A R B I T R A T I O N
9 GERHARDT STEINKE
11 A/P M-91-86
13 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
15 VOLUME XXXXIII
17 Proceedings had beginning at 6:50
18 p.m., August 18, 1994, at the U.W. Extension,
19 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, before RICHARD U.
20 MILLER, Arbitrator, to whom the matter in
21 difference between the parties has been
22 submitted for settlement.
Page 2 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,987 of 10,098
A P P E A R A N C E S
3 RICHARD U. MILLER, Arbitrator,
4 3330 Valley Creek Circle
5 Middleton, Wisconsin, 53562
7 FOR THE EMPLOYER:
9 DAVIS & KUELTHAU, S.C.,
10 MARK L. OLSON
11 111 East Kilbourn Avenue
12 Suite 1400
13 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
15 PRO SE:
17 GERHARDT J. STEINKE
18 4642 West Bernhard Place
19 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53216
Page 3 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,988 of 10,098
I N D E X
3 WITNESS EXAMINATION PAGE
4 John Snedeker By Mr. Steinke 4
8 E X H I B I T S
11 (The original transcript was sent to
12 Arbitrator Miller.)
Page 4 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,989 of 10,098
THE ARBITRATOR: Go ahead,
2 Mr. Steinke.
4 BY MR. STEINKE:
5 Q Let's go back where we were. Mr. Snedeker,
6 you testified that your main contact,
7 John Snedeker, at MATC was Paul Vance,
9 A Yes.
10 Q And that were you aware of anything involving
11 Steinke's problems, real or perceived, after
12 July 21st, 1986 you testified that was the
13 end of your job, but as a practical matter,
14 were you properly apprised or told of
15 anything regarding Steinke after that until
16 the recent days here?
17 A No.
18 Q Okay. And did I understand you, or I'm not
19 sure I even asked it, did any lawyer,
20 representative, agent, or member or supposed
21 member of Local 212 ever approach you for any
22 information surrounding a Steinke problem,
23 real or perceived?
24 A No.
25 Q So it is fair to say you were unaware of how
Page 5 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,990 of 10,098
1 this was to be used
after July 21st, 1986.
2 Okay. Now, I have a couple ones for you.
3 There is a few items here that are worth
5 Do you recall when -- well, I don't
6 want to put words in your mouth. Did you
7 discard the materials from 1986 as being of
8 no -- well, when did you discard the
9 materials associated with your Steinke file,
10 or did you discard them? Let's put it that
12 A Some of the material at various times, it
13 depends when I cleaned my files.
14 Q Can you recall was it done in as early as
16 A I don't know.
17 Q Because I remember going to a lot of trouble
18 to fully inform you on the entire program,
19 and I didn't know what use you would make of
20 those items.
21 The other thing here is that the
22 legal action, or lack thereof, took place on
23 March 15th, 1990. Immediately after that
24 there were a lot of -- well, even prior to
25 that, but in 1990 there was a lot of open
Page 6 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,991 of 10,098
1 records requests,
and almost every word in
2 here and nothing was forthcoming.
3 So you're testifying you are not a
4 part of keeping anything from me, you just
5 weren't aware of any -- what happened after
6 July 21st, 1986, you didn't know. Okay.
7 I have a couple questions which may
8 elicit some answers. Let's try a few things
9 on you here. As a result of these
10 observations, page one, and conversations
11 with both students and faculty, can you
12 recall the name of one particular faculty
13 member that you consulted in the technical
14 division regarding Steinke?
15 A No.
16 Q Did you consult with any technical faculty
17 member who taught in the electronics program?
18 A Yes.
19 Q You did. Are you aware that I have produced
20 all my peers in the electronics department,
21 I've also made personal inquiries, and nobody
22 recognizes your name at all. Are you aware
23 of that?
24 A No.
25 Q Do you remember the nature of your
Page 7 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,992 of 10,098
1 consultation with
the "faculty" regarding
2 this report?
3 A I asked them about the curriculum.
4 Q About the curriculum?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Curriculum, but not necessarily with Steinke?
7 A No. I was establishing a background for the
8 curriculum and your role in it.
9 Q You are covered nicely there, and I would
10 think that MATC could have comfort with some
11 of these answers in 1990 rather than my
12 waiting another four years. You do realize
13 neither you nor I are lawyers, but there is a
14 certain level, there is a burden on the
15 person making charges to come forth with some
16 type of a clear convincing evidence, and I
17 don't see it here. So that's a conciliatory
18 remark, and I'm not going to keep you for
19 another hour, but I would like to explore a
20 couple things here.
21 Clear and convincing evidence as
22 documentary support. If you go to your page
23 two of your report, there is a lot of soft
24 line which is negative to Steinke, but at the
25 bottom it says, while this course has
Page 8 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,993 of 10,098
1 ambitious objectives,
when considering the
2 student level, do you recall at that time in
3 focused particularity that Steinke presented
4 you with the course outlines?
5 Well, have you already testified
6 that I presented you with the course outlines
7 for all the courses. You had the course
8 outline for this course, right?
9 A Yes.
10 Q And do you recall that Steinke made a
11 specific point that the course outline was
12 totally plagiarized lifting from published
13 materials and had George Krall's signature on
14 it, do you recall that?
15 A No.
16 Q And that Steinke had a corroborating letter
17 from a publisher supporting me on all
18 essentials, you don't remember that aspect of
20 A No.
21 Q Now, let's go to the statement here,
22 ambitious objectives when considering the
23 students' level. Are not the objectives
24 lined up in the course outline?
25 A To the best of my recollection, there were
Page 9 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,994 of 10,098
1 some objectives,
but not a total set.
2 Q Ah. So there would be course objectives that
3 would not be in the course outline, is that
4 your testimony?
5 A Again, the best of my recollection that the
6 course objectives were there, but not
7 necessarily complete.
8 Q Interesting. Okay. But what about your
9 statement, it has ambitious objectives when
10 considering the students' level. What was
11 your appraisal of the student level? What
12 does that mean? I'm a little hazy there.
13 Could you help us on that?
14 What was the students' level?
15 Let's not play games. There were no
16 prerequisites for the whole damn program, but
17 what did you feel about the "students'
19 A In aggregate the students' level was about
20 what I would expect in a course starting off
21 in the basic electronics.
22 Q Now, from your experience, and you have a
23 rich technical background, if you are
24 starting out in basic electronics, the course
25 outline and the authors of the course
Page 10 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,995 of 10,098
1 outline, it is published
material, it is
2 brought to MATC as I will subsequently prove,
3 they maintain that you needed a working
4 knowledge of high school algebra to move
5 through the opening moves of this course.
6 Do you have any theories on that?
7 Do you think high school algebra would have
8 been important to begin a very basic
9 electronics course here?
10 A Basic algebra, yes.
11 Q You think that would be helpful?
12 A Yes.
13 Q We agree there. Did you make any
14 determination of the particular mathematical
15 background of the students in the class?
16 A No.
17 Q No. I didn't think so. Okay. Third, I
18 agree we should all develop positive
19 attitudes and be sensitive. This is all
20 good. We can agree there. We disagree as to
21 the level of helpfulness or sensitivity, and
22 I am prepared as an offer of proof to bring
23 forth literally well over 100 students and
24 line the walls that will say reasonable
25 things about me, and apparently your -- I
Page 11 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,996 of 10,098
1 don't want to distort
what you said, but you
2 feel that there is a -- confidentiality is
3 preventing you from sharing with us the name
4 of the students that you interviewed. Is
5 that your testimony?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And if it was not for the confidentiality,
8 you would be able to come forth with the
9 names then?
10 A I would have to do some digging and I don't
11 know if I have those records.
12 Q Yeah. This is interesting because this may
13 have some ramifications later on when we
14 start running depositions in the federal
15 case. That will be a few months before that
16 against to play.
17 Have you saved something of Steinke
18 stuff? Do you have anything at all?
19 A Of Steinke stuff?
20 Q That dealt with this interviewing, this
21 $1,100 job you did for MATC, do you have
22 anything left?
23 A Yes.
24 Q You do. And what would be the nature of the
25 materials that you have left? I've listed
Page 12 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,997 of 10,098
1 out everything and
you didn't have that.
2 What do you have left from that $1100 job
3 that you did for Paul Vance? How much would
4 you have left?
5 MS. SCHMIDT: For the record, we
6 reviewed Mr. Steinke's request and produced
7 all documents that we thought were responsive
8 to it.
9 Mr. Snedeker does have some
10 handwritten notes that he took himself that
11 were taken contemporaneously with his
12 observations, which did not appear responsive
13 to the request served by Mr. Steinke and
14 which have not been produced.
15 BY MR. STEINKE:
16 Q I see. That's helpful. So it is fair to say
17 that although some materials, namely the
18 materials that I gave you, have been
19 discarded, you still had some handwritten
20 notes of your own?
21 A Yes.
22 Q I see. And are they dated?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Are they producable for this? It may help my
25 opponents here. Would you like to share them
Page 13 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,998 of 10,098
1 with the tribunal?
2 A No, because there are student names on them.
3 Q Oh. Okay. That's very helpful. I think now
4 we are getting somewhere. We don't need to
5 go into an argument about the Buckley
6 Amendment, the Privacy Act. We don't need to
7 go into Chapter 19, subchapter two, open
9 All we have to do here is agree if
10 the names are on there, all that would be
11 necessary would be for a clerk to whiten them
12 out, correct? Do you agree with that?
13 A I'm not a lawyer.
14 Q I'm not a lawyer either, but that's almost
15 plateaued in terms of record activity that
16 those are -- they are in your purview, but
17 you were an agent of MATC and maybe you
19 MS. SCHMIDT: I don't know,
20 Mr. Steinke, if you are spilling over in the
21 open records request. If you are, I think
22 agent has a specific meaning, and I don't
23 want to get into the legal argument there.
24 To the extent that you are merely
25 making an inquiry about whether or not it is
Page 14 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,999 of 10,098
1 possible to delete
students' names from
2 notes, I think that that is obvious that one
3 can do that.
4 However, from the nature of the
5 request that was served upon Mr. Snedeker, I
6 did not believe the notes were responsive and
7 have not been produced. The contemporaneous
8 notes were taken and they were all reduced
9 into report form, and so they are duplicative
10 and they are not being produced.
11 MR. STEINKE: I'm not suggesting we
12 go into an inquiry about the open records
13 law. I am merely responding -- well, if he
14 has some records, I think they would be
15 helpful in view of the eight-year lapse
16 wherein my opponents have come forth with
17 nothing except to repeat this.
18 Their favorite phrase is the one
19 where students are spending time attempting
20 to arrive at. They love that. They repeat
21 it about a hundred times. I thought you
22 would be able to help us on that one, and you
23 can't. Obviously on one sheet of paper I
24 can't go into every level point.
25 Now, the attorney for John Snedeker
Page 15 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,000 of 10,098
1 is, of course, her
point is well taken, but I
2 did not ask for his personal notes. So I
3 will put the question to you.
4 BY MR. STEINKE:
5 Q In our search for truth and our search for
6 closure, this could probably help my
7 opponent, would you be willing to share those
8 with us if we -- now, apparently if my eyes
9 serve me correctly, this is lifted out of a
10 computer file, correct? And it would be
11 child's play to just run a quick search and
12 replace with nothing, right?
13 A Not in the CPM machine that Tom crashed.
14 Q Pardon me, John Snedeker?
15 A Not to the one that's gone crash.
16 Q So you are an old timer. I have a homemade
17 CPM system myself. I have a variety of
18 systems that dates us both. Anyway the daddy
19 of the IBM system.
20 Now, let's be real practical here.
21 And, of course, you would have to make a
22 determination with your client, and we will
23 have to depend on Dr. Miller, unless he sees
24 a problem.
25 I will put it this way. I would
Page 16 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,001 of 10,098
1 like to have those.
I'm sticking my neck
2 out. There may be something horrible about
3 Steinke. I don't care. I'm searching for
4 truth, and we have so little, and you
5 invested all the time to come down here, that
6 I'm wondering do you have any thoughts on
7 that or do you want to consult further with
8 Pamela Schmidt?
9 Would you be willing to share that
10 with us if we stripped the names of the
11 students out?
12 MS. SCHMIDT: My position on this
13 is the documents were not specifically
14 requested. We are not going to produce them,
15 certainly not with the names on them because
16 it wasn't requested, and I think that the
17 fishing expedition that is being conducted is
18 somewhat abusive of Mr. Snedeker's time.
19 We've been waiting since 3:00 p.m.
20 to testify. He's testifying, he's prepared
21 to testify as to his conclusions. The notes
22 will only -- the notes assisted him in
23 preparing the report. The record is in
24 evidence, and he's testified as to his memory
25 of that, which is the summarization of his
Page 17 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,002 of 10,098
1 observations, which
is all that notes
3 So, no, we are not going to produce
4 them absent a court order.
