By Kim McDarison

More than 100 pages of Whitewater Unified School District Board of Education documents — offering a chronology of events surrounding a raise adjustment alleged to have been granted to a member of the district’s administrative leadership team without prior board approval — have been released by a board member to WhitewaterWise.

According to information found within the documentation, Whitewater Superintendent Caroline Pate-Hefty made an adjustment to the district’s director of business services’ annual salary, bringing it to $134,746 for the 2023-24 school year. The adjustment, the documentation states, was initiated in July of 2023.

In February, WhitewaterWise received a communication sent to school board member Maryann Zimmerman from attorney Malina Piontek, who noted that she was communicating on behalf of her client, Pate-Hefty. In the emailed communication, dated Jan. 24, the attorney told Zimmerman that the raise in question was authorized by three board members.

The attorney 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.”  

An earlier story, including Piontek’s communication with Zimmerman is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/superintendent-through-a-hired-attorney-seeks-retraction-from-school-board-vice-president-i-stand-by-what-i-said-vice-president-says/.

The Whitewater Unified School District Board of Education is a seven member body. A majority of the board constitutes four members. 

Zimmerman, in recent months, has alleged that the adjustment made to the district’s business services director’s annual salary last July was granted without full board approval, which, she said, is not consistent with school board policy. 

Three board members

Among documents received by WhitewaterWise is an email sent to Zimmerman last month by former board president Thayer Coburn, in which he writes: “During my tenure as a board president, Dr. Caroline Pate-Hefty often consulted with me informally on district matters. In December 2022 she shared that she was considering an out-of-sequence market- and performance-based raise for Director of Business Services Ben Prather. Ben was doing an excellent job managing finances, and I supported Dr. Pate-Hefty’s effort to retain him.

“Dr. Pate-Hefty indicated that she was going to also solicit the opinion of (then) board Vice President Jen Kienbaum, and I further suggested that Dr. Pate-Hefty should talk to (then) board Treasurer Larry Kachel, who I believed would provide a helpful perspective on the fiscal, competitive and strategic considerations. A few days later, Dr. Pate-Hefty indicated that Ms. Kienbaum and Mr. Kachel had both responded favorably to her proposal, and that she would implement a raise in July 2023 for Mr. Prather in full accordance with state law and district policy.”

Responding to the email, Zimmerman asked of Coburn: “Would you mind pointing to me exactly which school board policies and which state statutes allow for three people to approve a pay raise rather than the full board?”

Coburn, replying by email, said: “I never said three people approved a raise.”

He asked Zimmerman to speak with Pate-Hefty or Kachel to learn more, adding: “I’m sure one of them can assist you in understanding how and when this raise was approved by the board.”

Additional documents received within the 103 pages shared by Zimmerman indicate that the superintendent, having discussed the pay adjustment with the three board members — Coburn, Kienbaum and Kachel — claimed to have interpreted their responses to mean that she did not need full board approval to offer the raise to the district’s leadership team member, writing within a document last April: “I have reviewed and confirmed with Larry, Thayer and Jen that I would be offering to regionally adjust Ben’s salary to better match compensation in the area.”

Another document, shared on Dec. 19, 2023, with board members by Pate-Hefty states that she spoke with “three board members to obtain approval for the raise.” 

Also within the documentation, Pate-Hefty wrote: “board member Kachel alleged that he contacted prior board presidents who reported the ‘handling of raises’ was not correct.” 

The superintendent wrote that Kachel alleged that he had asked former board president Thayer Coburn, whom, the document noted “was open to a call to confirm,” Pate-Hefty wrote, “that I followed the process that was suggested, including contacting Larry (Kachel) at the time. At that time last year, when I suggested we consider a raise for Ben (Prather) due to his being offered a position in a different district, I specifically asked for guidance, he suggested we had to act quickly so we did not lose Ben and recommended that I call the Vice President Jennifer Kienbaum and Boardmember Kachel — treasurer, I contacted them both, and shared the same information about my recommendation to make him regionally competitive. It was never asked at the time, or following that I present that at a board meeting for approval.”

