Update: Whitewater resident Joe Kromholz in a telephone interview told WhitewaterWise that he recollected that the cost to fill his FOIA request sent to the Whitewater school district was $29. Contacting WhitewaterWise Wednesday morning, the filer said he misspoke. An invoice, dated Feb. 13, indicates that the filer has been charged $155.47 by the district to fill his open records request. The story has been updated to reflect that change. 

By Kim McDarison

At least three residents within the Whitewater Unified School District have sought information regarding a dispute between the district’s board of education members, its superintendent, and the board’s Vice President Maryann Zimmerman through the public open records or Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process.

WhitewaterWise has obtained copies of the three filings, along with the associated responses from the district’s records custodian, who is district Superintendent Caroline Pate-Hefty.

While each of the three filings obtained by WhitewaterWise received responses from the records custodian, each received different outcomes.

‘Has located responsive records in district’s possession,’ others held by Zimmerman, district says

According to the public records obtained by WhitewaterWise, on January 30, district resident, former school board member, and an attorney with the Milwaukee-based firm of Ryan Kromholz and Manion, Joseph Kromholz, filed a FOIA request in the form of a letter addressed to both the superintendent and the district’s board of education President Larry Kachel.

His letter begins with the following reference: “Board Member Zimmerman’s 23 January 2024 letter to WhitewaterWise.com and apparent violation of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.”

He then wrote: “This letter is a request under the Wisconsin open records law to you both for all records related to the allegations contained in Ms. Zimmerman’s 23 January 2024 letter to whitewaterwise.com, including any and all records from the school board meeting of 18 December 2023. This includes a request for all of Ms. Zimmerman’s communications (he cited emails, letter, etc.) with other school board members or anyone else related to Ms. Zimmerman’s motion identified in her letter and the issues associated therewith. Please advise us of the cost of your providing these records prior to sending them.”

In a recent telephone interview, Kromholz told WhitewaterWise that, to his best recollection, the district indicated to him that the cost to fill his request was $29. As of Monday, he said he had not yet received an invoice from the district. On Wednesday, Feb. 14, contacting WhitewaterWise by text message, Kromholz said he had misspoken. Sharing an invoice, dated Feb. 13, he noted that the cost to fill his request was $155.47.  

A reply from Pate-Hefty, in her capacity as records custodian, to Kromholz’s request is dated Feb. 10.

In response to the resident’s request, the superintendent wrote: “… has located responsive records in the district’s possession and maintained on “District issued” email accounts. These responsive records are attached.”

Including the letter from Pate-Hefty, the document returned to Kromholz contains approximately 150 pages of information, including the district’s meeting packet from Dec. 18, 2023, which accounts for approximate 130 pages of the document.

Also included is a copy of a letter, dated Jan. 28, from Pate-Hefty informing the board that “I am now represented by an attorney due to the comments made Monday evening (school board meeting on Jan. 22), that could impact my career and reputation. These statements violated the Open Meetings Act and my employee privacy rights, which could impact my future employment and salary-earning potential. As stated in a joint statement with the Board President, these comments were inaccurate. Further, the District’s attorney has deemed that since the actions were a violation of the Open Meetings Act and my employee rights, he can not represent individuals involved in their roles on the Board.

The letter further notes that the superintendent’s attorney has “issued the first step of a cease and desist demand and notifications to the parties involved.”

Additionally, a correspondence from Zimmerman, dated Jan. 25, to a resident sent from the board member’s school district email was included. The letter, referenced: “Thank you so much for continuing the fight for transparency in WUSD,” thanked the individual for “the encouragement,” with Zimmerman further stating: “They have resorted to threatening me with legal action if I don’t change my story but am going to stay strong with this. My integrity isn’t for sale.”

The FOIA response to Kromholz further included a correspondence on the school district’s email, dated Jan. 30, with a subject line stating: “Retraction of False information,” from the superintendent’s attorney, Malina Piontek, to Zimmerman, with three individuals copied, including Pate-Hefty, Kachel, and the district’s attorney, Brian J. Waterman.

While placeholders are within the document representing the correspondence from Piontek, WhitewaterWise was unable to open the documents.

An earlier story, including information from the documents sent to Zimmerman by Piontek, 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 FOIA document sent to Kromholz also includes a correspondence between Zimmerman and her husband, Jim, found on the board member’s district email, in which Jim Zimmerman asks his wife: “What specifically is she seeing is inaccurate? And what allegation is she alleging that you made?” Maryann Zimmerman, in response to her husband’s question, forwarded to him the email sent to her by Piontek.

