memo, which was sent to my husband, does shed light on the situation and should be reviewed in an investigator of this matter.



On Oct 16, 2012 4:07 PM  Dkt 42-74 -  I informed Dean Throop that I was uncomfortable and felt stressed by the way Dr. Caywood implied that I had mishandled the student complaint incident and his insistence that it should have been handled within the department.  (exhibit EZZZZE) Attached was (exhibit EZO-1)   


On Oct 16, 2012 4:12 PM I wrote the student an email explaining what had been done with the incident in an attempt to set her at ease and understand better her feelings on the issue.  (exhibit EZZZZD)




Oct 16, 2012  4:46 PM   Dkt 42-74 -  Dean Throop said that she would see if Tom’s memo (exhibit EZO-1) conformed with university and system policy.  She never followed up on that with me.  Dean Throop advised me to let this particular thing go, which I did.  She recommended that I not respond to Dr. Caywood’s email so I did not.  (exhibit EZS)   Dean Throop wanted me to drop the issue without bothering to find out whether I was oversensitive or justified in a very serious allegation. Her concern was about perception rather than about substance or truth. My perception was that she thought me to be oversensitive.


Oct 16, 2012 4:53 PM  Dkt 40-3.  I sent Dr. Caywood an email telling him of the news crew that would be filming the next day.  He never responded (exhibit EY).   He never informed Dean Throop and Dean Throop scolded me for not letting her know (exhibit EZ).  This should be something the Chair takes care of but he did nothing to help me out.  He should keep the Dean informed of this sort of thing.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 14.         Dkt. 54-12, Oct. 16, 2012 Burton email to Dr. Caywood, and Nov. 14, 2012 Dr. Burton emails with Dean Throop and Dr. Caywood  


Oct. 17, 2012 (8:42 am)  Dkt 42-94,    Dkt 53-29, pg 2.    (exhibit EZI) Dr. Caywood asks for a time line, wants to know who, and when, I informed about the student complaint.   Wants to know if I spoke to Gibson about it.  The tone of this email was very similar to that of the email I wrote to Deb Rice on Oct 07, 2014 07:23 AM but I was reprimanded by Throop and Caywood got what he asked for.

 This shows that Throop did not believe her admonition in about my letter to Rice.  Also, the fact that the judge wrote that this sort of tone is not a problem shows that Throop didn’t believe it.

Oct. 17, 2012 (12:09 pm):   Dkt 42-94,  Dkt 53-29, pg 2.  I responded to Dr. Caywood’s inquiry in detail. (exhibit EZI).

My story has never changed but the university’s position has changed significantly.

On Oct 17, 12:23 PM I received an email from the student saying that she was still uncomfortable in Dr. Gibson’s class.   I quickly responded and asked her to please talk to Dean Throop or Jeanne Durr and offered to accompany her if she desired. (exhibit EZJ)


October 17, 2012 1:43:47 PM –  Dkt 53-5.   Dkt 53-30.    Durr sends Caywood an email cc to me and Throop.  She wrote “Under the circumstances Sabina acted quite appropriately. We are following up appropriately and believe that the interests of both the student and the faculty member at issue are being properly protected. I do not want there to be any perception that we are retaliating against one of our employees for advocating for, or protecting the interests of our students.”(exhibit EZL  [UW-P 000070]  I didn’t do anything wrong.

Durr wrote: “Our faculty and staff are under an obligation to refer issues that provide them with pause for concern.”     This shows that Durr believed Caywood was pushing to punish me for my reporting the incident.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 27.         email between Dr. Caywood and E. Jeanne Durr, dated October 17, 2012, regarding faculty issue Dkt 53-5     (*Duplicate with Para 52 - Dkt 53-30.    *)


Rule 26 Disclosure - 52.         October 17, 2012 email exchange regarding faculty issue, between UW-Platteville Director of Human Resources E. Jeanne Durr, Dr. Caywood, Provost Mittie N. Den Herder, and Dean Throop Dkt 53-30     (*Duplicate with Para 27 - Docket 53-5*)


On Oct 17, 5:59 PM    -   Dkt 53-5.   Dkt 40-9.   SB000831]  Caywood wrote an email to Durr cc to me and Throop saying “All I am trying to do is determine what transpired and who was involved. I was not made aware of the note incident until 20 hours after it happened. I have class on Wednesdays

from 3-6PM. Numerous others were notified well before I was. I just wanted to know what was going on. I generally don't cc others but since everyone else is I must do so in my on defense.” (exhibit EZL)


Rule 26 Disclosure - 51.         October 17, 2012 email exchange between Dr. Burton and Dr. Caywood, copy to Dean Throop, regarding research methods Dkt 53-29



Late Oct. or early Nov. (date unsure) Jim Jermain, regional vice president of AT&T, stopped by my office and said AT&T was so impressed with my efforts that they planned to donate more money in the near future. (Jim Jermain checked in with CJ Secretary Sheri Kratcha)

 Oct 22, 2012 10:32 AM - Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 05.    I sent an email to Fuller about overload for seminar.    

 Oct 22, 2012 11:05 AM - Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 05.    Fuller sent me an email cc to Caywood about course development contract.  Course development deadline (Sept 1, 2013)

Oct 24 2012 – Dean approved a payment Dkt 36-13

Nov 6, 2012 – Chancellor Shields accepts Lomax’s retirement. [UW-P 001021] to be effective Dec 19, 2012.

Nov. 9, 2012: I submitted cyber-security pre-proposal to WiSys Grant opportunity (exhibits 573b-1, 573b).  

The AT&T funding application that was reviewed by Kathy Lomax is (exhibit 573c).  

 Nov 14, 2012 8:20 AM – Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 08.  Fuller wrote about a Jan 5 deadline and December Grad Council meeting concerning course development.

Nov 14, 2012 8:40 AM - Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 08.  I wrote Fuller Yes, when is the meeting?

Nov 14, 2012 9:33 AM - Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 07.  Fuller wrote that the next GC mtg is Dec 13 and that I needed to complet the ‘new course’ form and Tom and Liz needs to sign it.   Obviously, I did not finish the course and get the course approved by Dec 13.   

Nov 14, 2012 10:48 AM - Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 07. Fuller forwarded the email string to Caywood fyi.

Nov 14, 2012 10:57 AM Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 07. Caywood replied “thanks for the heads up.”  This indicated his support for my cyber security efforts.  This indicates that he did not believe his admonition of Jan 24, 2013 that he never supported me.    

Nov 14, 2012 – 3:20 PM - SB000870]   I emailed Caywood asking if he was available to meet with Throop as she wanted to discuss the cyber-crime proposal with us.

Nov 14, 2012 4:16 PM – Dkt 54-12, pg 3. – I received an email from Jillian Petrus about a two part series about the forensic house.


Nov 14, 2012 4:35 – Dkt 54-12, pg 2.  I forwarded the message from Petrus to Caywood and Throop.

Nov 14, 4:55 PM – Dkt 54-12, pg 2.   I received an email from Throop saying that she wanted to learn about TV appearances before they occur.  I had told Caywood but he didn’t tell throop. 


Nov 14, 2012 5:04 PM – Dkt 54-12, pg 2.  I wrote Throop saying I informed the department.  Caywood knew.  He should have told Throop.


Nov 14, 2012 05:13 PM -  Throop sent me an email admonishing me for not informing her of television appearances etc.  Why would she be upset with me for getting free publicity for the school?  Because she was upset about the student complaint incident.  This was her way of letting me know I should not help students. (exhibit EZA)  I had let Caywood know so he should have told Throop.


On Nov 14, 2012 I sent Dr. Caywood an exciting string of emails about the television news spots I had done (exhibit EX).  He didn’t respond and he never mentioned my efforts in department meetings.  He never said so much as a good job or thank you.  News of the event was never disseminated on campus level (exhibit EZC).

On Nov 14, 2012  Dkt 53-48   I sent Dr. Caywood an email asking if he could schedule a meeting in Dean Throop’s office the following day to discuss the cyber-crime proposal but I received no response (exhibit EZB). 


Rule 26 Disclosure - 70.         Email from Dr. Burton to Dr. Caywood regarding meeting with Liz Throop, dated November 14, 2012, Dkt 53-48


On Nov 14, 2012 I sent Dr. Caywood an email informing him of the KCRG airing of my news spots filmed on Oct 17 and to be aired on Nov 15, at 10 pm.  His response was simply “congrats.”   At least he responded but the short response, not even capitalized or punctuated, shows he responded reluctantly and lacked sincerity. (exhibit EZD) To be fair, it is possible that he was just in a big hurry and wanted to send something quick.  Given recent events, however, I don’t think that was the case.


Nov. 15, 2012 (8:00 am-9:00 am): Dkt 53-45  Department meeting. Tom brought up how he thought student complaints are supposed to be handled. They are to be brought to his attention, and only his attention, immediately. He scoffed that “somebody overreacted and brought a student complaint all the way to the provost and everything got out of hand.” (Paraphrased by S. Burton)

 In the minutes of the meeting it shows that I reported on the proposal for cyber security. This shows that I had been including the department.    It shows that Caywood didn’t believe his letter of Jan 24.

Rule 26 Disclosure - 67.         Minutes of the Criminal Justice Department meeting November 15, 2012, Dkt 53-45


Nov. 17, 2012 (1:32 pm):  Dkt 54-14.  SB000832] Because Dr. Caywood had become cold to me, short with me and his actions made me feel intimidated and detracted from my ability to do my job I asked HR Director Jeanne Durr to begin a full investigation into circumstances surrounding my reporting of the student complaint.    (exhibit EW)  SB000833]  


Rule 26 Disclosure - 19.         Nov 17, 2012 email from Dr. Burton to HR Director Jeanne Durr that Dr. Caywood was retaliating against her because of her assistance to the student who was harassed by Dr. Gibson. Dkt 54-14.


November 19, 2012 7:13 AM – I asked again to meet with Jeanne Durr to discuss how best to handle my situation. (exhibit 646) SB000833]  


On Nov 19, 2012 9:36 AM -  Dkt 53-9.    Dkt 53-31.   Dkt 40-27.  Dkt 42-72 , Dkt 42-73, SB000871]   Dr. Caywood sent his ideas on how we could put together cyber crime classes to offer certificates to graduates.   (exhibit ET)  Dkt-53-31—8260

This showed he supported the program prior to Jan 24, 2013 and that he didn’t believe his statements in the letter to Sabina that he sent to Dean Throop. 


Nov 19, 2012 – 9:55 AM – Dkt 42-73 SB000871]   I responded to Caywood.   Dkt-53-31. 

This shows that Caywood was supportive of the program.  He did not believe his stated reasons in the letter of Jan 24, 2013.

Nov 19, 2012, at 9:59 AM,  -   Dkt 40-27.     (exhibit ET)    I shared the news with Dean Throop and I also mentioned that I’d have a meeting With Mr. Dutelle on the subject to put together a proposal for the CJ department.   This shows that Throop did not believe her admonition that I had not garnered support from the department.

At that time I was thinking that we could have a homeland/cyber security certificate within 1-2 years (exhibit EU).


Nov 19, 2012 10:37 AM –  Dkt 53-9.    Dkt 42-72 SB000872] Dean throop responded “Terrific!  This sounds like progress.  I’m pleased for you.”    (exhibit ET)  This shows that Throop did not believe her adverse remarks of Jan 24 that she had never supported my cyber security efforts.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 31.         email from Dr. Caywood to Dr. Burton regarding cyber crimes, dated November 19, 2012, and Dr. Burton’s related email exchange with Dean Throop, of the same date, forwarding to her Dr. Caywood’s email, Dkt 53-9


I wrote a response to Caywood and showed it to Jeanne Durr in a meeting on about 11-27-12.  She said I should not send it to him so I did not. (exhibit 647). SB000834] 


November 19, 2012 – I received an email from Bill Haskins congratulating me for my KCRG spot.  I replied asking to meet with him to discuss options regarding a cyber-security initiative. (exhibit 632)


Rule 26 Disclosure - 53.         November 19, 2012 email exchange between Dr. Burton and Dr. Caywood, following up his email regarding cyber crimes, Dkt 53-31


Nov 20, 2012 – I received an email from GameCrime with an offer to work with them in the European Union.  (GameCrime-Project)  Attached was a Draft Proposal (GameCrime-Draft_Proposal_v6)  and an LOI (GameCrime-LoI_EFA).

Nov 19 or 20, 2012 : Meeting with Aric Dutelle (Assistant Professor, Forensic Investigation Program Coordinator), Plaintiff. Location: Dutelle’s office.  Ullsvik Room #1174


Nov. 28, 2012 (12-1 pm): Meeting called by Dr. Hasker, Computer Science, on options for cyber-security program. Attendees: Hasker, Burton, Carothers

Nov. 29, 2012 (2-2:30 pm): Meeting on cyber-programming. Attendees: Burton, Roberts


December 3, 2012 8:31 AM – I sent the minutes of the 11-15-12 dept meeting to my husband to preserve the record.  (exhibit 645)  The attached document is (exhibit 645a)

Dec. 3, 2012 (10-10:30 am): I met with HR Director Jeanne Durr to address the hostile work environment created by Dr. Caywood and the student complaint issue. Jeanne Durr told me: “Tom is Tom,” as though I should accept his unacceptable behavior because he has a reputation of mistreating women;   “He will calm down again,” as though I should just wait for him to begin treating me fair without addressing the problem; “He will retire in about 2 years,” as though I should be willing to continue to suffer unfair treatment for another two years.  By then Mr. Dutelle would be in position to take over the department and continue my mistreatment.    Durr verifies in her notes that I complained that “Tom Caywood was retaliating against me because I had reported that a female student was uncomfortable with last October’s breach experiment.” [UW-P 000068] She got right the part about my complaint but again she refers to Gibson’s actions as a “breach experiment.”  The defense will likely claim that it was just an experiment and not sex harassment.  Even so, if the student felt uncomfortable and I reported it for that reason the law requires any retaliation against me for my actions to be judged on the perceptions of the victim and the person reporting it at the time.  My perception at the time was that it was sex harassment.  When I reported the incident I had absolutely no idea about any experiment.  Gibson should not be conducting social experiments in a criminal justice research class.  That’s for the sociologists.  He has two PhDs so he should know that he would need IRB approval for an experiment of this sort.  He didn’t have it.



December 3, 2012 8:31 AM -  I received an email from the CJ dept secretary (exhibit 645SB000827]  with the minutes of the 11-15-12 department meeting attached (exhibit 645a).  Note that Caywood did not advertise my television spots but it was Joe who mentioned it as the very last item. 


On Dec 4, 2012 Dr. Caywood sent info about interns. (exhibit ER)

 On Dec 8, 2012 (8:40 am)  Dkt 42-89,   Dkt 37-13. Dkt 36-9 pg1 & 3.   I requested to chair the search & screen committee for Joe Lomax’s vacated position offering very good reason why I should get this assignment.  (exhibit EO) SB000005SB000814]   SB000836]    UW-P 000430


Dec. 10, 2012 (8:35 am):  Dkt 42-89,   Dkt 37-13.  Dkt 36-9 pg1 & 3.   Dr. Caywood said that Aric volunteered weeks earlier and didn’t give me the position.  (exhibit EO)  SB000005]  SB000814]    SB000836]

Dec. 10, 2012 (10:43 am):  Dkt 42-89,   Dkt 36-9 pg1 & 3.   My response to Dr. Caywood: “I wish I would have been asked. You requested in Sept. that I give up my chair position for one of the current search & screens to Lorne as it would benefit him. I was happy to do so. This will be Aric's 4th time to chair a search & screen. I have only had one time experience. This type of activity looks good in the DRB reports and I should get the same consideration as Aric. Aric is FI, I'm in CJ.”  (exhibit EO)  SB000005SB000814]    SB000836]


Dec. 10, 2012 (1:25 pm):  Dkt 42-89,   Dkt 37-13.  Dkt 36-9 pg3.   Dr. Caywood’s response: “He (Dutelle) has law enforcement as investigative experiences. Seemed the logical choice to me.” (exhibit EM)   SB000005]    SB000813]   SB000835]   SB000842]


Dec 10, 2012 4:29 PM –  Dkt 42-89,   Dkt 37-13.   Dkt 36-9 pg3.    [ UW-P 000422]  SB000004] I wrote Caywood that I have law enforcement experience, and a PhD, if that matters at all.   SB000841]

Dec. 10, 2012 (7:57 pm): Dkt 42-89,  I shared my concern of discrimination and some history of the issue with Dean Throop by email.  I wrote “I am convinced Tom is retaliating against me for having reported the sexual harassment incident.”    Dkt 37-13 (Dkt 53-57:1-2).      (Exhibit EI) SB000003]   SB000840]    This is protected activity.


Dec 10, 2012 7:59 PM – Dkt 36-9  I wrote Caywood “I will fight this.” [UW-P 000419]   SB000837]

Dec 10, 2012 – 8:05 PM – I wrote Dutelle asking if he would be ok with me getting the chair position.  SB000815]   SB000838]

Dec 10, 2012 – 8:27 PM -  Dutelle wrote “By all means, if you wish to approach Tom about seeing whether he would desire you to chair it, feel free.”   SB000815]   SB000838]

Dec 11, 2012 (7:29 AM): Dkt 42-89,   SB000003]    SB000840]  Dkt 37-13.  Throop sends me an email sayingI do not want to interfere in faculty governance matters.”     


Dec 11, 2012 (8:19 AM):  Since Dr. Caywood said Mr. Dutelle requested the position I thought I’d ask Mr. Dutelle if he would mind giving it to me.  So I asked him, he said it would be fine with him so I asked again for a Search and Screen chair position.  I told Dr. Caywood that Aric is ok with it (exhibit EL).  SB000815SB000838]


Dec 11, 2012 – 8:40 AM -   Dkt 36-9 pg4.  SB000837] Caywood writes me that he is not excluding me from anything.  But he was.



Dec 11, 2012 (8:40 AM):  Dr. Caywood again refused to give me a chair position offering the lame explanation in (exhibit EK). [UW-P 000546]   SB000815]


Dr. Caywood has favored Mr. Dutelle on search and screen assignments and appears to be grooming him to be the next chair. Mr. Dutelle has been assigned the chair position for 5 search & screen committees (2 in FI and 3 in CJ). 2 of those positions are for Ph.D. candidates in CJ. Mr. Dutelle has been given unfair opportunity to build his influence and support with new hires in the Criminal Justice Dept.  I have been given only one chair position.    My record of success outshines Mr. Dutelle’s results.  This is discrimination against me.



Dec. 11, 2012 (7:29 am): Dean Throop’s response included this statement: “I appreciate your concerns. However, this is an internal department issue and, as the dean, I do not want to interfere in faculty governance matters.”  (Exhibit EI)      Dean Throop rejected my plea for help.  (Double Standard) – contrast her refusal to get involved here with her active suppression of my involvement in the chair search. 

Dean Throop has the obligation, under LA&E Constitution, Article VI, Section 4, para 1 to hold an election for department chair at least once each three years (appendix VIII) She appointed Dr. Dalecki as interim chair illegally.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 73.         Emails between Dr. Burton and Dean Throop, regarding request to chair search & screen, dated December 10-11, 2012, Dkt 53-57


Dec. 11, 2012 (10:30 am):  It seemed impossible for me to handle this matter within the department since the problem was that the chair of the department was abusing me.  How could I convince him to stop?  I was sharing my concerns with my husband and he agreed that there was no way to fix this problem within the department.  He asked if I would like him to talk to Dr. Caywood to help him understand my views and maybe to learn his concerns.  I didn’t know what else to do so I asked Roger to see what he could do.  If Dean Throop had not rejected my plea for help my husband would never have gotten involved. 


 Roger and Dr. Caywood have met at numerous occasions. Both have military backgrounds and Dr. Caywood always seemed very comfortable talking to my husband. At the Dec. 11 meeting topics discussed included:  the sexual harassment incident, the fact that I feel intimidated by Dr. Caywood and don’t feel comfortable communicating with him, the search and screen chair position issue, the fact that I was concerned that he might withdraw his support of my cyber-security efforts and finally that although I supported him in Cheryl Fuller’s sexual harassment claim against him I could now see her point.   Roger said that Dr. Caywood seemed disappointed with me but could not articulate a reason why.    Roger suggested to Dr. Caywood that it would be good for Dr. Gibson to apologize to me for having involved me in the “experiment” and Dr. Caywood seemed to agree.  Though they touched on difficult subjects Roger felt that the discussion was conducted professionally by both men, was a step in the right direction and ended on a good note.    

After Roger talked to Dr. Caywood on Dec 11, 2012 Dr. Caywood began acting more cordial to me and I began to feel more positive about working with Dr. Caywood.  I told Dr. Caywood “Thank you for taking the time to talk with Roger today. I hope our working relationship will improve going forward.” (exhibit EJ) Dr. Caywood wrote to me “You are a valuable asset to this department. I've tried to be supportive of what you are doing. I worry you do too much. We agree in many area and we will disagree as well. I'm looking at the department as a whole.” (exhibit EH).   


I am still waiting for an apology from Dr. Gibson.

Dec 11, 2012 Dr. Caywood seemed to make an effort to show his support again.  He greeted me pleasantly and seemed to be more open to professional communication with me.   I was hopeful at this time that things would work out but his positive change in behavior ended when I put in for tenure.


Dec 11, 2012 – 12:08 PM –  Dkt 40-28.   SB000873Erin Gill sent me an email thanking me for my pre-proposal and look forward to receiving my full proposal no later than Jan 14, 2013.

Dec 11, 2012 3:31 PM – Dkt 36-11. – I sent Caywood an email about some things Roger thought might need clarification after the discussion between Caywood and Roger.   I wrote “I hope our working relationship will improve going forward.”  And it did for a short while. 


Dec 11, 2012 9:39 PM –  Dkt 40-28.    SB000873]  I sent an email to Caywood, cc Throop forwarding the info I got from Erin Gill.  This shows I was keeping them in the loop. 

Dec. 12, 2012 (8:56 am):  Dkt 40-28.     SB000873]     Re: Applied Research-WiSys Technology Advancement Grant Pre-proposal feedback. Dr. Caywood’s response: “Looks like you are one step closer to getting a system grant. Congrats. Tom”  (exhibits EG, EGa, EGb). After my husband’s meeting with Dr. Caywood on Dec 11, 2012 Dr. Caywood seemed to make an effort to show his support again.  He greeted me pleasantly and seemed to be more open to professional communication with me.   I was hopeful at this time that things would work out but his positive change in behavior ended when I put in for tenure.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 68.         Pre-proposal feedback from Applied Research-WiSys Technology Advancement Grant Pre-proposal Feedback, with pre-proposal form and attachment Cyber-Security Dkt 53-46     (*Also needed is Caywood’s email saying “Looks like you are one step closer to getting a system grant. Congrats. Tom”  SB000873 *)

 Dec 12, 2012 9:07 AM –- Dkt 36-11 – Caywood wrote saying that I am a valuable member etc. 

Dec 12, 2012 9:09 AM – Dkt 42-75,  Caywood wrote Throop saying “Wanted to let you know Sabina’s husband came in to see me yesterday.  Wanted to hear both sides on a number of issues.  Meeting lasted about an hour.”