The superintendent wrote that when a similar situation arose with a different employee, “Ben and I followed the same procedure, contacted board member Kachel, and asked that we bring it to the board, which we gladly followed when asked. If the board is interested in revamping a process, I am glad to follow that, however, the continued false allegations about ‘not following procedure,’ is impacting culture and creating a hostile work environment.”

Use of board policy No. 672

Documents received by WhitewaterWise additionally reference School Board Policy No. 672, Purchasing Policy, as one that may have been misused.

According to the district’s purchasing policy, any expenditure above $5,000 must be approved by the full board of education, but amounts below that threshold can be approved by members of the district’s leadership team.

The policy further states that expenditures for a single purpose may not be broken into smaller sums to avoid a larger approval process.

Specifically, the policy states: “(An) employee must not disaggregate a purchase into multiple transactions with the intent and purpose of avoiding a cost threshold that requires a more demanding purchasing method.”

Documents within the 103 pages received by WhitewaterWise indicate that in early January, a meeting between Pate-Hefty, Kachel, and another member of the district’s administrative team took place, at which time three topics — “aquatic center, board Policy 672, and ‘closed session’” were discussed.

Documentation states that after about 20 minutes, the administrative team member left the meeting, which continued between Pate-Hefty and Kachel.

“Larry (Kachel) mentioned a ‘misapplication’ of Policy 672 for the approval of Ben Prather’s raise to regional compensation — from April of last year — due to his ‘consulting’ with our attorney. That is an unfortunate waste of consult time and money, as I clearly stated to Larry previously, if the board does not want the CEO of their organization to work to keep and recruit employees within a reasonable salary range/regional comps, then revise Policy 672 to clearly outline the board’s vision that it does not intend for ‘contracts’ to mean administrator contracts.”

On Jan. 22, the district’s Policy Review Committee met, and, according to its agenda, considered updates to Policy Nos. 222.1, Administrator Contracts; 672.1, Methods of Purchasing, and 672.2, Standards of Conduct in Purchasing and Contracting.

Members of the district’s Policy Review Committee include Kachel, Kienbaum, and board member Stephanie Hicks. 

According to meeting minutes from the Jan. 22 Policy Review Committee, the body recommended changes within the district’s organizational chart and four board policies: 671.1, Payday Schedules; 222.1, Administrative Contracts; 672.1, Methods of Purchasing, and 672.2, Standards of Conduct in Purchasing and Contracting.

Changes, as listed within the committee meeting minutes, included the following language:

• Regarding 210-Exhibit, WUSD Organizational Chart: “The Administration discussed the changes to 210-Exhibit connecting Multilingual Services Coordinator and Director of Teaching and Learning. The committee requested to have the exhibit brought back to a future Policy Review Committee with lines to connect each boxed position.” 

• Regarding 671.1, Payday Schedules: “The Administration proposed changes for the 2024-2025 school year, if a payday falls on the weekend, employees will be paid on the preceding Friday.  671.1 – First Reading at February Regular Meeting. The Administration also presented on 10-month employees being paid 20 pay periods instead of optional 20 or 24, these changes will be added into the proposed 2024-2025 WUSD Employee Handbook.”

• Regarding 222.1, Administrator Contracts; 672.1, Methods of Purchasing, 672.2, Standards of Conduct in Purchasing and Contracting: The Administration presented on other surrounding Districts’ salary offer procedures.  The committee wanted to define 672.1 as vendor contracts and 222.1 as salary offers.  The committee added language to 672.1: ,not to include employee contracts. 672.1 – First Reading at February Regular Meeting. The committee would review 222.1 WASB (Wisconsin Association of School Board) sample and bring back to the February Policy Review Committee meeting to add more information regarding salary offers.” 

On Feb. 26, during its regularly scheduled meeting, the board approved a first reading of amended policies 671.1, Payday Schedules, and 672.1, Methods of Purchasing.

New language within Policy No. 672.1 approved by the board during the Feb. 26 first reading, is as follows: “The District will adhere to any other state, federal, grantor-imposed or donor-imposed requirements that dictate the use of certain procurement methods for a particular purchase or contract,” with new language added: “not to include employee contracts.”

