Audio Files in the case of Dr. Sabina Burton vs. UW-Platteville.  Files are not numbered in any particular order.   If you want to listen to them chronologically view them in this order: 

 Transcripts contain errors.  Most of the transcriptions were never completed. 


Name of Audio/Video File

Date Recorded

Transcript if available (may not be complete or accurate)

A1 - Meet- Durr and Throop - 1-29-13


transcript (audio exhibit A1a).   

A2 - Meet - Jeanne Durr - 2-7-13



A2a -  excerpt



A2b -  excerpt



A6 - Grievance -Caywood- 4-12-13  -  CD 1



A6 - Grievance -Caywood- 4-12-13  -  CD 2


A8 - Ph call - Chancellor - 7-11-13



A7 - Meet - Provost Den Herder - 8-8-13



A5 - DRB mtg- 10-15-13



A5a - 17.27-Only Tenured on DRB



A5b - 22.23-Burton Rudely Ignored



A5c - 23.11-Cheryl shushes Sabina



A5d - 24.23-Youreraisingyourvoice-hypocrite



A5e - 29.57-Burton Ignored



A5f - 31.44-Sabina is shushed



A5g - 32.46-Tie Breaker Lamentation



A13 - Grievance - Throop - 12-2-13


Grievance-Throop-Transcript and Burton’s Rebuttal

A13a -  Excerpt



A13b - Excerpt



A4 - DRB mtg - 1-14-14


Transcript of the meeting  A4a

A14 - Appeals hrg - Gibson -3-24-14



V1 - Faculty Forum  (video)



A3 - Mediation Mike - 6-27-14


A partial transcript is A3a.

A12 - Meet deCoste and Lohman 8-13-14


(partial transcript A12a)

A10 - Dept mtg throop -8-29-14.mp3


(Partial Transcript A10b

A10a - excerpt



A11 - dept mtg - Dalecki - 8-29-14.mp3


Partial Transcript - A11a)

A18 - whispers with Joe Lomax 9-3-14-pt1




A9 - Chair Search meeting - 16min30sec


Transcript (exhibit A9a) - 

A20 - 10-12-14 - Meet w Joe Lomax


Meeting w Joe Lomax-Trnscpt

A15 - Meet Throop - Sauke-Burton-10-15-14



A17 - CRST mtg some time in Oct 2014.mp3


(Partial Transcript)

A24 - Mtg w John Lohman-10-31-14.mp3


Partial paraphrased transcript.

A28 - Dalecki Threatens grad student Nov 2014


Important - Dkt 53-11




A16 - Chair Sch Mtg - 12-5-14.mp3 


(Partial transcript –A16a)

A29 - Faculty Senate Meeting 12-9-14


Partial Transcript (A29/627b)

A26 - Mtg w Lomax 12-16-14


A26a -Transcript- Mtg w Lomax 12-16-14

A31 - CJ dept mtg 12-16-14.mp3



A30 - Mtg w Lohmann 1-15-15.mp3


A30a -Transcript. 















A36 - Partial transcript


















Audio Short Clips:  A series of stories about short statements in the above audio files.


Audio Exhibit A1   -

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).   


Audio Exhibit A2   -

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).   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.    


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.”



Audio Exhibit A3   - 

June 27, 2014 a mediation meeting was conducted with Jennifer deCoste and John Lohmann as mediators.  (audio exhibit A3)    A short excerpt of the audio catches Dalecki in a lie (audio exhibit 546).  A partial transcript is A3a.      Dkt 48-513

Ms. DeCoste was very unfair to me in her handling of the meeting and I demanded that she be removed from the mediation team.  My reasons are expressed in an email to Ms. DeCoste in (exhibit 514). Attached to that email was (exhibit 525).    


In the meeting Jen recommended that Mike and I limit our email messages to 5 lines or less.  “if its more than 5 lines have a conversation”



Jen said that “Mike can’t apologize for the threats that came, that he didn’t do.”  I don’t know why she said this true statement.  I didn’t ask him to apologize for a threat “he didn’t do.”  Why does Jen think I asked for him to apologize for someone else’s actions?   I asked Dalecki to apologize for the things HE did and he has refused.