Responding to another resident from her school email, Zimmerman wrote to Wayne Redenius, noting: “I also received this today.” She forwarded the correspondence from Pate-Hefty announcing to board members that she had retained an attorney. The correspondence was sent on Jan. 28.

Additionally, in her FOIA request response to Kromholz, Pate-Hefty wrote: “In regards to Ms. Zimmerman’s responsive records that are not in the district’s possession, Ms. Zimmerman has indicated that she does not intend to produce such records at this time. We apologize. As required, she was notified of such request via email, certified mail, and via District courier in an attempt to respond to this request.

“To the extent, if any, you view this response as a denial of your request, please be advised that you have the right to challenge the decision by filing a mandamus action … or by contacting the local district attorney or Wisconsin Attorney General.”

The FOIA response further included a letter to Zimmerman from Pate-Hefty, dated Feb. 5, in which Pate-Hefty informed Zimmerman that a records request had been made, looking for her communications with other school board members or others, related to her motion identified in her letter to WhitewaterWise and the “issues associated therewith.”

To Zimmerman, the superintendent wrote: “Please be advised that we have conducted the analysis and balancing test required under Wisconsin’s Public Records Law and weighed the public interest in the disclosure of the records requested against the countervailing public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the records. The District has determined that the enclosed documents are responsive to this request and that the public’s interest in assessing the records outweighs the public’s interest in maintaining the confidentiality of such records.

“The enclosed records relate to you as an official of a governmental authority. These records are not comprehensive of the requested response. You are still obligated to submit the records the district can not access which were formally requested on January 31st.

‘No records that are currently in my possession,’ Zimmerman says

Responding to WhitewaterWise’s questions by email, Zimmerman said that she was contacted by the district on Jan. 31 about the FOIA request.

“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. Interestingly, the only emails from my district email account that the district decided to pull for the foia request to Mr Kromholz was an email I forwarded to my husband so he could see the threatening email from Dr. Hefty‘s attorney and an email I received from a citizen that thanked me for standing up for the truth. Emails that contained much more information and clarity on the situation sent from Dr. Pate-Hefty to myself were not included,” Zimmerman wrote.

Additionally, she noted: “I informed Dr. Pate-Hefty that I am under representation, and my lawyer would be handling further communications and things such as the foia request. That email was sent on January 31 … to Dr. Pate-Hefty, Larry Kachel, Brian Waterman at Buelow Vetter, school district attorney, and Dr. Pate-Hefty‘s personal attorney Malina Piontek.

“There are no records that are currently in my possession at this time that aren’t also in the possession of our district superintendent.”    

’Unable to process,’ and cost to process: $656.50, district says

According to the public records obtained by WhitewaterWise, on February 8, district resident Wayne Redenius filed two documents, each making one request. The first request reads as follows: “All correspondence between the board attorney, board members, and superintendent regarding the review of policies 670.1 and 672.2 from Nov. 2023 through the current date.”

The second request reads as follows: “Contracts including salary data from 2020-2021 through current year for Dr. Pate-Hefty, Ben Prather, John Houwers, Dr. Lanora Heim, David Friend, Terilyn Robles, and Melania Argueta Borchert.” 

A preprinted Wisconsin sample FOIA document, prepared by the National Freedom of Information Coalition, was used by Redenius to file his requests. The documents state: “I would request a response in writing, within 5 days described by law, if you intend to deny this request. Also, if you expect a significant delay in fulfilling this request, please contact me with information about when I might expect copies or the ability to inspect the requested record.”

Additionally, the preprinted form noted, “If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify me of the appeal process available to me under the law.”

The document offers an opportunity for the filer to request in advance the amount of any fees association with filling the request.

A reply from Pate-Hefty to Redenius, in her capacity as records custodian, is dated Feb. 9.

In response to the resident’s first request, the superintendent wrote: “The district is unable to process request #1, as all records and communications connected with the board’s attorney are protected under attorney-client privilege.”

In response to the resident’s second request, the superintendent wrote: “In regard to request #2, please note that pursuant to Board Policy 823-Rule, the district will impose the fees associated with the actual time spent by the district employees/district costs required in locating the requested records. We are estimating an hourly rate for an IT search and extraction, records custodian review, a compilation by the board secretary, legal review, and compiling to comprise minimally $656.50. During the request, we will notify you in the case that costs are increasing.”