On Dec 12, 2012 -  Dkt 42-75,  Dean Throop sent an email to Dr. Caywood telling him that Roger’s conversation with him was inappropriate and asking him to never engage in such a conversation again (exhibit EZZZM-1). Nobody told me that it was inappropriate.  Why didn’t she ask me to keep Roger out of the discussion?   Why didn’t Dr. Caywood tell Roger that he couldn’t discuss it?  Why didn’t Dean Throop help me so I didn’t need to look for help elsewhere?  Dean Throop seems to make the argument that Roger “flouted employment law pretty seriously” by attempting to help improve communication between me and my boss but what has happened to me she condones and supports. There are some pretty serious out of whack priorities here. 


Dec 28, 2012   Dkt 42-71  -  AT&T sent a check for $7000 and accompanying letter to Mr. Dennis Cooley, Asst. Chancellor, and UW Platteville Foundation, Inc. (exhibit ZZH SB001090] (Dkt 101-2Dkt 37-6.    This shows that Throop did not believe her admonitions that I had not gotten permissions.   The letter clarifies the purpose of the donation as “To support a new Cyber Security program that will educate Criminal Justice students on how to effectively investigate and respond to the increase in cyber-crime activity.” The letter further states “By accepting this check UW Platteville foundation, inc. attests to be … and will use the funding for the purpose noted above and consistent with the description in its application. If, for any reason, the contribution will not be used for this purpose, UW Platteville foundation, inc. agrees to notify AT&T and request a redirection of the funds toward another charitable purpose. AT&T may, in its discretion, approve the redirection or require the return of the funds to AT&T.”

Dean Throop directed me to use the funds in a manner inconsistent with the intended use. I have not been able to use the funds because Dean Throop made it clear that she believed that I had misrepresented facts and could not use the funds as planned. Until this is clarified I will not use any more of the funds in this grant. To my knowledge the money is still in the account, with the exception of about $600 that I used shortly after the grant was received.   (exhibit EZZZZZB)


In January 2013, when I put in for tenure at the same time as Mr. Dutelle, Dr. Caywood favored Dutelle’s request and argued that I should wait another year. Dr. Fuller told me that she advocated for me and said she would support both, Mr. Dutelle & Dr. Burton’s request for tenure if Dr. Caywood did likewise. This and my impeccable performance record may have swayed Dr. Caywood to give in and endorse both of us.    Dr. Caywood sent me an emotionless email on Jan 15, 2013 (exhibit EZZZN) stating “The tenured faculty of the criminal justice department has voted unanimously to support your request for tenure.”  That’s it, no congratulations, no emotion of any kind.  That is because he didn’t want me to receive tenure.  He didn’t want me to receive tenure because he was angry with me.  He wouldn’t have voted for me if he had been willing to fight for his conviction.  In his rebuttal Dr. Caywood admitted that he was “hesitant” to endorse my tenure request (exhibit ZI).  ,[corrupt vote]



About Jan 4, 2013 I sent out a proposal to the Wisconsin DOJ who are very interested in my proposal to start a cyber-security program at UW-Platteville (exhibits 574, 574a). I had a great talk with SA David Spakowicz, the Director of Field Operations of the WI DOJ.

Jan 4, 2013 0738 PM = Elizabeth Gates sent an email to Caywood, Anderson, Burton, Durr, throop Dutelle, Fuller asking about the tenure process.  She seemed to want to set things up correctly and had concerns about how it had been done in the past. [UW-P 000180]


Jan 7, 2013:  I submitted my DRB folder with request for tenure.


Thu, Jan 10, 2013 09:15 AM Dr. Caywood sent an email (exhibit EZZZZZE) saying that DRB files would be available but Mr. Dutelle’s DRB file was always missing. I wanted to ask where it was because I wanted to see it but I was too intimidated to ask Dr. Caywood for it. Why was his file missing? Was he hiding something?


Jan 11, 2013:  AT&T grant money is deposited into UW-Platteville account.  I told Dr. Caywood of this and it is noted in my DRB folder.

Jan 15,  2013 – Dutelle got additional funding.  Dkt 36-10.

Jan 15, 2012 – 8:25 AM - SB000879]   I sent an email to Bob Roberts with the cyberprogram proposal.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 72.         Email from Dr. Burton to Mr. Roberts, regarding Cyber-security program at UW-Platteville, with attached proposal, dated January 15, 2013, Dkt 53-50

Jan 15, 2013 – Caywood gave me a hard time about funding for conferences: [UW-P 000434-437]

Jan 15, 2013 9:12 AM – Dkt 36-3.  I wrote to Caywood that I would like to take CJ students to a forum in mid Feb.  I asked if there were funds available in CJ to fund the trip. 

Jan 15, 2013 9:33 AM – Dkt 36-3.  Caywood wrote back asking if the department had covered costs for students the prior fall.

Jan 15, 2013 9:12 AM – Dkt 36-3.  I wrote back that it had.  Now we plan to attend a conference in DC in Feb.  

 Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2013 - DRB Meeting on Tenure: (Caywood, Fuller, Rink, Gates)

Tue, Jan 15, 2013 09:24 AM - I was informed by email from Dr. Caywood that my tenure was supported (exhibit EZZZZZD).   SB000224]


1-16-13 – Dean Throop denied my request to give my unpaid Teaching Assistant (TA) access to my Current topics in Criminal Justice class giving as reason “I don't think this is a good idea and I won't approve.  Students should not have access to other students' grades--FERPA won't allow it.”  In contrast, Dr. Caywood has had a long-standing practice of leaving student’s graded papers in the hallway for them to sort through and collect on their own.  He also showed a list of names and grades in his class.  When I brought Caywood’s breaches of FERPA to our new Chair, Dr. Dalecki’s attention nothing was done about it.  This is a double standard that, again, punishes me.     It is my understanding that I can customize TA access to allow or disallow certain sections of the system.  University of New Mexico allows TA’s access, why don’t we?  (exhibit 505)

Double Standard:  Contrast this denial to me for a legitimate request with the way Caywood was allowed to leave graded papers in the hallway for students to rummage through from late Dec 2013 to early January 2014 and Dalecki’s non-condemning email of Caywood on 09 May 2014 11:25:21.

Jan 17, 2013 – Dkt 40-15.   Dr. Caywood wrote a letter supporting Dr. Gibson in which he wrote “His (Gibson’s) dynamic personality and his can do attitude makes him a vibrant force within the department. He has a promising future in the criminal justice field and is worthy of retention and merit pay.” That is what Caywood wrote about a man who sexually harassed a student three months prior. Dr. Caywood did not see Gibson’s misconduct as problematic; in fact, he condoned it by recommending merit pay. This puts our female students at risk of further exploitation by male faculty members.

Note the stark difference between the recommendation letter Dr. Caywood wrote on Jan 17, 2013 for Dr. Gibson and the terse letters he wrote for me for tenure on the same day (exhibit ZZM) and (exhibit ZZM-1). In Dr. Gibson’s letter Caywood wrote the subject as “Recommendation of Retention and Merit for Lorne Gibson” while on the letters he wrote for me the subject was simply “Tenure” for one letter (exhibit ZZM) and “Sabina Burton” for the other letter (exhibit ZZM-1). Why did Caywood write two letters for me on the same day to the same addressee saying nearly the same thing? I think he may have done so because his first letter (exhibit ZZM) did not mention merit pay. I expect, someone pointed out the omission to him and he grudgingly submitted the second letter (exhibit ZZM-1) to correct the purposeful but unsupportable oversight. He wrote all three of these letters on the same day. It is hard to believe that he “forgot” to include merit pay on my letter accidentally or that his choice of subject and content wording was “fair.”

Note also that I was requesting early tenure. This is not a distinction given freely and easily by universities. My file was strong enough even with Caywood's weak endorsement that early tenure was granted to me. If a chair wants a faculty member to be granted tenure he should write the best recommendation letter possible. It certainly warrants more effort than a letter recommending that a faculty member be retained. Caywood's letters sent a clear message to the CRST that he did not want me to receive tenure or merit pay.  He probably also expressed that sentiment in separate correspondence or verbally.  (We should ask for discovery on any communications between Caywood and The CRST during this time.) (Discovery)

There is also stark contrast between the letters Caywood wrote for me on Jan 17, 2013  Dkt 40-2.   (exhibit ZZM) (exhibit ZZM-1) and the one he wrote for me the previous year on Jan 19, 2012 Dkt 40-16.  (exhibit ZZM-2). This shows that he was upset with me in Jan 2013.

Curiously the copy of my official personnel file, which I obtained from Joyce Burkholder, University Staff Assistant, on Aug 7, 2013, is missing all three of the letters (exhibit ZZM), (exhibit ZZM-1) and (exhibit ZZM-2).


Jan 17, 2013 03:53 PM – I sent an email to Lizzy Gates explaining that I had been repeatedly marked below what I deserve in the past years in comparison to my (male) colleagues and asked if I could talk to her.  (exhibit EZZZZZC) SB001996


Jan 17, 2013 – I was so upset that my husband wrote an email to Mr. Dutelle asking that he talk to me, or that he write me a nice email note. Dutelle never did. (exhibit Q)

Jan 17, 2013   Dkt 40-15.  Kory Wein, Chair LA&E RST Committee wrote: “The DRB unanimously voted that Lorne Gibson be retained and awarded merit pay.” The “vote” was not unanimous. I abstained from voting in protest of the way the DRB meeting was conducted. I was not asked to vote. I did not vote. I just said nothing. I was afraid to say what I believed.  [corrupt vote]

Jan 17, 2013 – I discussed some of the issues surrounding my evaluations with Lizzy Gates by email. (exhibit ZZO-5) (exhibit ZZO-1) I also had a personal discussion with her that evening. 

Jan 17, 2013 – Elizabeth Gates wrote to Koreyt Wein, Chair of CRST that I had been recommended for tenure and that the DRB had unanimously recommended merit pay for me.  [UW-P 000037]

 Jan 22, 2013 11:33 – Dkt 36-3.  Caywood says there is money available for my trip.

Jan 22, 2013 11:56 AM Dkt 36-3 – I wrote back “Thank you so much J

Because of this email the court is unlikely to agree that this was a case of adverse action.  We should not include this at all in our arguments.-Roger

Jan 23-24, 2013 – Defense Responses contain several emails between Throop, Jessica Erickson, Paul Erickson and others.  [5430-5440]  These files do not include the attachments.  The attachments seem to be what Throop objected to.  They need to be sorted correctly so we have exactly the versions that were sent with each email.  This way we will be able to see the changes made at each stage.  Ask for the attachments (correctly attached to the appropriate email) in discovery – document request.


On Jan 23, 2013 3:27 PM:    Dkt 53-16.   I received an email from Jessica Erickson, Director of Public Affairs, AT&T Wisconsin, with a proposed press release attached. (exhibit EZZX) (exhibit X) UW-P 003399-3400   Attached to the email were (exhibits 692, 693, 694)   SB001359]



Jan 24, 2013  about 7:30 AM I received a phone call from home informing me that my father was seriously ill and was in the hospital.  His condition was grave and the doctors were concerned that he might not have much time.  He passed away on Feb 14, 2013. 


Jan. 24, 2012 (8:10 am): I invited Dr. Caywood in person to the AT&T donation ceremonial check presentation in my current topics cyber-crime class.  Dr. Caywood told me he had been conversing with Dean Throop about the check presentation but gave no indication that there was any problem. 

I told Caywood that morning the news about my father’s terminal illness.  Dkt 38 pg 247-248.


 I had class from 9:30 am to 12:20 pm.  I saw Dr. Caywood again about 1 pm telling him about time slots for him to say something at the presentation and he gave no indication of a problem with the press release.

Jan 24, 8:37 AM, 2013  Dkt 53-16.  I sent back the press release with some minor changes attached.  (exhibit EZZPSB001359]   (exhibit X) (exhibit EZZX) (exhibit ZD UW-P 003527-3528     SB001092]  I only had about 10 minutes before my next class so I just gave it a quick look.   A change I made was to replace “cyber security course” with “cyber security program.”  Perhaps this is the hook Dean Throop wishes to hang her case on, a simple wording correction.    Nobody ever told me that this change was a problem. 

I made two changes: 1) I changed “cyber security course” to “cyber security program,” to more accurately reflect the purpose of the grant, and I changed “XX” to “spring of 2012” (this should have read spring of 2013-I made a typo because I was rushed).  Dkt 36-7 pg1. 

 The fact that Throop got so worked up over these two small changes is ludicrous and shows that she did not believe the stated reasons for her adverse actions.

Jan 24, 2013 - Dkt 53-16.  Jessica Ericson replied “Thank you for the edits.”

Jan 24, 2013 from 9:02 am to 5:40 PM –  Dkt 42-67 -  Throop and Den Herder wrote a confidential emails [UW-P 005730-5731].   Dkt 37-4.

January 24, 2013  9:02 AM - Throop wrote a draft of a message to Sabina and emailed it to Den Herder.  The draft said “you and I have discussed this several times” which is false.  It said “You must get the support of your department before you publicly discuss new courses or programs.”    It said “a $7,000 grant is nice but we have coklleagues getting grants in the hundreds of thousands of dollars who do not create such a stir.”    They wondered how Tranel got involved and decided that AT&T must have invited him or they would have reprimanded me for inviting him.   They say that I should have gone through Paul Erickson or Rose Smyrski before inviting him (it made a stir).   Den Herder wrote to “remind her” that the appropriate protocol would be to go through Smyrski and Erickson.  How can they remind me when they have never told me that and it is not written anywhere?     Throop concluded that AT&T invited Tranel and said she didn’t send me an email because Caywood did and it “upset Sabina a great deal.”   She called the website “very troubling” saying it had “all kinds of representations about UW Platteville course offerings” and “she is absolutely not authorized to do so.”  She said that I “refused” to meet.  Dkt 37-4.

January 24, 2013 11:30 AM – Dkt 42-67 - Den Herder returned Throop’s email with her suggestions for wording the email to Burton.   Throop denied Burton a fair election for the chair position because Burton was “unable to handle things on a local level’ but Throop needed the Provost’s input write a simple email to Burton.   Dkt 37-4.



Jan 24, 10:27 AM, 2013  Dkt 53-16.   Dean Throop sent an email to Jessica Erickson, Director of Public Affairs, AT&T Wisconsin, the Chancellor’s office, cc to Burton and Caywood saying: “This press release concerns me deeply. There are a number of highly inaccurate--indeed, misleading--statements regarding the status of cyber-security curricula at the University of Wisconsin-Platteville.  I am not confident that the ceremony being planned is wise given this.” (exhibit EZZV)  (exhibit EZZXSB001358] (Dkt 101-3) 

The final press release did not mention me as the person responsible for getting the grant.   It did show my name as someone in the photo.


Jan 24, 10:38 AM: 2013  Dkt 53-16.   Dean Throop sent an email to Jessica Erickson CC: Dr. Caywood and Dr. Burton which indicated that she had spoken to Jessica and that she would edit the long form release to reflect her concerns.  (exhibit EZZX)

Jan 24, 10:47 AM, 2013  Jessica Erickson sent the updated press release to Dean Throop and Rose Smyrski, cc’d Dr. Caywood and myself after a discussion with Dean Throop  (exhibit EZZX) with attachments (exhibits 696 and 696a).   This email was deleted from my UWP email account some time before 7/15/15.  Maybe it was deleted because they don’t like the fact that Jessica wrote that she had made changes per her discussion with Throop and seemed to have some concern about a quote from the Chancellor.

Jan 24, 1:06 PM, 2013  I sent Dr. Caywood an email informing him of the memo from Jessica Erickson listing those to be present and who would speak.  I received no response.  (exhibit EZZZA)  SB001091]   (Dkt 101- 6)


Jan. 24, 2013 (1:27 pm):  Dkt 53-4,   (email and my response email - Dkt 40-5).     Dkt 38-6,  Email from Dr. Caywood to me with “letter to Sabina” attached (cc’d to Dean Throop).  Rather than talking to me about it Dr. Caywood decided to defame me by sending his lies and Mr. Dutelle’s lies to Dean Throop.  I believe the letter was written by Dutelle.  This was the first time Dr. Caywood told me that I did not have his support for my cyber-security program efforts.  He wrote: “  I’m not aware that the CJ Department approved a cyber security program or the development of one. […]You are advertising in press releases and websites that the department and university are supportive of what you are doing.  That is in error. First, you need to garner support of the cj faculty. […]I would caution you on how you are presenting your ideas and visions in the media or on the world wide web as that of the Criminal Justice department or the University of Wisconsin- Platteville” (exhibit A) (exhibit A1). SB000883 to 885]  



Imagine how my world was turned upside down at about 1:20 pm when I finally was able to check my email messages and learn what had been going on while I was in class all morning.  They use timing and surprise to maximum effect. 


Jan 24, 1:27 PM, 2013    Dkt 53-4 – Dkt 38-6.  Dkt 40-6.  Dr. Caywood sent me a scathing letter, which I believe was written by Mr. Dutelle. SB000905]  (exhibit A) (exhibit EZZR) Dkt 37-7   Dkt 37-5           This letter was cc’d to Dean Throop.  Rather than talking to me about it Dr. Caywood decided to defame me by sending his lies to Dean Throop.





Screen shots of what the websites looked like on the morning of Jan 24, 2013 are: -  Dkt 42-83,  (exhibit 611) (Throop Decl., ¶ 11, Ex III.) UW-P 000329-330,   SB000162]  SB001079] Dkt 37-3  Dkt 37-2   Dkt 36-7 [h 3 – Dkt 42-83,  (exhibit 611a) (Throop Decl., ¶ 11, Exs. HHH) UW-P 000331-332  SB001082] .     Dkt 37-2.   Dkt 36-7. 

One can easily see that there is no uwp logo on these pages.  If there had been a logo the administration would have said so in their initial admonitions but they did not.  They added the logo excuse later to better justify their adverse actions.  This changing story demonstrates that Throop did not believe her own stated reasons for her adverse actions of Jan 24, 2013. 


Jan 24, 2013 evening I asked my husband to remove all reference to UW Platteville from the websites, which he did.   For maybe a month the site looked like this: - (exhibit 611-1) SB001080] and - (exhibit 611-1a).  Dean Throop told me that she saw the changes and was satisfied that I had removed mention of UW Platteville from the site.  Some time around mid to late February we changed the sites to look like this: - (exhibit 611-2) SB001081]  and - (exhibit 611-2aSB001083] .   The sites stayed like this until the domain name registration expired.

Roger set up Google Analytics on the open source journal sites to track usage around early January 2012.  Here are some screen shots of the usage.


(Analytics-journalofCJ-10-1-12to10-1-13) (Dkt 101-8)  








Rule 26 Disclosure - 26.         email from Dr. Caywood to Dr. Burton, dated Jan 24, 2013, Dkt 53-4


Jan 24, 2:35 PM, 2013    SB000887]  SB001356]  Dkt 37-5          Dean Throop sent an email to Dr. Caywood and cc to me saying that Dr. Caywood’s letter deeply concerned her and demanding a meeting at 2 pm the following day.   She didn’t ask if I was available.  She knew that I had just found out about my father’s grave illness.


Jan. 24, 2013 (3:45  pm):   Dkt 40-5.     SB000893SB002052-2054 I emailed my response to Dr. Caywood’s letter. (exhibit EZZQ)  [UW-P 000313]   (Dkt 101- 10)   I wrote “So tell me what you want me to do. I am ready to tell AT&T to give their money to a different school if that is what you want. This donati.on does not benefit me financially and actually creates extra unpaid work for me that I am willing to do for the benefit of our great school and students. If you are withdrawing your support please do so

in writing so I know what to tell AT&T about this check presentation.  If you have withdrawn your support for the course development we should not accept the grant.”    This email is a MUST READ.


January 24, 2013 4:41:22 PM    SB000887]  SB000901]   SB000904]  SB001356] I sent Dean Throop an email (exhibit EZZR) explaining that I was not available to meet with her and Dr. Caywood the following day.  I had learned of my father’s grave condition that morning and that support for my cyber security efforts had been yanked viciously.  My Dean was unwilling to listen to my side of the story and was being unnecessarily harsh with me.  I was a nervous wreck and unable to meet them.  I was not refusing to meet.  In fact I later asked if we could meet over the weekend but Dean Throop was not available.  The truth of the matter was that I was a nervous wreck and had severe tension headaches.  My husband was doing all he could to keep me going.  I just could not face the mess at that time.  I felt attacked by Dean Throop as well as by Dr. Caywood, my father was gravely ill and it was just too much for me.  (exhibit EZZS-1)   Dkt 37-5    



Jan 24, 5:15 PM, 2013  (exhibit EZZR)-SB000886]   (Dkt 101-9)   Dkt 37-5         Dean Throop sent me an email making clear in her opening sentence that she did not back me on my cyber security efforts.  This was devastating to me.  What was going on?  Why was Dean Throop harsh with me?  What lies had she been told?  What did I do wrong?  Why couldn’t she just change the document and be done with it?  She wrote “I understand--as I have said to you many times--that you are enthusiastic and excited developing a program in it and it seems that you have said that in your proposal.”  I was not arguing to keep the word “program” in the press release.  If there is a big difference between the word “program” and the word “project” she could have just explained that to me.   I didn’t even write the press release.  I was tired and beat up when I gave the press release a quick proof read. I was mainly looking to make sure the time of the event was right.  Why did Dr. Throop have to embarrass me in front of AT&T?  If Dean Throop didn’t like the release she could have just changed a few words and sent it back.  That is why she was asked to look at it before it was sent out.  How hard would it have been for her to change the word “program” to “project?”  Why wasn’t my name in the press release?  What statement(s) did I make that were inaccurate or misleading?  

The contradictions in email shows that Throop didn’t believe her admonitions.  She had backed me previously but suddenly says that she never did.   




January 24, 2013 5:40 PM – Throop wrote Den Herder giving her the link to the websites.   She wrote that Burton’s website made “all kinds of representations about UW Platteville course offerings” and that Burton was “absolutely not authorized to do so.”  She wrote  “I just don’t know what she’s thinking or why she’s doing this.  I had asked for a meeting to discuss all of this tomorrow with her and Tom and she is refusing to meet.  I did respond to that email (the refusal) with lots of support and “you go, girl,” but also with the caution that she can’t represent, publicly, programs in the department that don’t actually exist or have departmental backing.  I wrote that email before seeing her website (probably a good thing.)”  [UW-P 005730-5731].   Dkt 37-4.


Email Throop to Den Herder saying that I was not authorized to create the website but I had shown the site to Throop and Caywood previously.  She wrote that she had not seen the websites prior to writing to me but I had showed them to her.  


Throop wrote as  draft to me “You do not have approval yet from your department or this

college to move forward on a cybersecurity program, and I am not empowered to simply open one.”  This is just nonsense because I didn’t claim that we had a program in place.  She lied to Den Herder.


She wrote in the draft “Please do not make any representations about an expanded curriculum until you have gone through all of the proper

channels of governance. You and I have discussed this several times.”  But defense has not offered any evidence of any such conversation prior to Jan 24, 2013.  Throop lied to Den Herder.  Saying on Jan 24 that she had discussed it with me prior to that date does not prove that she did.  She cannot offer any evidence prior to Jan 24 because it does not exist.  Prior to Jan 24, 2013 Throop never told me anything about representation issues prior to Jan 24, 2013 because she was supportive of what I was doing and I had never misrepresented anything.



(show the times Burton gave Throop the links here.)


(see if you can find case law talking about how communications with employees that need a lot of high level attention shows evidence of pretext.)