Jen saidFrankly I read through everything, and email communications that you sent out, that went out to everybody in the department, that were really directed towards Mike is another form of bullying or uncivil behavior that made it very difficult for Mike to proceed except to say, “hey, we need to talk about this.”  And it kept happening and he kept reiterating, “we need to talk about this.”  I find that actually the style of email communication that YOU’RE participating in is quite aggressive and belittling and is not helpful.  So, just as you thought that you were blasted or, or sworn at or threatened on a phone call I found the tone of those emails to be quite threatening.”  (exhibit 513) also (exhibit A3a). Combine these two transcripts.   So in this one statement Jen called me the bully in front of the bully, overstated the number of times I sent out angry emails, understated Dalecki’s contribution to the exchange, expressed her belief that I intend to continue sending angry emails in spite of the fact that I had apologized for doing so, said that I “threatened” Dalecki (which I didn’t), called my style of communication “aggressive and belittling” (not just two emails but my style), implied that I don’t even know when someone swears at me and painted Dalecki as the helpless victim.   I decided that Jen would not make a fair and impartial mediator in this issue.  I sent her an email expressing this and removing her from the mediation team.  (exhibit 514)

Jen said that the tone of my emails was “threatening.”  What is she saying I threatened to do?  I didn’t threaten Dalecki.  I merely told the department about some of the things they should know and said that I would tell the students the truth.  Perhaps she meant “angry” instead of “threatening.”  If that is the case I can forgive her. Maybe she sees sharing the truth to be a threat? If she feels that I was “threatening” someone or threatening to do something she is wrong.  People in our school administration use harsh and exaggerated language to describe my actions while using polite and minimizing language to describe what others do to me.  This phenomenon has been evident for as long as I have been on their “black list.”


Jen would not let me say the concerns I had. 


Lohmann closed the meeting saying “because, we, I think we have a pretty good background now, on the positions from the past.  I’m not saying we want to cover them up or anything but I just think that we don’t get anything productive out of rehashing it at this point. I think we can address it once we get back together if we need to as part of this relationship.  But I don’t see any need to do it, re-hashing. Um, you’re going to be out on vacation?”

Deposition Question for Lohmann:  How could they have a good background on positions from the past when Dr. Burton never had a chance to tell her side of the story?   Whose side of the story had they heard at this point?  Answer; Dalecki’s.


I recorded the mediation because I am convinced that this school will not treat me fairly.  Anyone who has worked here for any length of time knows that there are certain people you just don’t go against unless you are ready to find a new job elsewhere.  Play the audio for the jury so they can see how unfair it was.  I wasn’t allowed to speak but I was judged.  This was not a mediation meeting but a disciplinary meeting of me.   It was a forum for Dalecki to speak through a weak willed Jen DeCoste to intimidate me.   DeCoste said something in my favor and Dalecki glared at her.  She immediately changed her stance against me.  DeCoste was intimidated by Dalecki. - “Mediation is a completely voluntary and confidential form of alternative dispute resolution. It involves an independent, impartial person helping two or more individuals or groups reach a solution that's acceptable to everyone.”  Jen did not exhibit impartiality on the first meeting.   The parties can choose whether to mediate or not.  They can choose who is an acceptable mediator.  Mediation is completely voluntary!  I had a problem with Jen deCoste for valid reasons.  She should know better than to act that way; she is the Chief Diversity Officer and Assistant Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion.  There is no excuse for her behavior. 


Jun 28, 2014:  I sent Jen deCoste an email removing her from mediation. (exhibit 525a)  Attached to that email was (exhibit 525). -   Page 11:  “Stages of mediation

Separate meeting

• First contact with the parties – the mediator will meet parties separately. The aim of this first meeting is to allow each individual involved to tell their story and find out what they want out of the process.”  This was not followed.  Dalecki was allowed to meet with the mediators alone but I was not given this opportunity.  Then, when I did meet with the mediators, in Dalecki’s presence, I was not allowed to tell my side.  This is not fair.  It does not follow the proper stages of mediation.  It showed me that UW Platteville is not interested in following procedure to help me find resolution.  They seemed to be interested in railroading me as they did Gibson. 