5 MR. OLSON: We would agree.
6 MR. STEINKE: I would object to the
7 characterization of this being a fishing
8 expedition. I have focused on exact
9 statements in here, and you could build an
10 argument and you are doing it obviously.
11 I didn't ask for his notes.
12 However, we went through -- I was prepared to
13 release them up front, and Olson went into
14 the initial testimony.
15 THE ARBITRATOR: Excuse me. Just a
17 MR. STEINKE: There is too little
18 we've gotten. Is this categorical? You
19 don't want to produce those for us? The
20 names out, that's a given.
21 MS. SCHMIDT: We are not taking the
22 time to take the names out. Mr. Snedeker is
23 not here to either prove or disprove your
24 case, or MATC's case. He is not here to
25 prove anything.
Page 18 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,003 of 10,098
He is here to answer whatever
2 questions he can testify to with regard to
3 the documents that were responsive to the
4 requests made to him, and that is the total
5 sum extent of what he's here to do.
6 Unless we are ordered otherwise
7 with the arbitrator wishing to open the door
8 further, and we will follow the arbitrator's
10 THE ARBITRATOR: Mr. Olson?
11 MR. OLSON: Just to go on record
12 here, I was not aware that these notes
13 existed prior to Mr. Snedeker's statement
14 here. I've never seen them, but from what
15 Ms. Schmidt has said, those were simply the
16 notes from which this document was generated.
17 With the amount of documents that
18 are in the file already, I don't see that it
19 is necessary. So the college would concur
20 with the objection that's been raised here.
21 I think we have enough in the record, and
22 perhaps if Mr. Steinke were to ask the
23 question were these the notes from which this
24 document was ultimately derived, perhaps that
25 would answer it.
Page 19 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,004 of 10,098
MR. STEINKE: Well, there is
2 another element here, and I can easily make
3 an argument that there is enough packed into
4 this one page as to bring with you that it
5 certainly is clearly implied that I am
6 looking for some type of factual foundation
7 for the student attributes that pops up here
8 and here and there.
9 The idea you have enough in the
10 record, there is only three pages from him.
11 It is like you are building a giant
12 skyscraper. There is no foundation. I was
13 looking for more of a foundation, and had you
14 not recycled his choice phrases here again
15 and again the last two years, I'm looking for
17 We went to all the time to bring
18 him in on paper beyond this, and it was
19 merely the remark that gosh, there is enough
20 in the record. Well, I'm dealing with the
21 foundation for this so-called remediation
22 plan where he testified he was not consulted
23 on the remediation plan.
24 Remember, the remediation plan
25 picks up his choice phrases after -- for
Page 20 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,005 of 10,098
1 three years after
that it is merely a good
2 faith. I don't have anything to hide, and I
3 think the idea that it wouldn't take all that
4 much work to do. If this is in a file, this
5 is nothing exotic. Just text mode. You
6 could put a search and replace and replace.
7 I guess you do have something to
8 contribute. If we are going to stipulate
9 that his notes are -- this is basically
10 synonymous with your notes except for the
11 actual students being interviewed, would that
12 be correct.
13 THE WITNESS: The notes are
14 actually incomplete because it just happens
15 that I did not destroy all of them in the
16 period of time. So the notes are incomplete.
17 BY MR. STEINKE:
18 Q Is it your best judgment, John Snedeker, that
19 these three pages represent your best
20 distilation of whatever you've got available,
21 leaving aside Pamela Schmidt's question about
22 that she's not offering to release these
23 anyway, that these three pages represent a
25 A The distilation in the kindest form.
Page 21 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,006 of 10,098
1 Q Another question. In
your notes are there
2 any total new areas of inquiry that we don't
3 already have in your three-page report here
4 that would be useful in our search for
5 truth. Apparently Mr. Olson doesn't want
7 A That's a judgment call on the part of other
8 people, not mine.
9 Q That again, we go back to the idea I was
10 looking for some specific records because I
11 am somewhat bewildered here as to how this
12 whole thing played out.
13 THE ARBITRATOR: I'm going to cut
14 this off at this point. I guess obviously if
15 with advice of counsel, Mr. Snedeker is
16 prepared voluntarily under whatever
17 conditions, constraints he wishes to impose
18 to submit them for the record, then they will
19 be acceptable to the arbitrator. Otherwise I
20 gather that Counsel Schmidt has said, in
21 fact, that they won't provide it short of a
22 court order.
23 MR. STEINKE: Well, of course.
24 You've summed it up nicely. This case
25 perhaps does not. It certainly doesn't
Page 22 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,007 of 10,098
1 require that it --
just in view of the
2 incredible recycled record that was based on
3 phrases lifted out of here, that's why it is
4 a sensitive topic to me.
5 Where in the world did these
6 statements come from? Who said it and why is
7 it after I've been waiting eight years and
8 I've got nothing out of my adversary, they
9 just repeat this gratuitously. So him
10 coming, it was not an aimless fishing
11 expedition. I'm looking for something. What
12 does he have and he apparently has nothing he
13 wants to share with us.
14 So I have no further questions
15 myself from John Snedeker except I think it
16 is important that his -- that I'm absolutely
17 sure on what he's saying that after July
18 21st, 1986 there was no contact from MATC as
19 to how this letter was to be used; is that
21 THE WITNESS: Best of my
23 MR. STEINKE: So I think on that I
24 would rest and that my questions -- I would
25 stop my questions for you, but I would put a
Page 23 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,008 of 10,098
1 footnote in expressing
my outrage at the
2 tactics of my opponents repeating this stuff
3 gratuitously without ever intending to
4 produce him in the first place maybe when he
5 would have had more records earlier.
6 THE ARBITRATOR: Attorney Schmidt,
7 do you wish to cross-examine?
8 MS. SCHMIDT: No.
9 THE ARBITRATOR: Mr. Olson?
10 MR. OLSON: No questions.
11 THE ARBITRATOR: Thank you,
12 Mr. Snedeker. You are dismissed. We have
13 procedural matters to take care of. Do you
14 need a break before we start into this phase
15 of what we are going to do now?
16 MR. OLSON: No. I prefer to launch
17 on and get it over with.
18 (A half-hour break was taken.)
19 THE ARBITRATOR: The first thing
20 that you need to know is that I am not going
21 to Australia. For several different reasons
22 it is not going to happen. I've talked to my
23 Australian contacts, and it is possible that
24 I will do this in the spring, but we need to
25 get this settled, and I could not figure out
Page 24 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,009 of 10,098
1 how we could do this
between here and
2 Australia as well as next week I have some
3 surgery scheduled which may slow me down for
4 a bit.
5 Now, the second thing is we need to
6 agree on the visit for my tour of MATC. Now,
7 I want to preface this before we come to some
8 agreement, and that is, I will determine what
9 is to be visited at MATC based on your
10 arguments to me, and in the letters that I
11 have from Mr. Steinke there are a couple of
12 places in which he's indicated what he
13 believes I should see. He's also provided a
15 But when I've had a chance to
16 review this, then I will decide where I'm
17 going to go. It should be clear also that
18 this -- the intention of this visit is not to
19 take further evidence or testimony. That we
20 are not going to interview anyone over
22 If there are questions to be
23 raised, points of clarification that I need,
24 I will ask the questions. I will also
25 determine based on your suggestions or
Page 25 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,010 of 10,098
1 arguments to me who
else will accompany us,
2 how many people and which people so that I
3 intend strictly to control this. That it is
4 not going to be an extension of the hearing,
5 but it is an opportunity for me to
6 familiarize myself with certain locations
7 within the MATC complex that we've had
8 reference to in the record previously.
9 Now, I put off following up in
10 terms when it became clear that I was not
11 going to Australia. I put off trying to
12 arrange the visit before this hearing date,
13 and I also wanted to see where we went with
14 the witnesses today and what turned up.
15 So now let me ask you. What are
16 some possible dates, and I will indicate to
17 you whether I can make any of these dates.
18 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: The students
19 return -- or the teachers return the 25th and
20 the 26th. That means the students will be
21 here on the 31st. The 23rd and 24th, 22nd
22 and 23rd and 24th would provide times when
23 there will not be maximum crowds in the
24 halls, unless that is your intention to see.
25 THE ARBITRATOR: I don't know that
Page 26 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,011 of 10,098
1 it is necessary for
the students to be there
2 to do that. I guess I'm familiar after 30
3 plus years of teaching under somewhat similar
4 circumstances with crowds of students in
5 hallways and so forth, but I should tell you
6 that I'm scheduled for the surgery on the
7 24th, which is next Wednesday, and that I
8 will get prepped for it Tuesday afternoon.
9 So that unless we did this on Monday the
10 22nd, which is possible for me, the 23rd and
11 the 24th I cannot do.
12 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: 22nd is good for
14 MR. OLSON: Dr. Miller, how long do
15 you envision this taking because I have time
16 in the morning, but not in the afternoon on
17 the 22nd, and, you know, maybe I can send Don
18 along and not be there for the whole tour too
19 if that were to be necessary.
20 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, I guess if
21 we started the tour, it would be late morning
22 because I don't intend to take all day. My
23 understanding is that the visit should be
24 accomplished relatively quickly, couple of
25 hours or so maybe.
Page 27 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,012 of 10,098
But if we talked in terms of say 11
2 o'clock and then for a couple of hours
3 thereafter. Gary, let me hear from you on
4 this now.
5 MR. STEINKE: Well, first of all, I
6 have a calendar, and I've cancelled or
7 avoided -- I've been trying to keep it open
8 for the last few weeks in anticipation of
9 this being completed before today. That's --
10 I will preface this, and I'm not going to
11 express my frustration further. There has
12 been no comment on the other side.
13 I would be able to go on -- what
14 date does that fall on?
15 THE ARBITRATOR: That's the 22nd.
16 MR. STEINKE: The day of the week
17 would be what?
18 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: Monday.
19 MR. STEINKE: I would be able to go
20 on that. Another thing is that if we could
22 MR. ARBITRATOR: Stop a second,
24 (Discussion off the record.)
25 THE ARBITRATOR: Go ahead,
Page 28 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,013 of 10,098
1 Mr. Olson, please.
2 MR. OLSON: Yes. I did send a
3 letter to you, Dr. Miller, and I copied Mr.
4 Steinke dated August 15 reacting to the
5 request that Mr. Steinke had made in writing
6 as a follow-up to the August 1st hearing, and
7 I have in the interim discussed this matter,
8 the proposal in your directive that the
9 on-site visit occur with representatives of
10 the college administration, and they have no
11 problem with it as long as it is not unduly
12 disruptive; and we trust that it would not
13 be, but they requested respectfully that the
14 administrative offices not be included on
15 that tour for the reasons that I did state in
16 the letter, and so that that would be the
17 reaction that the college would place on the
19 MR. STEINKE: And I have two
20 counters that I object to the language unless
21 it would be unduly. We can do this if you
22 will not beat your wife. That was intended
23 for me and that was totally uncalled for in
24 that letter. That's the other element. Very
25 insidious to cite Roden. You know what that
Page 29 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,014 of 10,098
1 means. I have
a record on him that
2 demonstrates that he has been stonewalling me
3 forever, and I've got a lot of paper on
4 that. Zero response.
5 Now, the area of visit here is
6 another angle here. If we are talking the
7 administrative office area, another way of
8 doing that we show good faith on the part of
9 my opponents. I'm not so much interested in
10 the area as what is routinely stored there,
11 and what we could do, it would be a
12 five-minute clerical task, would be simply,
13 and I see no reason for not stopping by
14 there. The public does that all the time.
15 The administrative office he can
16 see it for himself. I'm not suggesting we go
17 into Birkholz' office. Right there are all
18 the board minutes for the last 30 years
19 stored. A two-minute peek would assure, yes,
20 they are stored there.
21 Of course I've listed out on papers
22 phone numbers to verify this independently
23 with five, six people. The way to handle
24 that would be if you would stipulate they are
25 all there, that's one thing. Then take a
Page 30 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,015 of 10,098
1 five-minute borrowing
of the Volume 23, which
2 covers 1990 activity and haul it off to an
3 empty room.
4 The other element -- let me
5 finish. The other element. These are the
6 two elements that you were mentioning. That
7 area is easily handled with good faith. I
8 have even borrowed those volumes myself.
9 They didn't treat me like a criminal when I
10 was in there next door. We are getting close
11 to Roden's office.
12 If you would stipulate there was no
13 affidavit of publication as required under
14 38.12(4), if you would stipulate and we could
15 save that one, but if not, I've got them all
16 photocopied too, but how do you prove
17 negative evidence?
18 I want you to see with your own
19 eyes. Another option would be a simple phone
20 call from Dr. Miller. Another option would
21 be a simple phone call. There is Sylvia Coty
22 to say I have nothing on this. Here are the
23 ones I have. It is better to see with your
24 own hands. An honest clerical transfer.