The full policy, as submitted to the board for first-reading approval, is here: https://go.boarddocs.com/wi/wwusd/Board.nsf/files/D2MSMQ736168/$file/672.1%2C%20Methods%20of%20Purchasing%20-%20FIRST%20READING.pdf.

Superintendent’s tenure, achievements

Within the 103 pages of documentation shared with WhitewaterWise, minutes from several meetings are offered to document a chronicle of events, beginning with minutes from a school board meeting held Dec. 18, 2023.

The minutes reflect that the superintendent, and the district’s business services director, Ben Prather, were invited into a closed session meeting at 6:30 p.m.

With the addition of the two staff members, several items were discussed, including the district’s budget, along with consideration to extend the DLT (district leadership team) contracts “with a recommendation of no action,” which would allow the contracts to “automatically extend through June 30, 2026.” The board additionally discussed “a specific administrator’s compensation,” further citing that “no action” was taken. The board also discussed disciplinary action of a “specific certified staff,” and a “third party donation into an endowment fund,” with “no action” reported following both of those entries. The final entry noted a discussion regarding the Whitewater Aquatic and Fitness Center negotiations, which was later discussed in open session. 

According to documentation shared with WhitewaterWise, Pate-Hefty, following the Dec. 18 meeting, shared some employment history, noting that she began her tenure with the district in June of 2020, further noting that the DLT, prior to her joining the district, “had been absent a leader for years,” adding that the “prior superintendent did not finish the contract,” and was followed by an interim superintendent.

She noted that the DLT was hindered by the absence of leadership and the district was operating with “5 separate data collection systems, separate curriculum and behavioral systems.”

She described the district as “paralyzed by COVID,” during an “unprecedented dissension nationwide, statewide and locally.”

The superintendent cited several accomplishments completed during her tenure, including: the initiation of a 360-degree evaluation process for the superintendent; an onboarding process and training for new board members, which, she wrote, was used for the first time in the 2022 election; the passage of a referendum, in a year, she wrote, “of unprecedented referendum failures statewide”; the nurturing of a relationship with a donor who committed to a $15-17 million endowment to open an early childhood eduction center; the completion of a curriculum audit and outcome review, and the recommendation of changes to math and reading instruction; the planning and facilitation of professional development, followed by a full curriculum adoption based on the Science of Reading, before the state mandate; the solicitation of staff feedback through a survey in the spring of last year, which she wrote, “resulted in exceptional feedback about the culture and direction of the district,” and she pointed to efforts made to navigate and support a “significant influx of newcomers from Nicaragua while maintaining a budget, reducing taxes, and adding appropriate support and programming to meet the needs of our students and to support staff.”

Special meeting, documents requested

On Dec. 28, following up with Kachel through email, Zimmerman requested a “special meeting, before the regularly scheduled January meeting,” writing: “I have very grave concerns over policies 671.1 and 672.2. This is something that needs to be addressed before administrator contracts are renewed. It cannot wait until the next scheduled board meeting.”

Within her documented chronology, Zimmerman provided emails between herself and district Payroll Specialist Amanda Morkved, beginning Jan. 4, 2024, at which time Zimmerman asked for a “report that shows additives paid out to staff vs. what the board approved.”

Morkved responded about two hours after Zimmerman made her request, noting that she was “trying to finish payroll. Once completed, I will look into this for you.”

Also on Jan. 5, Zimmerman emailed Kachel, to “check on the status on my request for a special meeting from Dec. 28 to be held this upcoming week.”

Kachel responded a few hours later, noting that the meeting would be held Jan. 15. As per Zimmerman’s request, he confirmed that the deadline for the contract “renewal/non-renewal” was Jan. 31, 2024.

On Jan 12, according to a screenshot of Zimmerman’s phone, she and Kachel engaged in a text exchange, during which Zimmerman asked why her “request for voting on administrative contracts did not make it onto the agenda.”

She additionally asked if the request could still be added.

Kachel asked Zimmerman to call him the next day.

Zimmerman said she would send her request via email.