Jan 24, 2013 05:53 PM:  (exhibit EZZZZFSB000477 SB000896]  Dkt 37-7 Dean Throop sent Dr. Caywood an email stating that “Sabina is refusing to meet tomorrow.”  I didn’t refuse to meet.  I was unable to meet.  What I said to her was that I was “not available.”  By using a more harsh term than necessary Dean Throop is stirring the pot.  She is showing Dr. Caywood that she is on his side against me.  

Jan 24, 7:14 PM, 2013. Dkt 42-65    (exhibit EZZZ)  SB000903] SB001355] (Dkt 101-16)      I wrote Dean Throop a response.  Why does a statement on a press release that I didn’t even write get me this kind of harsh reaction?   What did I do wrong?   I wrote “under the circumstances I find myself in I don’t think I can accept the AT&T donation I will forward Tom's letter and my response as well as the NSF proposal to them and with that politely decline their generous offer.”


January 24, 2013 7:45:15 PM – I sent an email to Dean Throop (Link to Proposal) (Dkt 101-14)    This email explained that the proposal had been approved and submitted the semester before Throop started as dean.  “Tom knows that but he's been allowed to bully me in the last months.  Travis Tranel and AT&T were contacted before you were our Dean. I used the material that was approved by the school and by Tom.

January 24, 2013 7:46:25 PM -  Throop wrote back  “Again, my friend, please, let's you and me talk.” (Link to Proposal) (Dkt 101-14)  

January 24, 2013 8:16 PM –  I wrote  (Link to Proposal) (Dkt 101-14)     :  “I don't even know if I can come to school tomorrow. I have been popping migraine pills for a huge tension headache. I may call in sick and talk to an attorney instead. I need to see how I can get some justice in this matter. Tom has defamed my character. He has lied. I'm certain the letter was written by Aric not Tom. It has Aric's wording in it. Tom has a different style of writing and it's not as good. My character has been put in question with AT&T when my statements were called incorrect and even misleading.  This has to be corrected. My name must be cleared of this.

I asked you for help before as Tom has been bullying, intimidating, and bad-mouthing me in the last month following the student complaint. I have stood alone. Fortunately I have Roger's support.  

I have worked so hard for this program. Just this afternoon at 5:30 pm I had a successful phone conference with a Hollywood studio (that produces "24 Hrs") and a 25 yr FBI veteran Steve Moore . They want me to be their academic consultant on a show that deals with Cold Cases. They want to come and film me teach and analyze crime scenes with students. I should be ecstatic. Instead I am very upset and stressed over the great injustice I have been dealing with. Tom holds a grudge and is allowed to act on it. He has to retire and Aric has to be put in place. I can't stand dealing with their aggressive behavior anymore.”



In the evening of Jan 24th my husband called Dean Throop’s office.  He talked to the secretary and asked to be transferred to the Dean.  When Dean Throop picked up the phone she said in a very aggressive and stern voice “What do YOU want?”   Roger immediately got the distinct impression that she was very angry.  He told her that he had called to discuss my situation and the Dean cut him off and informed him that she was not going to discuss the matter with him.   Roger was going to let her know that my father had taken gravely ill, ask for some compassion, try to understand why the Dean’s emails had been so harsh and hopefully to shed some light on the issue to help the Dean understand my position a little better.  But the conversation was cut very short and Roger was not able to accomplish any of the goals of his call.  He did learn that Dean Throop was very angry with me, and seemingly with Roger too, although at the time he was not sure why.  I don’t see why Dean Throop could not have been polite to my husband when he called her.  Why didn’t she simply inform him that it is inappropriate to discuss these matters with non-employees?  Why did she feel the need to speak so harshly to him?   Roger suggested that I write an apology to Dean Throop, which I did.  Roger is very good at seeing both sides of an issue and he felt that he might be able to help.  He is willing to stay out of the discussions if it is inappropriate for him to be involved but he wants to help me because he sees the injustice.


The World Wide Web Policy of the university for websites and some other obscure rules was in the Defense documents. [UW-P 000529-UW-P 000536]   someone highlighted some text on these pages probably to use against me but they don’t really apply.  This is clearly an attempt to find rules against me for doing something they sanctioned.  They just decided, ok, time to mess with Burton so we’ll just look up some rules nobody knows and twist them to apply to Burton so we can harass and fire her.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 37.         email chain regarding press release & agenda, dated January 23-24, 2013 Dkt ) 53-16

Jan. 25, 2013: I had to call in sick. I had strong tension headaches and felt very stressed.   My doctor prescribed me pain, anxiety and sleep medication.


Jan 25, 7:45 AM, 2013   I sent an email to both Dr. Caywood and Dean Throop that I was sick and explained my symptoms.  (exhibit EZZS)  I was extremely distressed at that time.  I mentioned bullying and discrimination.


Jan 25, 2013 12:54 pm – I sent Caywood an email, cc to Throop with a link to the dwd web page about retaliation.  Dkt 37-8This is a protected activity.  


Jan 25, 2013 12:56 pm   Dkt 37-8.  Throop wrote to Caywood telling him not to respond to me. 


Jan 25, 2013 – 1:28 PM – I sent an email to Den herder.  I told her what was going on.  I wrote “I have been discriminated against, unfairly treated and bullied by Tom after responding to a student’s request to help her with a sexual harassment problem by a CJ faculty member in Oct. 2012.”   I wrote “I have turned to Liz for support in this bullying matter but she has repeatedly told me that she will not get involved in department affairs.  I cannot address bullying by my boss by bringing it to my boss’ attention.  I tried, it didn’t work.”  SB000892]  (Dkt 101-15)  


Jan 25, 2013 1:28:55 PM I sent an email to Provost Mittie Den Herder with subject “Case of unfair treatment and discrimination (exhibit ZZG) with an attachment (exhibit ZZG-1).  



Jan 25, 2013 – 4:04 PM – I sent an email to Throop with subject line “My apology.” SB000890]  I wrote “I am an emotional mess today but perhaps you can find time to talk to me tomorrow.”

Jan 25, 2013 – 4:32 PM -  Throop sent me an email accepting my apology and offering a time to meet with me and Durr.  SB000889]  She also wrote “I do NOT want you to decline the AT&T grant.”


Jan 25, 2013 04:46 PM I sent another email to Provost Den Herder with subject “my apology.” I sent this letter because after re-reading my previous email I felt that it gave the wrong impression that I intended to take the matter to court, which was not my intent at that time. I wanted to settle the issue without the need for legal action. (exhibit ZZGSB000891]

Jan 25, 2013 – 4:51 PM – I sent an email to Throop with times we could meet.   SB000889]



Jan 26, 2013 – 5:29 AM -  Dkt 42-69 -  I asked Dean Throop what I was allowed to say at the AT&T check presentation. SB001367(exhibit EZZZZZB)

Sat, Jan 26, 2013 – 7:35 AM  –  Dkt 42-69  -  She responded with assurance that I wouldn’t embarrass myself or the university. She said I could use the funds in a manner inconsistent with the original proposal I sent to AT&T. I was directed to accept the money and use it in a manner inconsistent with its intended use. (exhibit EZZZZZB) This put me in a difficult position.   SB001367]


Jan. 28, 2013 (2 pm): Jim Jermain presents ceremonial check during my cyber-crime class.  Memo-ATTgrantceremony-1-28-13

On Jan 28, 2013 at 7:23 AM I sent Dr. Caywood an email with a letter attached explaining the way I saw things.  (exhibit EZZZG) (exhibit EZZZG-1)  [UW-P 000074]  (Dkt 101-17)  


1-28-13 1:08 PM – SB001100]  Jessica Erickson (ATT) sent me an email (exhibit 695) with attachment (exhibit 695a).   SB001104]


Mon 1/28/2013 4:48 PM – Provost Den Herder responds to my email saying she “appreciates my work to find outside funding.” (exhibit ZZG-2)



On Jan 29, 2013 (8:15 – 9:15 am) I met with Jeanne Durr and Dean Throop in response to Dr. Caywood’s letter (exhibit A) and harsh treatment.  I audio recorded the meeting (audio exhibit A1) transcript (audio exhibit A1a).    Durr’s notes on the meeting are in [UW-P 000178]. (Dkt 101-18)     I informed them that I wanted to file grievance charges.  Jeanne Durr told me that she would send the information to me to make sure that I have the proper  guidelines, both, in our handbook and the UW system rules and that she would make sure that I have access to all of those.  She twice more during that meeting assured me that she would send the information to me.   She never did send me the information promised.  Also in the meeting Jean Durr said that it was very appropriate under the circumstances that I document things. 

Dean Throop told me that she can’t interfere.  The reason I took my grievance initially to Dean Throop was that I was under the impression that she was in a position to do something about Dr. Caywood.  After she told me that she could not interfere I stopped asking for her assistance and took the next step.  I have later found out that Dean Throop does have the power, even the obligation, under LA&E Constitution, Article VI, Section 4, para 1 to hold an election for department chair at least once each three years (appendix VIII).  It has been well over three years since our last election so I have made one of the demands in my claim that a new election be held.  I have also made one of my demands that if either Dr. Caywood or Mr. Dutelle should be elected that the Dean conduct a new election as allowed in the LA&E constitution, Article VI, Section 4, para 4.  I am not bringing this request directly to Dean Throop because she has already made clear her desire to remain outside the decision making process of this issue and seems to believe some defamatory lies about me.


I noticed a change in the way Dean Throop greeted me over the last year.  At first she was very friendly waving and smiling when we would meet at Wal-Mart or other places.  But over time she began avoiding eye contact and her greetings became much more formal and insincere.  I believe someone had been lying to her about me.   Dean Throop should be asked what she has heard about me and from whom.  Those rumors should then be investigated to see if they are true and Dean Throop should be made aware of the findings.  If she was merely trying to distance herself from me for protocol reasons she should have explained that to me.  I would understand.  By snubbing me I am left to wonder the reason. 



January 29, 2013 8:27 AM– I received an email from Jim Jermain (AT&T) (exhibit 572b) in which he wrote “I wish all our professors shared your passion.”  SB001099]

Jan 29, 2013 – I sent a thank you email to Jermain. SB001098]

Jan 29 12:28 pm Jean Durr sent me an email with links to the policy on grievances.   [UW-P 000072]

Jan 29  12:33  :  I sent an email to Durr saying ‘Where do I hand in my grievance package?’ [UW-P 000072]  I never got an answer.

Jan 29 1:51 pm Durr sent me another email with another link to the UWS section, which lays out the process but did not contain information about where to take the grievance package.     She did not answer my question.  I already had all of the links she sent but I had no idea to whom I was supposed to deliver my grievance package.  I asked but she ignored my question and that delayed my filing.  [UW-P 000072]  The school keeps that sort of information secret to delay and derail grievance filings.


Jan 30, 2013 –  an article was published with a photo of the check presentation.  In the photo were Caywood, Tranel, Jermain, Burton, Jacobus and Den Herder.  My name was not mentioned in the article. (exhibit O)    UW-P 003493   (Dkt 101-4)  Dkt 38-7

Jan 31, 2013 – Jessica Erickson sent me an email about WGLR radio doing a spot on the ATT donation.   SB001097]


Date unsure:   Fuller wrote Jacobus saying he would get paid for a trip to conference.  Later the email was deleted and Jacobus was not paid.  Probably because he was with me.  Ask for the emails between Fuller and Jacobus during a wide enough period to ensure we get it – Document Request for Discovery.  Ask Jacobus for the approx. date and to be sure it was from Fuller.


Feb 1, 2013 7:35 AM – [UW-P 000175]    I sent an email to Caywood explaining why I would not be able to attend the department meeting.  I wrote “I am afraid you will direct stabs at me again as you did at the last meeting.”  I explained that my father was in the hospital and my mother and brother needed me.   I ended the email with “Starting Oct 11, the day the student complaint occurred our relationship has changed.”


Feb 1, 2013 8:28 AM – [UW-P 000076]  Instead of responding to my email Caywood forwarded it to Throop.   Throop told him to let me know he had forwarded the email to her but Caywood never did.   I told him of my father and mother’s pain and he just wrote to Throop “FYI, latest email from Sabina.”     Immediately afterward, at 9:09 AM he wrote back to me “I’ve received this email. Hope your father is doing better.”


Feb 1, 2013 12:21 PM –  Dkt 42-88 pg10-12   [UW-P 000076]  - I sent Durr an email with a letter to Tom attached that I also sent to Caywood.  I told Durr that I had been warned that Caywood would retaliate if I filed a grievance against him.    I tied his harassment to the sexual harassment complaint.  I informed her that my father was terminally ill. 


In this email I wrote “I very much want to have a normal, professional relationship with Tom again where I can approach him with questions and explore research and course options with him.  I haven’t had a normal relationship with Tom since the student sexual harassment complaint. In October.” 


I wrote that “we have a department meeting today that I can’t attend for personal reasons. My father is terminally ill.  My mother is a wreck and I am devastated.   I have come to school to teach and had no problem to make it through the material. However, I cannot handle the negativity and harshness of Tom right now and I hope you understand.  I wrote last fall that Tom used a department meeting to take stabs at me for having reported the student complaint.  I informed tom that I won’t attend today’s meeting.”    


I wrote “At this point I won’t approach the Grievance committee.  I was warned by several people that tom would retaliate if I would do so.  I don’t feel protected to pursue my grievance and my family situation has left me even more vulnerable.  I just wish Tom would let go of the complaint issue so we can move on.”    I didn’t want to go to a grievance hearing or file a lawsuit.  I wanted Tom to stop retaliating.  I was forced to go to the grievance committee because Caywood refused mediation.


In Durr’s notes [UW-P 000068] she wrote that in my email I “referred to the breaching experiment, which she now characterized as a sexual harassment complaint.”  She tried to make it seem like I was calling it a breach experiment at first and later changed my story.  Not true.  I had no indication that anybody considered this a “breach experiment.”  My only indicator at first was that the student was creeped out and the note was clearly inappropriate.  If higher authority determined this to be just a harmless thing they could have just dropped it and I would not have had a problem with that.  But Caywood didn’t drop it.  He kept harassing me and that is why I complained.


2-3-13 2:37 PM –  [UW-P 000175]  Throop wrote to Durr “Jeanne, in light of the little email flurry, just FYI.  I’ve not responded except to tell Tom he ought to let Sabina know he forwarded this email to me.”


2-3-13 3:36 PM – Durr wrote to Throop “Wow. If Sabina responds to my email I’ll see what I can do.  We’ll keep in touch (sounds like on a daily basis!)”   This reads like Durr was getting real tired of hearing from me and dealing with my “problems.” 


2/7/13 – Durr wrote handwritten notes [UW-P 000172] She wrote that she provided links to me but I already had the links.  I needed to know who to send the grievance to and she refused to tell me.


Feb 3, 2013 – 02:35 pm – Durr sent an email to me bcc to Throop – She wrote “Whatever you do should be in the spirit of true resolution of any problems that you perceive, and I would like to discuss some options to accomplish those goals.”  It is crazy to expect that someone can write an accusation of retaliation without sounding a little upset.  Being upset does not diminish the prospect of resolution.  Durr wanted me to resolve the issue by dropping it and allowing the retaliation to continue without ever addressing the problems that I “perceive.”  By referring to the problems as my “perception” she was saying that there was no real problem but that I just perceived it.


Feb 6, 2013 – Dkt 42-97,   Throop sends a stern email to Caywood saying that making arrangements for Lomax to teach class prior to the effective date of his retirement – as you told me you did- was a “complete violation of the law, as I told you.”  She did not sign Form 5Caywood responded saying “…it is time for you to start thinking about a replacement for the department chair.  In the mean time I will fight tooth and nail for my faculty, use every trick available, I won’t break any laws but I will bend them to fit our needs.  My job is to take care of cj members.”  Ask Caywood in deposition why he tried to break/bend the law for a male retired faculty member and what he meant by “bending the law.”   

Feb 7, 2013 8:30 AM – Dkt 42-97 – Dean Throop admonishes Caywood for his “violation of law.”  She stated that she would not get involved in departmental leadership decisions as she did not intend to interfere in faculty governance processes.    Ask Throop in deposition why she didn’t call for an election at that time.  [UW-P 001028] .[UW-P 001026-1027

Since we know Throop has no problem violating policy and law and because she knew Caywood also had no problem “bending the law” we cannot take Throop’s statements at face value.  She was not denying Caywood’s request because it violated law but because she was punishing him.  She saved this email exchange in a file so that she could use his “bending the law” statement against him some time in the future. 



Feb. 7, 2013 (8:30 -9 am) :  I met with HR Director Jeanne Durr to discuss how to handle the hostile work situation.      Jeanne Durr told me that Dr. Caywood “doesn’t need to answer your questions.  You would like him to answer your questions, but he doesn’t need to.”  She said “he could totally ignore everything that you send him from now till you both retire.” “He can continue to ignore you forever.”   She also said that “Tom is probably going to feel battered” by my letter to Dr. Caywood of 1/24/13 (exhibit EZZQ).   Since Dr. Caywood is protected from answering my valid questions and addressing the real issues I would like the Chancellor to ask Dr. Caywood the same questions I have been asking.  Maybe the Chancellor can get straight answers where I have been blocked.  I am not battering anyone.  I am trying to expose some serious problems and I am having a great deal of difficulty finding someone in a position to help who will really try to understand what is going on and not pressure me to continue to accept the abuse. 

[audio exhibit A2]  is a recording of this meeting.  A2a is an excerpt of A2 with Durr saying that Caywood feels battered by me.  A2b is an excerpt of A2 with Durr saying that Caywood doesn’t have to talk to me until we both retire.  A2c is a partial transcript of the meeting.  Tim and Michele need to listen to the audio in order to understand the issues.

During the meeting I told Jean Durr that I just want to know what I did wrong so if I did something wrong I could address it and try to fix it.  She responded saying that I “didn’t do anything wrong.”

Jeanne Durr said she would address my concerns with Dr. Caywood. I again asked how to go about filing a grievance. She recommended mediation between Dr. Caywood.  She never provided me with information on how to file a grievance.  I had to find the information through other sources.


At the meeting Jean Durr seemed upset that I was pressing the issue.  She wanted it to just go away.    That would explain her failure to deliver the promised information to me for submitting a grievance package and her delays in arranging mediation.  She was impeding my efforts to file a grievance in hopes that I would just give up.


In her notes [UW-P 000069] Durr wrote that the “if we were going to try to mediate anything at all, that the tone of the letter would not be helpful.”


Feb 8, 2013 – Caywood wrote an email to Throop about getting Joe Lomax to teach.  Throop wrote back that it is a violation of law.  [UW-P 005347-5352].

Feb 8, 2013  Dkt 42-98 -  I wrote a letter to Jeanne Durr [UW-P 000078].   In this letter I told her that I was unfairly treated and that I expected it to get worse if nothing is done about it.  I asked several questions that might be good for deposition or interrogatory.   I wrote “if, however, the answers to these questions indicate that Tom is discriminating against me for my handling of the student complaint then I believe Tom is violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  I am not willing to allow that kind of treatment to continue.  Not only is it unfair to me but it is unfair to students and other well meaning faculty members who may unwittingly become entangled in similar discrimination or harassment events.  The way I am treated in this case sets a precedent.  If Tom has discriminated against me, as I suspect, then the school should do something about it.  If Tom has acted professionally then he should easily answer my questions.  Supervisors should be held to a higher standard of conduct.”

I included attachments to show that Tom supported my efforts in pursuing a Cyber-Security program up until Oct 10, 2012. 

I wrote “I very much hope that I will not need to file a complaint with the Chancellor or address the grievance committee.”

 Feb 12, 2013 8:17 AM – Dkt 36-4 – I wrote Caywood with my PAACE projects for the semester asking for his approval. 

Feb 12, 2013 9:43 AM – Dkt 36-4.   Caywood sent me an email in which he wrote “My concernis you are doing to much.”[sic]  He wrote this as a reason to refuse to support me in something I was trying to accomplish.[ UW-P 000286]

The fact that he had assigned Gibson extra work shows that he did not believe his reason for this action.  He was just limiting my ability to do more work.  (cite Gibson’s class load)

 Feb 12, 2013 9:43 AM – Dkt 36-4.   I wrote Caywood explaining that my course load was not excessive at all. 

Feb 12, 2013 11:17 AM – Dkt 36-4.   Caywood wrote “OK, forms are in your mail box.”

Because this email string seems cordial and Caywood’s reasons for withholding seems reasonable to an outsider it is unlikely the judges will agree that Caywood was unreasonable.  We have not demonstrated that he made you ask twice for everything, which was one of his ways of retaliating.  He did give in, which looks fair to the casual observer even though he was unfair in making you ask repeatedly for every concession.-Roger

Feb 13, 2013 – Dkt 40-15.  Gibson’s CRST recommending reappointment and merit. 

Feb 13, 2013 – Dkt 42-84  CRST committee recommendation for my tenure request: “Took No Action.” [UW-P 000035]     The letter said that I had until Feb 20, 2013 to request reconsideration.   I never saw this letter until 7/27/2015 while looking through the discovery documents from defendants. 


Feb 13, 2013 – CRST committee recommendation for Dutelle’s tenure request: “Took No Action.”[ UW-P 005654]. 



Feb. 27, 2013 (8:46 am): Email to me from HR Director Jeanne Durr stated that she has been busy and will discuss mediation options, between Dr. Caywood and me, with Dean Throop after March 13 (exhibit EZZZC).   Delay upon delay.  I requested the investigation on Nov 17, 2012. 


Feb 27, 2013 Alan Crist, Assoc VP of UW Madison sent an email to Chancellors, Provosts, Chief Business Officers, Faculty Reps and Academic Staff Reps AlanCrist-Ltr-to-Chancellors-2-27-13   [UW-P 004475].   In this letter he wrote that Wis Stat 36.115(4) requires that the dismissal for cause grievance procedures for all employees include the following elements: 
- A written document specifying the process that a grievant and an employer must follow;
- A hearing before an impartial hearing officer; and
- An appeal process in which the highest level of appeal is the Board of Regents.   

This doesn’t seem to apply to grievance procedures that are not for dismissal for cause cases. (Roger)


2/28/13 -  SB000218]    Caywood sent a brief history of the change over in faculty in CJ dept.      He blamed the recent exodus of faculty on “location.”  He blamed the problems in recruiting on “low salaries, location, no release time for research, no/limited funding for research.”  Reality is that people left because they were pushed out or quit in disgust and that the people recruiting were more interested in hiring corrupt minions than in finding quality instructors and they performed the searches poorly.


February 28, 2013 -  the Exponent published an interesting article titled “Faculty Senate delays release of audio recording.” - Archived at (706 - Fac Sen delays rel of audio rec)  Maybe they have something to hide.  The reporter mentions the names Senate President Laura Anderson announced that Lisa Merkes-Kress, the Senate’s recording secretary, Wisconsin Department of Justice Communications Officer Dana Brueck, University of Wisconsin System General Counsel Paige Reed, UW-Platteville’s public records officer Paul Erickson. 


Paul Erickson, Director and PIO 608.342.1194 |


According to the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Open Record Compliance Guide, a public record is defined as, “Any material on which written, drawn, printed, spoken, visual, or electromagnetic

information is recorded or preserved, regardless of physical form or characteristics, which has been created or is being kept by an authority. (Wis. Stat. § 19.32(2).)”



The article references the (706a - DOJ Open Records Law Compliance Guide)  I found the guide on  Also on this site was a link to the (706b - supplement to the compliance guide)


For records requests make request under the state’s Open Records Law (19.31-39, Wisconsin Statutes).  Roger requested Faculty Senate agendas, minutes and meeting audios on 8/19/2015 2:55 PM and on 8/24/2015 10:04 PM.