25 What do you have to fear? Just put them on a
Page 31 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,016 of 10,098
2 He could see with his own eyes. I
3 want him to see with his own eyes. You can
4 say it is irrelevant. It is relevant to my
5 case because that State ex rel thing, that's
6 not going to die.
7 In fact, now with the timetable, it
8 is a matter of timetable when it is going to
9 be open. You cannot kiss that goodbye
10 forever. This thing is not going to die. It
11 is germane to the case. It is also germane
12 to the case as to the level the people are
13 telling the truth and what they are trying to
14 conceal. There is nothing to be afraid of.
15 THE ARBITRATOR: I will rule on
16 this as a matter of -- as I indicated, I will
17 determine what we are going to visit and I
18 will notify the parties beforehand, so I
19 don't need any more argument on this.
20 MR. OLSON: I understand the
21 purpose of the tour is not to elicit further
22 testimony or evidence anyway, so that would
23 be outside the scope of the purpose of the
24 on-site visit.
25 Also, Mr. Steinke himself said the
Page 32 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,017 of 10,098
1 minutes are elsewhere
in the college. If we
2 are going to be looking at those and I would
3 submit that that is not what the purpose of
4 the visit is. Namely they are in the
5 library, so it would be unnecessary to
6 intrude on the administrative offices for
7 that purpose.
8 MR. STEINKE: I would take strong
9 exception, and I would say to protect my
10 rights I would find this totally incredible
11 where none of the basics of what I'm
12 maintaining as the truth is explored at all.
13 Whether you call it evidence or
14 not, I want him actually to see this with his
15 own eyes. Is it your understanding you are
16 not going to look at evidence? That's
17 evidence. I guess you just have to make a
18 brief note, yeah, Steinke is right, this is
19 the minutes.
20 There is nothing in there with the
21 Maloney business. We have to address this
22 somehow. If we aren't, what's the purpose of
23 going over there if we are not going to look
24 for something, whether you call it evidence
25 or something.
Page 33 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,018 of 10,098
Steinke is preparing that you see
2 in clarity with your own eyes what he is
3 saying is true. I don't know if it is
4 evidence or not, but it is something, and
5 what is the purpose of the tour, Dr. Miller?
6 I don't understand.
7 THE ARBITRATOR: I told you, it is
8 not to elicit testimony and not to gather
9 evidence. It is for me to be familiarized
10 with the locations where a lot of these
11 events took place to which we had all this
13 MR. STEINKE: That was part of it,
14 yeah, but you are not signing off on my
15 maintaining that the Maloney minutes are
17 THE ARBITRATOR: That's not for me
18 to determine whether they are fraudulent or
20 MR. STEINKE: It is in the arbitral
22 THE ARBITRATOR: I know, but that's
23 not my call whether it is fraudulent.
24 MR. STEINKE: Then we may as well
25 scratch the whole meeting. I don't
Page 34 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,019 of 10,098
1 understand this.
I express my outrage to my
2 opponent waiting a month, then coming out
3 with these plans. That was the original
4 reason I put forth originally, but I wanted
5 you to see with your own eyes.
6 As you see, it doesn't deal with
7 any foreign forms or anything, and the
8 familiarization basically there is part of
9 that that would be valuable aside from the
10 minutes in that business. It would be the
11 scene, and there again, it goes to
12 credibility issues.
13 We could save the trip if they
14 would just stipulate that the room where they
15 said there was one printing actually has 13.
16 I mean it is incredible testimony we got
17 here. It is so bizzare. That's why I wanted
18 you to see the actual room.
19 I also have documents from
20 John Irky (phonetic) backing me up. A lot of
21 this could be handled with good faith paper
22 transactions if I could get some reply.
23 THE ARBITRATOR: I am perfectly
24 willing to stay in Madison and not do this.
25 I am making myself available under the terms
Page 35 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,020 of 10,098
1 that I am prepared
to do this, and if the
2 parties do not find favor with those terms,
3 do not wish to do this, then so be it.
4 MR. STEINKE: Let me ask you what
5 level of familiarization, what kind of
6 familiarization. I'm dealing with
7 credibility issues, not just a nice tour of
8 the building that you would actually see
9 things yourself that they had been talking
10 about, you know, where that project took
11 place and, you know, that business.
12 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, that's what
13 I have in mind. Those are the issues that
14 have been raised in terms of here is the lab
15 or here is my office or this is where they
16 put me or this is where the project took
17 place and so forth.
18 That's part of giving me then a
19 context that by which I then have some sense
20 of not just an abstraction, but some physical
21 concrete sense of where these events took
22 place. So that's the familiarization that
23 I'm talking about here.
24 MR. STEINKE: But what about the
25 chain of custody, how MATC documents their
Page 36 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,021 of 10,098
1 board meeting?
Is that of no interest to
2 you? That's a very specific thing. There
3 are specific locations I listed on paper. It
4 does not matter.
5 Here is the activity from the
6 spring of '90, and it is not -- you know, it
7 is not something awesome, but the people I
8 have mentioned have been there for decades.
9 They are very reputable. The center of my
10 case is one of credibility on the other side
11 that they have been free to make the most
12 outrageous false statements, and I can't
13 counter them now.
14 It seems I am shot down again. I
15 don't understand this. Would you visit the
16 other location? One of them would be the
17 bindery where they actually prepare the
18 minutes. There is an expert there for
19 decades. He will say yes, sir, this is the
20 activity of the spring of '90. We didn't
21 print any minutes for March 15.
22 What's the alternative? To haul in
23 a bunch of other witnesses for meetings we
24 don't have that will say the same thing when
25 you can see walking by as a matter of fact,
Page 37 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,022 of 10,098
1 it is not some deep
dark testimony. They
2 will say yeah, this is it.
3 You have multiple locations in the
4 place. You have the library and you have
5 Birkholz. If they will stipulate that the
6 minutes are the same and Birkholz, not his
7 office, but the administrative lobby to his
8 office as they are in the library, then we
9 will be okay.
10 But I think that we should really
11 look at those carefully just to confirm that
12 Steinke is telling the truth. My case is
13 built on my telling the truth. That's what
14 it is.
15 THE ARBITRATOR: You are not going
16 to prove your case on --
17 MR. STEINKE: It is an element.
18 THE ARBITRATOR: -- on the basis of
19 my appearing in an office and looking to see
20 if minutes or some other documents are
21 physically there.
22 MR. STEINKE: The normal business
23 practice of how they store would be directly
24 on point and germane to the case, and also
25 the physical, the actual seen with your own
Page 38 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,023 of 10,098
1 eyes that there are
no minutes for
2 March 15th, 1990.
3 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, that's your
4 argument and that's something that you've
5 taken up in another form.
6 MR. STEINKE: No. It is in this
7 form. They entered the evidence.
8 THE ARBITRATOR: I'm going to cut
9 it off here because this is argument that
10 goes beyond what I'm prepared to do so that I
11 will visit MATC under the terms that I
12 propose, and if those are not adequate, then
13 I won't visit it.
14 MR. STEINKE: You are not saying
15 carte blanche that I am unable to point out
16 fraudulent behavior on my opponent.
17 THE ARBITRATOR: That's an
18 allegation for you to prove.
19 MR. STEINKE: You are not allowing
20 me to prove it.
21 THE ARBITRATOR: You are not going
22 to prove it by a visit in which we look in
23 certain offices.
24 MR. STEINKE: It would be a
25 corroborating fact. It is not just would I
Page 39 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,024 of 10,098
1 be allowed to prove
it by calling in the
2 actual witnesses that have prepared and
3 stored these and know about these for
4 decades. Are you ruling out my need -- my
5 ability to prove anything other than just
6 signing off? How would we do this? I have
7 and I think I should have a right to prove my
8 charges and allegations.
9 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, and you
10 certainly have had two years to do this.
11 MR. STEINKE: No, I have not had
12 two years.
13 THE ARBITRATOR: Don't interrupt
14 me, please, or we will stop right now.
15 MR. STEINKE: I have not had two
17 THE ARBITRATOR: Do you want to
18 stop right now? All right then. You keep
19 quiet for awhile. You back off and let me
20 have my piece. You've had your piece and now
21 I have my turn.
22 You are taking into a different
23 form this whole allegation that the meeting
24 minutes and the procedures are fraudulent,
25 that they are in violation of the law.
Page 40 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,025 of 10,098
1 You've asked for
a reconsidering, as I
2 understand this, and so that's for you to
3 appropriately do, and I am not going to
4 determine whether, in fact, the board, MATC
5 has acted fraudulently.
6 That's not for me to determine.
7 That's an application of the law, and that's
8 not my function here to do that. That's for
9 the courts to do, and you are using your
10 opportunity, your statutorily given
11 opportunity to pursue this, and that's
12 appropriate for you to do. And if you prove
13 that, in fact, it makes moot what we've done
14 here for two years because it will throw out
15 then the action of the board at that March,
16 1990 meeting, and so we will have been
17 engaged in a wild goose chase, and so that's
18 what you are seeking from the court. The
19 redress based on your allegation that the
20 board has acted fraudulently.
21 But I don't have any jurisdiction
22 to do that. My jurisdiction exists within
23 the contract, and that's my concern. Not the
24 concerns that the court would have. You can
25 argue if you want as part of your case, as
Page 41 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,026 of 10,098
1 you have it is part
of your case in chief
2 that that meeting was defective, that it was
3 flawed by whatever set of standards that you
4 believe is appropriate; and if the court
5 responds positively this time to the -- to
6 your allegations, then it casts what we are
7 doing here in a wholly different light.
8 But we have essentially had two
9 years of testimony on both sides. As I
10 recall we have had Sylvia Coty, we've had J.
11 J. Blonien today and a number of people on
12 the very basic issue of the meetings, whether
13 the meetings were noticed, whether there were
14 proper minutes and so forth; and what I'm
15 saying is it does not, it does not,
16 contribute significantly to what I have to do
17 here for me to go and look and see physically
18 where the minutes are supposed to be.
19 And as I said, I'm not taking
20 testimony. So we are not going to ask
21 Sylvia Coty if she's over there, or who is
22 over there, Birkholz or Roden, about these
23 things because we are beyond inside, and you
24 are also going down this other road with the
25 suits inside you have brought against MATC
Page 42 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,027 of 10,098
1 and against Olson
and against all of these
2 other people so inside it doesn't -- it
3 doesn't contribute for me to look and see
4 this is where they bound the minutes or this
5 is where they stored the minutes and so
6 forth; but it does help me because we have
7 talked about the allegations the board has
8 brought against you inside you were involved
9 in the endless spewing for the -- of computer
10 documents inside you did this and inside your
11 allegations inside in retribution for the
12 theory inside you brought to this case inside
13 you are a classic whistle blower who suffered
14 retribution at the hands of the board because
15 you brought to the public attention certain
17 It is instructive for me to see in
18 terms of whether, in fact, there was
19 retribution inside you were, as you say,
20 assigned to a small -- as a senior faculty
21 member, assigned to a small crowded shared
22 office space, to look at the lab and the
23 setup for the computers and those kinds of
24 things because they bear directly on the
25 allegation inside you were incompetent,
Page 43 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,028 of 10,098
1 inside you were insensitive,
inside you could
2 not work with your colleagues and so forth
3 for which they allegedly terminated you.
4 So the issues inside have to deal
5 with the storage of the minutes and so forth,
6 they are a part of your case with the court
7 inside go to support your arguments inside
8 all of this has been fraudulent.
9 MR. STEINKE: I would reserve my
10 rights. I would take strong exception to
11 inside and the idea inside I am concerned
12 about storage or something, that's not it at
14 The point is there is a dual
15 standard here to protect my rights. The
16 actual standards is inside they were free to
17 expound on what I call fraudulent minutes at
18 length and here I am not free to even just
19 show you instantly what I maintain are the
20 real minutes.
21 Now, they can't have it both ways.
22 If they are free to go on at length with
23 their so-called Maloney minutes, and it is an
24 unethical breach for them to not point out
25 inside they actually came out of a court
Page 44 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,029 of 10,098
1 file, if it is floating
on its own with Board
2 15 when Steinke properly put in their
3 affidavit in Board 69.
4 They were free to go on at length
5 okay, these are the minutes, we are talking
6 about this and that. Now I should be able to
7 put in they brought it into this form. I
8 from the very beginning never suggested any
9 foreign forms. I suggested independent
10 evidence. Evidence that's a different thing
11 coming in with actual notice of publishing.
12 They don't have any actual notice
13 of union. They don't have any -- I asked for
14 evidence, they distorted inside. Oh, gosh,
15 he's going into a foreign form. It is all
16 settled. I didn't even make a mention that
17 the foreign form as such. I was looking for
18 arbitral evidence to, and it really
19 diminishes the seriousness of what I'm
20 proposing to say, I'm concerned about where
21 something is stored.
22 No. It is just inside there are
23 minutes inside if -- the official minutes I
24 would show you two locations at MATC, and it
25 doesn't have anything to do with going to
Page 45 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,030 of 10,098
1 court. It has
to do with inside their
2 minutes are.
