By Kim McDarison

Some 40 residents of the Whitewater Unified School District filled the library at the Whitewater High School Thursday, many of whom arrived hoping to deliver public comments in advance of a closed session meeting held to address a developing dispute between the Whitewater Unified School District Board of Education, its vice president and the district’s superintendent.

The special meeting, according to its agenda, was held to discuss: “financial, medical, social or personal histories or disciplinary data of specific persons, preliminary consideration of specific personnel problems or the investigation of charges against specific persons except where par. (b) applies which, if discussed in public, would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect upon the reputation of any person referred to in such histories or data, or involved in such problems or investigations. Specifically to discuss board member’s allegations that district employees failed to adhere to district policies and conduct by a certain school board member.”

The full meeting, which began at 7:30 p.m., and  included two brief open sessions, lasted more than three hours.

At 11 p.m., board members returned to open session and voted to “authorize board legal counsel to respond and defend claims made against the Whitewater Unified School District and the Whitewater Unified School District Board —entire body — related to the issues discussed in closed session.”

The board voted 6-1 in favor of the motion, with Whitewater Unified School District Board of Education Vice President Maryann Zimmerman casting the single ‘no’ vote.

In January, Zimmerman expressed concern during a school board meeting and in a letter to the editor published in WhitewaterWise, regarding the district’s handling of administrative contracts that were set to auto-renew, further writing in her letter that the district’s board of education granted “unauthorized pay raises” to “district employee and or employees without proper board approval.”

The district’s superintendent, Caroline Pate-Hefty, responding to Zimmerman’s comments and in collaboration with the board’s President Larry Kachel, issued a public statement, declaring Zimmerman’s statements “inaccurate.”

In January, Zimmerman received a letter from Madison-based attorney Malina Piontek on behalf of her client, Pate-Hefty, demanding that she stop “spreading false information about my client,” and that she retract statements made in her letter submitted to WhitewaterWise.

Zimmerman has said publicly that she does not plan to retract her statements. 

Pate-Hefty was not in attendance during Thursday’s meeting. 

In a followup interview with WhitewaterWise, Kachel said: “The nature of the board’s closed session discussions did not require the superintendent’s attendance.”

Zimmerman’s attorney, Duffy Dillon, of the Janesville-based firm Dillon Grube, LLC, attended the meeting. Dillon noted that he had been retained to represent his client about two weeks in advance of the board’s Thursday special meeting.

Attorney Brian Waterman, of Waukesha-based firm Buelow Vetter Buikema Olson and Vliet, LLC, also was in attendance.

Responding to followup questions asking for clarity about whom Waterman represents, Kachel said: “Our attorney is retained by the school board to represent the district as an organization, which includes the board as the governing body of the district.”

During Thursday’s meeting, which began with a brief open session, tensions between members of the public and Kachel, who was assisted by Waterman, escalated when Kachel told the assembled residents that they would not be allowed to speak during the meeting.

Kachel, advised by Waterman, told residents that a public comments opportunity had not been provided on the special meeting’s agenda and therefore would not be offered.

During the open session of the special meeting, which lasted about 15 minutes, board members voted to adjourn to closed session while a member of the public, Henri Kinson, read aloud from a prepared statement.

Addressing the board, Kinson said he wanted to offer some “background” and “call out … tactics the district is using against Maryann.”

Kinson said the district had “implemented a pay raise for someone in the business office with no approval by the full school board as required by policy.

“Was the raise justified? I really don’t know — seems like a lot — but that isn’t really the issue. The issue is Maryann had the audacity to ask exactly how and why the raise was given without board approval. But four people on the board don’t want to talk about it.”

Given his understanding of the situation, Kinson said, district officials might have considered the merits of bringing the contract before the full board, as, he said “policy and even common sense dictates.” Instead, he stated, “the superintendent lawyered up and had her lawyer send a threatening letter to Maryann, making the laughable claim that Maryann ‘defamed’ her, for wanting to discuss policy. These are the people running our schools.”

As Kinson read, Kachel proclaimed him out of order, at one point asking Whitewater Police Officer Michele Martin, who was on duty and assigned to crowd control, to intervene.

Martin was one of two city of Whitewater Police Department law enforcement officers assigned to crowd control during the meeting’s open session. A second on-duty member of the department, School Resource Officer James Garcia, also was in the room.

Martin stepped forward and expressed to Kachel her understanding that the meeting was in open session. She did not remove the speaker.

Waterman advised that board members could, as a remedy to an out-of-order speaker, move to adjourn their meeting.

Board members opted to continue with the special meeting.

Board members next attempted to leave the library and reconvene, as was noted on the meeting’s agenda, in a nearby room.

On the advice of Waterman, board members were asked to return to their open meeting seats to allow Zimmerman an opportunity to address the board in open session.

Directing her comments to fellow board members and Kachel, Zimmerman said she was “in question” as to why the board was having a special meeting.

Additionally, she said she was not given what she described as the “normal” 72-hour notice before receiving an agenda.