March 8, 2013 (9 am-10 am): I asked to talk to the Assistant Chancellor Dr. Joanne Wilson. She immediately provided me with information on submitting a grievance package. 


March 13, 2013 (10:30 am): I turned in my printed draft grievance report package to the secretary of Assistant Chancellor Dr. Joanne Wilson.   I don’t have an exact copy of the package I gave Joanne Wilson but it is an earlier draft of (folder exhibit FE1), which I gave to Mary Rose Williams on 3/28/13.   [UW-P 000079 through UW-P 000096] seems to be this earlier draft provided by defense in discovery.  It has my notes in the margins.

March 14, 2013 -  12:37 pm – (exhibit EZZZX)       SB000222-223]   Burton to Caywood – I asked to teach cyber crime.  I also told Caywood that I would be leaving for Germany on the following Wednesday to bury my father.

March 14, 2013 – 1:30 PM –  SB000222Caywood to Burton – course related stuff

March 14, 2013 3:58 pm – SB000222Burton asks to teach an overload with the grad program.


March 14, 2013 (12:37 pm):  Dkt 40-21.   I submitted a request to Dr. Caywood to either teach cyber-crime or domestic terrorism. Students have repeatedly requested the courses. I received an FDRA grant from the UW-System for homegrown terrorism research in spring 2012 and an AT&T donation of $ 7000 for cyber-crime/cyber-security curriculum development in January 2013. Dr. Caywood denied this request at 1:30 pm. Dkt 40-21.   (exhibit EZZZX)     SB000221]


Mar 15, 2013 - SB000222]  Caywood to Burton – you are teaching …

March 18, 2013: I put a completed form requesting permission to develop the graduate course “cyber-crime” in Dr. Caywood’s mailbox for his signature. Syllabus draft was approved by CJ Graduate Studies Director Dr. Fuller.


Mar 20, 2013 12:18 PM –  Dkt 40-1.   I sent an email to Caywood about the course proposal. [UW-P 000272]  Encryption was discussed.  I wrote that the syllabus was a first draft.  I just needed permission from grad. Council to develop a grad course.  I just need the ok to work on it this summer.

March 20, 2013 late morning: I found my permission request in my mailbox with Dr. Caywood’s comments and red marks correcting my punctuation (exhibit C). Dr. Caywood wrote “If she (Dr. Burton) chooses not make changes I will not sign off on this.”  This indicates that he expected me to resist making changes and is confrontational.  I have always given Dr. Caywood my best efforts and do not resist his direction.  He is implying that I resist making appropriate changes to documents such as this, which is not the case.  He also wrote “This looks like a bare bones proposal.”   My proposal was of average or greater length and content when compared to other graduate course development permission requests.   This demonstrates Dr. Caywood’s propensity to throw hurdles in my path as retaliation against me.  This form should have easily passed his desk and all the issues he pointed out could have been discussed and finalized by the grad council.  Dr. Caywood also questioned my ability to teach about encryption asking “Are you bringing in experts to discuss encryption?”

March 20, 2013 (12:18 pm):  Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 011.    Email from me to Dr. Caywood reminding him that cyber-security is part of my professional expertise. I asked him “why do you question my expertise?”  He never answered this question.  SB000906]

March 20, 2013 (2:49 pm):  Dkt 40-1.    Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 011.   Dr. Caywood’s email response to me: “I spoke to David van Buren about your proposal. As it is, he didn't think it would be approved. That's why I sent it back to you.” (exhibit EZZZD)   [Blame 3d Party]   SB000906]


Mar 20, 2013 – 3:22 PM –  Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT – 004 & 013.    Dkt 40-14.     I wrote a question to Van Buren.  SB000899 to 900]   SB000913] 

March 20, 2013 (3:54 pm): Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT – 003 & 012.  Dkt 40-14.      email from David Van Buren, Dean of Graduate Studies to me: “I'm sorry if there has been any miscommunication regarding my discussion with Tom (Dr. Caywood).  I didn't tell him that I thought the course wouldn't be approved.  In fact, I said that I thought the topics in the course description looked fine. (exhibit EZZZH)  SB000897]    SB000899]    SB000912]

This shows that Caywood was trying to blame Van Buren for his decision to delay my course proposal.  It shows that he did not believe his stated reason for refusing to sign my proposal.

Mar 20, 2013 – 4:08 PM –  Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 012.  Dkt 40-14.      I sent a response to Van Buren. SB000897]   SB000912]

 Mar 20, 2013 4:19 PM - Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT – 003.  Email from Van Buren who wrote “Thanks for your excellent input.”   He advised that he would attempt to extend the deadline to April.   His comment that my input was excellent after only minor changes indicates that Caywood’s delay in signing my proposal was malicious and that he didn’t believe his stated reason.


3-20-13 5:25 pm – Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 012.   Dkt 40-14.    (Exhibit 504) – I received an email from Caywood explaining that he would not sign my proposal unless I made his insignificant change.   SB000897]   SB000912] 


3-20-13 6:02 PM –  Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 02.   Caywood wrote back to Fuller with sentences underlined to indicate that he didn’t have enough time to approve my proposal.  [UW-P 000277]


Wed, 3-20-13 – 7:17 PM – Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 02.   Fuller sent Caywood an email saying “Sabina put the proposal in your mailbox on Monday. Because the ‘permission to develop’ proposal needs revisions, and your and Liz’s approval signature, it will not be presented to the grad council this Thursday.” [UW-P 000277]    This shows that I put the proposal in Caywood’s inbox on Monday, giving four days for him and Throop to approve it.  It sat in his desk for two days before he gave it back to me requiring minor changes, while I was on the way to Germany.

Wed, 3-20-13 – 7:20 PM – Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 02.   Caywood asks if she makes the revision would it go to council in April?

Wed, 3-20-13 – 7:17 PM – Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 01.   Fuller responds “only if you and Liz sign off on it.  It needs your approval or it is a dead proposal.”

Wed, 3-20-13 – 7:17 PM – Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 01.   Caywood wrote “if she makes the changes I’ll sign off.”    He blames me for waiting till the last minute but I gave him four days to approve a perfectly good proposal.  His stated reason for delaying the proposal is ridiculous and shows that he didn’t believe his reasoning.  Also, he knew I was on the way to Germany.  These sorts of approvals are normally rubber stamp affairs.  He put me through much more scrutiny than others for no valid reason.

Mar 20, 2013 7:28 PM - Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 01.   Fuller concurred with Caywood that I waited till the last minute.     Maybe for this email we are fighting the wrong battle with this particular action.  I think it is unlikely the judge will disagree with both Fuller and Caywood and possibly Van Buren.  We probably should not include this incident in the appeal.  I had not seen this email previously.

 Mar 21, 2013 12:34 AM - Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 019.  I sent the syllabus to Van Buren and asked him t let me know if his concerns were sufficiently addressed.


March 21, 2013: I resubmitted my request to develop the course with minor changes and it was approved by Dr. Caywood.   The fact that I must defend simple requests like this in order to get required approval shows that he is looking for opportunities to undermine me and hinder my efforts.  The fact that he did it when I was on my way to bury my father shows a lack of humanity.   His delays almost made me miss the opportunity to get it approved in this cycle.

 Mar 21, 2013 10:15 AM - Dkt 36-2 CAYWOOD EXHIBIT TT - 09.  Van Buren wrote me an email saying that the proposed course “looks fine.”  He pointed out that I might miss the deadline because the submission was made on the day of the meeting. 

March 21, 2013 (12:10 – 12:25 pm): I had a meeting with Dr. Joanne Wilson who provided me with a contact person for the grievance committee: Mary Rose Williams, Media Studies. 


March 22, 2013 12:39 pm – Dkt 42-88 pg3,  : I received an email from Jeanne Durr informing me that Dr. Caywood had not responded to her multiple requests to schedule some time to meet.  I informed her that I had initiated grievance procedures. (exhibit EZZZU) (exhibit EZZZE

Mar 22, 2013 12:48 PM – Dkt 42-88 pg3 – I informed Durr that Caywood continues his retaliation by rejecting my grad course proposal and “graded” it in red ink. 




3/20/13 to 3/26/2013 – I was booked to fly to Germany to bury my father but United Airlines would not let me on their flight from Madison to Chicago because they thought my Lufthansa flight from Chicago was canceled due to the Lufthansa worker’s strike. (exhibit ZZF-2) The strike did not affect my Lufthansa flight from Chicago so I missed the flight for no good reason other than United made a mistake. My husband re-booked my trip for 3/27 through 4/2/13. (exhibit ZZF-2a)



Mar 25, 2013 08:26 AM -  I received an email from Sheri Kratcha with CJ minutes I had requested.  (exhibit EZZZZZH) Attached to her email were minutes of several department meetings (exhibit EZZZZZH-1)

Mar 26, 2013 –  Dkt 36-14  Dean approved a payment for Cyber crime class


3/28/2013 – I turned in my printed grievance package to Mary Rose Williams (folder exhibit FE1)   (exhibit EZZZZZS).  The heading of my (cover letter to the grievance committee) stated “Grievance: Dr. Caywood, chairman of the Department of Criminal Justice, practices retaliation, sexual discrimination and favoritism.”      Since I had already left for Germany I asked my husband to deliver the package for me. Note: a minor error on the Timeline of Student Complaint is that I informed Kate Demerse about the student complaint on Oct. 11 not on Oct 10 as shown. 


3/29/13 – Letter from Shields saying I was reappointed to faculty but no mention of tenure. [UW-P 000544]


March 29, 2013 – Chancellor Shields signed Dutelle’s tenure letter, effective Aug 20, 2013. [UW-P 000828]


Some time after March 2013 - Jean Durr wrote a statement about her activities.  Her notes seem to be her attempt to defend her actions against Sabina’s allegation that Durr “Contributed to the hostile work environment by purposely delaying requests for help.”   (UW-P 000067)     Most of what she says seems right, however she uses little word twists to make me seem unreasonable.  [reputation smear]

In her notes Durr wrote “Dr. Burton stated that she didn’t know if what we had done was sufficient, and that the experiment continued to bother her. “   This a misleading statement.  I wasn’t concerned that the experiment “bothered me” nor was I concerned about how they handled Gibson, I assumed the matter would be dealt with appropriately, but I was trying to get help to because Caywood was retaliating against me for having reported it “over his head.”  Durr’s statement also misleads one to believe that Gibson’s note was just an experiment rather than an attempt by Gibson to get in the student’s pants.  Durr is trying to maike it sound like I called it an experiment at first.  I didn’t know what it was at first.  The “experiment” parachute used by Gibson sounded somewhat plausible and I gave him the benefit of the doubt early on.  But he didn’t have IRB approval, he didn’t tell the subjects they were in an experiment and he gave his own personal cell phone number to an attractive student.  The student perceived it to be creepy and was uncomfortable.  That is why she came to me.



April 4, 2013 2:30:18 PM – Elizabeth Gates sent me an email (exhibit ZZO) SB001370]  SB001373]   saying that the tenure letter mentions only retention and not tenure.  She says it was “just an administrative oversight.”  It was not just an oversight but a deliberate attempt to deny me tenure.


April 4, 2013 – Dutelle sends an email to Caywood, cc to Throop.  [UW-P 000832]  He informs Caywood that he will not be the FI coordinator and crime scene house administrator for summer.  He seems to think it is not enough money and seems to make the case to be paid more than $5,000.


April 5, 2013 – Chancellor’s revised letter granting me tenure.  [UW-P 000543]


April 7, 2013 -  Dutelle wrote an email to Throop in response to her very polite questions. [UW-P 000829]   Explains his rationale for getting 50% release time for FI coordinator position.  Dutelle talks about allocation of funding as though he owned the money.

April 7, 2013 4:08:37 PM – I sent an email to Elizabeth Gates asking about Dutelle’s tenure. (exhibit EZZZZL-1)   SB001370]  SB001373]

Apr 07, 2013 05:04 PM– I received word from Lizzy Gates that Dutelle's tenure went through. (exhibit ZZO) SB001369]  SB001373]   I don't know when exactly it was final but certainly it was before mine was.


Apr 07, 2013 06:40 PM – I wrote an email to Elizabeth Gates pointing out the disparate treatment between Dutelle and me. (exhibit EZZZZL-2) SB001369]

Apr 07, 2013 08:12 PM – I received an email from Elizabeth Gates saying “Hopefully it’s just an administrative mistake.”  It wasn’t, it was intentional.  She wrote “I’m trying to assume that it’s just a simple mistake at this point.”  Easy for her to try to assume they were being fair to me but it really let me know that they were out to get me. (exhibit EZZZZL-3)   SB001369]


Apr 08, 2013 06:59 AM– I sent an email with a Tenure question to Elizabeth Schall. (exhibit ZZO-2

Apr 08, 2013 08:19 AM Late tenure letter - email from Mittie.  She called it an “administrative oversight,” an “office error” and “simply a glitch in process” but it was intentional. -(exhibit ZZO-4SB001371]    (exhibit EZZZZUSB001372]  (exhibit EZZZZU-1) (exhibit EZZZZU-2) (EZZZZL-4) If I had not fought for my tenure there is no way I would have gotten it.

Apr 08, 2013 10:20 AM – I wrote an email to Nimocks Den Herder saying I was worried about my tenure. (exhibit EZZZZL-5) SB001372]   

Apr 8, 2013 - I found a letter with tenure recommendation in my mailbox. (exhibit ZZO-6) (exhibit ZZO-7) The letter was dated Apr 5, 2013 and stamped “Revised.” Tenure was to be effective August 20, 2013.



April 9, 2013 – I was informed by Lizzy Gates that she had “just received” my tenure letter in the mail. She called the delay an “administrative mistake.” (exhibit ZZO-3) I believe they were hoping I would not press for tenure. I believe the administration, Chancellor, Provost and Dean, thought they could intimidate me into not rocking the boat and fighting for my tenure.


A few days before the grievance hearing I received Caywood’s rebuttal  Dkt 40-12. (exhibit ZI) and exhibits (Folder Exhibit 629).   For some reason I was not given all of Caywood’s exhibits. A more complete collection of his exhibits are in [UW-P 219 - 306] . I later wrote a rebuttal (folder exhibit 541 - 6a - My Rmks-CaywoodRebuttal).  I included this rebuttal in the package I delivered to the Chancellor on 7-8-13


On April 12, 2013 (12 PM to 1 PM):   There was a department meeting.  Dr. Caywood has not released the minutes of that meeting. We should ask for those minutes in discovery. Dean Throop attended that entire meeting for no apparent reason.  I got the sense that she was there to “protect” Dr. Caywood against me even though I am the one who needed protection. 


On April 12, 2013 (4 PM to 5:45 PM) a Grievance Committee hearing was conducted.  In attendance was myself, Dr. Caywood, my husband Roger, who acted only as an observer and supporter, and five board members.     I requested that the meeting be recorded and I have a copy of the recording. (audio exhibit A6)   (Note: This has been converted to MP3 format so you can play it on the computer now.)

Dr. Caywood admitted that he had acted “poorly” and probably “very poorly.”  

Caywood claims that he didn’t know that the student didn’t want to talk to a male. I told him when I first informed him of the issue that she didn’t want to talk to a male so; he knew.  He said many other things that show his corruption at the grievance hearing.  [pretext]  (partial transcript of the grievance


Caywood said there are only two people in the department who he considered to be eligible to be chair, Dutelle and Burton. He did not seem to consider Dr. Fuller as an eligible candidate for chair even though she is qualified.  So Caywood considered me eligible to be chair but Dean Throop did not consider me eligible because she said, at her 12-2-13  grievance hearing, I “couldn't handle things on a local level.”

I later wrote a rebuttal to some of Caywood’s comments at the meeting (folder exhibit 541 – 6c - My rmks-Grievance HrngAudio Transcript)  This was never sent to anyone in the university. 


April 17, 2013 – The grievance committee wrote a draft letter of findings for my grievance. [UW-P 002831]    This draft was not sent to me.  Note that this draft did not have anything in it about investigating Gibson’s “experiment.”


April 17, 2013 –  Dkt 53-32.  The Complaints and Grievances Committee sent a letter to Chancellor Shields expressing their findings about Gibson’s actions.  [UW-P 002846-2847]   (exhibit Gibson-Slut-Shaming)  In this letter they wrote “his actions were so egregious” and “Dr. Gibson showed extremely poor judgment in conducting an in-class example of a study,” and “ Dr. Gibson’s email is beyond reprehensible.”  The committee made recommendations for dealing with Dr. Gibson.

Gibson confirmed that the phone number on the note given to a student was his personal cell phone number.

The committee wrote that his actions “undermines Dr. Gibson’s competence to teach research methods ethically.”  They called his apology to the class “slut-shaming” and wrote that Gibson “has serious liabilities and lacks even a fundamental understanding of structural sexism.”

Yet, even after all of that the committee seemed to believe that the note was part of an experiment.  I think it was an attempt to get a female student to sleep with him.  I wouldn’t want him teaching my daughters.  He was allowed to leave UWP with no entry of wrongdoing in his record.  Gibson is now teaching at University of Maine, Presque Isle.    Gibson-UMPI


Rule 26 Disclosure - 54.         April 17, 2013, memorandum from complaints and grievances committee to Chancellor Shields regarding addendum to the Burton-Caywood Grievance, Dkt 53-32


April 19, 2013 -  Dkt 42-88 pg13,   Complaints and Grievances committee issued their first findings in my grievance against Caywood.  (exhibit ZA)  (Dkt 101-21)  

They wrote that I alleged that Caywood treated me in a demeaning and unfair way.  They glossed over all the other things I alleged.  Their analysis was overly simplistic and minimized my allegations.

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.


The grievance committee submitted their findings to the Chancellor (exhibit ZA) (Dkt 101-21)     with recommendation that “a third party needs to investigate further how the breach experiment which prompted a student complaint was handled before and after the experiment took place.”  This was never done. The findings were not satisfactory as I explain in (exhibit ZA-8) although they were much more reasonable than the committee’s second findings which the Chancellor demanded on June 4, 2013  or the Chancellor’s response. 

Complaints and Grievances committee recommended, among other things, that; “the Criminal Justice department take advantage of Dr. Burton’s willingness to be more actively involved in the hiring of new faculty members.”   (exhibit ZA) (Dkt 101-21)     Dr. Dalecki excluded me from the hiring process of new members.  Dr. Solar later excluded me from participating in the discussion to create the job advertisement for three new faculty members.

The Committee recommended that an investigation be conducted into how the breach experiment was handled before and after the experiment took place.  We should ask for the results of that investigation in discovery.  [document request]

The committee’s recommendation included the statement that Caywood “defended his last-minute withdrawal of support to her AT&T grant proposal, saying it was due to a concern that Dr. Burton was misrepresenting the university’s commitment to a cyber-security program.”  The audio of the grievance supports this.  There have been so many conflicting statements by administration.  Here are a few:
1) Throop claimed to Den Herder that the reason for withdrawal of support was that I had falsely claimed to be an expert in cyber-security. 
2)   Caywood claimed at his deposition that he never withdrew support. 

3)  This report and audio clearly shows that Caywood withdrew support and indicates that he lied under oath.   That is called perjury.
4)  Den Herder tried to make it seem as though the reason for the withdrawal was that I had not gained appropriate approvals
5)  The Chancellor’s findings had yet another vague reason for the withdrawal.
6)  The fact that nobody told me any real reasons for the withdrawal shows that they were purposely keeping me guessing what the real reason was.  Their vagueness and ambiguity supports the argument that it was done in retaliation for my filing the complaint.


April 19, 2013 –   [UW-P 000525]   An article about me and my students work in Human Trafficking was posted on the university website.  Someone made notes on the Defense’s documents.  They underlined my student’s names, probably so they would know who to harass. And they highlighted the paragraph where my name appeared.


April 19, 2013 – I wrote Jason McDermott an email thanking him for checking up on my payment request for a conference in DC.  I has spoken to him several times previously.  He responded that he would follow up and process it asap.  (Re_cyber-crime fund – Sabina L Burton.pdf)






5/15/13 – I sent an email to John Niehaus explaining that my office lighting was hurting me. (exhibit U5SB000818]


5-15-13 – Throop wrote a letter to Nimocks Den Herder about the Burton Grievance.  [UW-P 005429] also [UW-P 005733]   She wrote “Dr. Burton is not an expert in cyber-security.”  She wrote “she created websites (since taken down) in which she claims that UW Platteville has a “program in cyber-security, which we most assuredly do not.”  She wrote “I was put in the very awkward position of having to correct a number of incorrect statements made by Dr. Burton to AT&T as she made comments on a press release.”  She wrote “If Dr. Burton’s reputation has been damaged, it has been largely due to her own behaviors and not those of me or my office.  It is for these reasons that I am unwilling to write a letter to AT&T.    Note:  Dean Throop spoke of my expertise in the video of April 3, 2014.   Also, Caywood called me an expert in his deposition in Aug 21, 2015  Dkt 40,   (searchable file of Dkt 40).   Page 113, at 9-14.   This contradicts the Throop’s assertion that Burton was not an expert in cyber security.  This indicates that Caywood and Throop did not believe their stated reason for adverse actions on Jan 24, 2013 and in the defense summary judgment motion.    The defense has not produced any evidence that Caywood or Throop ever informed me that their adverse actions (withdrawal of support for cyber program) had anything to do with my expertise. 

They never told me that was a reason for the withdrawal of support, never.  This indicates they didn’t believe the reason.  They never communicated it to me.

Throop referred to my expertise in cyber security at a faculty forum on April 3, 2014.  This indicates she didn’t believe her reason for withdrawal of support. Dkt 98 para 3a.  (first three minutes)  (Click Here to view video)  The argument that Throop became convinced, during the two months between Jan 24, 2013 and April 3, 2013, that I obtained expertise in cyber security is absurd.   This argument is especially absurd considering that Caywood and Throop withdrew their support for my work in cyber security on Jan 24, 2013 which eliminated my opportunity to gain more expertise in the field.

Defense asserted on Dkt 62, para 122 that as of Jan 2013 Throop did not believe Burton was an expert in cyber-security.   This is false as shown by the contradictions. 

I wrote a rebuttal and some deposition questions for Throop.    Den Herder did not mention anything to me about Throop claiming that I did not have expertise in cyber-security in my Aug 8, 2013 meeting with her.  Nobody EVER mentioned to me that part of the reason for the withdrawal of support had anything to do with my expertise (or lack thereof) in cyber-security.  This way they could keep me from addressing the issue.  Smoke and mirrors.  [pretext]


5/17/13 – 10:37 AM – I sent an email to Roger, cc to Sheri Kratcha about the lighting in my office.  SB000819]

May 19, 2013 (Day 30):  The deadline for the Chancellor to act on the board’s findings came and went with no word from anyone.  (appendix VIII)  I was anxiously awaiting something that nobody was even working on.  I believe this was a conscious decision to delay my grievance.


5/20/13 – I asked Sheri Kratcha if she remembered the name of the person who measured the lighting in my office but she did not.  I could not remember who tested the lighting. (exhibit U6)



As of Fri, May 24, 2013 10:46 AM, I had heard nothing from the Chancellor concerning my grievance (Day 35).   Since the Chancellor had not responded to the Grievance Committee’s report within the required 30 days I sent an email to the Board of Regents (exhibit ZA-1) requesting their review of the matter.  


