By Kim McDarison

Whitewater Unified School District Superintendent Caroline Pate-Hefty, through a privately hired attorney, is seeking retraction of statements made by Whitewater Unified School District Board of Education Vice President Maryann Zimmerman.

The statements in question were made in a letter to the editor which Zimmerman submitted for publication. WhitewaterWise published the letter on Jan. 23. 

In her letter, Zimmerman expressed concern regarding pay raises discussed during school board meetings held in December and January, describing them as “unauthorized,” and “being granted to Whitewater Unified School District employees … without proper board approval.”

She wrote: “As the vice president of the Whitewater Unified School District school board, it is my duty to ensure transparency, accountability, and adherence to established procedures within our educational institution.”

The full content of Zimmerman’s letter is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/choosing-the-right-even-when-its-hard-a-commitment-to-transparency-in-wusd/.

In addition to the letter, WhitewaterWise, published a news story about the Jan. 22, meeting, during which time Zimmerman raised concerns about at least one administrator contract which had been discussed and extended by board members during a closed session held in December. The process undertaken by board members offered an option to extend several administrator contracts by taking no action, which effectively allowed the contracts to automatically extend for another year.

During the January school board meeting, Zimmerman expressed concern that one within the identified group of contracts under consideration carried a significant salary increase. She asked for a vote to consider the single contract separately. The measure failed by a vote of 4-3.

An earlier story about the January school board meeting is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/call-to-review-school-district-administrative-contracts-set-to-automatically-renew-fails-by-narrow-margin/.

On Jan. 25, WhitewaterWise became aware of and published a statement made by Pate-Hefty and Whitewater Unified School District Board of Education President Larry Kachel in response to Zimmerman’s comments made during the January school board meeting. In their statement, which was initially published on the district’s website and Facebook page, the district officials called Zimmerman’s statements “inaccurate,” further noting that “there is no violation of board policy or ethics standards for the superintendent to make and negotiate salary offers …”

The full statement from the superintendent and school board president is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/commentary-allegations-made-during-mondays-school-board-meeting-are-inaccurate-school-board-president-superintendent-say/.

More recently, WhitewaterWise has obtained a series of emails which were sent to Zimmerman, according to the documents, by Madison-based attorney Malina Piontek.

Within an email sent to Zimmerman on Jan. 24, Piontek wrote: “I represent Dr. Caroline Pate Hefty.”

She next alleged that Zimmerman was “spreading false information regarding my client,” further noting that she would soon be sending Zimmerman “a full demand and cease and desist … but I wanted to immediately alert you that you need to stop disseminating false information about my client and other employees of the Whitewater School District.”

Additionally, Piontek wrote: “To be clear, and I believe you and the School Board already know or should know this, Dr. Pate Hefty was authorized by three members of the school board to make ‘an offer’ to an employee who was offered a position at another school district at a higher rate of pay.  She made that ‘offer’ which was contingent upon the full Board’s action to approve or not approve. The Board in fact approved that employee’s salary. Thus your statements are patently false.”

Further, Piontek alleged, that her email was “also to advise that since you violated the open meetings law when you discussed matters that were not on the Board’s agenda on Monday, January 22, 2024, you may be held personally liable for any damage done to my client’s reputation. Again, to be clear, you used the Board meeting as a platform to knowingly make false statements about my client and other District employees.”

In a second email to Zimmerman from Piontek, dated Jan. 30, the attorney thanked Zimmerman, saying: “It appears that you have, per my request, stopped spreading false information about my client and other employees of the WWUSD.”

She next asked Zimmerman to “consider this letter a demand that you rectify the situation by retracting the false information you posted on the Whitewater Wise social media page. I have taken the liberty of drafting a retraction for you to use.”

Pate-Hefty, Kachel, and the school district’s attorney, Brian Waterman, of Buelow Vetter Buikema Olson and Vliet, LLC, were copied on the second correspondence issued by Piontek.

Responding through email to questions posed by WhitewaterWise, Zimmerman wrote: “I have absolutely no intention of retracting anything I have said. What I said was true. If it wasn’t, the looming threat of litigation I received on Jan. 24 would have cowed me into retracting what I said. I believe the issue to be serious — serious enough to take on this risk and stress.”

Upon receiving communications from the superintendent’s attorney, Zimmerman wrote: “I was surprised by the aggressiveness of the initial communication from a lawyer. The threat of having to defend myself and the life that my husband and I have worked for in a possible civil suit has caused me to re-evaluate what larger purchases we can/should do.”

She listed planned family expenditures which, she wrote, “will all have to be put on the back burner until we know what direction this situation will take.”

Responding to questions about board communication, Zimmerman said: “It is my hope that the board will look at this situation and realize the need to be transparent in their dealings with each other and especially our constituents.”

When asked if she believed concerns she had raised within the content of her letter to the editor had been addressed, Zimmerman wrote: “No, I do not believe that anything was addressed. I requested clarification and supporting documentation on Dec. 18th, during the open meeting, on Dec. 28th, via email, Jan. 5th, via email, via a phone call with the board president on Jan. 12th, during the open session of the school board meeting on Jan. 22nd, via email on Jan. 23rd. My request for a closed session meeting to address the issue have all been denied.”

Relative to concerns outlined in her letter to the editor, Zimmerman said she hoped the board would consider meeting and evaluating them with regard to whether members believed the “situation that occurred was both legal and ethical.”

Additionally, she wrote, “I would like for access to all of the information I requested to be made available before the meeting so we come into the meeting informed and will not have to make a decision after seeing the information for the first time that night.”

When asked if she wanted to retract or change any of her statements made in the letter to the editor, she wrote: “No. I stand by what I said.”

When asked if she supported the board and superintendent’s communication styles, Zimmerman wrote: “I believe there is room for improvement. When difficult topics are broached, frustration, denial and defensiveness can creep into discussions.”

Additionally, she wrote: “I would like to see a renewed commitment to transparency and respect in communication. It is my hope that by prioritizing transparency and respect in communication, the school board and superintendent can create a collaborative and supportive environment that benefits the entire educational community.”

WhitewaterWise additionally reached out to Kachel for comment. We asked:

• Do you support action taken by the superintendent demanding through a privately hired attorney a retraction of a statement shared with a local news outlet by a board member?

• In what way, if any, do you believe these interactions between the superintendent, her attorney, and a board member will affect the board’s ability to communicate with each other and with the constituents they represent?

• Do you support the communication style currently embraced by the board and its superintendent?

• Will the board be addressing at a future meeting the communications between the board’s vice president and the superintendent’s attorney?

Replying to our questions by email, Kachel wrote: “I simply can not comment at this time.”

WhitewaterWise additionally contacted attorney Piontek’s office to ask whether the attorney or the attorney’s client, Pate-Hefty, would like to respond to our questions or issue a statement at a future date. This story will be updated upon receipt of a response.