3 No one at MATC -- the only
4 testimony, it is almost kind a standing joke,
5 they were free to expound on length on their
6 minutes. Why can't I bring in the bonafide
7 real minutes and rather than bring them in
8 laboriously, the other alternative for them
9 would be to retract all inside kind of stuff
10 out of the record.
11 They were free to put in what I
12 maintain are fraudulent minutes unsaid by any
13 board member, and I am not even free to show
14 you the authentic minutes inside actually
16 For the last five, ten minutes I
17 could show you everything there in the spring
18 of '90 in Volume 23. It is the same one that
19 is at the State office in Madison.
20 It is a matter of credibility. It
21 is a matter of the flagrant ongoing
22 violations of attorney's oath and the Supreme
23 Court rules to ignore this whole issue and
24 distort it into something inside I'm
25 concerned with foreign forum.
Page 46 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,031 of 10,098
A lot of issues here could be
2 handled in some other collateral effort.
3 That's not my finding at all. The point is
4 when they expounded at length on this inside
5 prime facie fraudulent, unless you get a
6 board member to sign one of them, somehow
7 I've made a very specific claim on it. That
8 was the area of inquiry, and the idea inside
9 I'm doing the things in other forms I should
10 not be penalized in the search for truth or
11 to preserve my rights.
12 They should have been cut off
13 immediately. I don't care about the legality
14 of the meeting. Put this stuff away, Mark,
15 we won't talk about it.
16 MR. OLSON: Dr. Miller?
17 MR. STEINKE: I'm not able to bring
18 forth the authentic minutes.
19 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, as I say,
20 this is what I'm prepared to do and if the
21 parties wish to do it on this basis, that's
22 fine. If they are not, then we won't do it.
23 MR. STEINKE: That's the tour part
24 of it. But now the other thing before we go
25 on much further. This is the last hearing
Page 47 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,032 of 10,098
1 date, correct?
2 THE ARBITRATOR: It is.
3 MR. STEINKE: So that's why this
4 protect my rights business you have to
5 realize inside Steinke has been very specific
6 in his writings. He's put everything in
7 writing, exact proposals, and I don't think
8 it is good for me or anyone else or anybody's
9 mental health to laboriously act as nothing
10 has been written or you don't understand any
11 of my proposals.
12 Your point about gosh, it is my
13 only arbitration. But it was an act of
14 desperation. It was proper. It wasn't ex
15 parte. You were simultaneously covered
16 toward the-- particularly toward these last
17 days, and I was apprising you day by day of
18 some of things they were pulling on me here
19 and I was simultaneously copying them. I
20 thought that was totally appropriate.
21 If we had the luxury of well, there
22 is a hearing next Monday and we had bonafide
23 good faith activity. See, I answer
24 specifically anything they put to me. He has
25 ignored me totally.
Page 48 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,033 of 10,098
THE ARBITRATOR: I want to go back
2 to this issue of the plant visit. Are we
3 going to do this or not?
4 MR. OLSON: We are more than
5 willing, Dr. Miller, to do it, Dr. Miller, at
6 your convenience under the conditions which
7 you have described; and again, I would submit
8 the position stated in my letter to you with
9 regard to the proposal to visit the
10 administrative offices, which would not be
11 necessary in any case if the minutes were not
12 going to be inspected, and we would concur
13 with your conclusion on inside.
14 MR. STEINKE: Well, to protect my
15 rights, I think it is outrageous inside we've
16 gone over -- I'm not able to show I am --
17 maybe I am -- could I bring them in in
18 evidence just to counter their thing? I mean
19 they've been sitting here talking at length
20 about it, fictitious minutes, and no board
21 member has signed. You have to agree inside
22 zero, nothing. It is --
23 THE ARBITRATOR: Excuse me, Gary.
24 Just a second. Mr. Olson?
25 MR. OLSON: Yes. I think inside
Page 49 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,034 of 10,098
1 Mr. Snedeker's memory
is flawed as to the
2 genesis of the introduction of Board
3 Exhibit 14 and 15. Those were done in
4 November of 1993 through Dr. Slicker. I
5 believe it was when it became evident inside
6 it was necessary to do inside because of the
7 accusations Mr. Steinke was raising
8 concerning the open meeting, the alleged open
9 meeting violation of March, 1990. That would
10 have not been instituted had the issue not
11 been raised by Mr. Steinke.
12 To turn it around now to say inside
13 justifies the use of evidence which has been
14 determined to be irrelevant I think is -- we
15 are chasing our tail if we do inside. I
16 would submit inside the issue has already
17 been resolved as we argued numerous times in
18 another forum.
19 We heard from Mr. Blonien, who you,
20 yourself, called. He felt that the meeting
21 was legal and appropriate.
22 MR. STEINKE: That's a
24 MR. OLSON: That's what I heard and
25 I think under the circumstances to cite Board
Page 50 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,035 of 10,098
1 Exhibit 15 as a boot
strap to gather further
2 evidence on inside when board Exhibit 15 was
3 itself a reaction to your allegation, it
4 would be improper.
5 MR. STEINKE: Board 15 was a
6 fragment of the court file per evident
7 reflection of the transcripts, they reflect
8 the idea inside this can be reconsidered at
9 any time and did not have to be appeared.
10 You kept repeating that again and again and
12 You have never countered with
13 actual evidence. Not even a hint of evidence
14 that the media was noticed. If I had no
15 action and circuit court at all, we would
16 still have to sift through -- are you
17 following your own board policies. That's
18 not external laws in the board. It's what
19 governs the school in the collective
20 bargaining agreement.
21 It says the board has an obligation
22 to do these things which are implied with the
23 board policy manual. You have come forth
24 with no independent evidence at all. There
25 isn't any. There is not a hint of posting or
Page 51 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,036 of 10,098
All you have to do is counter
2 what I said about the journal.
3 You are mischaracterizing what J.
4 J. Blonien said.
5 THE ARBITRATOR: I'm going to cut
6 this off because I don't want to be here all
7 night. We have some other things to do. The
8 question of the minutes then perhaps can be
9 handled in terms of the issue inside we have
10 to resolve also of post hearing evidence to
11 be provided, if any, to the tribunal so
12 inside I will set out a procedure by which we
13 will do inside, and we can raise the question
14 of the minutes as they exist at that point.
15 But I need to know what we are
16 going to do about the visit, and I'm prepared
17 to come or not come.
18 MR. OLSON: As I've stated,
19 Dr. Miller, we are willing to do it under the
20 circumstances as you've described them with
21 no submission of additional evidence, no
22 argument and no testimony to be provided.
23 I think also, if I may, just to
24 offer as a proposal inside we have either
25 Dr. Mikolajczak, probably Don would be the
Page 52 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,037 of 10,098
1 one. Somebody
who has been at the college
2 for a number of years and is familiar with
3 all of this and can describe any changes
4 inside may have occurred in these locations
5 in the interim because that would be relevant
6 to your knowledge of what these -- what is of
7 significance in these rooms and offices and
9 Don, you are familiar with most of
10 inside, aren't you?
11 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: Most of them,
13 MR. STEINKE: I would be willing to
14 do the visit on August 22nd, 1994, but I
15 would do it under strong protest if there
16 wasn't a five-minute stop at the library just
17 to get a feeling for how -- not for how they
18 are stored, but what the minutes actually
20 It would take about two minutes,
21 and I think that is useful oversight for
22 Dr. Miller regardless of what's happening in
23 circuit court or how fast it happens. He has
24 already been looking at your so-called
25 minutes inside are unsigned by any board
Page 53 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,038 of 10,098
1 member, and I think
he needs to see what
2 authentic minutes look like, and it will only
3 take about two minutes just to give him an
4 overview, oversight about how Steinke is
5 right in all particulars.
6 That is equally important as to
7 seeing my cubby hole office and the rest of
8 it and where inside so-called project took
9 place. So that is my plea, and he can do
10 anything he wants. Inside if we scratch
11 Birkholz' office as you pointed out,
12 Mark Olson, the same minutes are in the
14 So I would like him to take just a
15 quick look at the minutes. That's all.
16 We've taken more than a quick look at your
17 minutes. I think it is sort of a balancing
18 here. He can see with his own eyes.
19 I would say we don't have to go to
20 Birkholz' office, but there is a balancing of
21 interest here. So yes, I would take a plant
22 tour under any conditions, but I would take
23 it under protest if we couldn't take a
24 five-minute trip to the library, which is
25 open at 7:30 in the morning to 9:30 at night.
Page 54 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,039 of 10,098
MR. OLSON: Can we establish a time
2 limit during which this would occur so it
3 would not be an endless -- set aside a
4 two-hour slice or something during the day
5 inside we could -- so we are assured that
6 there will be a beginning and an end to the
7 process here, or whatever time you deem to be
9 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, since I'm
10 not familiar with the building, is this
11 reasonable to do this? And what I'm going to
12 do is say is that we will not visit the
13 administrative offices, we will not visit
14 Birkholz' office, but we will stop at the
15 library for a five-minute peek and that's it.
16 MR. STEINKE: Fair enough.
17 THE ARBITRATOR: Can we do this in
18 two hours? I would have to ask you how many
19 rooms we are going to look at.
20 MR. STEINKE: I would wind this up
21 before, just to sum it up, what I would
22 propose is we take a quick look at the tech
23 building fourth and third floor. It should
24 go very rapidly. The reason for this is that
25 I think some of the briefing later on is
Page 55 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,040 of 10,098
1 going to refer to
the way labs are run over
2 there, and you have a little bit of a feel
3 for what the place looks like. That's
4 basically it.
5 It is not a deep, dark inquiry.
6 Also he should see T305. That would go
7 fairly fast. Then in the C Building, Don,
8 where I want us to go would be the -- where I
9 was running classes. My first office up -- I
10 think it is C448. How are you on numbers?
11 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: That was C421A, I
13 MR. STEINKE: I don't think it was
14 in A where my first office. I think it is on
15 the schedule.
16 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: On the fourth
17 floor south wing.
18 MR. STEINKE: Then we go to inside
19 C351A cubby hole area partition, then we look
20 at the math, what is called the math lab, and
21 I think that would be valuable for him to
22 kind of get an overall feeling how that is
23 related to inside computer center where
24 Steinke was charged with running this project
Page 56 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,041 of 10,098
That's about the same as it was,
2 you would agree? So that would go fairly
3 fast. Then up on the fourth floor, I would
4 like to go across from Laura Clark's office,
5 inside corner area, you know, inside I had my
6 three math -- three, four classes. Richard
7 Miller used to be in there with all his
8 chemistry stuff or biology or geology.
9 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: It is still full
10 of science equipment. So we are talking
11 about T476.
12 MR. STEINKE: You have the numbers
13 better than I. Inside corner area and I
14 would settle for looking -- I don't want to
15 disturb anyone's privacy. They are all about
16 the same. It would be nice if we could go to
17 the one I had on the south side. The offices
18 that are set up for two people right now. Is
19 that simple enough?
20 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: So far you've
21 given me the fourth floor offices, is what I
22 thought you had.
23 MR. STEINKE: Fourth floor offices
24 and that one corner classroom where I was
25 running the 314.
Page 57 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,042 of 10,098
MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: Plus you
2 mentioned your office in C351A inside --
3 MR. STEINKE: I think it is 353A.
4 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: You are correct.
5 The math lab.
6 MR. STEINKE: The math lab and the
7 adjoining computer lab.
8 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: That's together.
9 MR. STEINKE: That's 371/369 math
10 lab proper.
11 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: That takes care
12 of inside aspect. You also mentioned the
13 third floor of the T Building.
14 MR. STEINKE: Yeah. I thought the
15 easiest would be to go to the T Building,
16 then C, then sweep through the main and get
17 out of there. I would want to go to the --
18 to do another five-minute bindery visit, go
19 down to the main building where inside
20 bindery is there.
21 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: Okay. As long as
22 we are at the library, it is a matter of just
23 shooting to an elevator and cutting down. So
24 the library and bindery.
25 MR. STEINKE: Then we can scratch
Page 58 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,043 of 10,098
1 the Birkholz thing
-- Well, Dr. Miller
2 doesn't know this, but we -- well, it would
3 simplify things greatly I guess to -- as a
4 gesture to my opponent, we could scratch
5 inside. It is a redundancy.
6 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: The bindery?
7 MR. STEINKE: Birkholz' offices.
8 THE ARBITRATOR: I am not prepared
9 to do the administrative offices.
10 MR. STEINKE: I would understand
11 that would be one place that would be rather
12 presumptuous in you get too close to the
13 chancellor or president, or whatever, without
14 knowing. Be conservative, stay away.
15 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: We've got the
16 main building, library building, and C
17 building. We've got the fourth floor office,
18 the third floor office, math lab and
19 computers, and the C476 where you taught the
20 basic math course.