The letter next asks Redenius if he would like the district to proceed with filling his request.

WhitewaterWise has not obtained any further documentation regarding the request.

‘Not fair to the taxpayer to make them pay for public information,’ third FOIA filer says

According to the public records obtained by WhitewaterWise, district resident Mike Bergman filed a letter which he originally sent to the district’s Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent and School Board Jaclyn Tueting in early February.

Within his request, Bergman asked the district for the opportunity to inspect or obtain copies of public records that would pertain to emails between Pate-Hefty and Kachel. Bergman requested the emails from between Aug. 1, 2023, and Feb. 8, 2024.

Additionally, he asked to be apprised of any fees that would be associated with filling his request.

Bergman, within his request, wrote: “I would also like to request a waiver of all fees in that the disclosure of the requested information is in the public interest.”

On Feb. 9, in response to Bergman’s request, Pate-Hefty, in her role as records custodian, offered a cost estimate, noting a final cost to fill the request of $229.47. Within the estimated cost, the superintendent estimated that it would take two hours to print the requested documents at a cost of $45 per hour.

In an email to Pate-Hefty sent by Bergman today, Feb. 13, the resident wrote: “I would request that the documents be sent over using email, so we do not waste the school’s money on printing things that we can send over as an electronic copy. Also, as a taxpayer in the Whitewater school district, I already pay taxes, so I request you use my tax dollars to fill this request, as I already pay for the employees of this district time.”

Responding the the email, Pate-Hefty wrote: “The district will impose the fees associated with actual time spent by the district employees/direct cost required in locating the requested records. Your taxpayer status does not allow for waived fees.”

The superintendent next apprised Bergman that a cost to have his request filled was $229.47. She added that the requester would be notified if the costs increased.

In a final email to Bergman, the superintendent quoted the same fee, which, she wrote, included an estimated hourly rate for IT search and extraction, and records custodian review and compilation by the board secretary.

In a telephone interview with WhitewaterWise, Bergman said that he planned to inform the superintendent that he would not be paying for his request to be filled.

“I’m not paying for public information; it’s not fair to the taxpayer to make them pay for public information,” he said.

Timeline of events

A timeline of events associated with the current dispute between the superintendent and Zimmerman became public when Zimmerman called for a vote — during a regularly scheduled school board meeting on Jan. 22 — on an issue that had come before the board in December. Following the Jan. 22 meeting, Zimmerman wrote a letter to the editor which was published in WhitewaterWise on Jan. 23. A link to the letter is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/choosing-the-right-even-when-its-hard-a-commitment-to-transparency-in-wusd/.

Also on Jan. 22, in advance of the regularly scheduled school board meeting, a meeting of the district’s Policy Review Committee, a three-member body that makes recommendations to the full school board, was convened. In advance of the meeting, a public notice was issued by the district, noting that a quorum of school board members could be in attendance during the meeting. A quorum or majority of the seven-member school board is four members. A meeting agenda noted that several policies, including: 671.1, which addresses payday schedules; Policy 672.1, which addresses procurement methods for services, and Policy 672.2,” which offers uniform guidance for receiving and using federal grants and awards, were meant to be discussed.

A formal accounting of discussions held and any actions taken during the committee’s open meeting, through recording or meeting minutes, as of this reporting, has not yet been released by the district.

A story about the policies discussed during the January committee meeting is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/call-to-review-school-district-administrative-contracts-set-to-automatically-renew-fails-by-narrow-margin/.

In her letter to the editor, which Zimmerman referenced and WhitewaterWise headlined: “Choosing the right even when hard: A commitment to transparency in WUSD,” Zimmerman said: “I am writing to bring attention to a matter of utmost importance — unauthorized pay raises that were being granted to Whitewater Unified School District employee and or employees without proper board approval.”

On Jan. 24, WhitewaterWise published a news story, headlined: “Call to review school district administrative contracts set to automatically renew fails by narrow margin.”

As reported within the story, during the Monday, Jan. 22, regular school board meeting, Zimmerman urged board members to vote against an auto-renew process which would become effective Jan. 29, would board members choose to take no action.