5-25-13 2:53 PM – Den Herder sent an email to Throop. [UW-P 000133]    In this email Den Herder corroborates with Throop in what seems like an effort to help Throop write the final say for the grievance hearing.   Den Herder makes a confusing question/statement writing “It is accurate that the committee never sought your input regarding any of these matters?” [sic]  Was she asking Throop or telling her?   She clearly did not know that the Chancellor was required to respond within 30 days.  This is because probably no grievances have ever been conducted to completion in her employ in Platteville.  Grievance hearings are just a way to identify the next person to fire.  Anyone who complains gets fired and they use their own complaints as reason.


5-25-13 3:02 PM –[UW-P 000133] also [UW-P 005744]        Den Herder sends an email to Throop saying that she “just read the administrative code that is referenced and Dennis was suppose to respond within 30 days so he is out of compliance.” [sic]   Admission of guilt.  

She wrote “I’ll draft something from the Chancellor indicating that you will make sure recommendations 2-4 occur but recommending that the grievance committee should hear your input – and he will not require that you send a letter to AT&T?  

1.       Was the Provost asking permission from the Dean?  She ended the last sentence with a question mark.

2.      Why was she telling Throop about what the Chancellor’s findings would be before the Chancellor published it?  Was it so Throop could oppose it before it was published thereby ensuring a good cover up?

3.      Way before the Chancellor’s findings were published and before the Grievance committee returned their second findings, or even knew they would be asked to return another finding, Throop was already off the hook for sending a letter to restore my rep to ATT.  It didn’t matter to the Chancellor whether the committee agreed with me or if they uncovered the truth.  He had already decided.  Why bother with the grievance process at all?  Obviously that is what the Chancellor was asking himself and that’s why he blocked my future efforts to be heard.


5-25-13 3:17 PM – [UW-P 000133]    Throop responds to Den Herder’s email saying that she “already said something to Tom about getting a facilitator to come in.”  But a facilitator never came in.  [Communication Training]    She wrote “I have already warned Lorne and Tom that something of that nature can never happen again.”   So, Gibson’s punishment was just a warning.  She wrote “It is exactly right that the Grievance Committee did not contact me about anything.”

Deposition question:  for Throop: 


May 28, 2013Dkt 42-88,  Chancellor Shields wrote a draft response to the grievance committee.  [UW-P 000111]   His final draft was signed on June 4, 2013 .  I wrote a comparison of the two documents.    IMPORTANT!!!!!  This contains good deposition question for Chancellor and highlights how he changed direct verbiage to vague direction.    Another draft version Ok’d on 5/30/13 was included in defense response to document requests [5441-5443].


Wed, May 29, 2013,  9:04 AM:   Provost Nimocks Den Herder, who claimed that she had been assigned by the Chancellor to handle the Chancellor’s response to the grievance committee’s findings, telephoned me and apologized that she had not responded within the allotted time and that she did not know that there was a time limit.    She told me that she would make a response by Friday.  She never responded.   

On Friday, May 31, 2013 7:05:01 PM:  I received a response from the Board of Regents (exhibit ZA-3) informing me that the matter was still being reviewed on the campus level. 


Friday, May 31, 2013, 11:29 PM (Day 42):  Having heard nothing from Provost Nimocks Den Herder I sent another email to the Board of Regents (exhibit ZA-4) asking “how long must I wait?”  I never received a response to this email. 


The Faculty Bylaws, Part III, Article IX, section 2 states: “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. The colleague or colleagues against whom the grievance is lodged are entitled to at least a ten-calendar-day notice of all hearings related to the case. All parties are due as prompt a resolution of the matter as practicable.”  (web page appendix Article IX)

The bylaws have been removed and seem to have been replaced by a bogus and unauthorized “procedure” that includes the option of the grievance committee to extend the grievance past the 20 days.  I believe this is a violation of uws 6.02.  They should be held to the procedures in place at the time and not the procedures that have been changed to violate my rights.  I composed a letter explaining the bogus grievance procedures issue for the faculty senate but, showing great restraint, I did not send it.   (exhibit 617)  


 Bogus UWP. Stuff on Grievance Procedure web page of univ website.  Dkt 48- XVI-1 - Griev Procs-2013-14



Around 6/1/13 I made a comparison chart of the search attempts that had been conducted and which had failed.  This chart shows that I was better at hiring than others in the department (exhibit R).

June 4, 2013:  I departed on a two week study abroad trip to Germany.


June 4, 2013 (Day 46):  The Chancellor sent a letter to the grievance committee, and mailed a copy to me, asking the committee to re-do their findings of April 19, 2013  within a month. (exhibit ZA-2).  Draft of the letter is [UW-P 005736] also [UW-P 005741].        In the opening paragraph of his letter Shields stated that I had“filed a sex discrimination grievance with the Committee against the chair” of my department.  To be accurate, the grievance I filed against Dr. Caywood stated that he “practices retaliation, sexual discrimination and favoritism.”   Whether the board finds that sexual discrimination is apparent does not diminish the other charges against Dr. Caywood and those charges must not be ignored but they were ignored.  The Chancellor and Lattis ensured that my other charges were swept under the rug. 

9 month faculty are unavailable during the summer effectively stalling any investigation for three months.   This, along with other delays I have suffered in my grievance process, are in violation of Wisconsin statute 111.36(3) (appendix VIII).     My grievance was intentionally and unnecessarily delayed at almost every level including the Chancellor’s office.        

The Chancellor wrote a draft of this letter on May 28, 2013 in the defense response to document requests that had some differences.


The grievance committee wrote that they needed more information so I put together another package which also implicated Mr. Aric Dutelle and requested another grievance hearing.  (exhibit showing this)


June 7, 2013 – Dutelle gets confirmation letter that Regents recommendation for tenure.  [UW-P 005652]


June 10, 2013 – Shane Drefcinski sent a letter to Chancellor Shields asking to meet concerning his decision to remand my grievance back to the commission.  [UW-P 002843]   In this letter Drefcinski writes about a copy of my grievance that has his notes in the margins.  This seems to be [UW-P 002848 to 2873].   

Defense provided some notes that seem to be Drefcinski’s notes about the grievance [UW-P 002874 to 2878


6/11/13 – (exhibit usa_2) is a poster that the German police used to advertise the presentations I gave in Germany on 11 June 2013 to federal and state police officials. These presentations funded transportation in Germany which left us with a money surplus that I set aside for the counter-visit from the German police instructors and students in June 2014. I gave 5 one hour presentations.  I gave the FHPol (Brandenburg Police Academy) permission to distribute my presentations on their Police-Intranet for educational purpose. My students gave 10-15 minutes presentations that I helped them prepare. Deb Rice and her husband didn't give any presentations.

(exhibit DSC_6336) is a picture of me at the podium during one of my presentations.  (exhbit DSC_6333) is a picture of  Dr. Thomas-Gabriel Ruediger, who was the moderator of the conference and me sitting at the table.  Ruediger is a police instructor and researcher in Internet Crimes against Children and holds the rank of a Lieutenant.   The presentations lasted from 9 am to 5 pm.


6/11/13 – I copied the Officers & Directors page of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, showing that Caywood was wrong about Johnson’s involvement with the organization. (exhibit ZJ) (see rebuttal to Caywood’s grievance hearing statements)


About 6/20/13 – I saved a copy of the “Hackers Profiling Project V2.0 (HPP V2.0).  I was invited to participate in this United Nations effort. (exhibit ZN)


June 24 2013 – Drefcinski sent my grievance and Caywood’s response to Lattis [UW-P 005465 to 5491]   with a few hand written notes on it (probably by Drefcinski).   Lattis gave the committee three issues to “narrow” the grievance (see July 10, 2013 ) and in so doing guaranteed that my core issues were ignored.


Tue, Jun 25, 2013 09:53 AM - I sent an email to the Chancellor (exhibit EZZZZJ) also [UW-P 005462]  SB000019-20]   in response to his letter of June 4, 2013 (exhibit ZA-2).   Someone made notes on my email in [UW-P 000190], probably Shields.  I informed the Chancellor about a number of problems I was facing and asked for his help.  I ended the long email with “Please let me know as soon as possible whether you will accept my new charges, evidence and clarification of the issues and whether you will agree to remove Provost Nimocks Den Herder from the proceedings and take this issue on personally.”    I composed a letter explaining why I believed Provost Nimocks Den Herder was biased but I think I never sent it to anyone.  


June 25, 2013 12:52:04 PM - Rose Smyski emailed me asking to connect with me and update me on the situation.  I called her and she told me she would set up an appointment with the Chancellor.  I was told that Joyce would contact me to let me know of the meeting time. -(exhibit EZZZZK)   I never heard back from them.  


June 27, 2013 – Lattis sends a letter to Drefcinski [UW-P 005749-52]    In this letter she basically derails the real issues of my grievance and directs Drefcinski away from a fair finding calling her corrupt actions “framing” the issues.  This is not part of the grievance process.


July 7, 2013 – I wrote a document to collect my thoughts.  I never sent this document.


Jul 08, 2013 10:12 AM -(exhibit EZZZZK) - I asked Rose Smyrski when I could expect to hear from Joyce about the meeting.  I was told that it was scheduled for July 8, 2013 but nobody bothered to tell me about it.  This is another example of the lack of respect and attention I get from the administration.  If I had not followed up when I did I would have been the only person not in attendance to the meeting I asked for. (exhibit EZZZZK-1)  At the meeting the Chancellor said he couldn’t know whether Caywood did anything wrong because he had to listen to both sides.  He said it is very complex and it could take months to take care of it.  He said I am tenured so I have reached the pinnacle in teaching.  He asked me why I felt discriminated against so I gave him examples.  Poor evals, Dutelle was favored, Caywood in general liked male employees better.  I said Caywood excluded me from searches and assignments and yanked his support from a cybercrime project he signed off on.  The Chancellor turned to the Provost and asked about the decision with Caywood, can we share anything yet?  She said no, not yet.  A few hours later they had a meeting with Caywood when they told him he had to step down. 

I wasn’t happy with the meeting because I felt the Chancellor tried to push me into letting things go.   He wanted me to trust him and let him take care of it.   I noticed that the Chancellor had Dutelle’s DRB folder on the table during the meeting.


While at the meeting I gave a printed updated grievance to Chancellor Shields (folder exhibit 541),  (index of exhibits and appendix included in package).  He handed the package to Provost Den Herder.  This package named both Dr. Caywood and Mr. Dutelle.  This grievance was ignored by the administration.  I never was allowed to confront Mr. Dutelle for his part in my abuse.  The university violated its bylaws by not conducting a grievance hearing within 20 days. Also RPD 15 - SB000230 through SB000772]    (exhibit 541a)  Defense provided their copy of my grievance in discovery:  [UW-P To_Chancellor_7-8-13].   SB000231 to 319] (Dkt 40-19, Dkt 40-20) 



July 8, 2013 –   Dkt 53-55,    -   .   IMPORTANT  Den Herder’s notes:  Meeting among Throop, Caywood and Den Herder. [UW-P 005758-61] (pages 29-32)  also  [UW-P 005800]   (notes by Den Herder written on July 12, 2013)   Throop said that I “may have misrepresented my expertise to an external private granting agency (AT&T) and may have also misrepresented the extent to which the department had a program is cyber-security.”   Throop was also concerned about Caywood hiring Lomax against her direction and about Dutelle’s seeming attempt to collect “head-hunters” fees for placing UWP graduates.  Caywood stood up for Dutelle saying they were persecuting Dutelle unfairly.  They wrongly state that my grievance was for a pattern of discrimination based on my sex.  They forgot to include the retaliation for helping the student (how convenient).    The notes also state “Dr. Caywood has served as department chair for seven years extending back to the time when I was Dean of the College and was his direct supervisor.  During that period of time, two other women in the department, Dr. Cheryl Banachouski-Fuller and Lecturer Amy Nemmetz believed that they had experienced sexual discrimination within the department but especially from Dr. Caywood.  I did not perceive this to be the case nor did either woman file formal complaints.”

The notes state a potential stumbling block to selecting a new chair from within the department was that “all have been involved in the infighting whether intentionally or being brought in to it.  The two internal people she believes may develop into chairs are untenured and neither of us believe a nontenured person should be placed in this position.”

Den Herder impressed on Throop that she  needed to give Caywood the option of stepping down rather than removing him.  She didn’t want to “hurt” his feelings.

Den Herder wrote “It concerned me that Tom felt that team-building, collegiality, and department climate healing should just be tolerated, left to being softened by time or life events.”  She said to him “Tom, part of being chair and leading a department is to help faculty work through these issues if you can’t prevent them from occurring in the first place.  Part of your job is to engage in team building.”  To that Caywood responded “that just wasn’t him, that he’s not Joe Lomax (former department chair with excellent people skills), and he couldn’t do that.”   She wrote that he “dismissed the importance of department climate and then flatly said he couldn’t (wouldn’t) work on this.”

Den Herder kept him at his present salary.  She wrote “He turned to me and said, “Mittie, you are the Provost, you can just fire me.” I reminded him that he actually serves at the pleasure of the dean who recommends appointments and removals to me and I in turn recommend(or not) to the Chancellor who is the ultimate appointing authority.  Decisions regarding department chair appointments typically are the purview of the dean with input from faculty and approval by Provost and Chancellor. Tom shrugged as though it didn’t matter to him.”

Den Herder wrote that Throop and her had already discussed Dalecki as a candidate and that Caywood brought it up before they could mention it in the meeting. 



Rule 26 Disclosure - 61.       Notes on meeting among LAE Dean Throop, CJ Chair Caywood, and Provost Den Herder, dated July 8, 2013, Dkt 53-55


Mon, Jul 08, 2013 05:00 PM- Dr. Drefcinski acknowledged receipt of my grievance (exhibit 541a).  He asked me to make copies for the other members of the Grievance committee: Theron Parsons, Mary Rose Williams, Miyeon Kwon and Yong Y. Li.


Note:  I have continued to update the grievance package to keep track of and explain events:  Fed Suit – Caywood-Throop


The Faculty Bylaws, Part III, Article IX, section 2 states: “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. The colleague or colleagues against whom the grievance is lodged are entitled to at least a ten-calendar-day notice of all hearings related to the case. All parties are due as prompt a resolution of the matter as practicable.”

(This web page has been changed).

The bylaws have been changed so now they include the option of the grievance committee to extend the grievance past the 20 days.  I believe this is in violation of law.  They should be held to the procedures in place at the time the grievance was filed and not the procedures that have been deliberately changed to violate my rights after my rights have already been violated.



July 9, 2013 – Throop writes a memo to Den Herder and Caywood. [UW-P 005915] It summarized the meeting the previous day clearly saying that Caywood stepped down


July 10, 2013 9:27:25 AM - Dr. Caywood sent an email to numerous addressees saying that he had been “removed as chair.” (exhibit EZZZZS-2) Dkt 37-9


Jul 10, 2013, 10:24 AM – I sent an email to Caywood saying he souldn’t include “Chairman” in his emails anymore.  Dkt 37-9



Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:46:24 PM – Dean Throop sent an email to numerous addressees stating that Dr. Caywood had “stepped away” from being chair and expressed her “very deep appreciation for the many important contributions he has made to this university and our students in the decades that he has worked here.” (exhibit EZZZZI) [UW-P 004003]   SB000022]  Dkt 37-9   She also informed us that Dr. Dalecki would be interim chair and that a national search would be conducted.  In doing this she violated policy and law.

Wed, Jul 10, 2013 06:33 PM My email to the Provost complaining about Dean Throop’s email. (exhibit EZZZZI)  SB000021]  Dkt 37-9     This is a protected activity.  I complained of retaliation by Caywood.


Jul 10, 2013 10:28 PM - Chancellor Shields decided “not to weigh in” on an issue critical to my grievance. (exhibit EZZZZJ-1)     SB000021]


Dr. Dalecki wrote that Caywood had been “removed” as an admission that at least some of Dr. Burton’s complaints were likely valid (Rebuttal-DaleckiNotes).



July 10, 2013 - Dr. Drefcinski emailed me to call him and told me that he didn’t need me to copy the grievance for the other members after all.  (exhibit 541b) The information I provided for my grievance against Dr. Caywood did not seem to be utilized in any investigation as the Grievance Commission issued their findings only three days after I delivered it to the Provost.  I believe that Dr. Drefcinski failed to share my new grievance package with the grievance committee.  I believe my grievance package was simply ignored.


July 10, 2013 – Caywood sends an email to Den Herder talking about getting a “soft landing” by working with Barraclough and getting full pay during his transition out. [UW-P 005933]



July 10, 2013 – (exhibit ZA-5) (UW-P 000046) (Dkt 101-22)      The grievance committee issued a second finding, certainly not enough time for them to consider my updated grievance package.  I did not receive their findings until about July 15, 2013.   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.  The Chancellor published his unfair findings on July 26, 2013.

Deposition question:  Den Herder:  When did you conduct the communication training mentioned in the Grievance Committee’s letter to Shields?


Note that the committee wrote the word “withdrawn” several times as though there was no question that support was withdrawn for my cyber-security program.  Whether support was withdrawn wasn’t even a question in their mind.  Caywood claimed in his deposition that he never withdrew support but he did.

Note that in the findings the committee states that Lattis advised the committee to narrow my grievance to three issues.  She never asked me about this.  She gave this advice purposefully to mislead the committee so that they would not give due consideration to my core grievances and it worked.  Lattis did this maliciously and probably violated some ethics codes in doing so.    She probably did this in response to Drefcinski’s email to her on June 24 2013.


July 11, 2013 10:09 AM – Caywood wrote an email to other department chairs about how badly he had been treated by Throop. [UW-P 005937].  Throop forwarded it to Den Herder saying she did not plan to respond.


Thu, Jul 11, 2013  (exhibit EZZZZG-1) (exhibit EZZZZG) -. Lana Caywood made a harassing phone call to my husband Roger. She also had cussed out the Chancellor earlier in the day. During the call she told Roger that I wouldn’t be able to get along with Dr. Dalecki either.     For nearly two hours my husband listened to her ranting accusations and insults because she threatened to come over to our house if he hung up.  She used profanity and claimed that I was acting irrationally because I was menopausal.  In my email to Chancellor Shields I wrote “Lana implied that Mike Dalecki would be unfair to me when he becomes chair.”


One of the things Lana told Roger was “Cheryl Fuller submitted the report before Tom was able to and Mittie accepted the report from Cheryl.”  There are some emails regarding this in [UW-P 000938-944]


July 11, 2013 at 01:24 PM -  I wrote an email to Chancellor Shields, cc to Provost Nimocks Den Herder, Dr. Drefcinski and Dean Throop.  In this email I detail a harassing phone call by Dr. Caywood’s wife.  I wrote: “Why does the Dean select a chair that was recommended by Dr. Caywood and nobody asked me if I was ok with it? I am not ok with Mike Dalecki becoming chair, interim chair or in any way involved in my affairs.”  (exhibit EZZZZG) (exhibit EZZZZG-1)   


Thu, Jul 11, 2013 01:39 PM  -  I formally opposed Dalecki’s chairship in an email to the Chancellor’s office and to Dean Throop  Dkt 42-85, (exhibit 519).  Dkt 37-12    This is protected activity.

 My email was completely ignored and he was appointed as chair anyway.  Throop didn’t discuss it with anyone in the department except Caywood, but just pushed it down our throats.  I told her that I expected Dalecki to continue the abuse I was suffering and she ignored me.    Throop had every indication that Dalecki was not a person who could unify our department but she put him in place anyway.  I believe she did so because she felt she could trust him to cover things up.  I would not be surprised to find out that Dalecki has been “losing” incriminating documents in a systematic manner.  Perhaps Dalecki was put in place to “break me” from the very beginning.  It sure seems that way to me.   Dean Throop didn’t discuss the appointment with anyone in the department except Caywood.  I told her that I expected Dr. Dalecki to continue the abuse I was suffering and she ignored me.   Throop had every indication that Dr. Dalecki was not a person who could unify our department but she put him in place anyway.  Dalecki told me he was the right person for the job because he knows where the skeletons are buried.



Jul 11, 2013 07:38 PM – I wrote an email to Nimocks cc to Shields and Throop asking for assurance that I would be protected.  (exhibit EZZZZG-2)  


Jul 11, 2013 07:41 PM  - Chancellor Shields asks me to call him (555 - emails fr Chancellor) (exhibit EZZZZG-3). I recorded the conversation (A8 - Ph call - Chancellor - 7-11-13).  In this call he told me not to worry.  Let him handle it.  I had tenure so I had reached the pinnacle of a career in teaching.  He would take care of things.  Two weeks later he officially and publicly blamed me equally with Caywood even though I am the victim and did nothing wrong.   

Shields told me not to use emails.  Also, in some handwritten notes someone wrote “Talk to Sabina – sending emails.”  It seems they were interested in covering up events and that is hard to do if someone is documenting events.  [UW-P 000141  These notes seem to be Chancellor Shields’ notes.  Or perhaps they are the notes of someone else who took notes on what the Chancellor wanted to do concerning the incident. 

Shields told me that Lana Caywood cussed at him that same day. – (A8 - Ph call - Chancellor - 7-11-13).  In the notes someone wrote “What you did to Tom (Dr. Caywood) was pretty shitty.”  This seems to be the “cussing” that Shields referred to in this phone call. [UW-P 000141] [UW-P 004688].



July 11, 2013 8:23 PM – Den Herder sent an email to Scott Marquardt while I was on the phone with the Chancellor talking about Lana Caywood.  She told Marquardt that she lives three houses from the Caywood’s and was uncomfortable. [UW-P 005935]



July 12, 2013 08:57 AM – Caywood wrote an email to Durr [UW-P 000131]   He told Durr that he removed me from his emailing list so that I wouldn’t get department communications from him.  I’m not sure why that was.  He blamed Roger for keeping Lana on the phone for two hours.  What was Roger to do?  Hang up and then stand at the door of our house and let her yell?  He said Roger had caller Id and so should not have answered.  Ridiculous.  He wrote that it disturbed him that Roger “admitted that he reads all of her emails.”  Roger does not read all of my emails but he is certainly helping me with my legal problems.  In order for him to catalog the massive amount of harassment I have suffered I give him many of my emails.  He has access to my legal case files and has my permission to do so.




About July 15, 2013 I received the findings from the Complaints and Grievances Commission, dated July 10, 2013 (exhibit ZA-5). (Dkt 101-22)    The findings were not satisfactory as I explain in (exhibit ZA-8).



July 26, 2013: Chancellor Shields published his very late response to my grievance against Dr. Caywood. (exhibit ZA-6) His response does not address any of my demands (Grievance claim of 7-7-13 section 6d).  The Chancellor’s response did nothing at all to right my wrongs but made things worse for me. He did not address, mention, comment on, remark on, reference, deal with, act on or even recognize any of my written demands in his response. Not even one.

One of my demands was that “a copy of the UW-Platteville Discrimination and Harassment Policy and the procedures for implementing it be distributed annually to all University of Wisconsin-Platteville students, faculty, academic staff, and classified staff as required by policy.” I brought this matter up with the HR Director Lohmann and Dean of Students, Sherry Nevins, on April 22, 2014 and again with HR Director Lohmann at a special meeting called “harassment policy” on April 28, 2014.  This has still not been done.   The Chancellor didn’t even think it was important to address an ongoing policy violation.



July 26, 2013:   Dkt 42-96,  Chancellor Shields publishes his response to the grievance commissions second findings that he ordered on June 4, 2013 and they delivered on  July 10, 2013     . (exhibit ZA-6)   His response does not address any of my demands (Grievance claim of 7-8-13 section 6d).