21 Now, that's so far then two
22 buildings. The T Building you mentioned as
24 MR. STEINKE: Yeah. That's three
Page 59 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,044 of 10,098
MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: What room in the
2 T Building are you looking for, your old
4 MR. STEINKE: We can stop by T407,
5 but the lab up there T429 and T427 are right
6 next door, and then we could take a
7 one-minute look at a typical lecture
8 classroom. Any Z key will get us in there.
9 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: Excuse me. I
10 just went to my office to find that the locks
11 were changed. I wonder if they are trying to
12 tell me something. Anything else?
13 MR. STEINKE: No, except I would
14 ask, Dr. Miller, is your operation
15 predictable enough so inside you're confident
16 we will be okay on the 22nd the way things
18 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, the 22nd is
19 before the surgery. So that's why I picked
20 inside since as I said, the prep for the
21 surgery is on the 23rd and surgery is on the
22 24th, and I will be out of commission for
23 awhile after inside so.
24 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: This should take
25 less than an hour and a half.
Page 60 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,045 of 10,098
THE ARBITRATOR: Okay. That's
2 reasonable. So inside I would then be there
3 at 11 o'clock perhaps. You and Gerhardt
4 would be the two people who would accompany
5 me. I don't want a parade and --
6 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK: I'm concerned
7 about something here. I'm concerned about
8 the -- I'm concerned about the fact inside
9 the communication inside takes place has to
10 take place not Gerhardt to myself, but has to
11 take place to Mark Olson.
12 MR. OLSON: Don't worry about
14 MR. STEINKE: I'm not going to
15 worry about it, but it is something we have
16 to address. It is directly on point. This
17 is not some isolated thing in a foreign form.
18 MR. OLSON: You don't want me to be
20 THE ARBITRATOR: I had understood
21 inside you had a problem.
22 MR. OLSON: I can be there if we
23 are going to limit it to an hour and a half
24 to two hours. I can be there.
25 THE ARBITRATOR: I'm sorry. I
Page 61 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,046 of 10,098
1 misunderstood what
the point was. Now, but
2 the related issue is the matter of
3 restraining order and the practical question
4 of --
5 MR. OLSON: I will take care of
6 inside. I will communicate the restraining
7 order calls for 24 hours' notice to be given
9 Mr. Steinke. And as far as I'm concerned,
10 this would constitute appropriate notice
11 under inside.
12 MR. STEINKE: No. Before we go on,
13 I want to know have you read what I sent you
14 in the last few days?
15 THE ARBITRATOR: I have.
16 MR. STEINKE: Do you understand the
17 restraining order? Did you look at that?
18 You are not a lawyer, but did you recall the
19 irreconcilable statement in there?
20 THE ARBITRATOR: No. I agree,
21 Gary, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't
23 MR. STEINKE: Do you understand the
24 irreconcilable statement in there. If you
25 accept one, you can't accept the other legal
Page 62 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,047 of 10,098
1 custodian of records
who is Birkholz. The
2 other one is -- I'm to deal only with the --
3 my arbitral opponent, and the other one is
4 I'm to ask security for 24 hours' advance
6 In going through, not being a
7 lawyer, I will tell you this. This dies a
8 natural death in seven days, if not sooner,
9 and this says really, in fact, as a civil
10 rights case, this has no legal standing at
11 all, but it is on point. The allegations
12 they are making on there are on point to this
13 arbitration. It is not something foreign out
14 there. It is a direct tactic involved with
15 this arbitration which has no basis.
16 In fact, it is a generalized vague
17 smear, and you can do this with temporary
18 restraining orders. You don't need any level
19 of roof at all, but if you did read inside,
20 you will note they are bringing forth all
21 kinds of things that are directly in this
22 arbitration. They are taking out fragments
23 of it to attempt to prejudice a judge and
24 keep him in the dark as to what's really
25 going on, and simultaneously the last three
Page 63 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,048 of 10,098
1 weeks they've avoided
any communication with
2 me, and I put this in writing dealing with
3 the arbitration good faith arrangement future
5 It is not something I cited in a
6 foreign form. It is directly on --
7 THE ARBITRATOR: Let me interrupt
8 you, Gary. You've already stated inside
9 neither of us is a lawyer. So I have no
10 experience with these kinds of things. It
11 doesn't fall within what typically happens
12 with an arbitration case. What little I know
13 about the law is very much confined to inside
14 and it sounds as though this is something
15 inside is coming before a judge who has to
16 determine whether the motion for the
17 restraining order would be approved or not.
18 So I'm not prepared to comment on
20 MR. STEINKE: I'm not asking you to
21 comment on inside. I'm looking at the
22 various allegations. Totally aside from the
23 law, you must realize they are deemingly
25 THE ARBITRATOR: They don't
Page 64 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,049 of 10,098
1 prejudice me.
That's of no concern to me in
2 terms of the facts and the evidence in the
3 case. What did concern me was inside if we
4 are going to do this tour, then the
5 restraining order has to be lifted or has to
6 be bent in such a way inside you would be
7 involved in the tour.
8 I could not very well do an ex
9 parte tour. If the board is saying sorry,
10 but the arbitrator can do a tour, but
11 Mr. Steinke can't come on the premises, then
12 there would be no way in which we could do
13 this. So that was my concern. The practical
14 concern was we are going to do this. It has
15 to be done properly so inside you have an
16 issue again before the courts what the board
17 is documenting does not prejudice me in the
18 terms of the way inside I deal with the
20 The parties have ongoing issues
21 inside they are looking for a variety of ways
22 to resolve, and that's not a matter for me to
23 be concerned.
24 Now, where these issues can come up
25 may have to do in terms of the difficulty
Page 65 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,050 of 10,098
1 inside you may have
in presenting your case
2 because you have not had the cooperation and
3 so forth. That's a matter of both for your
4 argument and the rest of it. Why haven't you
5 presented this information because it was not
7 MR. STEINKE: That's absolutely
8 crucial, Dr. Miller.
9 THE ARBITRATOR: Sure, but this is
10 -- but I'm saying in terms of what you know,
11 you raise the point about the judge and what
12 the judge sees, what the judge is presented
13 with, and that's for him to struggle with,
14 for him to deal with, not for me.
15 MR. STEINKE: I appreciate inside.
16 The reason I brought this to your attention
17 is it was simultaneous what I call
18 stonewalling. Zero communication on anything
19 dealing with the arbitration. Nothing, zero,
20 and that's why I was kind of surprised one
21 day of -- with the arbitration, rather than
22 deal with me, they put this thing forth.
23 Also, totally aside from what will
24 happen in court, I predict it is going the
25 way the spring of '90 did. They are going to
Page 66 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,051 of 10,098
1 be tossed out, but
whatever happens, what is
2 for you to help us is to when Steinke puts
3 forth a very clear, logically organized
4 inquiry about something or other to my
5 opponent, and I'm forced to copy you because
6 they ignore everything, and it is all ignored
7 in toto, that is an issue for you because I'm
8 unable to rest my case under any conditions.
9 That is serious.
10 THE ARBITRATOR: And I don't
11 dispute inside; but in this case, I cannot
12 compel them to produce inside information.
13 If there is a freedom of information suit, I
14 cannot enforce inside. What is left for me
15 to do then is to say how important is this
16 evidence and what inferences can I draw from
17 this. That the evidence is not in the
19 MR. OLSON: Dr. Miller, if I may?
20 I just can't sit on these allegations of
21 stonewalling and so forth because without
22 getting into the specifics, inside has not
23 been the case, and I don't want inside
24 inference to be left with you.
25 Mr. Steinke is free to make the
Page 67 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,052 of 10,098
1 allegation, just
as we are free to deny it,
2 and we have bent over backwards to produce
3 witnesses and have them come even though they
4 were not our witnesses, and I think the
5 record reflects inside. I did not send you a
6 copy of this letter, but I sent Mr. Steinke a
7 letter on August 15 addressing the Archie
8 Graham subpoena and the fact inside we were
9 going to make him available to testify
10 despite the fact inside there was some
11 question about inside student information.
12 I do not want to have you thinking
13 that the college has been totally
14 uncooperative here because inside has not
15 been the case, and I object to inside
16 statement and inside allegation.
17 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, all of this
18 the parties will get into when we get to the
19 point of the briefs inside there have been --
20 will be allegations on both sides that are
21 subject to proof, the opportunity to produce
22 the proof and the response inside each side
23 makes to this. So inside at this point I've
24 tried my best, succeeded sometimes, but not
25 always, to be evenhanded and to hold in
Page 68 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,053 of 10,098
1 abeyance my decision
on this until a record
2 is complete, until I've had, in fact, the
3 written arguments in the brief form.
4 MR. STEINKE: To preserve my
5 rights, there has been something utterly
6 outrageous said here. There is one thing I
7 agree, without getting into the specifics at
8 all, I have specifics that are very
9 logically, clearly organized and presented,
10 and they have all been ignored.
11 So his statement about without
12 getting into specifics is on point. What is
13 not on point is this thing about Archie
14 Graham. I also lined up very clearly
15 reasonable prose, and I copied you with this
16 exactly what happened. The guy was prepared
17 to give me his total file on Steinke. I said
18 this is the kind of sample of what I want.
19 I get a bad Xerox copy of what I've
20 given him for a sample and he's sitting here
21 smiling and talking. Roden got to him. It
22 is not argument. It is fact. I put it in
23 paper exactly when it happened, where.
24 The guy was ready to produce the
25 records he had on Steinke, and now he has
Page 69 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,054 of 10,098
1 changed totally after
talking with Roden. So
2 the idea they are doing something wonderful
3 with Roden, that is totally off course.
4 THE ARBITRATOR: No, I'm sorry to
5 disagree with you, Gary, but what both of you
6 have done here is, in fact, argument, and it
7 is argument inside may be based on a set of
8 facts inside each of you have some knowledge
9 of inside I don't, but it doesn't further us
10 for the two of you to argue before me about
12 MR. STEINKE: Did you not get an
13 exact Xerox in the mail to you of what he had
14 the gall to come in and give to me as a
15 record? You did get inside? I sent you an
16 attachment of exactly what we are looking
18 It was an actual Xerox dated and
19 mailed and you got it. It is memorialized
20 then a few days later they jerked me around.
21 THE ARBITRATOR: Listen to what I'm
22 saying. It doesn't further us particularly
23 since we have some other things to do to
24 argue about this now.
25 MR. STEINKE: I don't want to
Page 70 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,055 of 10,098
1 argue. I'm
pointing out some of the facts
2 inside a discussion would be based on.
3 THE ARBITRATOR: Sure. I realize
4 inside, Gary, but it is argument, and I think
5 we have now settled the matter of the MATC
7 The next issue is the question of
8 the exchange of the initial set of briefs and
10 MR. OLSON: Dr. Miller, let me --
11 Dr. Mikolajczak suggested inside we establish
12 a meeting location for 11 o'clock on Monday.
13 THE ARBITRATOR: I started to do
14 inside, and then I didn't follow through on
15 it. He suggests the library on the third
16 floor in the B building.
17 MR. STEINKE: Room 377.
18 THE ARBITRATOR: Library, main
20 MR. STEINKE: 377.
21 THE ARBITRATOR: 377 at 11
22 o'clock. So I will be there a little bit
23 before 11 o'clock on Monday the 22nd.
24 MR. STEINKE: The other point is
25 you were about to get into discussion of
Page 71 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,056 of 10,098
1 briefs. To
preserve my rights, and I have
2 put this in very clear prose on paper in the
3 last week, I have, and I've copied them.
4 There has been zero response on
5 anything as to what I proposed as to some
6 elements of possibly being able to close this
7 thing down where I could rest my case, but I
8 think it would be grossly unfair to force me
9 to rest the case under these conditions of
10 harrassment from MATC where I am unable to
11 access anything now or just talk with people
12 at MATC without going through my adversary.
13 This is totally absurd. This is
14 unfair. It has -- they have these vague
15 allegations about disturbances, and all --
16 there is nothing there to rest my case. I
17 could line the walls with people inside say
18 there is nothing there inside I've talked
19 with. This is Roden's ploy.
20 I cannot rest my case and I can't
21 be in a position to exchange any briefs with
22 anybody until the issues inside I put in
23 writing are addressed. I don't think they
24 should have any more power because I read
25 them off laboriously in front of you. I put
Page 72 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,057 of 10,098
1 them forth in front
of the parties.
2 Mark Olson is correct.
3 Without getting into the specifics,
4 that's the way it has been all the time. He
5 never answers anything or even replies. Then
6 after he gets a lot of it, then he says there
7 is too much of it.
8 THE ARBITRATOR: Whatever. We are
9 going to establish some brief exchange dates
10 here, you sucked inside sort of a two for one
11 time period. If we've had 40 days, you
12 suggested double inside for concern to have
13 adequate time to prepare the briefs, go
14 through the multi-volume transcripts, and the
15 rest of it, and I guess, Mr. Olson, I would
16 like some response to inside.