Mike lied in the meeting.  At the end of the meeting he said: "Well, you need to understand that there are certain things that I have to do as department chair and it doesn’t always end up in the way people want.  They may teach a class that they don’t want to do.  There’s just things you have to do and that’s not anything, I just did the scheduling, teaching same stuff so there’s no weird stuff going on unless we run into some other difficulties and I would consult you on it before I just stuck in something anyway."  DeCoste agreed with him.  This is an example of the many lies that have been told about me.  Jen bought it, how hard is it to believe that others have bought his lies too?  

The truth is that Dalecki changed my teaching load and here is proof:  Dkt 41-51.  (exhibit 529) (exhibit 529a)   He took away my Spring 2015 Comparative CJ class and gave it to Dana Cecil.  Take a look at my Spring 2014 student evals to see how good I was in that class [UW-P 001936 to 1946].   My student evals were insanely high and Dalecki took me off the class and gave it to Cecil and lied about it in mediation.  Dkt 41-52.  Dkt 41-62. 




 Audio Exhibit A4   -  Jan 14, 2014: The DRB met. Two members, myself and Dr. Fuller voted not to renew Dr. Gibson’s appointment. Dr. Caywood and Mr. Dutelle voted to renew his appointment. The Dean is the tie breaker so we expect she will decide not to renew Dr. Gibson’s appointment. We are expecting Dr. Gibson to be quite upset by this news when he finds out.  Dutelle said “I can’t really rate I’ve never seen him teach” and “My amount of interaction with Lorne Gibson since he’s been here and I’ve been here could be put in one hand.  I mean, I just don’t work with him.  I mean, I ran the program, he never taught for me, he didn’t interact with me, we were not involved in the same things at all.  Other than working on the grant with him, that’s all we’ve got to go off of.  And he did average work on the grant.” I recorded the meeting (audio exhibit A4)   A partial Transcript of the meeting is A4a.    [corrupt vote]  Why did Dutelle vote to retain when he knew nothing of Dr. Gibson?    This audio shows how unfair these types of meetings are.  I was marginalized and ignored.  They just go through the motions to get what they want, bending the law as they go (see Caywood’s comment of Feb 6, 2013.  )


Audio Exhibit A5   -  10-15-13 – DRB meeting deciding whether the committee would recommend Dr. Gibson for retention and merit pay:

During the meeting, which I audio recorded, Dr. Caywood and Mr. Dutelle intimidated and interrupted me whenever I tried to speak. They clearly did not want my voice to be heard. I didn’t get to say much. I was afraid that if I said what was on my mind I would suffer severe retaliation so I kept quiet.) Lizzy Gates, chair of psychology, a person from outside our department, who did not know what was going on in our department, was chair of the DRB. Also in attendance were Mr. Lomax, Mr. Dutelle, Ms. Johnson, Dr. Reed and myself. Dr. Fuller was on the CRST so she was not present at the DRB meeting.  I abstained from voting in protest of the way the 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. There really was no “vote;” Lizzy Gates just followed Dr. Caywood’s lead.  [corrupt vote] (Audio Exhibit A5


Excerpts from the full audio A5 are:
A5a – Discussion about Tenured only on DRB.  Dalecki gives reason why non tenured people should not be on the DRB.  He unilaterally decided that untenured can’t sit on DRB.  He calls it a “power differential conflict of interest.”  He can’t think of a single reason to have non-tenured on the DRB.  This violates policy which allows non tenured on the DRB. (see Gibson’s appeal on Mar 24, 2014)
A5b – Shows how I was not given a chance to be heard.
A5c – Fuller shushes me when I try to speak.
A5d – Dutelle hypocritically shuts down Fuller like someone would shut down a child saying “you’re raising your voice.”
A5e – I am ignored when I try to get across a point.
A5f – I am shushed again during the meeting to keep me quiet.  In (audio exhibit A5f) Dutelle talks about the student eval scores with 4.3 to 4.7 being “Above Normal” (everyone in the room knew he meant to say “outstanding”) then Sabina protested that she was not rated that way and Fuller shushed her and thumped her leg.       I believe the slapping constituted (simple assault) as shown in a compilation of legal text I made on about 8-20-14 and never sent to anyone.  (Audio Exhibit A5)

Caywood says “we gotta go by this sheet.” 

A5g – Dutelle laments that he can’t win the vote with an even number of people.  He needs to rig the vote first.