“I was notified last week that you guys wanted to have a meeting and they told me that we would have an agenda within three days of a meeting. You guys waited until a little more than 24 hours before this meeting. What’s happening here is people are being disingenuous.”

Zimmerman said she had earlier come forward with “concerns,” further noting that she had “asked four times” to have a special meeting about her issues of concern.

“Every single time, I was ignored or stonewalled,” she said.

She asked the board to discuss any issues involving her conduct in open session, saying of Thursday’s meeting: “If it’s about me … to protect my reputation, my reputation is fine. I have truth behind me. I am not here to be on anyone’s agenda or to go after anyone, but wrongs were done, and they need to be addressed, and if you have to come after my conduct because I spoke out about it, that’s fine, but we’re going to do it in open session for my portion.”

Further, she claimed that she had emailed both Kachel and Waterman in advance of the meeting on more than one occasion and her attempts at communication had gone unanswered.

In her emails, she said, she had asked the board president and the board’s attorney for an understanding of what the special meeting was about.

“Who called this meeting?” she asked.

Kachel responded, saying: “Members of the board.”

Zimmerman asked specifically, who? 

Kachel, under advisement from Waterman, said: “I don’t need to answer the question.” 

The response brought laughter and jeering responses from the audience.

Kachel asked the board if it wanted to consider a motion allowing Zimmerman’s portion of the discussion to be held in open session.

Waterman reminded board members that a motion to go into closed session to discuss matters as stated on the agenda was already on the table. He advised board members to vote on the first motion, and, if the motion failed, they could consider a second motion including Zimmerman’s request.

The board voted 4-3 in favor of the first motion, with board members Stephanie Hicks, Christy Linse and Zimmerman voting against the action.

Following the motion, board members moved from the library into a nearby room to continue their meeting in closed session.

Dillon did not initially accompany his client into the closed session, telling WhitewaterWise that the board was not obligated to allow counsel into its closed session meeting.

Martin remained in the library with the attending residents while Garcia accompanied board members as they moved to closed session. 

More than two hours later, Zimmerman returned to the library.

Speaking with her husband and a handful of residents who stood nearby, Zimmerman said that she left the closed session meeting after a discussion, focusing on her, began, but she was denied access to her attorney.

Following a brief discussion, Zimmerman and her attorney left the library and were received into the room where the closed session continued to take place.

Back in open session, around 11 p.m., and following a decision to authorize its counsel to defend the board against claims made against it, the meeting was adjourned.

Some 20 residents remained in the library during the three-hour period while the board met in closed session. They continued to call for an opportunity to make public comments even as the board adjourned its final open session.

Waterman, advising Kachel, said such an opportunity was not on the special meeting agenda and therefore, could not be accommodated.

As the board members and residents exited the library, district resident Geoff Hale read aloud from a prepared statement.

Speaking with WhitewaterWise in the library while board members met in closed session, Dillon said his client had not violated confidentiality regarding any previous board discussions held in closed sessions.

“There is nothing she has said in public that reveals any content of any closed session in any public way,” Zimmerman’s attorney said.

He added that he had not found a basis on which the district’s superintendent could make that claim, adding that he has filed an open records request with the district on his client’s behalf, looking to gain some clarity.

Responding Friday by email to followup questions posed by WhitewaterWise, Zimmerman said that following the meeting, her first response was “awe.” 

Said Zimmerman: “I did not grow up in Whitewater. I am a (transplant) from Milwaukee. My family and I moved here 9 years ago because we toured Lakeview School and were so impressed by Dr Lanora Heim, then-Principal David Brokopp and the rest of the Lakeview staff that our second choice home became our first choice and we moved here instead of Burlington. 

“Last night, many members of this community rallied around me as if I had grown up here and came together to demand transparency and accountability. I was very proud of my community. It takes courage to say something isn’t right and to come to the defense of someone else when they are being wronged. 

“My second takeaway was disappointment. Disappointment in how the meeting was called, disappointment in the reluctance to not allow public comments, disappointment in not allowing my legal counsel to represent me and finally disappointment on accusations that I was doing this to further a political or personal agenda.” 

Zimmerman and a second candidate, Jeff Tortomasi, are running unopposed for two school board seats with terms ending this spring. Kachel entered the race late last year, but withdrew on Monday. He cited new work-related opportunities that would occupy his time as reason for his decision. With his late withdrawal, his name will still appear on the April printed ballot. 

Zimmerman continued: “For the past three years I have been consistent on fiscal responsibility. Always. My voting record shows as much. My reason for investigating this matter has alway been due to the fact that I took an oath of office and I intend to fulfill my duty to the community to keep our district financially healthy.” 

Zimmerman said, thus far, she does not feel that the board has addressed her initial concerns regarding administrator contracts. 

“I believe that the board is comprised of good people who will do the right thing,” she said, adding: “I believe once we face this issue head on, rather than trying to move past it, then,” she noted, “we (the board) will be able to work cohesively as a unit once again.”