According to the district’s website and Zimmerman’s chronology, a special meeting was not held on Jan. 15.

The chronology next offers meeting minutes from the board’s Jan. 22 regular meeting.

The minutes report that Zimmerman moved and board member Christy Linse seconded a request that the board hold a special meeting to allow the board to engage in “individually voting on district office administrator contracts on or before Jan. 29. The motion failed by a 4-3 vote, with Zimmerman, Linse and Hicks voting in favor of the measure.

An earlier story about the administrative contracts which were set to automatically renew, and a motion to review them is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/call-to-review-school-district-administrative-contracts-set-to-automatically-renew-fails-by-narrow-margin/.

Within the chronology, a copy of a letter to the editor sent by Zimmerman and published by WhitewaterWise on Jan. 23, is included.

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

Additionally, on Jan. 24, a statement from the superintendent’s attorney, Maline Piontek, to Zimmerman, is included. In the letter, Piontek writes that “I have seen a post on social media whereby you are spreading false information regarding my client.” The letter states that a full cease and desist letter will be forthcoming from the attorney at a later date. In the meantime, the attorney wrote: “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.”

On Jan. 25, the chronology notes, the superintendent and Kachel, issued a “collaborative” public statement, which noted the following: “To be clear, the allegations made in the Monday, Jan. 22nd board meeting were inaccurate. They were also fully investigated and reviewed by Mr. Kachel and the board attorney. There is no violation of board policy or ethics standards for the superintendent to make and negotiate salary offers.” The statement cites state statutes regarding administrative contracts, which, the statement continues, “are reviewed annually at a closed session of the board meeting.”

The statement additionally notes: “The board and administration agree that the current policy language for contract negotiation is vague and are working collaboratively via the policy review process to improve clear guidance beginning in the January policy meeting.”

The full public statement made by Kachel and Pate-Hefty is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/commentary-allegations-made-during-mondays-school-board-meeting-are-inaccurate-school-board-president-superintendent-say/.

On Jan. 30, a letter from Piontek’s office was received by Zimmerman. The correspondence included a demand for a retraction of Zimmerman’s letter to the editor.

The attorney wrote: “I have taken the liberty of drafting a retraction for you to use which is attached.”

The draft instructs Zimmerman to submit a second letter to the editor to WhitewaterWise, noting that in the “spirit of transparency, I provided some inaccurate information to you on Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2024, via my letter to the editor.”

The draft letter next cites the collaborative statement made by Pate-Hefty and Kachel on Jan. 25, further instructing Zimmerman to write: “I have reviewed that statement put out by Dr. Caroline Pate-Hefty and our board president. I am relieved to hear that there was a review of my concerns and that no WWUSD employee, including Dr. Caroline Pate-Hefty, engaged in any inappropriate, unethical or illegal actions, as I have suggested.”

Also on Jan. 30, in response to the attorney’s letter and suggested draft letter to the editor, Zimmerman, writing to Piontek, stated: “I did not make any untrue accusations. I will not send your letter to any news publications.”

The 103-page chronology also shares an email sent by Pate-Hefty to Zimmerman, which also was copied to Kachel, Prather, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent and School Board Secretary Jaclyn Tueting, and the district’s attorney Brian Waterman, noting that Pate-Hefty, in her capacity as records custodian for the district, had received a demand for records filed through the authority of the state’s open records law, “relating to the motion you made on Monday, December 18 … You are required to preserve any/all communications between you, other school board members or “anyone else … This includes emails, letter, etc.” 

Pate-Hefty told Zimmerman that the district would “gather your emails from your board account, however, you will need to gather others, as you are obligated to preserve them in your role.”

The chronology next included a public records request initiated by former school board member and district resident Joseph Kromholz, who referenced his request using the following language: “Board Member Zimmerman’s January 2024 letter to whitewaterwise.com and apparent violation of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.”

The email asked Zimmerman to provide “required components” by Feb. 7.