 On the audio at  17:27 – Caywood asked:  “When was it decided that only the tenured faculty could serve on the DRB?”    Dalecki said:  “Well, that was right at the beginning of the semester.”  Then Caywood asked   “You took a vote on that?”  Dalecki saidNo I did that.”
Caywood said:  “You just, you decided.”  Dalecki verifiedRight, right.”

Dalecki unilaterally disallowed non-tenured faculty on the committee in violation of policy so he could get the votes he wanted to oust Gibson.

When merit pay votes were solicited I wasn’t given an opportunity to vote even though I am a voting member of the department

UNIVERSITY RANK, SALARY, AND TENURE (URST) PROCEDURES states: “Any department chair serving on the DRB for his/her department shall serve as a nonvoting member.” (appendix IX)

Policies and Procedures for the Criminal Justice Department states: “The Department chair will serve on the DRB as a non-voting member.” (appendix XIII)

Later Lizzy Gates said that she would not serve on any more DRB committees for the CJ department, due to its dysfunction.





Audio Exhibit A6   - 

A6 - Grievance -Caywood- 4-12-13  -  CD 1



A6 - Grievance -Caywood- 4-12-13  -  CD 2





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 by the university.

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.     (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 I couldn't handle Caywood’s retaliation on a local level (See audio exhibit A13).

I later wrote a rebuttal to some of Caywood’s comments at the meeting (folder exhibit 541 – 6c - My rmks-Grievance HrngAudio Transcript



Audio Exhibit A7   -  Aug 8, 2013 – [Comm-Caywood Retaliates]  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). 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 (exhibit ZA-9) and (exhibit ZA-9a). Finish these up


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 (Caywood) 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, refused to correct the defamation and withdrew her support of her efforts?
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 look into it?  What did you find out? 
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 you will be fired.}

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 ).    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.


Audio Exhibit A8   -  Jul 11, 2013 07:41 PM  - Chancellor Shields asks me to call him (555 - emails fr Chancellor) (exhibit EZZZZG-3). I recorded the conversation (audio exhibit A8).  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.    Partial Transcript   



Audio Exhibit A9   -  9-24-14 -  Chair search meeting with Dr. Burton, Dr. Solar, Dr. Stackman and Dr. Reed.  (audio exhibit A9) Transcript (exhibit A9a)  At this meeting we discussed the wording for the job description for a new department chair.  What came through loud and clear in the audio is that the CJ faculty wanted the new chair to have education in Criminal Justice.  We wanted the new chair to have at least a bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice (thereby excluding Dalecki).

The job announcement that Throop posted was altered from what we as CJ department agreed to.  She modified the position so Dalecki would not be disqualified (exhibit 698a).   She did this without consulting the department.   The announcement that was advertised says “The successful candidate will also have an undergraduate or graduate degree in criminal justice, criminology, or closely related field.”  So it seems that Throop added “or closely related field” in order to allow Dalecki to get the position.

This audio could be useful in explaining how I was injured by being excluded from the discussion of the job description for the search for 3 new faculty members and to show the committee’s intent to exclude Dalecki from consideration. 

I created a rubric for the evaluation of chair candidates (exhibit 698). I emailed the rubric to Throop on 10/9 at 1:16 pm as requested by the department. I have a copy of the email.


Some time in Sept 2014 I gave Throop a list of websites to which she could post the job advertisement to cast a wider net.   A good deposition question for her would be “Did you advertise the position in any other websites besides”  Probably not.

In the meeting Pat Solar mentioned that he was chairing 3 search and screens for new faculty members. 

 Job ad – Dkt 41-34.



Audio Exhibit A10   -  Aug 29, 2014 department meeting -  Throop tried to convince the department members to accept Dalecki for another year and put off a search for a new chair but the department voted in favor of conducting a search this year. [corrupt vote]  In an email I sent to dept members I suggested that either Caywood or I, as the most senior CJ faculty on campus, should chair the search. I also wrote that I would support any other CJ faculty as chair of the search.  Caywood agreed. (exhibit 540).  Audio recording (audio exhibit A10)  (excerpt showing the vote – A10a)  (Partial Transcript A10b)    

I never saw the minutes but Defense submitted them to the court.  Dkt 42-78,   Dkt 37-15 (exhibit F)  The minutes do not reflect the actual meeting.  I don’t remember making the comments shown in the minutes and I don’t remember Rex Reed making the “wide net” comment (I could be wrong, I have not had time to listen to the audio since getting the minutes.  I’d need to listen to the audio to be sure.  The “wide net” statement in the minutes is what Throop used to justify her changing of the job description without asking the department.  Maybe she inserted Reed’s comment in the minutes for this purpose.  I wouldn’t put it past her.