He wrote: “The proposed “cyber-crime” program is appropriately subject to departmental process and review that has not yet been completed.” This vague statement seems to say that I had made a mistake but not really. It says nothing of substance but strongly implies that I somehow skirted departmental process. It is similar to a pastor standing at the pulpit, pointing at the virgin woman in the front pew and shouting “That woman should not be sleeping with my brother!” It is an inappropriate statement for the context and an inexcusable form of harassment against me. It showed me that I cannot rely on the Chancellor for help but that I could expect more wrongly placed blame from him if I pushed the issue.   I believe he, like Dean Throop, has used similar pressure tactics on other employees that have perpetuated dysfunction not only in the CJ department but possibly in every college in our university.

No departmental approval is needed in order to accept funding. There is no policy, anywhere that I could find, that suggests that my request for funding was wrong or inappropriate or misleading.

The Policies and Procedures for the Criminal Justice Department states: “Proposals for curricular change must be approved by the faculty members of the Department before they are forwarded to the College Curriculum Committee.” (appendix XIII ) I was accepting a donation not proposing curricular change.

The Chancellor said that the rest of the commission’s commentary about issues within the CJ dept. is outside the scope of the grievance and will be dealt with by the VC for Academic Affairs and Dean Throop. This is probably a reference to the Sexual harassment of a student but it is vague and non-committal.


The Chancellor’s response did nothing at all to right my wrongs but made things worse for me. He did not address, mention, comment on, remark on, reference, deal with, act on or even recognize any of my written demands in his response. Not even one.


July 26, 2013:  Chancellor further delayed my grievance (Caywood) by putting his response to findings in my campus mailbox rather than mailing or emailing it to me.  I am on 9 month contract and not required to be at school during the summer.  I have been trying to stay away from Dr. Caywood so I have not gone in to the school often this summer.   I finally received the letters 13 days after they were signed.    I believe this was a calculated attempt to further delay my grievance.

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 I suffered for it.  (exhibit ZA-7).  (Dkt 101-7)   Chancellor Shields’ letter to the department seems to blame me for the problems in the department and put a gag-order on me.  My remarks concerning the Chancellor’s letter are in timeline at Aug 8, 2013.  I explain why the Chancellor’s policy on emails is problematic in (never sent - 506 - Reasons not to use email).


July 26, 2013 Chancellor Shields wrote a letter to the Faculty of the CJ department (exhibit ZA-7)  (Dkt 101-7)    saying “VC Den Herder and Dean Throop have recently taken steps to begin to address the challenges faced by the Department. My remarks concerning the Chancellor’s letter are in timeline at Aug 8, 2013.  I applaud their decisive step of appointing an interim chair and a commitment to a national search for a longer term appointment of a chair of the department.”  Three separate committees found that Dean Throop violated policy in appointing Dr. Dalecki as interim chair (exhibit ZT-2)  (exhibits 503, ZZA-1).  Chancellor Shields applauded an act that violated policy, violated my due process rights and violated laws guaranteeing faculty self-governance.  My remarks concerning the Chancellor’s letter are in timeline at Aug 8, 2013.

In his letter he says that it would be wrong to blame Dr. Caywood and says that “the responsibility for the civil and orderly operation of any department is a shared responsibility between leadership and the tenured faculty.” He blamed me.

He wrote that he “applauds” Dean Throop and VC Den Herder’s decisive step of appointing an interim chair and commitment to a national search. He encouraged the violation of policy and law.

He assumed everyone knew this but emphasized that emailing is “problematic.” He just wants to make sure there is no evidence of the true issues. “He said She said” is much easier to refute in court. He claimed that email “presents the danger of escalating a conflict rather than resolving it.” This is the same baloney Dean Nimmocks Den Herder wrote in her May 10, 2010 letter to the department. (exhibit EZZZZZG-2)

He wrote “Conflicts, disputes or simple misunderstandings should first be handled by the parties sitting down face-to-face and attempting resolution. If this doesn’t work, one or both parties should seek help from an immediate supervisor, dean, or from Human Resources.” As I felt the Chancellor’s actions in my grievance were unacceptable I wanted to talk directly to him, as he suggested, in order to clear up any misunderstandings and possibly to dispute his decision and attempt resolution.

He wrote “This administration is dedicated to helping faculty members and departments create a respectful and productive work environment.” It seems to me that this administration (Shields, Throop and their agents) is dedicated to keeping the boat from rocking. 


July 28, 2013:  Chancellor missed the deadline for conducting a hearing for my claims against Mr. Dutelle.  I believe this was a conscious decision to delay my grievance.  They seem to have completely ignored the fact that I filed an official grievance against Mr. Dutelle.

July 29, 2013 – Caywood writes an email to Den Herder asking if he would have legal counsel provided by the university. [UW-P 005777]   She wrote back that he would be.   This is not fair to me.  I have to pay for my own attorney but the university enjoys unlimited use of attorneys provided at the cost of the taxpayers.  They are 80% student funded yet the state pays all of their attorney costs to protect corrupt administrators.  This is a big problem that needs to be addressed.  It allows the corrupt administration to continue to harass employees at will.

Aug 2013 Mr. Dutelle was made director of sponsored programs. Mr. Dutelle will do whatever he can to sabotage my efforts to get donations so there is no point to even trying to get anything through sponsored programs. This is another damage I have suffered.



Aug 2013: Diana Johnson was appointed by Dr. Caywood as Director of FI. I was not considered for this position. I was not asked for input about who should be appointed. I am qualified for this position but was overlooked for no good reason. I taught FI at Cal State Fullerton. Johnson was hired two years after me. This is lost opportunity for me and contributes to my damages.

Thursday, August 1, 2013 4:34:47 PM – In an email to Provost Den Herder I wrote: “Chancellor Shields encouraged me to stay in touch with you and talk to you in person about the grievance. If possible I would like to meet with you in the next days to get an update on the issues concerning me.”  She replied the next day “That would be good. I'm copying Liz Schaal on this so she can set up a meeting between us.” (exhibit EZZZZZJ


Aug 6, 2013 – Durr sent an email to Joyce Burkholder cc Liz Schall, saying they needed to put together  my personnel file. (PersFile-8-22-17-pg103).

 Aug 7, 2013 – I obtained from Joyce Burkholder, University Staff Assistant, a copy of my official personnel file.  However it was missing a lot of stuff.  It was missing all three of the letters (exhibit ZZM), (exhibit ZZM-1) and (exhibit ZZM-2).  I maintain a paper file of what I received.  It was very sketchy. 



Aug 8, 2013 –I met with Provost Mittie Den Herder. I recorded the meeting. (audio exhibit A7) (Partial Transcript is A7a)   I was hoping to find out what had been going on with my grievance. She seemed to think that I was some rogue professor trying to push curriculum through without using proper channels. She said “If I were you I’d use that money in the way that you had intended to use it.” I explained that I couldn’t do that until there was a correction to the defamation Dean Throop sent to AT&T. I asked her if my reputation would be cleared. She said “Well, let me see what I can do.” She did nothing. She has still not contacted me about it. I was disappointed that she was unable or unwilling to tell me what was going on with my grievance. It seemed to me that nothing was being done about anything I had complained about. She did not seem to have an update for me. It seemed that the administration considered the matter closed. She did not tell me anything about the Chancellor’s decision letter of 26 July, 2013.   She did not tell me anything about Dean Throop’s false report to her on 5-15-13  that the reason she withdrew support was that I had misleadingly claimed to be an expert in cyber-security.

After I left the Provost’s office I checked my office mailbox and found the Chancellor’s response to my grievance dated 26 July, 2013 (exhibit ZA-6). My remarks concerning the Chancellor’s letter are in timeline at Aug 8, 2013.  It had been in my inbox for almost two weeks. I do not work during the summer and I had been avoiding the place since Dr. Caywood was still chair. I believe the administration purposefully delayed my grievance response by putting it in my inbox during my summer break. They should have mailed it to me. I had been on pins and needles waiting for that letter. I was disappointed in what it said.


Aug 8, 2013 I found two letters from the Chancellor in my office inbox.  I am on a 9 month contract and not required to be in the office during the summer yet these important letters were placed in my inbox rather than being mailed to me.  I believe this was a purposeful attempt to further delay me.  The letters, dated July 26, 2013 were the Chancellor’s response to the grievance committee’s findings (exhibit ZA-6) and his letter to the Faculty of the CJ dept (exhibit ZA-7). (Dkt 101-7)     Both of these letters were unacceptable and did nothing to address my grievances but did me harm by blaming me equally with Dr. Caywood causing damage to my reputation and aggravating my problems within the department as described in my rebuttal.  My remarks concerning these letters are in  (ZA-9-Rmks-ChancellorFindings-7-26-13), (ZA-9a-Rmks-Chancellormemo-7-26-13).

Fri, Aug 09, 2013 07:38 AM (exhibit EZZZZZJ-1) I requested a face to face meeting with the Chancellor as soon as possible. I was running out of time before the statute of limitations would begin to nullify my ability to use Dr. Caywood’s dept meeting retaliation for the student complaint in court. I wanted to find out if the Chancellor was planning to do anything more than the letter indicated and see if there was a glimmer of hope to resolve the issue in house rather than involving the courts. The chancellor ignored my email and that answered my question. 



Aug 9, 2013 10:10 AM – Shields asks Den Herder if she had met with me yet [UW-P 005781]    Den Herder replied that she had met with me and then met with the Chancellor to fill him in.

Aug 13, 2013 I filed a complaint with the ERD.   Dkt 54-1.   (exhibit ZO) This was as long as I could wait and still be able to use Dr. Caywood’s 11-15-12 department meeting retaliation in court because it was 300 days after the meeting (statute of limitations). 


Aug 14, 2013 – Nimocks Den Herder sent an email to Paige Reed [UW-P 005783]  (5783-ProvosttoReed-8-14-13)    Den Herder’s notes about her meeting with me were included.   Reed was a presenter at the ASCA Annual Conference in Florida on Feb 2013 presenting “Behavior Intervention Team top 10 Best Practices.”

    An ironic part of Reed’s power point is Practice #3 which says “Develop Sound Record keeping Procedures Utilizing A Flexible Database System.”

In the email Den Herder said she met with Sabina for an hour and 40 minutes and that the only reason the meeting ended was that she said she “had to leave.”  This meeting was on Aug 8, 2013.  It was recorded and information about the meeting is in the timeline at that date.   Den Herder wrote that she “encouraged her (Sabina) to try to let this go; Tom will no longer be chair and she needs to focus on the work she’s so excited about.  I don’t know if she heard or even is able to hear me.”     

Deposition questions for Den Herder –
How could Sabina focus on the work she was excited about when Dean Throop ruined her source of funding and refused to correct the defamation?
Why did you write that you didn’t think Dr. Burton could hear you?  
Did you tell her anything that could resolve the issue? 
Did you tell her why she was being punished/defamed?  
You told her at the end of the meeting that you would look into the defamation but did you even have any intention of doing so?  
Did you hear her? 
Why did you try to get her to drop the issue without resolving it?   
Was it the message between the lines you were trying to get her to hear? {Let it go, or else.}

Play the audio of the meeting to the jury and ask them who couldn’t hear whom.   

Den Herder is trying to make the case that Sabina is "emotionally labile" and that she wouldn't listen to reason.     They will use this to support their argument that "Defendants reserve the defense of plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages."   (Defense item #15 in Docket 31 delivered today).    The audio recording will convince jurors otherwise.(audio exhibit A7) Den Herder was not trying to resolve the issue but was trying to suppress, confuse, delay and derail Sabina.


Aug 19, 2013 07:53 PM – Dalecki sent an email (exhibit 543a)  (exhibit EZZZZT) to Solar and to me saying “I've asked Sabina Burton if she would serve as your mentor and she has agreed.”



Aug 20, 2013 10:21 AM   -  Dalecki removes me from mentoring Solar (exhibit 543). (exhibit EZZZZT-1)   His only reason for taking it away from me was because it was already in the system.   Maybe he assigned me as mentor knowing he would take it away the next day.  He wrote “turns out that Loren was already assigned as Patrick's mentor and given that it's all apparently in the system that way, let's just go with that.”  He took away my mentor position and his reason was “let’s just,”  ‘Because I say so.’



August 20, 2013 10:27:20 AM – Dalecki tells Elmer to swap offices with me.  I asked for Dutelle’s office but he forced me and Elmer to swap.  He wanted to punish Elmer for talking to me.   (exhibit 516 – pages 160-161)    


8/20/2013 10:32 AM – I wrote Dalecki an email asking for Dutelle’s old office. (exhibit EZZZZT-2)



Aug 20, 2013 10:45 AM – Dalecki sent me an email (exhibit EZZZZT-2) explaining why he was rejecting my office request and taking away my mentor position.  His explanation was ‘because I say so.’



Aug 20, 2013 – Den Herder sent an email to Throop with an attachment saying “Sabina is the last one on the list…”  The attachment name was “FACULTY MEMBER.docx.”   This seems to be a reference to location on the document rather than ranking of people.  The attachment seems to be a series of paragraphs to be included in the tenure letter.  [ UW-P 005784]


August 20, 2013 10:27:20 AM – Dalecki sent an email (exhibit EZZZZN) to me and Elmer about swapping offices.   8/20/2013 10:32 AM -  I wrote Dalecki an email asking to move into Dutelle’s office offering good reason for my request.  Aug 20, 2013 11:24 AM – Dalecki sent me an email about office change.  He wrote “I cannot go back and undo any prior wrongs,” which was code for ‘I will continue to harass you and will not make up for anything Caywood did to you.’  He denied my request.  His reason was merely “we need to do it this way.”  He was trying to prod me into making a scene so I would look like a “crazy woman.”  His reason for taking from me was always “because I say so.”  That is not good reason.


Aug 21, 2013 – The date on my tenure letter by Provost Den Herder.   (exhibit 575) [UW-P 004012] (PersFile-8-22-17-pg104)   .  I have not seen Dutelle's tenure letter but I'll bet it has a much earlier date on it.


 Aug 21, 2013 8:15 AM  Dkt 42-88 pg8.   Dalecki refused my requested office assignment.  Right from the start he refused to give me an inch while pretending to be fair.  He made me swap offices with Steve Elmer rather than giving me Dutelle’s vacant office.

Aug 21, 2013 9:37 AM  - Dkt 42-88 pg5-6,    Dkt 41-36.  I politely requested that Dr. Dalecki, the new chair, change his email addresses to indicate that I too have a PhD he sent me an aggressive email (exhibit EZZZZS-5). He wrote a lengthy, unwelcome and unnecessary lecture explaining why I should not have asked for equal billing. He should have just corrected the error without the lecture. A simple apology for having it wrong in the first place would have been nice. I have been wronged for over four years and my tolerance for unfairness is low. He did correct the email address issue in a reasonable time. I believe he was harsh with me because he believed the lies he had heard about me.

Dr. Dalecki has since come to realize that I am not the trouble maker as Dr. Caywood and Mr. Dutelle would have him believe but that they are in fact the wrong doers. He came to his own conclusion that Dr. Caywood tried to unfairly keep me busy so I could not shine. Dr. Dalecki has since begun treating me with respect. He said he considers me the star of the department and in Dec 2013 declared “Sabina Won.”   (Note from Roger:  This paragraph was written before April 14, 2014)

In spite of the fact that he has called me his “star” I still see some tendency on his part to hide this from others in order to “keep the peace.” He doesn’t want to ruffle feathers by showing others that he values me. In doing so he continues the false stereotype in the department that I was to blame for something. Here are some examples of his failure to demonstrate to others that I am his “star.”

Dr. Dalecki did not consider me for the position of coordinator of the FI program because he was concerned that it might upset Mr. Dutelle, who is now the director of sponsored programs. If Dalecki had named me the director of FI he would be showing others in the department that I am his star as he called me in private but refuses to do so publicly for fear of hurting somebody’s feelings. He doesn’t seem concerned about my feelings however.

Dr. Dalecki refused to allow me to run the Forensic House Halloween display this year. He said that it was Dana Cecil’s idea so he won’t take it away from her. To argue against this I told him that I am senior to her. I told him that it was my idea to do the victim’s thing but it was given to Dr. Gibson under Caywood’s watch. To give consideration to Dana Cecil’s feelings at my expense just continues my abuse.

Valerie Stackman told me that she experienced Dr. Caywood as negative and discouraging during her interview with him.

Dr. Valarie Stackman is getting $3k to help pay for her move to Platteville. I received only $1k for my move in 2009. She will receive at least 1 year and possibly 2 years toward tenure but I received no tenure credit even though I had way more qualifications and many more years of teaching experience when I was hired than what she has now. She taught at a small school, Univ of Pikeville in Ky, while I taught at a one of the best schools in the country, Univ of California, Irvine. The difference is that the administration wants Valerie. Caywood and Dutelle didn’t want me here when I came.

Late Aug, 2013 (approx): Dr. Dalecki took over as chair.  Note:  Caywood always had his title listed at the bottom of his email correspondence as “Chairman” but LAE Constitution- Article VI states “Section 1 Definitions: The term “Chair” shall be used to designate the head administrator of an academic department.”    This demonstrates his blatant disregard for gender sensitivity issues.





Aug 21, 2013 09:37 AM – I wrote an email to Dalecki asking for emails to show that I have a PhD as does Caywood.  Dalecki’s response was harsh, lengthy and unreasonable. (exhibit 518)

8-21-13 – 9:37 AM – Dalecki’s response was BCC’d to Throop.  She was already keeping tabs on me.  She was looking for a way to hurt me.  Why else would Dalecki inform her of the conversation?  How does this fit with her statement that I was not chair material because I couldn’t handle problems on a local level?  Deposition question – why did Dalecki BCC you on emails he sent to Sabina? [UW-P 000101]   This shows Throop’s desire to keep tabs on me and Dalecki’s involvement in her scheme.  Dalecki bcc’d her on a matter as benign as a request for email addresses to show my title, the same as Caywood’s.  Dalecki was put in place to 1. Keep tabs on me and 2. To get me to drop the lawsuit and 3. To destroy and fire me.  He was Throop’s hatchet man.



August 26, 2013 8:35 AM – Dutelle sent an email (exhibit EZZZZN-1) to Rich Cowan, Steve Elmer and cc to Dalecki that indicated that he was not part of the department.  His email prompted Elmer to ask me “I thought he still needed an office because he was still part of the department?”  -  The truth is that Dutelle didn’t need an office in the department.  Dalecki wanted to keep me out of his old office.  Dalecki wanted me next door so he could intimidate me more easily.  He wanted to harass me.


8/26/2013 8:41 AM -  Dkt 53-41   (LaurieHammer-8-26-13-pressrelease)  Lauie Hammer sent an email to me and Deb Rice about Study Abroad to Germany.  – revised ddraft of press release.  Associated with this were several other exhibits.  (LaurieHammer-PressRel-GermanyTrip)  The first draft had a lot of info about Rice.  It gave the impression that Rice did half the work.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 63.       emails between Laurie Hamer, Dr. Burton and Ms. Rice regarding press release, dated Aug. 26-28, 2013, Dkt 53-41


Rule 26 Disclosure - 64.       press release UW-Platteville students learn about German criminal justice system and culture during study abroad experience in Brandenburg, Germany, is attached as Ex. 42, Dkt 53-42



8/26/2013 9:16 AM - Dkt 53-41  I responded to Hammer.


8/28, 2013 6:18 PM - Dkt 53-41  Hammer replied. 

Wed 8/28/2013 8:23 PM - Dkt 53-41   (LaurieHammer-email-8-28-13) (LaurieHammer-PressRelease-2)   This email had a lot less of Deb Rice.  This may have angered her. 



9-2-13 – I composed a letter to Dean Throop that I intended to send but did not (showing great restraint).  (never sent Dean Throop letter-9-2-13)

Early Sept - I took hasty and incomplete notes at the department meeting which was very intense. (exhibit ZP-3) Dr. Gibson was yelling at Dean Throop and she was yelling back. Dr. Gibson said he would call for an election. Dean Throop said she would veto any election results. There was clearly a lot of discontent with the removal of Dr. Caywood from the chair position. The department was clearly fragmented with two primary camps. Dr. Caywood, Mr. Dutelle, Dr. Gibson, Dr. Reed, Dana Cecil, Diana Johnson against Dr. Fuller and me. Dr. Dalecki was trying to be on everybody’s side at first.

Sept 10, 2013 – Department meeting.  Minutes: [UW-P 005331]

Tue, Sep 10, 2013 09:39 AM - Dr. Caywood sent an email explaining how he became dept. chair (exhibit EZZZZW).

Sept 10, 2013: Dr. Dalecki appointed me chair of a search and screen committee.

Sept 13, 2013 - (Dkt 34-2 Exh C- Meeting Notes)  (PersFile-8-22-17-pg106)    Dalecki wrote some notes about a meeting with me.  He wrote that we talked about things that I thought the upper administration wanted to see in me.  He said the conversation didn’t go so well.   He painted me in a bad light.  The conversation went well as far as I remember.  He was even then trying to produce a paper trail that could be used against me later.

Tue – Sep 17, 2013 – Department meeting: Lorne nominated Rex Reed and Rex nominated Lorne for chair. The vote favored Lorne. It was no surprise that I was not nominated since the opposition outnumbers my supporters. One reason I have lost support in the department is all the rampant and ambiguous or vague lies about me that have circulated.  The other reason is that they were intimidating people into avoiding me. 

Sep 17, 2013 – Dean Throop sent a memo (exhibit ZP-2) to Dr. Dalecki and the Faculty and Academic Staff of the CJ dept. cc’d to Chancellor, Provost, HR director. In the memo Dean Throop stated that Dr. Gibson would not be appointed because he is not tenured. The dean could have called for another election in keeping with LA&E Constitution but reaffirmed Dr. Dalecki’s appointment.

Wed 9/18/2013 8:32 PM -   (LAEprofdevaward-toFuller)  I ask Fuller why Reed got the LAE Professional Development Award. 

September 18, 2013 9:24:09 PM -  Lizzy Gates wrote back “No, I didn't nominate him and don't remember discussing it at the meeting at all.  Interesting....”

September 18, 2013 8:45:58 PM -  I wrote an email to Lizzy Gates asking if she had nominated Rex reed for the Prof Development Award.  (LAEprofdevaward-LizzyGates)  

Wed 9/18/2013 10:09 PM - (LAEprofdevaward-LizzyGates)   I sent an email to Lizzy Gates writing: “Another strike against me. So much for helping a student who was sexually harassed by a fellow faculty member. It's been a tough year of one retaliation against me after another. Well, at least Caywood was removed as chair by the chancellor's office and Dalecki is trying hard to fix things.”  At that time I thought that Rex Reed’s award was for the LAE Professional Development Award.

Wed 9/18/2013 11:02 PM -  Dkt 34-7 DALECKI EXHIBIT H - 002.     I wrote an email to Dalecki saying that I was “deeply disturbed by the decision to give the professional achievement award to Rex Reed.”   (LAEprofdevaward   

The award was announced in Dkt 34-7 DALECKI EXHIBIT H - 001.    This announcement puts the award under the heading “College of Liberal Arts & Education” and did not identify Rex Reed’s award as being an alumni award.  My confusion is understandable but I was treated as though I acted irrationally in complaining of this.  I mistook the “Professional Achievement Award,” which is an alumni award with the “Professional Development Award, which is an LA&E award.   I asked two other people about the award before bringing it to Dalecki’s attention and neither of them indicated that it was an alumni award and not from LA&E.  They were as confused by it as I was.    I indicated that he was given the award with genuine belief that it was an example of sex discrimination.  This is a protected activity which the defense points to as a valid reason for Dalecki’s later retaliation. 