17 MR. OLSON: Yes. As to the
18 briefing schedule, Dr. Miller?
19 THE ARBITRATOR: Yes. I guess
20 assuming inside we are done with the
21 submission of evidence, which was my
22 understanding, and assuming -- and I concur
23 that the two for one would be appropriate, I
24 think we are in our 45th day of hearing right
25 now, if my numbering system is correct, which
Page 73 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,058 of 10,098
1 would give us 90
days for the preparation of
2 the initial brief.
3 It would take us to November 21st
4 or 22nd, which we would be in concurrence
5 with, if inside were to be your pleasure.
6 MR. STEINKE: My position is that
7 the briefing schedule should start upon the
8 arrival of the last transcript.
9 MR. OLSON: That would be fine.
10 THE ARBITRATOR: I was going to
11 suggest inside, and let us go off the record
12 for a minute.
13 (Discussion off the record.)
14 MR. OLSON: Could we say the end of
15 that week, the week succeeding inside?
16 THE ARBITRATOR: Yes. Friday the
17 6th of January.
18 MR. STEINKE: May I ask you --
19 THE ARBITRATOR: Go ahead, yes,
21 MR. STEINKE: Dr. Miller, my
22 understanding is arbitrators do pretty much
23 what they want. If people don't like what
24 happens, they can normally accept it because
25 arbitral rules normally stand with some
Page 74 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,059 of 10,098
2 The question I have for you, there
3 is a rule of thumb I read about it, the two
4 for one. Would you be at liberty to tell us
5 inside you are going to invest considerable
6 time in looking at the record we've
7 generated? You have an awful lot of notes of
8 your own. I know you've been watching this
9 thing as it goes, but you are going to invest
10 -- well, I ask you, are you?
11 THE ARBITRATOR: Yes. In fact,
12 this is one reason why I am not going to
13 Australia. I've got one whole wall in my den
14 inside when the evidence is there, along with
15 the transcripts and so forth, and then the
16 briefs on top of inside, demands some serious
17 thought and investment on my part.
18 How many days it will take for me
19 to do this, I'm not sure. I will not go back
20 and reread all of the transcripts. One of
21 the functions of my notes is to mark the
22 testimony inside I want to go back and look
23 at more closely again, but some of it I
24 perhaps will read a couple of times just to
25 make sure inside I understand what was being
Page 75 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,060 of 10,098
2 So I'm not prepared to say, yes, it
3 will take me one and a half or two days of
4 study time for each day of hearing. I really
5 don't know at this point. Some of it will go
6 quickly and some of it will take much more.
7 MR. STEINKE: Inside rule of thumb
8 inside I keep reading is not all --
9 THE ARBITRATOR: Sure, Gary, but --
10 MR. STEINKE: Unconventional
12 THE ARBITRATOR: Unconventional
13 wisdom when you've got maybe one day of
14 hearing or two days or three days or so, and
15 you're in a totally different time warp when
16 you get to the question of 45 days or so, so
17 inside I'm not sure, and I don't want to
18 commit myself because I'm liable to be way
19 off because I don't have experience in
20 dealing with a record of this length.
21 MR. STEINKE: You understand my
22 concern. You are writing a lot of notes
23 there, so you have a running account. You
24 have a vision of what's going on, and then
25 Steinke, he has all this evidence in which
Page 76 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,061 of 10,098
1 with all respect,
you know, there is no way
2 inside daily you can go through this and some
3 of it has been kind of hit and run. I submit
4 it and it is there and it is good evidence.
5 Would you agree also that the evidence inside
6 you've got how far off am I to say inside
7 virtually everything is for what it is worth,
8 right? None of this is total pure flat
9 number. Some of it is maybe, but I guess I
10 -- the question I would have does inside big
11 black book assume a much higher level of
12 virtue because it is read on and on and on
13 other than something that was just put on, we
14 stipulate it exists?
15 I have some problems with inside
16 because I haven't had a chance to do what
17 they did.
18 THE ARBITRATOR: The point is well
19 taken. All of it is taken in for what it is
20 worth, inside arbitrators customarily do not
21 function strictly by the legal rules of
22 evidence, and so you tend to take in much
23 more and to accept certain testimony as
24 evidence inside in a court of law a judge
25 would never permit, so inside everything
Page 77 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,062 of 10,098
1 that's coming to
the record is judged in a
2 sense for its probative value. How much
3 light does it shed on the issue before me,
4 how much weight should I give it, so inside
5 there is no reason to treat either side's
6 evidence any differently from any other, and
7 after 15 plus years or so of being involved
8 in this, I think I have a reasonably good
9 sense of what constitutes evidence, what
10 constitutes allegation, what gets weight,
11 what doesn't when there is hearsay or
12 whatever, what to attribute to this.
13 MR. STEINKE: Would the other
14 element be inside what it is worth could be
15 weighing differently depending on where you
16 are? For example, if they put in a brief and
17 they are very specific in their quoting of a
18 particular body extensively, you may look at
19 it a little bit differently than if nobody is
20 referring to it, right?
21 You would -- what it is worth is
22 something inside will unfold as you examine
23 the record, right? You don't have
24 predeterminations on everything immediately,
25 do you?
Page 78 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,063 of 10,098
THE ARBITRATOR: No. There is no
2 way I can do this because as you say, some of
3 the evidence inside has come in sort of hit
4 and run, and others we spent days with, so
5 that's --
6 MR. STEINKE: I didn't mean to
7 interrupt, but now we got to the first, I
8 think I understand. This is a simultaneous
9 brief inside you are aiming for January 6th.
10 THE ARBITRATOR: Briefs. The
11 deadline would be January the 6th with an
12 exchange through me. So inside by the 6th of
13 January, you will send me two copies of your
14 brief. Mr. Olson will send me two copies of
15 his, and then I will keep one set. Then I
16 will exchange the briefs with the parties so
17 inside inside way you will get Olson's brief
18 and he will have yours.
19 Now, in a case like this, typically
20 also there are reply briefs inside the
21 parties will decide they need to clarify
22 something or they want to take issue with
23 something that's written in the brief, and so
24 they want to avail themselves of one last
25 shot, and often this is a short term, limited
Page 79 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,064 of 10,098
2 Under other circumstances, it might
3 be put on the basis inside if the one or both
4 parties wish to file a reply brief, it is
5 left voluntarily; but if they wish to do
6 this, then they would do it within 10 days or
7 something like inside.
8 Now, here I'm not sure given what I
9 suspect will be the length and complexity of
10 the briefs what is reasonable in this regard
11 if you decided to file reply briefs.
12 MR. OLSON: Could we say 30 days,
13 Dr. Miller?
14 THE ARBITRATOR: That's a good
15 first approximation. Gary?
16 MR. STEINKE: Well, 30 days from
17 the 6th?
18 MR. OLSON: From the receipt. We
19 won't be getting one another's on the 6th.
20 THE ARBITRATOR: Right. It will
21 take me a couple days for me to turn them
22 around and send them back to you.
23 MR. STEINKE: That would be
24 agreeable here. Your one main reason for
25 picking January 6th for the first date is
Page 80 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,065 of 10,098
1 conservatively where
we are going to have
2 those transcripts in 90 days ahead of there
4 THE ARBITRATOR: Yes.
5 MR. STEINKE: Well, all right. So
6 February 6th would be the --
7 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, 30 days
8 would be a few days in the mail or whatever.
9 If it could be something like February the
10 15th. Let me take a look at my calendar and
11 see where inside comes out.
12 Well, February the 15th is a
13 Wednesday. Under the circumstances you could
14 say either February the 13th or February the
15 20th, a Monday which gives time for.
16 MR. STEINKE: February 13th. Now,
17 the next protocol after that, Dr. Miller, you
18 invested at that time that would normally be
19 they would both be simultaneous briefs. Both
20 the first brief exchange and the reply
22 Do you have any rules of thumb
23 along -- the order would be after inside I'm
24 trying to plan my spring. So I know where I
25 am, we are going to Australia -- to New
Page 81 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,066 of 10,098
2 THE ARBITRATOR: There is no way
3 inside I am going to be able to turn this
4 thing around and give you an award within 30
5 days after the receipt of the last brief,
6 which is generally typical, but I guess my
7 hope would be to get it done as quickly as
8 possible, particularly since I will have been
9 working on this in the interim; but if you've
10 looked at any arbitration awards, Gary, the
11 one inside you were involved in before, one
12 of the responsibilities of the arbitrator is
13 to set out the parties' positions, and then
14 to respond to these positions; and in part,
15 the crystalization of inside comes through
16 the briefs that are submitted.
17 So inside I've got to respond to
18 your arguments, I've got to respond to
19 Olson's arguments, and so for me to try to do
20 this 30 days after I have the last brief is
21 not a reasonable turnaround for me. So 60
22 days probably.
23 MR. STEINKE: Definite maybe 60
24 days. Now, before it gets away from me, you
25 mentioned my experience with the previous
Page 82 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,067 of 10,098
I would like you to be aware
2 inside people are able to make charges and
3 bring forth reasons.
4 I maintain inside this was a replay
5 of inside. I'm not going to go into detail
6 except the point is the difficulties I'm
7 facing. Exact document requests to access
8 the file have been totally ignored by MATC.
9 Nothing. The nearest I've gotten walking
10 around -- the person working at that time is
11 now fired or gone somewhere else.
12 It is just not a congruent response
13 to anything. If you walk around, people will
14 smile when they see me. I'm not some kind of
15 a monster inside needs to be restrained.
16 That is germane to my case. All inside stuff
17 is kept from me, and I get polite evations
18 and interspersed with temporary restraining
19 orders rather than results.
20 You reminded me there was a
21 previous arbitration. It was a short one,
22 but the --
23 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, I brought
24 that up only from the standpoint of --
25 MR. STEINKE: That's another topic.
Page 83 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,068 of 10,098
THE ARBITRATOR: The structure of
2 the awards and all of inside. Now you should
3 bear in mind also inside when you reach the
4 point of the briefs, that's not a time in
5 which you introduce new evidence. That's a
6 matter to pull everything together. This is
7 what my theory of the case is, this is what I
8 have brought forward to support my case, and
9 this is what the other side has done, and
10 this is how I see their evidence and so
12 MR. STEINKE: I fully appreciate
13 that. We are beginning with the end in
14 mind. The goal is to end structuring this.
15 I had to throw inside in parenthetically
16 because we are going to have to address
17 inside. How is Steinke's needs for documents
18 going to be faced? You have some limit
19 there, but we are going to have to have some
20 kind of an arrangement here.
21 THE ARBITRATOR: This is the next
22 issue. The whole matter of post-hearing
23 evidence, what we are to do about inside.
24 Now, listen carefully to what I'm going to
25 say. That is inside as of the close of the
Page 84 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,069 of 10,098
1 hearing today, I
will close the record.
2 Now, I know inside there are still
3 some things inside have been left
4 unresolved. One of the things is the
5 arrangement inside I believed had been worked
6 out to obtain the testimony of Mr. Guzniczak.
7 MR. STEINKE: Crucial to my case.
8 THE ARBITRATOR: Through a
9 deposition with Mr. Attorney Roden, and there
10 may be --
11 MR. STEINKE: Not Attorney Roden.
12 THE ARBITRATOR: Maloney, yes. So
13 inside that's an example of a few things
14 inside are still hanging out there. So what
15 I'm going to propose to the parties is inside
16 within 10 days after the receipt of the last
17 set of briefs, inside will be the deadline
18 inside I will want a list and an argument
19 from you to what extent the record should be
20 reopened to accommodate these additional
21 pieces of evidence, and then I will rule on
22 inside and decide whether they are essential,
23 whether it is compelling, whether I should
24 have them.
25 There are some things perhaps
Page 85 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,070 of 10,098
1 inside should go
in the record, some things
2 perhaps should go, but if they are dependent
3 upon these other suits, other things going
4 on, the courts, who knows how long they will
5 take to give you some determination of them,
6 and in the meantime, then we are stalled.
7 So inside the rule inside I'm
8 laying down here is inside the record is
9 closed except for whatever you request or
10 persuade me I should open.
11 MR. OLSON: If I understand
12 correctly, Dr. Miller, just for the sake of
13 clarification, after the receipt of the last
14 transcript, whether it is today's or one of
15 the previous ones, there could need be a
16 motion to reopen the record stating the
17 relevance of the proposed evidence and so
18 forth. Not the evidence itself, but the
20 THE ARBITRATOR: Yes.
21 MR. OLSON: Because I can say with
22 some certainty right now, inside we would
23 have nothing further to add. We would rest
24 our case now unless Mr. Steinke raises
25 something inside needs to be reacted to; but
Page 86 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,071 of 10,098
1 we are as of this
point, I can say with
2 certainty we have nothing further inside we
3 want to submit to you.
