The attached document, “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order,” was issued on February 7, 2002 by Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission Examiner Daniel J. Nielsen. Mr. Nielsen provides a general overview beginning on page 26.

Conclusions of Law (pages 21,22): The district denied receiving and refused to comply with a valid request for information. The district engaged in retaliation and attempted to disguise an act of retaliation. The district refused to bargain in good faith. The district interfered with the exercise of protected rights.

The district’s refusal to provide information is the basis of my Request for Mandamus to the Manitowoc County Special Prosecutor. The school board’s decision to improperly impose the QEO in closed session is the basis of my Request for Opinion to the Attorney General of Wisconsin. Less than one year after the Examiner’s report, the school district and school board are repeating the same mistakes by failing to provide information and continuing to engage in improper conduct. The school district and school board fail to acknowledge their improper conduct and therefore have not altered their conduct.

Finding of Fact 12 (page 8): A school administrator requested proof that a request for information was made to the district. When signed certified mail receipts were provided, the administrator sent a letter stating that certified delivery to the school district does not guarantee delivery to the recipient within the district.

Arguments of the Parties – Refusal to Provide Information (bottom of page 28, top of page 29): The district asserts in its own argument that the sender of the letter “bears the burden of proving” the letter physically reached the intended administrator. (Having rejected signed receipts for delivery of certified mail via the US Post Office as insufficient proof, the district does not describe how the sender of a letter could prove delivery to its satisfaction.) The district argues that since the routing of the letter could have been mishandled by the district, the district should not held accountable for failing to respond to the request for information. The district further argues the mail may have been mishandled by an inexperienced employee and if it wasn’t, the administrator’s secretary was a problem employee and that she could be lying about delivering the letter, and that if she did deliver the letter, she may have delivered it to the administrator’s desk, but put it in the wrong bin. (The district does not indicate how much mail is typically lost, misdirected or overlooked.) The district then admits that a reference to the unfilled request for information was included in follow-up correspondence, but was overlooked by a ‘mistake’ of the administrator. (The referenced text is in the middle of page 8.) The district argues that for various reasons, certified mail may go astray without a trace after delivery to the district, and that written follow-up may be overlooked by mistake. The district essentially argues the failure to respond was due to the district’s ineptness, and therefore intent cannot be proven.

Finding of Fact 38 (page 20): The district administrator did receive the request and “consciously” ignored it.

The examiner’s document is available online at:

http://www.wisbar.org/res/wercd/2002/30276-a.htm

A directory of related documents is at:

http://kossik.com/jan1403.html