Wed 9/18/2013 11:12 PM  Dkt 34-7 DALECKI EXHIBIT H - 004.   -(LAEprofdevaward-InvestRqst) I sent an investigation request to Dalecki, cc to Fuller about what I thought was a LAE Professional Development Award for Rex Reed.

9/18/2013 11:17 PM -  Dalecki wrote back to me “Let's talk about this tomorrow.”  (LAEprofdevaward-Dalecki-Talk)

The next day I found out that the award was actually an alumni award and not the LAE Professional Development Award so I dropped the issue. 

Sept 19, 2013 -  Dalecki wrote some notes about the Rex Reed award incident.  He wrote that “Sabina was a bit contrite, for her at least.”  This shows that he had prejudged me to be someone who does not accept responsibility when I am wrong.  This was one occasion that I was wrong and I was sorry that I brought up the issue.  I stopped asking about it when I was shown to be wrong.  I was not wrong about the other issues and why should I be contrite when I was not to blame or wrong about the things I complained of?  (Dkt 34-2 Exh C- Meeting Notes)  (PersFile-8-22-17-pg107)    His comments are designed to give record that paints me in a bad light and do not reflect actual events.


Sept 20, 2013. Dr. Caywood sent a memo to members of the department suggesting a department grievance to protest how the interim chair was selected. (9-20-13-roleoffacultygovernance) also (exhibit EZZZZX) attached was (exhibit EZZZZX-1)  I was watching the newspaper for an announcement of Dr. Caywood’s grievance but it was never advertised and nobody told me when it would be. 


Fri 9/20/2013 1:46 PM – Rex Reed responded to Caywood saying that we should have an open discussion rather than secret email chain.  (9-20-13-roleoffacultygovernance)

Sept 23, 2013 – Dr. Gibson wrote a memo. (exhibit ZP-1) The poor grammar and disjointed thoughts that run through Dr. Gibson’s memorandum punctuates my concern that writing skills among our instructors is dragging down the standards of our department. Dr. Gibson is responsible for grading student’s writing proficiency papers yet he is unable to coherently communicate his thoughts in writing. How can we expect him to give quality feedback to students who struggle with writing? More frightening still is the fact that many of our department voted for him to be our chair. How can we expect a chairperson with limited writing skills to communicate his/her intent effectively? Though his memo is poorly written his overall tone is distinguishable and I am surprised that a probationary faculty member would be so brazen after his actions on October 10, 2012. Dr. Gibson sent the memo to the Chancellor, Provost and Director of HR regarding Results of the Department vote for recommendation of chair.

Sept. 24, 2013 –  (this letter seems to have been written and post-dated years after the date on the letter) Note from Roger – (entered on 9-2-17): There is a letter in the personnel file obtained on 8-22-17 ((PersFile-8-22-17-pg108), which says that faculty and academic staff and non-represented graduate assistants, and univ senior execs were approved for a pay plan 1 pct pay adjustment on July 1, 2013 and on July 1, 2014.  This is not a raise but an adjustment that everyone seems to have received.  Throop said that Sabina got two “raises”  in the 5-25-17 hearing to explain how fair and generous Sabina has been treated, but this was not a raise it was an adjustment that apparently everyone got.  It doesn’t show that Sabina was being treated fairly but that maybe they didn’t discriminate against her in this way.  She never complained that they discriminated against her by not giving her this adjustment.   I don’t remember seeing this letter in Sept 2013 and I knew nothing about this adjustment until 9/2/17 when I read through the 8-22-17 personnel file Sabina received.   This letter was not included in the personnel file given to Dr. Burton on 12-31-16.  This letter was not included in the personnel file Dr. Burton received on 12/21/16.  Hmmm.  Why not?  Maybe the administration fabricated the letter after 12-21-16 and post-dated it.    (Note:  Do an evaluation of amounts actually paid to Sabina during this time).

Sept 26, 2013 – I sent Jim Jermain an email about re-assigning the donation.  SB001095]


Oct 1, 2013 – The Staff directory page of the school website shows Dutelle as Associate Professor but me as Assistant Professor.  (exhibit ZX)  I believe this was an intentional act to minimize me in comparison to Dutelle.  I asked Gibson to correct it.  He replied “You betcha. We should be getting the New site pretty soon as well to simplify the process.”  (exhibit EZZZZZI)  He did not make the change and I later asked Dalecki to ask Gibson to make the change. (see Oct 10, 2013)  Another example of how I have to ask twice for anything I get.  By forcing me to ask repeatedly for things I deserve the administration attempts to make me look like a complainer.

On Oct 3, 2013    Dkt 39-12,  (PersFile-8-22-17 -  pg 109) Dean Throop sent a memo to Dr. Gibson, Dr. Dalecki, the Faculty and Academic Staff of the CJ dept. and cc’d the Chancellor, Provost and HR director. (exhibit ZP)   [UW-P 004005]  SB000226]    UW-P 007402  In this memo Dean Throop claimed that “there are no tenured faculty members in the department either willing or in a position to take on the chairship.” I am willing, tenured and in a position to take on the chairship. Her statement was not only untrue but it also injured me by vaguely implying that I had done something that made me ineligible to become chair.    This shows that she considered me to be ineligible to be chair without saying why.  She took away my right to a fair election.


October 3, 2013 3:38:21 PM – Throop sent an email to me, cc to Dalecki, (exhibit 622b) saying that some students of mine had told her that they were “blown away by my helpfulness” and that I am “awesome.”  Throop wrote I couldn't be more pleased to hear about your successes. Thank you for all that you are doing for our students.  This was on the same day she denied my right to a fair election for chair. 


10-4-2013 – An article was posted showing Jeanne Durr’s resume and new job location at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs, UCCS, Office of Human Resources: (exhibit 699)    She began working there on Nov 25, 2013.   She is still listed as working there as of 7-26-15



Oct 8, 2013 -  Faculty Senate meeting minutes contain this statement: “Aric Dutelle has been hired as interim director for the 2013-2014 academic year to take on some of the rebuilding and transitioning of the Office of Sponsored Programs.”  

 In this meeting the faculty senate also discussed the Draft Chapter 6.    Note that the Grievance section of this draft, on page 122, does not contain the suspect wording of the grievance procedures Balachandran sent to me on November 3, 2014 11:17 AM to justify his bogus grievance hearing procedures.  (exhibit 599b)  C. Cornett lied to the Faculty Senate on  12-9-14 to allow Balachandran to write his bogus Grievance hearing procedures.

Oct 8, 2013 – Dean Throop sent an email to all chairs of departments and search committees asking that all members of search committees sign a confidentiality agreement. (exhibit EZZZZZL).  Attached was (exhibit EZZZZZL-1)  This is very likely a result of my grievance but the administration won’t confirm or deny that. This is an example of the efforts the administration is putting forth to cover some of the corrupt practices I have uncovered.  They still oppose me and refuse to clear my name.  Note From Roger:  It is interesting that one of the penalties for violating this contract is to surrender the right to participate in voting and hiring recommendations for the year.  This was likely a way for Throop to get anyone off future committees if she wanted.  All she had to do was fabricate that someone discussed taboo issues and bam, off the roster for voting.  It is very similar to the letter of direction in that way.  At the time Sabina and I thought this might be an attempt by the administration to address the corruption issues but it seems that it was an indicator of corruption.


Oct 10, 2013 08:49 AM – Dalecki sent an email to Gibson asking him to “please update Sabina's information on our web site regarding her rank (i.e., it should be changed from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor).” (exhibit EZZZZZI-1)



Wed, Oct 16, 2013 03:07 PM – I sent an email to Chancellor Shields spelling out a new grievance against Dean Throop. (exhibits 554 , 630)  Attached to this email were (exhibit, 554a) and (exhibit ZP).  In this grievance I asked the Chancellor to let me know within a week if he preferred that I submit the issue to the grievance committee rather than to him directly. The chancellor responded 12 days later with a letter, dated Oct 28, (exhibit ZT), suggesting that I take the grievance to the Senate Chair Melissa Gormley to be heard by the grievance committee.   I received the letter on Oct 29, 2013.  This was not a policy mandated deadline but it shows the Chancellor’s lack of concern for expeditiously handling my claims.  He delayed my progress again.  His actions are not in keeping with the grievance policy which calls for expedience in handling these claims.

Bylaws and regs that say grievances should be handled expeditiously:
               1.  also Archived Web Page for Article IX



Oct 17, 2013 – Dalecki said ‘how dare you contact the Chancellor?  I’ve only contacted the Chancellor two or three times in my whole career.  Who do you think you are?  I am the better choice of chair because I know where the skeletons are buried.’  He said that he was ‘the only one who could turn the department around.  You are not chair material because you haven’t served on the CRST, you don’t have support in the department.  You can’t expect to file a law suit without consequences.  You can’t be chair after all the complaining you have done.  Don’t expect an apology, it’s not going to happen.’

October 28, 2013 – Chancellor Shields signed a letter saying he believed my grievance would be more appropriately heard by the Faculty Complaints and Grievances commission. [UW-P 004010]    


Oct 17, 2013 – Dr_Mike_Dalecki wrote some notes:   (Dkt 34-2 Exh C- Meeting Notes), (PersFile-8-22-17 -  pg 110) – Rebuttal: (Rebuttal-DaleckiNotes)..  In Dalecki’s notes he wrote “I was able to get Sabina to think a little bit how all this looks to others.”  He wrote “She is still very angry about her perceived defamation (her word).”  This shows that he did not believe that I had been defamed.  I was made out to be the person at fault and putting Dalecki in charge was not helping me get resolution.  I was defamed and having a chair who didn’t believe I was wronged didn’t help.  He believed I was the problem. 

He wrote “Sabina thinks she’s qualified for department chair, and much of the conversation centered around whether she truly was qualified.” 

He wrote “ 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.”   So, here he makes the point that serving on a university committee is important for preparing someone to be chair.  But, he told Lohmann on Aug 8, 2014 In her mind the position on the CRST is prestigious; it’s just another service position in everyone else’s mind.”  

This shows that he didn’t believe his statement to Lohmann about the prestige of the CRST position. 

He wrote “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.”   So, here he is saying that the DRBs for the past years were not “real,” that they were not good preparation to be chair.  He is saying there is something wrong with the DRBs.   This will make a good comment in court.  I was working in a department where even the interim chair thought there were major problems with the way the DRBs were handled. 

He asked whether I had “ever had to make a firing decision” as though lack of that experience would disqualify someone from being chair.   Absurd.   Staci Strobl has never had to make a firing decision and she is doing just fine as our new chair.

He wrote “(if) I had experienced what she had experienced, I might have felt little alternative other than complaining to higher-ups-but that things are now different.”   This shows that he knew I needed to make higher complaints with Caywood but I was still being punished for doing so.   This shows that he didn’t believe his admonitions about keeping things on a local level.

He wrote “The more one files complaints, the less they might be taken seriously by higher-ups.”   So, even if my complaints are legitimate and I don’t get resolution I am more and more ignored when I complain.  What he is saying is that no matter how badly you are abused you should never complain.  No matter what happens to you, sexual assault, severe hazing, physical abuse, no matter what happens to you, don’t complain.

Dalecki wrote Tom’s removal and my replacing him was a tacit if not overt admission that at least some of her complaints were likely valid.”  This is not what Throop has been saying.  Throop has been saying that Caywood stepped down.  She has been saying that his stepping down had nothing to do with my complaints.  Dalecki is right in this case and Throop is lying.  This demonstrates that Throop did not believe her statements that Caywood stepped aside but that she had removed him and replaced him with Dalecki.  

He wrote “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.”   He is trying to get me so see the corruption, and to give in to it, without actually saying it.  This is very demeaning.  He talks of me like I am a child who is just beginning to understand how to tie my shoes.   By “crack in her demeanor” maybe he meant that I listened to what he said without arguing my point.  He was overbearing so I was quiet.  I didn’t want to argue.   I wanted to please him so I didn’t argue.  By writing that he would need to reinforce this several times he was saying that he felt he would need to put me down in like manner several more times before I submitted to his abuse.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 80.         Dalecki’s notes of Oct 17, 2013 in which he wrote ““Tom’s removal and my replacing him was a tacit if not overt admission that at least some of her complaints were likely valid.”  Dkt. 34-2


Oct 18, 2013 – 1:57 PM – Jim Jermain sent me an email about alternate uses of the donation. SB001094]

Oct 21, 2013 – 12:12 PM – I sent an email to Jim Jermain about alternate uses for the money AT&T had donated.  SB001094]



October 30, 2013 7:05:56 PM - I contacted the Senate Chair with my request for a grievance hearing. (exhibit EZZZZY-3) Attached to this email were (exhibit, 554a) and (exhibit ZP).




11/5/2013 10:44 AM   -  (Cheryl DRB chair 2013)   Fuller sends an email saying that each member of the department needs to evaluate the dept chair’s admin performance for the last 2 months.     What is this about Sabina?


Nov 6, 2013  - Dkt 53-33.  I emailed a grievance against Dean Throop (exhibit EZZZZY-4), with two attachments (exhibits 554a, ZP), to Dr. Drefcinski.

 This was a protected activity. 

Rule 26 Disclosure - 55.       November 6, 2013 email from Dr. Burton to Shane Drefcinski filing Dr. Burton’s grievance against Dean Throop Dkt 53-33


Wed, Nov 06, 2013 03:35 PM:    Dkt 39-13 and Dkt 39-12 and  Dkt 37-9  .   I emailed my grievance to the chair of the grievance commission, Dr. Drefcinski. (exhibit EZZZZY-4) (exhibit 519) (exhibit ZP)   Dkt-53-33—8291    

Article VI of the Employee Handbook – Dkt 42-86  - Talks about chair selection procedures.

Article I of Employee Handbook – dkt 42-87 also deals with selection of chair.


The grievance was heard on 12-2-13


Dr. Drefcinski scheduled the grievance hearing on December 2 at 3:00 pm in the LAE Conference Room (first floor of Gardner Hall, across from the Dean's Office).

Dr. Drefcinski told me that the hearing is open and that it would be recorded.  But he failed to advertise the meeting as required by Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.



Concerning my search and screen committee:

Dr. Gibson and Dr. Reed have been unresponsive to many of my messages and seem to be attempting to sabotage the search.





Nov 15, 2013 – Caywood wrote a letter to Chancellor Shields about a number of rumors and half-truths about his removal as “chairman” of the cj dept.  He filed a grievance against the provost and dean.  [UW-P 005322] He said he recommended Gibson and Reed to replace him and after they asked for someone from outside the dept he suggested Dalecki. 


Nov 19, 2013 – Jen DeCoste had notified Campus police officer Tuescher that Eli Caywood would be dismissed from his job at some point that after-noon. She would call the officer cell phone with the time and location that this would take place. Jen requested that an officer be in the area at the time, but not be present during the meeting.  (exhibit 651)



Wed, Nov 20, 2013 08:54 AM: Dr. Gibson made some outlandish accusations. (exhibit EZZZZZ) I requested that he elaborate and he responded with an email (exhibit EZZZZZ-1) that says that he wasn’t bullied but that he was only “referring to the general bullying that most everybody is well aware of.”

About Nov 20, 2013: I was told by Dr. Dalecki that Dr. Caywood filed a grievance against Dean Throop. I do not know when the hearing is scheduled but I would like to attend. I think he filed after I did so I’d assume his hearing will be after mine but I’m not positive.

Dr. Dalecki informed me that Dr. Caywood received a stern letter from the Chancellor indicating that this hearing will be a good opportunity to get things out in the open and implied that Dr. Caywood would not fare well in the hearing. I have not seen the letter.

About Nov 20, 2013 I learned that Jeanne Durr is no longer director of HR and Affirmative Action Officer. I can’t say for sure but I believe she was removed as a result of my claims and her poor handling of them. Her office is empty and there were no farewell parties for her. She left in the middle of the term very suddenly. Jeanne told Dr. Fuller that she was leaving to be with family in Colorado.

About Nov 20, 2013 Diana Johnson wrote a quiz for her lab class that shows a lack of professionalism. (exhibit ZS)



11/20/13 meeting -Dkt 48-137 -stamped   Dkt 48-137 (complete set)    Dkt 53-36 (partial set).   Lohmann’s notes also say “Tom: Incompetent Chair – 5 major incidents” and Aric Dutelle – accused of taking bribes on paper.  Academic staff person batshit crazy.

Nov 2013?  Date unsure:  Lohmann’s notes: for a AA officers teleconference (John Lohmann notes) [UW-P 004838 to 4845].   “Mike Delecki – concern CJ is Tom Caywood.  “Women do not belong in the criminal justice field.”   Lohmann also wrote “Finalists are all women.”     Ask Dalecki if he ever told Lohmann that Caywood said “Women do not belong in the criminal justice field.”   Lohmann said in his deposition that Dalecki reported to him that Caywood had made the statement to students that “Women do not belong in the criminal justice field.”


11/20/13 meeting -Dkt 48-137 -stamped   Dkt 48-137 (complete set)    Dkt 53-36 (partial set).   Lohmann’s notes also say “Tom: Incompetent Chair – 5 major incidents” and Aric Dutelle – accused of taking bribes on paper.  Academic staff person batshit crazy.    He wrote “Lorne Wilson (probably Gibson) – bad news” no majority, Mike remains interim chair – 2 years.  [UW-P 004842]   On another page someone wrote “Sabina (Jennifer Lattice) Professor CJ. Assoc. Prof earned tenure, emotionally labile.”  .    This looks like the reason why they picked Dalecki and eliminated all others.[ UW-P 004844] someone else took notes on page [UW-P 004842] but did not mention Sabina.   On page [UW-P 004841] someone wrote “Sabina (Jennifer Lattice, loq) Assoc. Prof. earned tenure. Emotionally Labile.”  The word “labile” is defined by as “1. Open to change; readily changeable or unstable: labile chemical compounds; tissues with labile cell populations. 2. Fluctuating widely: labile hypertension; labile emotions. 3. Decomposing readily: the labile component of organic matter.”    On page [UW-P 004845] Lohmann wrote that Dutelle took bribes.


November 20, 2013 8:54:04 AM -  (11-22-13-KeepingMike-intheloop)   Gibson wrote “It is now very clear we are a little bit dysfunctional as a result of the department not doing what it was suppose to do.” 

Nov 21, 2013: Dr. Dalecki printed out a certificate for me saying simply “Sabina Won!” He would not sign it however at the time. (exhibit EZZZZZF-1)  

Friday, Nov 22, 2013: Dr. Dalecki laid into Dr. Gibson and Dr. Reed verbally for their attempts to sabotage the search. He pointed his finger at them, and Ed Ross probably as guilt by association, saying loudly “YOU and YOU and YOU!” He said that Dean Throop is very close to executing some sort of executive power to wrest control of the department from the faculty if the search falters. Apparently there is some administrative powers that the dean can use in emergencies. This is the first I’ve heard of this Dean power and I have not found reference to it in the policies.

After this meeting Dr. Dalecki asked me for the “Sabina Won” certificate he had given me and he signed it. I like to connect this certificate with my email to Dr. Caywood on Dec 10, 2012 which said simply “I will fight this.” (exhibit EZZZZZF)  There is no legal connection between my case and this certificate. The certificate was intended, I believe, as a personal admission that Dr. Dalecki sees that I have been wronged and that my efforts in proving that to him have been successful.

Though Dr. Dalecki feels that I have won I still do not feel adequately compensated for my losses. I plan to continue this fight as long as it takes to gain reasonable satisfaction.

November 22, 2013 7:55:38 AM - (11-22-13-KeepingMike-intheloop)   Gibson wrote: “--This is not a Chancellor, Liz Throop, Mike Dalecki, Sabina Burton, Rex Reed, Lorne Gibson, or Ed Ross decision. It is a CRIMINAL JUSTICE department decision. The bylaws say it. HR says it. higher education administration c ommon sense says it. Therefore I once again recommend--as I did in each of our first department meetings in August and was then told we would deal with it later in the semester, yet we still haven't-- that we have the department offer, discuss, and determine the qualifications and job requirements of this position. (yes, I am a bit frustrated, not angry, but frustrated)” …  “--I recommend against us continuing on the counterproductive, irresponsible, bylaw illegal, unethical path that we currently are on--if we are serious about hiring the most appropriate candidate. This is not our committees fault, but if we continue on the current course, it will be.  Once again, most all of this is a CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT decision according to Bylaws and higher education administration common sense.”


Once again, most all of this is a CRIMINAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT decision according to Bylaws and higher education administration common sense.

November 22, 2013 2:02:40 PM - (11-22-13-KeepingMike-intheloop)   Reed asks “are the by-laws binding. Why aren't we following the by-laws?” He wrote  “I tell my students that they have to follow policies to protect themselves. If the by-laws are intended to be binding, I now feel as if I am a hypocrite when lecturing to students about the value and importance of following their employer's regulations if we aren't following ours. Are the by-laws binding?”

Fri 11/22/2013 2:23 PM – (11-22-13-KeepingMike-intheloop)  Email chain from a time when I worked hard to get someone hired into the CJ department. I kept Mike in the loop even though Rex and Lorne often excluded Mike from emails. 

11/25/13 – Roger and I met with Mary Kennelly to discuss recent events relating to the case and the upcoming grievance hearing on Dec 2, 2013. We decided at the meeting to withdraw the claim from ERD and file with the federal court.



Fall semester 2013: Dr. Gibson used written tests containing inappropriate sexual content. (exhibit ZZQ-1) (exhibit ZZQ-2) (exhibit ZZE)  I gave this evidence to Dalecki and it was used against Gibson because Dalecki didn’t like the competition. 

Around this time Throop never discouraged me from filing the lawsuit herself but I am convinced she asked Dalecki and probably also Fuller to work on me on her behalf. It was uncomfortable for me at numerous occasions when Dalecki told me I should just let go of the lawsuit and that Throop just had "my best interests in mind." He even said once that Throop "loves me" (after I gave Dalecki evidence of Gibson's inappropriate lecture and test material). At the Commencent in Dec. 2013 Throop even adjusted my hood. It was weird. Fuller told me twice that Throop won't be Dean too much longer and would be the next provost as Shields really likes her. I would then be Dean material but not if I continued with the lawsuit. I didn't believe Dalecki or Fuller for a minute. I know that Fuller was invited to Throop's house and had many meetings with Throop as well.

11/25/13 – Dr. Dalecki finds out that Dr. Caywood has taken the week off and cancelled all his classes. Dr. Caywood did not ask permission or even inform Dr. Dalecki (the chair) that he would be leaving. This is not the first time Dr. Caywood has just left for extended trips. Mr. Dutelle has done the same thing as well.

11/25/13 – Dr. Dalecki assigned me to teach the comparative systems class in spring. (exhibit ZW) This is a class I have been asking to teach for years. I am the most qualified in the department to teach the class which deals with comparing America’s police systems with police systems in other countries. I was the first woman in the federal police in Germany and have extensive international experience in policing. Dr. Caywood, when he was chair, never allowed me to teach the class probably because he wanted to keep me in lower level courses so I could not shine.

Nov 25, 2013 08:28 AM – Dalecki sent an email update informing the department that Dalecki, Rex and Pat went to Madison to the Training and Standards meeting addressing the change in curriculum for LE Academy.  He did not ask me if I was interested in going to this event.  He did not tell me about the event or advertise that the event was forthcoming and that I might be able to go if I was interested.  (exhibit 547a4)


Monday, December 2, 2013, 3:00:00 PM - 4:00:00 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central – Grievance Hearing against Dean Throop.



