Page 1 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94    A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 9,986 of 10,098

 1               A R B I T R A T I O N
 3                      between
 5                  MATC-MILWAUKEE
 7                        and
 9                 GERHARDT STEINKE
11                    A/P M-91-86
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

 1                   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
 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

 1                         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
 9                           None
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

 1                 THE ARBITRATOR:  Go ahead,
 2       Mr. Steinke.
 3                    EXAMINATION
 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,
 8       correct?
 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
 4       addressing.
 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
11       way.
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
15       1990?
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
19       it?
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'
18       level"?
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.
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
 8       records.
 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
18       could?
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.
 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
 2       contain.
 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
16       second.
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

 1                 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
 9       instruction.
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

 1                 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
16       something.
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.
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
24       distilation?
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
 6       this.
 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
20       correct.
21                 THE WITNESS:  Best of my
22       recollection.
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
14       map.
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
21       there.
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
13       me.
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

 1                 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
21        --
22                 MR. ARBITRATOR:  Stop a second,
23       please.
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
18       record.
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

 1       table.
 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

 1                 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
12       testimony.
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
16       fraudulent.
17                 THE ARBITRATOR:  That's not for me
18       to determine whether they are fraudulent or
19       not.
20                 MR. STEINKE:  It is in the arbitral
21       record.
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
16       years.
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
16       things.
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
13       all.
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
15       sits.
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

 1                 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?  Period?
 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

 1                 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
23       mischaracterization.
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
11       again.
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

 1       publishing.  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
 8       classrooms.
 9                 Don, you are familiar with most of
10       inside, aren't you?
11                 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK:  Most of them,
12       yeah.
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
19       are.
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
13       library.
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

 1                 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
 8       appropriate?
 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
12       believe.
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
25       thing.

Page 56 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94  A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,041 of 10,098

 1                 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

 1                 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
23       well?
24                 MR. STEINKE:  Yeah.  That's three
25       buildings.

Page 59 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94  A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,044 of 10,098

 1                 MR. MIKOLAJCZAK:  What room in the
 2       T Building are you looking for, your old
 3       office?
 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
17       look?
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

 1                 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
13       inside.
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
19       there?
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
 8       by
 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
22       understand.
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
 5       notice.
 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
 4       stipulations.
 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
19       this.
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
24       intertwined.
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
19       case.
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
 6       presented.
 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
18       record.
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
11       Graham.
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
17       for.
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
 6       visit.
 7                 The next issue is the question of
 8       the exchange of the initial set of briefs and
 9        --
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
19       building.
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,
20       Gary.
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

 1       exceptions.
 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

 1       said.
 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
11       wisdom.
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

 1                 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

 1       exercise.
 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
 3       hopefully.
 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
21       briefs.
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

 1       Zealand.
 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

 1       arbitration.  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

 1                 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
11       forth.
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
19       proposal?
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
16       inside.
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
18       him.
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
 2       now?
 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
 3       activities.
 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

 1                 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
14       --
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

 1                 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
 6       specifically.
 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
21       specificity.
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
 8       mail.
 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
18       inside.
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
16       immediately.
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
21       to.
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
 9       inside.
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
17       to
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
10       interrogatories.
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

 1                 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
 3       anything.
 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

 1                 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
15       all.
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
25       forth.

Page 105 Vol 43 Thu 8/18/94 A/P M 91-86 <-> Page 10,090 of 10,098

 1                 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
14       months?
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
 8       then?
 9                 THE ARBITRATOR:  Yes.
10                 MR. OLSON:  That would be very
11       helpful.
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
 9       place.
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
15       asked?
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
 6        --
 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
14       further.
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
24       can.
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
 8       words.
 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

 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.
16       _____________________
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