Responding to WhitewaterWise regarding Pate-Hefty’s request, Zimmerman, in February said: “The request suggested that I had additional information that the district did not have. The request also indicated that my district email had been seized, and the district would be going through everything. I am unsure of how to provide the superintendent with any more records at this point. Everything that I used to base my motion request on is all found in email sent to me from our district superintendent, our weekly board updates from our district superintendent, board policies and meeting minutes from School Board meetings. These are all items that surely the district has access to already.” 

An earlier story about open record requests filed with the district regarding Zimmerman’s claims, and the response each of several requests received from the district, is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/residents-seek-information-regarding-zimmerman-pate-hefty-dispute-through-open-records-requests/.

Minutes between April and August, 2023, leave undocumented board approval of the business services director’s raise

According to the Whitewater Unified School District’s website, the board meets regularly, with some exceptions, on the fourth Monday of each month.

Documents supplied by Zimmerman show that the raise in question was offered by the superintendent in July of 2023.

The chronology, as supplied by Zimmerman, includes meeting minutes and superintendent weekly updates produced by the district between April and August of 2023.

Within each set of minutes and superintendent weekly updates, Zimmerman points out that between April 17 and April 21, April 24 and April 28, May 5, May 10, June 12, June 26, July 10, and Aug. 14, a vote to approve a pay adjustment for “B. Prather” is not reflected.

Meeting minutes documenting a district and education association bargaining session, held May 2, Zimmerman notes, do show that the board and members of the Whitewater Education Association met, and the board “agreed upon” a 4.5% raise “for all staff.”

Past actions

Within her chronology, Zimmerman sought to show precedents previously set involving the board’s actions regarding voting on pay raises.

During a special meeting held June 7, 2022, the board met in closed session, with the minutes reporting that “while in closed session the board discussed the compensation of a specific employee, no action was taken.

On July 25, 2022, the board met in closed session, according to the minutes, where members “discussed and consider(ed) a regional comparison adjustment for Ben Holzem, middle school associate principal, and discussed the Central Office Administrative Professionals performance evaluations and consider(ed) a regional comparison adjustment.”

In open session, the minutes reported, the board took action regarding matters discussed in closed session as “(then board member Thayer) Coburn moved and Zimmerman seconded the motion to approve a salary adjustment for Ben Holzem, middle school associate principal, in the amount of $3,936.00, beginning the 2022-23 school year. Motion carried 7-0.”

Additionally, the minutes reported that actions announced in open session following the board’s closed session discussion, noted that “Coburn moved and (then board member Steven) Ryan seconded the motion to approve salary adjustments for the district payroll benefits clerk, accounts payable clerk, and the district administrator assistant, for a total across the three positions of $8,677.00. (Then board member Casey) Judd clarified the adjustments are based on comparable positions across the area. Motion carried 7-0.”

Further, during a meeting held on Aug. 22, the published minutes report, the board met in closed session and members, “considered the compensation of the Food Service staff, agreeing on the starting base pay to be set to $16 an hour due to the staff emergency to remain regionally competitive. And discussed a specific employees terms of employment … Action on the Food Service staff pay increase would be taken in open session, no other action would be taken.”

Back in open session, the minutes noted, “Coburn moved and Judd seconded the motion due to staffing emergency, raise for service staff starting wage to $16 per hour. Motion carried 7-0.”

On Jan. 23, the minutes show that a vote was taken in open session, following matters discussed in a closed session, reflected in the minutes as such: “Coburn moved and Zimmerman seconded the motion to approve a market adjustment to the regional mean for the Central Office Curriculum and Data Administrative Professional effective July 1st, 2022, so a retroactive adjustment. Motion carried 7-0.”

Finally, within her chronology, Zimmerman shared several policies, citing the district’s policy manual, and including language from policy 222.1, Administrator Contracts; policy 665, Fiscal Management, fraud prevention; policy 672.1, Fiscal Management, methods of purchasing; policy 672.2, Fiscal Management, standards of conduct in purchasing and contracting, and policy 672.2 Rule, Fiscal Management, standards of conduct in purchasing and contracting.

Within policy 672.1, methods of purchasing, Zimmerman highlighted the following language: “Employee must not disaggregate a purchase into multiple transactions with the intent and purpose of avoiding a cost threshold that requires a more demanding purchasing method.”