12-2-13 - Open meeting laws have been ignored.  In a grievance hearing on 12-3-13 the chair of the committee was asked if the open meeting had been advertised or posted and he said “No, we didn’t advertise it... I was unaware that I needed to.” An investigation into this would likely reveal that this requirement of the open meeting law has been violated for many years.  Dean Throop stated that the reason she did not consider me for chair was that I “wasn’t solving problems at the local level.”   (code for retaliation)    Perhaps we should ask that all members of previous grievance committees who allowed the open meeting laws to be violated to be fined as provided in the open meeting law.   Wis. Stat. § 19.96,  ,  says:  “Any member of a governmental body who “knowingly” attends a meeting held in violation of the open meetings law, or otherwise violates the law, is subject to a forfeiture of between $25 and $300 for each violation.”   There have been numerous violations of this law at UWP.


12-2-13 – My grievance against Dean Throop was conducted:   The meeting was audio recorded by the university and that audio is (audio exhibit A13)  I also recorded the meeting and that audio is (audio exhibit A13a).  I made a short clip of the university’s recording when Throop was explaining why I was not eligible for chair and that audio is (audio exhibit A13b).  A partial transcript of the meeting was prepared by Roger and is (audio exhibit ZZA - Grievance-Throop-Transcript).    The grievance had been filed on Wed, Nov 06, 2013 03:35 PM.


Documentation specifically relating to this event include

1.      My email to Drefcinski cc Gormley filing the grievance (exhibit EZZZZY-4) with attachments (exhibit 554a) and (exhibit ZP)

2.      LAE Constitution Article VI - (appendix X) This shows the procedure for replacing chairs.

3.      A mid December 2012 email thread with my complaint of Caywood’s actions (exhibit EI)

4.      My grievance damages and demands:  (Claim of 7/7/13 section 6d)   Dkt 43-11     This lists my damages saying that my health suffered because of Caywood’s retaliation.   Caywood defamed me to Throop.  My reputation with AT&T has suffered.  I mentioned hostile work environment.  Caywood ignored me.  Caywood minimized my accomplishments, embarrassed me and is attempting to ruin my success by damaging my reputation.  I said that Caywood treats me disparately with Dutelle.  My office assignment is poor.  NSF proposal ruined.  All my projects are in jeopardy.  My grievances were delayed and I experienced foot dragging, counter accusations, indifference, incompetence, anger and violations of regulations by those I have gone to for help. 

This shows that my grievance submission was a protected activity.  It also shows that my grievance request was delayed.  The fact that the grievance process was not followed shows that Throop did not believe her stated reasons for her adverse actions.

I demanded that Throop hold an election in keeping with policy.  She violated policy.  This shows she did not believe her stated reasons for disqualifying me from being chair. 

I demanded that the university post the laws EEOC enforces as required by law but they never did that.


5.      Roger’s statement about Lana’s 7/11/13 harassing phone call (exhibit EZZZZG-1)

6.      An email thread ending with my explanation to the Chancellor that I expected Dalecki would be unfair to me when he becomes chair (exhibit EZZZZG)

7.      My email to Provost Nimocks/Den Herder about the ‘he said removed she said stepped away’ issue. (exhibit EZZZZS-1)

8.      Caywood’s complaint that he was “removed” (exhibit EZZZZS-2)

9.      My email to Shields, Nimocks/Den Herder, Throop, Drefcinski stating “To be on record: I formally oppose the nomination of Mike Dalecki as interim's chair of the Department of Criminal Justice. (exhibit 519)

10.  Throop’s email saying Caywood “stepped away” from being chair.  (exhibit EZZZZS)

11.   Then Dean Nimocks’ report about Departmental conflict on 26 Apr 2010 (exhibit EZZZZZG-2)

12.    Faculty Bylaw Part III Article I with policy for selection, removal and designation of department chairs.  (appendix XI)

13.  Wis. Stat. § 36.09 (4)   (appendix XII) which states “The faculty of each institution shall have the right to determine their own faculty organizational structure and to select representatives to participate in institutional governance.”

14.  Partial transcript of grievance hearing against Caywood (exhibit ZM-1)

15.  Policies and Procedures for the Criminal Justice Department (effective August 22, 2011) (exhibit ZQ)

16.   Questions the search committee asked Dean Throop for her on campus interview. (exhibit ZZ)  She said she would fight bullying. (lie)


I made a checkoff sheet of items to talk about at the hearing (never sent Check off statements).  

Files I printed and took to the hearing are (exhibit FE3).

Dr. Drefcinski admitted that he had not advertised the hearing and did not know of the requirement to advertise the grievance hearing. (appendix XV) talks to the WI Open Meetings Law.   He also did not indicate a commitment to do it right in the future or an apology for having done it incorrectly.   He did not publish the hearing for Caywood’s grievance and did not inform me when and where it would be as I requested.  

Partial Transcript of the Hearing with my comments are contained in (exhibit ZZA)

Note: Dean Throop was hired in part to oppose bullying. In her job interview she answered very sternly when asked how she would handle bullying (exhibit ZZ). Dr. Carl Alsup and Dr. Burton were both on the search committee for the new dean and can attest to this. Dr. Burton specifically wanted to hire a new Dean who would be tough on bullying because she was suffering bullying.



 Dec 2013  (estimated date) Throop’s notes:   Dkt 42-82 Dean Throop wrote a chronological list of events in CJ since June 2012.  [UW-P 005940 to 5941  (Dkt 101-20)   She wrote “It of course is NOT a proper breach experiment and was interpreted by the student as sexual harassment.”  She wrote “Burton and Caywood kept drawing me into their problems.”


“Caywood knowingly altered the start date for Lomax to 31 days after his official date of retirement, in direct violation of the law and committing fraud.  His illegal behavior resulted in Lomax donating his time to the university as a volunteer.


When I confronted Caywood on his illegal activity, he laughed and said that’s what you get when you deal with former law enforcement: “we know how to get around the law.” I didn’t think it was funny.”


“He also seemed to be encouraging, or at least abetting, bad behaviors by his male colleagues Gibson and Dutelle and ignoring or denigrating the excellent work of his female colleagues.”


She speaks in paragraph 5 of Dutelle asking for what he called a “finder’s fee” but that was interpreted by the HR department director at a DC-based defense contractor as a request for a “bribe.”


She wrote of the another incident of sexual harassment but did not mention her name.


She wrote in paragraph 7 “we offered to send Caywood to chairs’ workshops, management training, or conflict resolution training.  He refused to consider any of these options.  I then said, “well, Tom, how do you plan to avoid having another year like the one we just finished?” He said “I will just hope for the best, I guess.”  I said “That troubles me a great deal.  That can’t happen.”  He said “Maybe it’s time for new leadership.”  I said “Maybe it is.  Are you stepping down?” “I guess so,” he said.  “Who would you suggest replace you as temporary chair?” I asked.  He suggested Mike Dalecki.”


 Throop wrote “I will agree that an election should have been held in the summer before opting for an external candidate. I actually did not expect that Caywood would step down; I was very hopeful that he would have been willing to acquire the management skills necessary to allow the department to run at a minimally acceptable level.”


This generates some good deposition questions for discovery for Throop.



On about Dec 5, 2013: Mr. Dutelle went on a “Hiatus” from teaching by cancelling some of his classes without prior authorization from the chair. Dr. Dalecki found out about this from a student. When confronted Mr. Dutelle claimed that “We’ve always done this.” Truth is that he has always done this but I have not. I teach my classes until the end of the semester to give the students their money’s worth. Mr. Dutelle and Dr. Caywood, and others, have become comfortable taking time off without good reason. On about Dec 11, 2013 Dr. Dalecki told me that he had informed Dean Throop of Mr. Dutelle’s self awarded “hiatus” and that Mr. Dutelle would soon be having a “discussion” about the matter with the dean. Word of mouth has it that the Dean will “chew out” Mr. Dutelle on Dec 13 and possibly garnish his pay for the time he was absent.

I would like to make two points about this event.

1. This event demonstrates one of the many advantages Mr. Dutelle has had over me in years past. Dr. Caywood allowed him to take “hiatus” regularly while I continued to work. This gave Mr. Dutelle much more time than I had to write books, do research, vacation etc. The fact that it was an ongoing event that favored males in the department demonstrates favoritism, discrimination on the basis of sex, disregard for students’ education and poor leadership.

2. The fact that Dr. Dalecki took this matter to the Dean without handling it in house demonstrates that Dean Throop’s reason for excluding me from chairship because of my perceived inability to handle issues at the local level is nonsense. The fact that Dr. Dalecki needed the Dean’s assistance in this matter shows that he does not have what it takes to handle this department without higher level support and exposes the flaw in the Dean’s rationale for blocking my advancement to chair.


Rule 26 Disclosure - 58.       Notes of John Lohmann, dated December 11, 2013,

 12/11/13 –. Lohmann’s Notes –   Dkt 48-137 (complete set of notes)    Dkt 53-36     Dkt-53-36—8459   (**this is only part of the notes)  Dkt 48-137 -stamped

Finalists are all women.  We need diversity and harassment training.  “CJ would be a good place to start.”  “Women do not belong in the criminal justice field.”  - Caywood said this according to Dalecki (deposition)

Notes also have something from 11/20/13 –

1.       Sabina – emotionally labile (Throop said this according to Lohmann deposition)

2.       Tom – incompetent chair,  5 major incidents.

3.       Aric Dutelle – accused of taking bribes on paper. 

4.       Academic staff person – batshi crazy

5.       Early July – Poor management with tom

6.       Lorne Wilson (Gibson) – Bad news

7.       Rex reed- untenured

8.       No majority Mike remains interim chair – 2 years.

Another person took similar notes.

This seems to be how Throop decided that Dalecki would take over instead of doing it by policy.


December 13, 2013 – Dkt 42-99,  Dkt 41-43  Dkt 53-17.  Dkt 53-34.  Dkt 41-33.   Shane Drefcinski wrote a letter to the Chancellor about the Grievance by Burton against Throop.  (UW-P 007398 – 7399)   Grievance Committee’s report dated Dec 13, 2013 in which they agreed with my claims against Dean Throop. (exhibit ZZA-1)     (appendix XIV) is the LAE Constitution saved on 11/13/13.   (appendix XI) is the Faculty Bylaws pt III Article I, saved on 11/30/13.   Dkt-53-33—8291    Dkt-53-34—8343


Rule 26 Disclosure - 38.       December 13, 2013, letter to Chancellor Shields from Shane Drefcinski, complaints and grievances commission, Dkt 53-17     (*Duplicate with para 56 – Dkt. 53-34*)

Rule 26 Disclosure - 56.       December 13, 2013, letter to Chancellor Shields from Shane Drefcinski, complaints and grievances commission Dkt 53-34   (*Duplicate with para 38 – Dkt. 53-17*)

This shows that Throop violated policy in appointing Dalecki.  That demonstrates that the university ignored my grievance demands against Caywood that she call for an election as required by policy.   The fact that she violated policy shows that she did not believe her stated reasons for violating policy and denying me an election.   This also is an adverse action against me.  For the following reasons”

1.       Throop stated in a high level meeting that I was “labile” as a reason why I couldn’t be chair.

2.      Throop stated in the grievance hearing that the reason I was not considered for chair was that I couldn’t handle things on a local level.  (Couldn’t handle retaliation on a local level)

3.      She denied me the opportunity to be elected chair by not holding the election.  I was the only eligible member of the department.

4.      In my grievance against Caywood I demanded that Dean Throop hold an election.  This demand was ignored.

5.      The grievance committee recommended that Dean Throop follow procedures in the appointment of the next chair but she violated policies again.


December 13, 2013 1:17:59 PM – I received an email (exhibit 664) [UW-P 004001]  from Catherine Kutka who wrote “A question has been raised with regard to hiring a second position for the Criminal Justice search, specifically with relation to Faculty Bylaws (Part III, Article III, Section 2 Position Description and Vacancy Announcements ), in which "By majority vote of the full department membership (defined in Section 1 above), a statement shall be adopted specifying:

1. the responsibilities to be assigned,

2. the corresponding competencies required in the person filling the vacancy, and

3. what type of contract is desired.

The vote may reaffirm a previous statement of such responsibilities and competencies."

Interesting that the administration pushed this policy passage on me, even though I was following it, when I chaired the search but then ignored me when I tried to apply the passage to the search chaired by Solar. [corrupt vote]



Sun, Dec 15, 2013 11:26 PM – I sent an email, to Catherine Kutka, cc Dalecki, Lohman and Fuller, in response to power jockeying by members of the CJ Search and Screen committee who were attempting to disrupt the hiring process. (exhibit EZZZZZM)  The opening line says “Some members of our department blatantly violate policy and bylaw when it fits their agenda and staunchly hold others to the letter of the law.”   In this email I pointed out many of the past policy violations by other members of the department. The next day I learned that a decision had been made to hire two candidates from the pool of candidates I had brought in. The new hires are Valerie Stackman and Amy Nemmetz. I learned that Amy Nemmetz will get the same salary I am receiving, probably because of the unfair treatment she experienced from Dr. Caywood. One or both of them may also receive years toward tenure.

December 16, 2013 6:46:51 AM -     (12-16-13-Yourconcernsaboutthecandidates)        I sent an email to Reed and Gibson asking them to write their objections to Stackman and Nemmetz. 


December 16, 2013 7:58:53 AM – I received an email from Catherine Kutka (exhibit 664) saying “I appreciate your perspective and admire both your passion and professionalism. Believe me when I tell you that I recognize this as an attempt to derail the search process, however, I have an obligation to review the claim and will seek guidance regarding the best way to proceed. I have a concern that addressing the past issues you have raised here at this time will serve the same purpose: to halt the search process. My goal is to address the question that was raised so that we can move forward to successfully conclude this search.”

  Interesting that nobody seemed interested in reviewing the claims I made about Solar excluding me from the search process.  Interesting too is that completing the search seemed to be more important than following policy. 


Mon 12/16/2013 1:35 PM - (12-16-13-Yourconcerns-candidates-Privacy) – I sent an email to Dalecki and Throop telling them that I asked Gibson and Reed to write down their opinions.  I forwarded their emails.  This shows that I was #1 keeping Throop and Dalecki in the loop. And #2 being professional in my handling of the search.  My goal was to hire a qualified candidate.  Gibson’s and Reeds goal seemed to be to hire someone they could influence.  Dalecki’s goal was to get rid of Gibson and collect dirt on him that he could use later.  Dalecki also wanted to hire someone he could pressure into loyalty.  Gibson was critical of both Nemmetz and Stackman. 



December 16, 2013 2:15:05 PM -  (12-16-13-Yourconcernsaboutthecandidates)       Reed wrote about his objections to Nemmetz and Stackman.   He wrote that Stackman was not qualified due to her lack of maturity because she talked about bestiality.  He seemed to think she condoned it because she said it was legal in West Virginia.  He wrote “the need to draw a greater number of applicants for our openings is the missing element in our processes.”   He also wrote “I have thought all weekend long about the fact Miofsky received 12 points. I know that I gave Miofsky one point, and I asked Lorne what he did. He gave her one point. There are three other members who voted. If each gave Miofsky 3 points, that means Miofsky received 11 points and not 12.”


December 16, 2013 2:55:26 PM    (12-16-13-CJ Search)  I sent a pleasant email thanking Gibson and Reed for their input and service.


Mon 12/16/2013 4:05 PM -(12-16-13-Yourconcernsaboutthecandidates)    I sent an email to Reed, bcc to Dalecki in regard to the tally of points.  I also wrote “One more thing: I think you only attended Stackman's dinner. In fairness to the candidates you shouldn't put so much weight on what was said at the dinner table. The other candidates were relaxed also and perhaps one or the other statement would have rubbed you the wrong way as well.  Stackman clearly does not condone or advertise bestiality. I thought her comment was interesting as I was not aware of the legality of bestiality in some U.S. states. I checked I found there are several states that allow sex with animals. I find that appalling.”




12/16/2013 4:11 PM -   (12-16-13-LorneGibsonsconcerns)   I wrote to Dalecki “Lorne Gibson makes reference to Amy Nemmetz' dissertation. We did not call up the candidates' dissertation nor did we require them to post their dissertations as part of their application.”  I also wrote “Dr. Caywood downloaded Amy Nemmetz' dissertation in 2011 to "prove" that she wasn't a good candidate. I think this shows that candidates were discussed outside of the search & screen and unequal criteria were applied when judging them.”


12/16/2013 4:15 PM – (12-16-13-LorneGibsonsconcerns) Dalecki wrote to me “I agree that there is some sort of odd criteria being used; we can simply note that between ourselves and remember it should any further action be warranted.  At this point, let it go.” 




December 17, 2013 11:32:18 PM -  (12-16-13-CJ Search)   - I wrote Gibson cc Reed saying I’m glad we will get two new hires as we are short staffed.  I wrote “Nemmetz and Stackman received outstanding recommendations from their references. Both were praised for their teamwork, passion for teaching, and advising skills. I understand you have reservations but I believe you will be positively surprised by the Nemmetz and Stackman. Think positive :)” 



December 17, 2013 2:55:08 PM  (12-16-13-CJ Search)  - Reed sent me an email in which he wrote “Normally it is best if Dr Throop/the Dean does not actually know who the second or third choices are or if there is even a second choice.”  He wrote “Normally, we should certainly never talk about the non-recommended candidates with the dean.  All just for future reference in case you get stuck with this job again and we have a department chair and a normal dean.”   He calls Throop abnormal.

December 18, 2013 7:38:56 AM  (12-16-13-CJ Search)     -  Gibson wrote to me “Glad to hear someone in the department has faith right now.

12/18/2013 8:15 AM -   (12-16-13-CJ Search)      I sent the email string to Dalecki with the comment “Hope we can leave it at that ...


Dec 18, 2013 10:53 AM -  (exhibit 516 page 85)  Dalecki wrote “Rex, Joe, Pat and Mike traveled to Madison on Thursday to testify at a legislative hearing regarding changes to training and standards related to an increase in the LE Academy from 520 to 700 hours.”  Dalecki did not give me the opportunity to attend this event.  He did not consult me on who should attend.

Dec 18, 2013 –I heard that Mr. Dutelle had a meeting with Dean Throop concerning his “hiatus.” Dr. Dalecki told me that the meeting was “ugly.” Apparently there was much angst and gnashing of teeth in the meeting. Dutelle shouted and the Dean shouted back. I don’t know more than that but I can imagine.

Overall it was a very good day. It feels good to finally start to see some positive steps being taken. Dutelle was instrumental in filling the Dean’s heads with lies about me and she probably placed a lot of weight on what he said. Now the lies he told the Dean are blowing up in the Dean’s face and I don’t think she is as happy with him as she used to be.




Dec 19, 2013 – Caywood wrote an email to Lohmann stating that “At one time faculty governance actually meant something at this university.  Doesn’t seem to be the case anymore at least in LA&E” [UW-P 005318]   He was complaining that two people were hired even though one search failed.  Lohmann wrote back that he couldn’t talk about it since it was confidential.  He wrote that two offers had been extended and that it was an administration decision with full consent of the chair of the committee, the dept chair and the dean.

From late Dec 2013 to early January 2014: Dr. Caywood continued his usual practice of leaving graded student tests and papers in the hallway for students to retrieve on their own. Any student could look through the entire stack of graded papers at will. This is a violation of FERPA which states: “Under FERPA, a school may not generally disclose personally identifiable information from an eligible student's education records to a third party unless the eligible student has provided written consent.“ (exhibit ZZP) (exhibit ZZP-1) (exhibit ZZP-2)(exhibit ZZP-3)


Double Standard:  Contrast the way Caywood was allowed to do this with Dean Throop’s denial of my legitimate request on 1-16-13 .  She denied my request saying it was a violation of FERPA, which it was not.

Dec 23, 2013: Mary Kennelly sent a letter to the EEOC requesting a Notice of Right to Sue (exhibit ZZB). The letter was cc’d to me and to Attorney Jennifer Sloan Lattis.


On 1/1/14  (Evidence Tampering):   I checked my email account for emails I have sent to Chancellor Shields.  It shows that the last email I sent him was on 10/16/2013.  Obviously there have been many emails deleted from my account that were sent and cc’d to Chancellor Shields.  I believe this is an effort to insulate him from my accusations.  Fortunately I have saved my email records.

All emails between the Chancellor and me have been deleted from my account.  I didn’t do it.



January 3, 2014 9:55:05 AM – Dr. Caywood asks when the folders for the new hires would be placed in the mailroom so he could look at them. (exhibit EZZZZZN)

January 3, 2014 10:15:55 AM – I sent an email to Dr. Caywood explaining that the files he was looking for were privileged and he had no authority to see them per faculty bylaw. I included text from the bylaws and a link to the bylaws concerning this. (exhibit EZZZZZN)

Mon, Jan 06, 2014 11:32 AM – Dr. Caywood sent an email indicating that he had “taken appropriate measures to secure the confidentiality of applicants from previous search and screen committees that occurred while he was department chair.” Apparently he took all of the Search and Screen files out of the mailroom and probably stored them in his home. He doesn’t seem to understand the intent of the bylaws. (exhibit EZZZZZN)

Jan 6, 2014 – Dr. Gibson requested Faculty Appointment Renewal, Promotion, and Inequity Pay Adjustment. The pay adjustment was due to the disparity between his pay and that of Dr. Pat Solar, the new faculty member.  Information on merit pay can be found in (exhibit ZZK-1).

Jan 7, 2014 I heard via the grapevine that Mr. Dutelle and Ms. Cecil are no longer a couple.


Jan 16, 2014: Dr. Dalecki, the new chair, told me that there is plenty of money to send students to conferences and that money has never been used. This shows that Dr. Caywood was either ignorant of the availability of the money or he was purposely withholding it from me while he was chair.

Jan 16, 2014 11:26 AM – Dalecki sent an email update to the department.  In this email he wrote of the Rockford project “If you'd like to be involved with this, please let me know. Developing/converting FI 1320 curriculum for the first year's class is the first order of business.”  This message was apparently meant for someone else because he continued to exclude me after I asked about it.  Also, why wasn’t I included in the initial stages of this project?  (exhibit 547a2)

1/16/14 – AA officers teleconference – not much interesting at this meeting. (John Lohmann’s notes)  Dkt 48-137

Jan 21, 2014 - Diana Johnson didn’t seem to know that she had been replaced as FI Coordinator until a department meeting on Jan 21, 2014. Dalecki said to Diana “we talked about this.” But that seemed to be news to Diana. I believe he did not discuss it with Diana until the department meeting.  This is probably part of the reason why she left so abruptly. It seems that he lied in front of the entire department  (560 - Solar assigned as FI coordntr - 1-20-14) (note: there is another exhibit 560 which is different).  His motive might have been to enrage Johnson at a public meeting to make her seem “crazy.”

Jan 21, 2014 09:43 AM – Caywood sent an email saying “I was removed as chair” and “the faculty constitution was not followed” and “Based on the grievance commission’s comments: It is clear that the interim chair appointment was not done correctly.”  He also wrote “She (Dean Throop) made it clear then it didn’t matter what the department did she would not follow our suggestion. I am afraid that is what will happen again. In order to be compliant with the faculty constitution we will at some point have another election and the dean and the provost will again reject our candidate.”  (exhibit ZT-2