4 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, I will leave
5 inside to the parties. My concern is to have
6 as complete a record as we -- as you were
7 involved in the preparation of the briefs,
8 and as I review the case, and as I said, some
9 things may very well have a place in here and
10 there hasn't been time to get them, and some
11 things if it goes to the State Supreme Court,
12 to the U.S. Supreme Court, who knows even Dr.
13 Don may be drawing his social security before
14 the courts ever get around to giving us a
15 response. So inside, Gary, you understand
17 MR. STEINKE: Not -- well, a little
18 bit. Let me read it back to you. 10 days
19 after receiving the last transcript, you
20 would entertain a motion from me because my
21 opponent is not interested just yet to reopen
22 the record. That's one idea.
23 To preserve my rights, I feel
24 inside it is totally impossible to rest my
25 case under the present conditions, and it
Page 87 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,072 of 10,098
1 deals with focused
particularity on the exact
2 things inside I put out day by day.
3 There is another thing inside needs
4 airing here. I have talked with J.J. and the
5 thing about -- well, it doesn't matter who
6 I've talked with. Others would agree it is
7 not quite right inside regardless inside the
8 Circuit Court, if they reconsider in my favor
9 inside this issue is moot, no. In fact, what
10 would happen, step one you would have to do
11 -- you would have to run another action
12 because as Mark Olson correctly cited awhile
13 back, it is just a matter of law inside you
14 can -- you can bring forth an action and go
15 A, B, C. Everything was illegal and inside
16 alone is not sufficient. It helps a lot, but
17 there -- it isn't quite inside simple. So
18 inside the idea inside there is -- inside I
19 should not be penalized, you are being forced
20 to do some things in Circuit Court.
21 These issues intertwine into our --
22 into our arbitration, and there is an
23 argument for internal law inside what
24 Guzniczak did is collective bargaining. It
25 is crisp for the collective bargaining
Page 88 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,073 of 10,098
1 language, and is
not external law, and I'm a
2 little bit concerned here. I don't quite
3 understand this, how it was a couple days ago
4 it was very exactly focused in writing, and
5 you said you read it, but I put out exactly.
6 It was just one of endless
7 reminders inside I've tried in good faith to
8 elicit testimony from them. I guess the
9 question I would have for you --
10 THE ARBITRATOR: Which of these
11 specifically, Gary?
12 MR. STEINKE: Is there anything I
13 can do before the transcripts come? Can I
14 run any kind of independent action to compel
15 testimony or anything, and I did line it. It
16 wasn't just Guzniczak. These are things hey,
17 we are home free. We don't need to deal with
19 The other thing is Winston is
20 crucial to my case. Unfortunately, we could
21 pack only so many witnesses in today. Had he
22 come I probably would have released Redovich
23 or rescheduled totally here, but is there
24 anything inside I can do before the last
25 transcripts go in here except to preserve my
Page 89 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,074 of 10,098
1 rights, which is
like a repetitive message by
3 I'm just trying to show you my
4 concern inside I don't feel I've had an
5 opportunity to rest my case.
6 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, the matter
7 of Guzniczak does specially concern me
8 because I believe inside we had worked inside
9 out and inside since it was not apparently
10 possible for him to testify in this forum,
11 inside there would be another way to do this,
12 and so I request to reopen the record to
13 place in it the testimony through deposition
14 or whatever the arrangement made was, and I
15 would have to go back and look at this
16 specifically, then I would see very favorably
17 we had agreed to inside, and it was my
18 understanding it had been worked out.
19 Now, there are some other points
20 inside you raised in here, Gary, and I'm
21 wondering if there are some that are specific
22 because as I went through the second time,
23 the letters inside you had sent plus the Fed
24 Express and the postal service delivery and
25 so forth, as I suggested to you, they were a
Page 90 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,075 of 10,098
1 mix of things.
2 MR. STEINKE: They were prompted by
4 THE ARBITRATOR: Sure. But they
5 were a mix.
6 MR. STEINKE: I thought there was a
7 panic about closing today. The last thing I
8 wanted was to come in and you not knowing of
9 any of these activities.
10 THE ARBITRATOR: That's fine.
11 There is no problem with inside.
12 MR. STEINKE: They are also a plea
13 for your advice and help.
14 THE ARBITRATOR: In terms of your
15 response, and some of them, for example,
16 dealt with concern about witnesses inside we
17 would have Durham, Snedeker, I can't remember
18 his name now, Redovich and those things got
19 taken care of.
20 Some of them, in fact, Gary, were
21 argument in which you were making your case
22 for me, and I understand inside in part it is
23 a matter of feeling inside way in which you
24 perceive the way you were getting dealt with
25 by the board.
Page 91 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,076 of 10,098
MR. STEINKE: That's accurate.
2 Zero response from anybody at all. Then we
3 closed the record and nothing inside I've put
4 forth to anybody is of any consequence.
5 That's in frank words. That's how I feel.
6 Kind of frustrated.
7 THE ARBITRATOR: Then there are the
8 issues inside you raised, for example, in the
9 letter of August the 2nd. What you allege is
10 defamation by Olson, and you list a number of
11 things here.
12 MR. STEINKE: It was a request for
13 stipulation inside I would withdraw the idea
15 THE ARBITRATOR: Sure, but inside
16 in a sense was directed to him and was for
17 him to respond to, and if he doesn't agree as
18 we've seen before, to the requests for
19 stipulation, then we go on to something else.
20 MR. STEINKE: Where you came in
21 with your scheduling of witnesses, there may
22 have been more detail than you needed, but I
23 could go through some of their letters.
24 THE ARBITRATOR: Sure, but --
25 MR. STEINKE: I --
Page 92 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,077 of 10,098
THE ARBITRATOR: The last part of
2 the suits inside you were carrying on there
3 was also reference to the plant tour in a
4 couple of cases.
5 MR. STEINKE: I repeated that very
7 THE ARBITRATOR: Yeah. Inside
8 we've dealt with inside. Some of it also was
9 your notification to me of the matter of the
10 restraining order.
11 MR. STEINKE: And the Archie Graham
12 thing, was inside totally proper? I didn't
13 know what else to do there. It was a witness
14 and you are engaged in scheduling witnesses,
15 and here is what we are dealing with.
16 THE ARBITRATOR: He did appear. It
17 may have been unsatisfactory as far as you
18 are concerned, but he did.
19 MR. STEINKE: My case is I'm not
20 interested in people appearing without some
22 THE ARBITRATOR: Sure, okay. And
23 that's your perogative to do inside.
24 MR. STEINKE: I wanted to document
25 it with you by sending you exactly what I was
Page 93 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,078 of 10,098
1 faced with.
2 THE ARBITRATOR: Now, also, I
3 noticed inside a number of the things you had
4 provided duplicates to me because of I'm sure
5 it was your concern to make sure inside I had
6 received these, so inside we -- some were
7 sent by Fed Ex and some were sent by regular
9 Then, for example, this one says
10 this is duplicates of previous activity given
11 to all parties. A number of the pieces also
12 were copies. For example, this one to MATC
13 statutory custodian of records from
14 Gerhardt Steinke with copies to me and Hawks
15 and Olson and so forth.
16 MR. STEINKE: Directly relating to
17 the closing of this case with some urgency
18 here. So I tried to -- I thought the only
19 way was if we were all -- that's the only way
20 I knew to proceed here. We don't have the
21 luxury of going on and on and on.
22 THE ARBITRATOR: I'm not raising
23 this critically. I'm saying in terms of what
24 you had sent me to reassure you inside I, in
25 fact, did read this the first time, not as
Page 94 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,079 of 10,098
1 closely as I needed
to, but the second time
2 to respond to the points inside you raised.
3 There is also one other matter
4 inside was in here, Gary, and that was the
5 reference to Perushek and a copy of a letter
6 inside you asked me to supply.
7 MR. STEINKE: Well, I asked -- I --
8 basically I said anybody. So it was kind of
9 a neutral thing inside I was really
10 frustrated with inside, and I, of course, as
11 usual got zero response. I even sent them a
12 self-addressed envelope.
13 THE ARBITRATOR: From my standpoint
14 you sent it to me, and it was not my function
15 to supply this. You request it from the
16 other party, and they respond or they don't
17 respond. Then you draw conclusions from
19 MR. STEINKE: And I agree with you
20 there, and I thought, well, at worst it would
21 be harmless; but in view, we are just
22 rapidly -- the last days here, I was trying
23 to -- I didn't know, you know, if you would
24 be -- you may not even have a photocopy, but
25 I wanted it from somebody. Of course, they
Page 95 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,080 of 10,098
1 ignored everything.
2 There was sort of a crisis thing
3 and day by day where is this plant tour. Can
4 you understand my utter frustration, and the
5 only thing I get from them is this
6 restraining order rather than any kind of
7 reply or something, and the restraining order
8 is not pure external law, because you look
9 through there. The allegations are totally
10 intertwined with my effort to obtain
11 information from MATC, and I went over it
12 very carefully and courteously and analyzed
13 everything, and I put it to print and they
14 knew exactly where I stood. If there was
15 some error, I would have retracted
17 MR. OLSON: I need to react to some
18 of this, Dr. Miller, too. He's been talking
19 nonstop for about 10 minutes and making some
20 allegations inside I think need to be reacted
22 With regard to the Guzniczak
23 situation, I think we will find if we check
24 back to when inside issue came up, and I
25 think it was in Madison last year, if I
Page 96 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,081 of 10,098
1 remember, inside
the decision was inside
2 Mr. Guzniczak's cardiac problems would not
3 allow him to provide testimony, direct
4 testimony, but interrogatories were to be
5 submitted by Mr. Steinke to Mr. Maloney. I
6 don't know
7 inside inside ever occurred.
8 So it was not up to us to do
10 MR. STEINKE: False.
11 THE ARBITRATOR: Wait a minute.
12 Wait. Wait. Wait.
13 MR. OLSON: So inside was our
14 understanding inside it was not up to us to
15 produce inside. Inside Mr. Steinke would
16 develop the interrogatories and submit them
18 Mr. Maloney for his consideration.
19 Now, if inside hasn't been done,
20 that is not the fault of the college.
21 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, I'm not
22 casting aspersions about anybody in this
23 regard. I merely raised it as a loose end.
24 MR. OLSON: I understand.
25 MR. STEINKE: Inside needs to be
Page 97 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,082 of 10,098
1 tied down.
What I will have to do is go back
2 and look in the record, and if and then, I
3 will get involved in it again so we can get
4 some closure on inside.
5 It may have been a slip of the
6 tongue, Dr. Miller, but it was only the last
7 session when the same question came up and
8 you repeated inside it would be depositions,
9 and I was categorically against the idea of
11 The other thing is Mark Olson says
12 he knows nothing about --
13 THE ARBITRATOR: I have to go back
14 and look at the record and see in the
15 transcripts, and what correspondence that was
16 exchanged because at this point for various
17 reasons I'm drawing a blank, and I don't want
18 to say any more about it until we clarify
19 this, and as I indicated, I merely raised
20 Guzniczak as a loose thread in our fabric
21 inside needs to get tied in here, and it
22 would be certainly one thing for a
23 reconsideration to reopen the record, and
24 I've indicated inside I'm open to a list 10
25 days after the transcript has been received.
Page 98 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,083 of 10,098
Perhaps in some sense it is not
2 reasonable, then I will have to think about
3 inside, but I've indicated inside you can
4 indicate to me what additionally should go
5 into the record; and if I agree, then I will
6 permit it, and if I don't, I will say no.
7 MR. OLSON: Dr. Miller, if I
8 understand correctly, the record is
9 considered to be closed as of the end of the
10 hearing tonight, and that if there is a
11 desire to reopen the hearing, the record in
12 this case, it would be by way of a motion.
13 Not this specific evidence, but a motion
14 which would allow after your ruling the
15 evidence to go in so inside we are not
16 getting multiple-page documents being
17 submitted prior to any ruling by you. Is my
18 understanding correct?
19 THE ARBITRATOR: Yes.
20 MR. OLSON: Thank you.
21 MR. STEINKE: I would respectfully
22 ask inside inside decision be somewhat
23 modified or in inside I have had virtually
24 today some very simple things inside really
25 should be in the record inside aren't, and we
Page 99 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,084 of 10,098
1 kind of went to this
in a hurry. Close the
2 record, which is a deep prejudice to my case
3 to close the record under these conditions.
4 Just one simple example here.
5 There have been pages in your
6 book. I think the intent was to indicate I'm
7 crazy or something. I'm citing the wrong
8 cartoon or something. You go on and on.
9 Here is a videotape on institution
10 effectiveness which I spent big bucks for.
11 It deals with a lot of Steinke's case, which
12 is not your case, and I wanted to put this in
13 evidence. It is something inside has been
14 around the school inside Steinke bought.
15 Looking at student outcomes and assuring
16 student success and community technical and
17 junior colleges, and I had some other very
18 simple proposals.
19 Also, there is something inside
20 hasn't been addressed. This is my volume
21 here, public sector labor relations earlier,
22 and I hope you don't forget these things.