The minutes state: “It was agreed that it would be best to select someone (preferably a department chair) from outside of the department who is a neutral party, but still has a vested interest in the department.”    Dean Throop selected Tim Zauche to chair the search.  He is not a department chair, had no vested interest in the department and Throop knew he was not neutral.   This is a great argument to show that Throop’s letter of direction is bogus and that she attempted to unfairly influence the search to get Dalecki as the new permanent chair. 

Another interesting thing is that the minutes seem to inaccurately quote from bylaws.  The sentences don’t make sense.  We should look at what the byalws actually say to see what the minutes obscure.  Also, listen to the audio to see what Gibson said.  Who wrote the minutes?  Who changed them?


The meeting minutes were probably doctored.   Listening to the audio will shed light on this.  Doctoring meeting minutes is common practice at corrupt UW Platteville. (secret informant)



Audio Exhibit A11   -  Aug 29, 2014 Dr. Dalecki announced that he had assigned Dr. Patrick Solar to chair three searches for new faculty members.  He did not consult me or consider me in regard to his decision.  He did not allow me to be a member of the committee, though I requested it multiple times. Dr. Solar violated policy (appendix XIX), lied to me and failed to follow directions Dr. Dalecki issued at the department meeting of Aug 29, 2014.  (exhibits 565, 565a, 565b, 562c)   I recorded the meeting - (audio exhibit A11, Partial Transcript - A11a)



Audio Exhibit A12   -

Wed 13 Aug, 2014 – I met with Jen deCoste and John Lohmann.  I was worn out and felt beat up.  I was hospitalized two days later for severe medical problems caused by stress.   Jen deCoste apologized for the way the first meeting went.  She seemed interested in doing better in future meetings and wanted me to allow her to continue as mediator.  I still don’t feel safe with her as mediator but her apology seemed sincere so I will allow her to continue as mediator.  I was finally allowed to tell my side of the story without interruption and the meeting seemed to go well.  (Audio Exhibit A12 )  (partial transcript A12a)

I also met with Lohmann on 10-31-14  and on 1-15-15




Audio Exhibit A13   -

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 Caywood’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 he was removed, she said he 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 Wisconsin Open Meetings Law 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, so I was not able to attend Caywood’s grievance against Throop.  

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.  Dr. Alsup, a native American Indian, was fired shortly after Throop was hired.  Note:  Chancellor Shields is quoted, by a reliable source, to have said “If people think I won’t fire them, I fired my best friend.” 



Audio Exhibit A14   -  Mar 24, 2014 – Dr. Gibson received his letter from the Chancellor informing him that his employment would not be renewed at the end of his commitment.   The decision not to renew his contract had nothing to do with his sexual harassment of a student.  He went to a school in Maine and they were not warned about his actions.

Mar 24, 2014 – 6 pm - Dr. Gibson was given an appeal hearing. I made a recording of the 1hr 30 min meeting on my iphone, which is hard to understand. ( I can produce this recording if needed.) The school made a professional recording (audio exhibit A14)   A partial transcript is (audio exhibit A14a) and also (exhibit ZZJ).  I took pictures of some of the slides presented by Dr. Gibson (Folder Exhibit 623).  In attendance were myself, Dean Throop, Dr. Gibson, Dr. Caywood, Dr. Dalecki, Dr. Fuller, Provost Nimmocks-Den Herder and others. Chancellor Shields did not attend.

Dr. Gibson made some good points and had a well laid out strategy that assumed nobody would mention his sexual harassment of a student. The school never mentioned his harassment of the student, probably for fear of legal repercussions. Without this information it seemed to me that Dr. Gibson had some very compelling arguments. Dr. Dalecki and Dr. Fuller both thought they won the contest but I felt like the committee would favor Dr. Gibson because they did not offer the “real” reason he was being targeted.

I kept quiet at the hearing and Dr. Dalecki congratulated me later for this.  It was like being petted on the head and told “good girl” or “good dog.”