The auto-renew process would apply to some 12 contracts held by members of the school district’s administrative “leadership team,” according to meeting minutes from the board’s December meeting, which were approved on Jan. 22. In the open session of the January school board meeting, Zimmerman called for a separate vote for each of the administrative contracts set to auto-renew, stating: “On December 18, I was made aware of a district employee who was awarded almost 10% more in pay raise without board approval, using a policy that should not have been used.

“For this reason, I am requesting a vote, if not tonight, on or before Jan. 29, 2024, on all district office administrative contracts.”

The action failed by a 4-3 vote, with Zimmerman, and board members Christy Linse and Stephanie Hicks supporting the motion.

On Jan. 24, according to a series of emails obtained by WhitewaterWise, Madison-based attorney Piontek wrote to Zimmerman, alleging that the board member was “spreading false information about my client,” Pate-Hefty, and that she would soon send Zimmerman “a full demand to cease and desist.”

On Jan 25, the superintendent and school board president issued a statement, addressing Zimmerman’s statements made during the Jan. 22 board meeting, which was published in WhitewaterWise. A link to the full statement is here: https://whitewaterwise.com/commentary-allegations-made-during-mondays-school-board-meeting-are-inaccurate-school-board-president-superintendent-say/.

In their statement, headlined: “Commentary: Allegations made during Monday’s school board meeting are inaccurate, school board president, superintendent say,” the two officials wrote: “To be clear, the allegations made in the Monday, January 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; that is a requirement of the position for functional operations. According to Wisconsin State Statutes 118.24 and 19.85, administrator contracts are reviewed annually at a closed session of the board meeting. This was done according to the requirements.”

Additionally, the statement noted: “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; good policy is how we improve functional operations.”

On Jan. 30, in a second communication from Piontek to Zimmerman, the attorney thanked the board member, 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.”

Additionally, she 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.”

In response to the cease and desist demand, Zimmerman, on Feb. 2, told WhitewaterWise: “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.”

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.”

On Feb. 2, WhitewaterWise, in separate emails, asked Kachel and Pate-Hefty, through her representation, Piontek, for interviews.

Of Kachel, we asked four questions:

• 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.

The attorney has, to date, not responded to our email.

An earlier story about the dispute between the superintendent and the board’s vice president 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/.

On January 30, Kromholz, filed a FOIA request in the form of a letter addressed to both the superintendent and the district’s board of education President Larry Kachel. The letter is referenced: “Board Member Zimmerman’s 23 January 2024 letter to WhitewaterWise.com and apparent violation of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.”

On February 8, Redenius filed two documents, each making one request. The first request reads as follows: “All correspondence between the board attorney, board members, and superintendent regarding the review of policies 670.1 and 672.2 from Nov. 2023 through the current date.”

The second request reads as follows: “Contracts including salary data from 2020-2021 through current year for Dr. Pate-Hefty, Ben Prather, John Houwers, Dr. Lanora Heim, David Friend, Terilyn Robles, and Melania Argueta Borchert.” The individuals listed are members of the district’s administrative leadership team. 

On Feb. 9, the resident was told by the superintendent, in her capacity as records custodian, that his first request could not be filled and his second request could be filled at a minimum cost to the resident of $656.50.

Also on Feb. 9, district resident Mike Bergman, in an email exchange with Pate-Hefty, serving in her role as records custodian, asked for emailed correspondence between the superintendent and the school board president between Aug. 1, 2023 and Feb. 8, 2024. He was informed that filling the request would cost $229.47.

On February 10, the superintendent, in her capacity as records custodian, filled the open records request made by Kromholz. The resident told WhitewaterWise that his request, as he understood it, was being filled at a cost to him of $29. On Wednesday, Feb. 14, upon his receipt of an invoice, dated Feb. 13, Kromholz told WhitewaterWise that he had misspoken. The cost to fill his request was $155.47. 

On February 13, Bergman, offering information to WhitewaterWise by phone, said he intended to inform the district’s record custodian that he would not pay for the information, with the understanding that his open record request would not be filled.

Looking ahead, meeting dates

Two school board meetings have been scheduled by the district in February. The first is a special meeting which is planned for Thursday, Feb. 22, and the second is a regularly scheduled meeting planned for Monday, Feb. 26.

According to information shared with board members, including Zimmerman, on Feb. 7, a special board meeting has been scheduled to take place at the district’s administrative offices on Thursday, Feb. 22, at 7:30 p.m.

Agendas, meeting packets or other notices, as of this reporting, have not yet been posted to the district’s website for the February meetings.