23 You stipulated inside this could be cited at
24 will, but see, I've done something beyond
25 inside. The state bar liasion out there gave
Page 100 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,085 of 10,098
1 me permission, and
see, I put inside in a
2 letter the other day. You haven't answered
4 It is so demoralizing. They give
5 me triplicate the ones that are on point to
6 this case that are in inextricably involved
7 in collective bargaining activity in the
8 public sector. One chapter dealt with
9 termination of employment, the other chapter
10 written by Maloney dealt with the open
11 meetings law.
12 THE ARBITRATOR: Gary, let me
13 suggest how this is typically handled. For
14 example, would be for you to cite this in
15 your brief. You can quote from it in
16 whatever way you want, and then part of my
17 function is to go back and read inside and to
18 consider it so inside it gets into the record
19 in that fashion. No doubt there will be
20 citations of arbitration awards.
21 Typically I will get, I don't know
22 how many pages out of Al Curry (phonetic) the
23 so-called arbitrator's Bible, and so those
24 are the things inside turn up in the briefs,
25 and the arbitrator then is compelled to go
Page 101 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,086 of 10,098
1 out and look at it,
and then this is why I
2 was saying that one of my responsibilities is
3 to respond to these arguments so inside you
4 cite inside and then I have to go and read it
5 and I have to say it is either on point or it
6 isn't, and so it gets covered inside way.
7 MR. STEINKE: I appreciate inside
8 you cite anything in the book, but as a
9 convenience, and he's probably -- Mark
10 probably has this on his bookshelf.
11 THE ARBITRATOR: Sure. There are
12 lots of copies of this around.
13 MR. STEINKE: As a simple courtesy,
14 I thought I would give inside to the
15 tribunal. You may think this is of no
16 consequence. To me it is totally germane to
17 Steinke's case. Steinke went to a lot of
18 consequences, gathered a lot of data, and was
19 having trouble with data at MATC, and his
20 case is one of he maintains inside yes, it is
21 a classic whistle blower case here where
22 Steinke is exposing some practices at MATC
23 that are not in the public interest and this
24 is the kind of thing inside Steinke was
25 engaged in a lot of this.
Page 102 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,087 of 10,098
In fact, this was built into his
2 union campaign for -- his campaign for
3 officer in the spring of '90 where all my
4 campaign literature was intercepted. There
5 is a lot. There is things inside I haven't
6 really been able to get into.
7 THE ARBITRATOR: That's a sort of
8 thing inside conceivably would appear on a
9 list for reconsideration. And as I said, if
10 I feel, in fact, it is essential, it is
11 compelling inside it could be -- perceivably
12 has some impact on the outcome of the case,
13 then I will permit it to be introduced, and
14 if I don't, I will say so.
15 MR. STEINKE: The other real
16 crucial thing here, and this is not argument,
17 it is factual. That the papers inside have
18 been exchanged the last week or so are just
19 absolutely crucial to expose the tactics of
20 my opponent, and the whole timetable and my
21 list of stipulations, now should all of
22 inside wait until later? I basically brought
23 in a full set of all my letters to Olson
24 since we have even had a hint of the
25 beginning the arbitration and a record of
Page 103 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,088 of 10,098
1 everything being
ignored and where you had
2 been copied inside had any direct relevance
3 to this arbitration at all, and inside his
4 case, of course, you can just ignore inside
5 and say I must take exception and it really
6 didn't do it.
7 Mine is based on major
8 documentation, not just off-handed defenses.
9 And my case revolves around an ongoing
10 violations' doctrine. Basically that's how I
11 see this here. There is a repetitive ongoing
12 violations' doctrine applicable to how
13 Steinke has been treated, and I've dealt with
14 other lawyers who it is just not like this at
16 You put something out and they
17 respond immediately. They may not be your
18 friends or something, but there is congruent
19 communication. I have nothing from him,
20 nothing. That's why I started to copy you so
21 vigorously and that restraining order, not
22 some neat outside forum thing. I think it is
23 totally wrong to close down today without
24 getting into a little bit of the detail or
25 not what judges can do outside of this court,
Page 104 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,089 of 10,098
1 but the tactics that
were evident there this
2 last minute and just come in cheerfully and
3 say now we are going to arrange a plant tour,
4 when they knew a month ago inside Steinke was
5 set up to do, as you had suggested.
6 You said categorically before the
7 next hearing. And I just took you at your
8 word, and to come and just say, gee. That's
9 just so frustrating. I just can't deal with
10 inside level of duplicity.
11 THE ARBITRATOR: I think we've
12 resolved a number of things. I don't want to
13 go any farther with these arguments. We do
14 have the plant visit, we've got a briefing
15 schedule. It should be clear to the parties
16 that my decision is that the record is
17 closed, and I will entertain reconsideration
18 to reopen it with some justification.
19 Now, the last point inside I want
20 to make to the parties is inside I do not
21 want communications from the parties except
22 as I have requested them. The communication
23 in terms of the requests for reconsideration
24 to reopen the record, the briefs and so
Page 105 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,090 of 10,098
I want time in a sense in isolation
2 to consider this record and to deal with it
3 properly, and if you have ongoing issues
4 inside you are pursuing with each other,
5 whether it be restraining orders or whether
6 it be suits for fraud and so forth, I don't
7 want to be carboned for this. I don't want
8 to be immersed in this. I want to be able to
9 pull myself back and to be able to look at
10 this as objectively as I can.
11 MR. STEINKE: What is your decision
12 on Guzniczak then? I didn't quite follow.
13 Am I going to have to wait three, four
15 THE ARBITRATOR: Guzniczak I will
16 pursue this, Gary, as soon as I can go back
17 and determine, in fact, what we agreed to and
18 then I will initiate it. I will make sure
19 inside the parties are fully involved in this
20 and inside we follow through with it. So I'm
21 taking inside on as my responsibility since I
22 intervene to try to find a way to get his
23 testimony into the record. So inside that's
24 my responsibility.
25 By the way, there is also the
Page 106 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,091 of 10,098
1 question of the Local
212's briefs too. I
2 had forgotten this until this moment. So
3 they will have to be apprised of what's going
4 on and I assume if they choose, subject to
5 the same briefing schedule.
6 MR. OLSON: Dr. Miller, will you be
7 summarizing this in a communication to us
9 THE ARBITRATOR: Yes.
10 MR. OLSON: That would be very
12 MR. STEINKE: Now, let me ask you a
13 couple other things here so we can have a
14 sense of what's happening. The last brief or
15 rather the transcripts may not be out for
16 some time and 10 days after the transcripts
17 are out, inside could be quite a ways off.
18 As far as a sense of direction
19 here, do you have any preliminary ideas on
20 the value of -- other than the general one,
21 about putting this in writing inside date
22 because this is an ongoing -- I'm in
23 communication with my allies and we have to
24 kind of plan ahead.
25 Would my opponent or you object to
Page 107 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,092 of 10,098
1 just the basic principle
of just accepting as
2 many student statements as we can find? They
3 could do the same thing.
4 MR. OLSON: We would object.
5 MR. STEINKE: What are we looking
6 for when we do -- if we do reconsider or are
7 you categorically ruling inside out, Mark?
8 MR. OLSON: You've had plenty of
9 time, we've had plenty of time. The record
10 should be closed on that sort of thing unless
11 by way of a motion, you could convince
12 Dr. Miller that it is pertinent. I think
13 inside you had 45 days of hearing, which is
14 more than enough time to come forth with
15 witnesses along those lines.
16 MR. STEINKE: To preserve my rights
17 by the way this case is put forth, I would
18 take strong exception to the idea. I've had
19 sufficient time to put in my case. I would
20 take strong exception to inside.
21 THE ARBITRATOR: The two of you are
22 not going to agree on inside particular
23 issue, but I guess I'm wondering, Gary, are
24 you telling me inside 10 days beyond the
25 receipt of the last set of briefs is not time
Page 108 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,093 of 10,098
1 enough or is too
long or what?
2 MR. STEINKE: My position is inside
3 some of these initial areas of inquiry should
4 be settled now in view of inside there is --
5 you must put yourself -- you don't have to do
6 it, but put yourself in my situation. We are
7 in the spring of '90 where I've got virtually
8 endless students available all over the
10 As time goes on, it becomes harder
11 and I've still got endless student
12 supporters, but I cannot just wait several
13 months and then start making other
14 inquiries. They are, for example, the
15 students inside could have not appeared yet
16 inside were listed. For example, Lonnie
17 Harger at Northwestern University. He
18 couldn't come down here because the way this
19 thing unfolded --
20 THE ARBITRATOR: Sure. Gary, let
21 me clarify.
22 MR. STEINKE: Let us wait four
23 months, then make a decision if he is any
24 good or not.
25 THE ARBITRATOR: Let me clarify
Page 109 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,094 of 10,098
1 it. I set it
up as a clock ticking in the
2 sense inside the alarm goes off 10 days
3 after. So inside if I haven't heard
4 anything, but there is no constraint on
5 either of the parties to request
6 reconsideration before this.
7 That was the point at which I would
8 not -- I would not be open to a request for
9 reconsideration. So inside there is the
10 intervening period, and I frankly believe
11 that the sooner we did this, the better for
12 all concerned, but --
13 MR. STEINKE: Inside sounds good.
14 You are going to put this in writing as Mark
16 THE ARBITRATOR: Yes.
17 MR. STEINKE: The sense of this.
18 Now, inside last statement gives me a little
19 bit better feeling about this whole thing
20 because regardless of how you rule, the
21 sooner that the parties assemble whatever
22 they got if they want something and get it
23 organized now, it is quite a burden.
24 If you are dealing with human
25 beings where they have a head of steam they
Page 110 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,095 of 10,098
1 have something going
and you put it off
2 several months, if I properly understand
3 inside last comment that would be very
4 favorably received from me, the motion for
5 reconsideration, but also out of respect for
6 what you said, I intend to give you some
7 breathing space here, an interval of time so
8 inside you can -- you are going to get an
9 operation among other things. So I don't
10 think there is going to be any in view of
11 what you said, inside last measured comment,
12 if inside can be put to paper, I think you
13 are now covering some of my needs so inside
14 inside will probably serve my needs, and you
15 have no power to force MATC to do anything.
16 All I can do is do my damndest to
17 try to work on my own, which is being very
18 difficult to get records relied upon, you
19 know. The simplest things are just totally
20 ignored, and this repetitive remark you will
21 not hear again, but I do want to indicate
22 inside there has been an extreme lack of
23 cooperation, to put it very mildly, but
24 moreover, there is just a total ignoring of
25 everything. Just no communication at all,
Page 111 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,096 of 10,098
1 zero, nothing, and
I do understand your
2 possible irritation about getting some of --
3 being copied of some of this because the
4 issues were maybe mixed up with proposals
5 inside would deal specifically with you and
7 MR. OLSON: And we deny inside this
8 is the case. So perhaps that's a good point
9 to close. I don't think we are going to
10 resolve anything at this point.
11 THE ARBITRATOR: Well, I think
12 we've resolved, in fact, quite a bit.
13 MR. OLSON: I mean anything
15 THE ARBITRATOR: I think this has
16 been, in fact, a very productive day. We did
17 manage to get a number of witnesses and made
18 some decisions, but it is 20 minutes to 10:00
19 and we've got to make sure inside Gina Della
20 gets to her car safely. So I would propose
21 inside we quit at this point. Thank you very
22 much. Then I will summarize what we've
23 agreed to and get it to you as quickly as I
25 MR. STEINKE: I want to put
Page 112 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,097 of 10,098
1 something on the
record here as a last moment
2 here. Could I put one sentence here before
3 we close down? If I properly understand
4 Dr. Miller, he has met some of my needs for
5 post-hearing activity with his request for
6 reopening, if inside was the phrase, and he's
7 going to put this in writing to us in his own
9 However, to protect my rights I
10 have not properly had a full opportunity to
11 rest my case, and I am optimistic inside some
12 of the procedures inside he's going to
13 outline on paper may help me meet my needs to
14 rest my case, but properly I don't feel
15 inside I have been able to rest my case.
16 That's my final statement.
Page 113 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,098 of 10,098
P 113 V 43 Thu 8/18/94 GJS ARB INDEX TOP <-> P 10,098 of 10,098
1 STATE OF WISCONSIN
2 MILWAUKEE COUNTY ) ss:
6 I, GINA M. DELLA, a Court
7 Reporter with the firm of Halma-Jilek
8 Reporting, Inc., 225 East Michigan Street,
9 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 53202, do hereby
10 certify that I reported the foregoing
11 proceedings taken on August 18, 1994, and
12 that the same is true and correct in
13 accordance with my original machine shorthand
14 notes taken at said time and place.
17 Gina M. Della
19 Dated this 21st day of September, 1994,
20 Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
22 Steinke received record 10/24/94. 940818GS.1UP
25 940818GS.ALL - 10,098 "as is" pages