Dr. Gibson made the argument that his evaluations made a sharp turn south after the new chair came. This is true but Dr. Dalecki did not make the case that Dr. Caywood had artificially inflated Dr. Gibson’s evaluations as unfair favoritism toward males as well as Caywood’s general incompetence. So this was another key bit of information the committee did not have.

An interesting highlight is that Dr. Gibson showed the number of class assignments he had received during his time teaching at UW-Platteville. Under Dr. Caywood’s chairship Dr. Gibson was afforded much more opportunity for extra teaching and extra pay than I was afforded. He was overwhelmed by the amount of work he had so his performance was sub-par. Meanwhile, Dr. Caywood refused to offer me the same extra opportunity claiming that he was afraid that I was “doing too much.” My performance has always been stellar and never suffered even during the times when I was under heavy load. This is an example of Dr. Caywood’s discrimination against me.

Gibson’s appeal hearing committee agreed that Dalecki was appointed chair in violation of policy but they did not include that in their written findings.  You’ll need to listen to the audio to hear the discussion about how they determined Dalecki was appointed in violation of policy. 

The committee found that Dalecki violated policy by making a unilateral decision to select members of the review body rather than allowing a vote.   The committee wrote “The subcommittee reviewed the Criminal Justice Department Review Board procedures of the past four years.  The CJ DRB procedures for 2013-2014 state, “The department may constitute itself, or some members thereof, as a department review body, providing that the review body shall include at least three tenured faculty members other than the department chair.”  This policy provided that faculty members on tenure track but not yet tenured be allowed on the DRB.  This was apparently changed in the Fall of 2013 with a unilateral decision made by the new interim department chair.  DRB procedures are to be voted on by the department.  This decision by the new interim department chair violated that procedure.” (exhibit 503).     (see DRB meeting of Oct 15, 2013 and particularly the audio excerpt segment –(Audio Exhibit A5a))  That is the meeting where Dalecki makes the decision to exclude non-tenured faculty from serving on the DRB.


the Chancellor ignored the appeal hearing results and upheld Gibson’s termination.  (note:  This may not be accurate – re-read the findings (exhibit 503).   If it is not accurate we should change some other statements as I think we bring this up a few other times.)

Caywood took full responsibility for the what he called a “glaring error.”  He did not provide annual statements regarding probabionary faculty member’s prospects for tenure to the faculty member under review, except for one he found for Dutelle from 1-12-10.  (exhibit 503).   

Excerpt from findings: Section II.5 of the CJ 2013-14 procedures states “Tenured Faculty who hold full-time appointments in the department are required to observe probationary faculty members teach a class at least once prior to the probationary faculty member’s promotion or tenure vote.”  Only one faculty observation was included in Dr. Gibson’s RST file.  This procedure provided some confusion.  It appeared that the time remained for other observations prior to Dr. Gibson’s mandatory tenure year.  However, since Dr. Gibson requested consideration for promotion, it appeared that all tenured faculty were obligated to observe Dr. Gibson teach a class.

Excerpt from findings of Gibson’s appeal on Mar 24, 2014 – 6 pm Section II.4 of the CJ procedures states “After receiving both the statistical portion of student evaluations and a summary of the written comments, the CJ DRB will assess faculty member’s teaching effectiveness as part of our peer review process and summarize on Form 1.”  University policy dictates that peer evaluations be made prior to knowing student evaluations.  Section II.4 appears to violate that university policy.  In practice, it appears that the CJ DRB made their peer evaluations with the knowledge of student evaluations whether or not they actually reviewed the student evaluations. (exhibit 503).  

Note: Caywood’s grievance against Throop also found that Throop had violated policy in appointing Dalecki.




Audio Exhibit A15   -  10-15-14 – I met with Throop and Tim Zauche.  I recorded the meeting (audio exhibit A15)  In this audio Throop identifies that Zauche has a bias in favor of Dalecki and that I had a bias against Dalecki.  She asked us both to refrain from outside contact with Dalecki but later demanded that I completely stay away from any discussion about Dalecki’s candidacy.  She did not make the same demand of Zauche.



Audio Exhibit A16   -  12-5-14 -  Chair search meeting was conducted.  I audio recorded the meeting (audio exhibit A16)  (also audio exhibit A27) (Partial transcript –A16a)  At this meeting a student said “how things are run currently students do not feel comfortable at all going to our chair (Dalecki) and we’re actually losing a lot of students.  I know of six that have left the university because of issues with that.” 

 12-5-14 -  Chair search meeting was conducted.  I audio recorded the meeting (audio exhibit A16)  (also audio exhibit A27) (Partial transcript –A16a)  At this meeting a student said “how things are run currently students do not feel comfortable at all going to our chair and we’re actually losing a lot of students.  I know of six that have left the university because of issues with that.” 



Audio Exhibit A17   -  Nov 4, 2014 -  a CRST meeting was conducted.  I recorded the meeting.  (audio exhibit A17)    In this meeting I spoke in support of Dr. Solar to redirect a negative sentiment to a more positive sentiment for him.  (Partial Transcript of meeting)  He would have been written up for lack of progress in scholarship if I had not said something in his defense.  This shows that 1) I was not biased against Solar.  2)  Throop’s admonition that I was biased against him showed reckless disregard for the truth. 3) That I can have a strong opinion about someone’s violation of policy and still be fair in evaluation of them.  This invalidates Throop’s argument that I could not be fair in the chair search because of pre-judgment.   Just like I was fair with Solar I could have and would have been fair with all candidates for the chair position, including Dalecki.




Audio Exhibit A24   -  10-31-14 – I met with John Lohmann and Catherine Kutka (audio exhibit A24Partial paraphrased transcript.

I also met with Lohmann on 1-15-15  and on Wed 13 Aug, 2014    





Audio Exhibit A28   -

Late November, 2014:   Audio recorded. Dalecki called Ron Jacobus in and gave him a “little bit of advice.” (audio exhibit A28),


transcript, Dr. Dalecki-Mr. Jacobus meeting, Dkt 53-11 Dkt 41-32. 

 This recording shows that Dalecki was enforcing a gag-order on me.  




Audio Exhibit A29   -

12-9-14  Faculty Senate meeting minutes states:  “3. Grievance Hearing Procedure - Informational (C. Cornett) Chair Cornet reported that the Complaints & Grievances Commission voted unanimously on Nov. 21, 2014 to adopt the attached grievance hearing procedure.”    At the meeting Chuck Cornett said “they (Grievance Committee) have the governance to set their policy and procedure as a committee.”    Meeting Agenda (exhibit 627a)   Partial Transcript of meeting audio: (audio exhibit A29/627b)     Short clip of Cornett’s statement:  (audio exhibit A29a)  Audio of entire meeting:  (audio exhibit A29

Cornett’s statement is untrue.  Roger went through all of the faculty senate meeting minutes between Oct 8, 2013,  in which a draft of Chapter 6 was presented, and this meeting and he found no motion or discussion to change the procedures.  Previous meeting was on 11-25-14.

   Did Cornett believe his statement to be true or was he lying?  If he believed it to be true where did he get his information?  My guess is that he got his information from Balachandran.  What did Balachandran tell Cornett to make him believe this statement to be true?  Can he back it up?  Did he misquote UWS 6.02 to Cornett as he did to me?  Why didn’t Cornett verify Balachandran’s claim of the validity of the authority? 


The text Balachandran used to validate his Grievance Hearing Procedures says that “the Commission is authorized to establish its own procedures to investigate a grievance that it is hearing” but UWS 6.02 says that “the faculty of each institution shall designate a committee or other appropriate faculty body to hear faculty grievances under rules and procedures established by the faculty of the institution in conjunction with the chancellor.”  Did Balachandran overstep his authority in making what he called “hearing procedures?”  Why did he make me wait for my hearing so he could make these procedures?  I should have had the hearing within 20 days.  The grievance committee, not Balachandran, had authority to make procedures to “investigate” but not to “hear” my grievance.




Audio Exhibit A30   -  1-15-15 – I met with John Lohmann.  Roger came too.  Lohmann probably knew he was being recorded but talked freely and seemed sympathetic to my cause.  (audio exhibit A30)  -  A30a -Transcript.        Roger’s notes about Lohmann meetings shed more light on these meetings and suggest actions.     There is a short exchange where Lohmann admits knowing that a lot of faculty don’t show up for finals week.  There is a discussion about DeCoste calling Sabina a Bully.


I also met with Lohmann on 10-31-14  and on Wed 13 Aug, 2014   Meeting with Lohmann.


Lohmann is a former civil rights attorney.  To Roger and I he seems to be one of the only administrators who tried to treat me fairly.  His hands seem to have been tied as to what he was allowed to do for me.  He should be asked in court to explain why he didn’t do more to ensure my due process rights were respected.  He probably has some fingers to point.



Audio Exhibit A31   -  12-16-14 -  CJ department meeting. (audio exhibit A31)  This is the meeting where Dalecki says that Tom took one for the team (about half way through meeting) by studying to learn FI over the summer.  It was discrimination and retaliation against me to put Caywood in FI rather than putting me there.  I have a chemistry background and Caywood does not.  Solar was missing from the meeting.   Nothing else significant seems to have happened at the meeting.


Audio Exhibit A34     5/9/16 – I met with HR director Crowley.  I audio recorded the meeting (A34-Mtg-Burton-Crowley-5-9-16)  (A34-TranscriptMtg-Burton-Crowley-5-9-16)  She asked me why I wanted to reintroduce the grievance now.  She asked me what remedy I sought and I told her removal of Throop’s letter of direction.  She said to write her a memo asking for the LOD’s withdrawal and seemed to think it would be that easy.  I sent her the requested memo and she later talked to Throop but Throop told her the letter would not be withdrawn (no surprise to me).  She told me that an investigation into Dalecki’s finger gun threats had been initiated but nothing ever came of it that I know of.   I explained the incident about Lattis messing with my files and discussed the investigation into her actions.    She agreed that the bogus 300 day limitation didn’t even apply to my request for a hearing against Rice but still my request for a hearing was denied.   She tried to dissuade me from seeking a grievance hearing.  She told me to write a letter to Fairchild explaining that it is within the 300 days, which I did.    Later, after Fairchild refused to arrange my hearing in spite of this information, she said she would not help me and gave no reason.  It is clear that she was pressured to be against me.  I said that I wanted “the defamatory remarks to stop” and she said “we can’t fix stupid.”

She said Ray Spoto, union rep, reached out to her on my behalf.  She said he wanted to ensure I was heard.    She said she was trying to make sure that happens but she later said she wouldn’t help me.  Again, my voice was silenced.

I told Crowley about how badly Jeanne Durr, former HR Director, handled my complaints and she said that Dr. Caywood’s refusal to mediate was “incivility” and that she “would have ordered him to (her) office.”   But Crowley later did the same thing Jeanne Durr did, she stonewalled me.





Audio Exhibit A35    -  10-10-16 – I met with investigator Burke for the Chancellor’s bogus investigation against me.  It went well and Burke seemed to get my points.  He recorded the meeting and I recorded the meeting with three devices, Roger was present and recorded it on his cell phone and I recorded it on my cell phone and Roger recorded it using a recorder.  The audio from the recorder is audio exhibit A35: (A35-mtgw-investigatorBurke-10-10-16).  




Video Exhibit V1  -

April 3, 2014 – Faculty forum I gave a lecture: “Profiling Hackers.”     (video exhibit Fac Forum – Burton)  At the beginning of the presentation Throop said “Dr Burton is an associate, fully tenured professor here at UWP and has a variety of areas of expertise starting with some very impressive work in profiling terrorists and has published extensively on lone wolf terrorists.   She has been branching out, if you will, into other sorts of areas of import including issues of trafficking and most recently has been developing expertise in cyber security issues.  So, Dr. Burton, I know tonight will be providing you with some real interesting pieces of her expertise, profiling and cyber security.  She, I know will be pretty compelling.  One of the other things that I think is most wonderful about Dr. Burton is her passion for teaching and those students in the audience know how dedicated she is to making sure you’re learning what you need to be learning.”

This proves that they didn’t withdraw their support for my efforts because they thought I wasn’t an expert in cyber security as they claim in the interrogatory response and in Dean Throop’s statement of 5-15-13 .





Wisconsin State Statute           968.31
 (2)It is not unlawful under  ss. 968.28 to 968.37:
      (c) For a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication where the person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act in violation of the constitution or laws of the United States or of any state or for the purpose of committing any other injurious act.