DE PERE — The Unified School District of De Pere school board voted Monday to draft a resolution censuring a fellow board member for conduct dating to last year.
Board member Melissa Niffenegger said she didn’t agree with the verdict, in which an outside law firm found numerous violations stemming from late last summer, when she accused the district of violating Act 20 and reported the district to the Wisconsin Department of Education.
Act 20 is legislation that the Wisconsin Legislature passed in 2023 imposing new teaching methods regarding reading on school districts.
It went into effect at the start of the current school year.
Among other things, it forbids districts from using a method of teaching in which teachers give meaning, structure and visual cues to students who are struggling to learn words.
Instead of first bringing her concerns to the board and administration, Niffenegger enlisted an outside advocacy group and took her complaint directly to the DPI.
The board will vote on the censure resolution at its next meeting, April 21.
On the matter of whether to draft a resolution to censure Niffenegger, all board members but Brittony Cartwright and Niffenegger voted yes.
Niffenegger said she’d be out of town April 21.
Community members, parents, and board member Brandy Tollefson asked for the investigation into Niffenegger, which was conducted by outside firm McCarty Law of Appleton.
It was one of two complaints that were pending against board members.
The other complaint, made against Board President Adam Clayton by outgoing board member Brittony Cartwright in November and investigated by outside firm Amundsen Davis, LLP (formerly Davis Kuelthau) found no wrongdoing on Clayton’s part.
Cartwright didn’t run for another term. Her term ends April 21.
Neither investigation report was released to the public, but Cartwright’s complaint dealt with Clayton’s introduction of a list of board norms to serve as a guide for all board members’ conduct after several instances of board members’ political and social media activities.
In fall of 2024, all seven members of the board were in their first term and two had been elected just months before. Two had been on the board just over a year.
The norms for board members include things like supporting board decisions and not working to undermine the board; directing concerns and opinions about educational programs to the superintendent; not representing the board without consent of the board; making clear that personal opinions stated in any format, including speeches, articles, social media, etc., are their own and not the board’s; using social media to promote positive news about the school district; and being positive and mindful if posting about politics.
Cartwright’s complaint against Clayton accused him of violating board policy 0144.5, dealing with board member behavior, communications and code of conduct: Sections C, D, I, and L, as well as Wisconsin State Statute 946.12:
Sections C, D, I, and L of Policy No. 0144.5 state that board members should comply with and be familiar with policies, conduct themselves in a way that reflects positively on the board and the district, only make decisions after full discussion at publicly held board meetings, and work with other board members to establish effective policies.
Wisconsin Statute § 946.12, “Misconduct in public office,” says a public officer or public employee commits a Class I felony if they intentionally fail to perform their duties, act beyond their authority, abuse their discretion, falsify a document, or take bribes.
Cartwright indicated that she was aggrieved but not surprised that her complaint about Clayton was determined to be unfounded.
The impetus behind the Niffenegger complaint played out in public over several meetings and included community members, parents and staff speaking out.
“The intention was to make sure we are doing what is right for our community and for kids. That’s all I was doing, to make sure that we are doing what is right,” Niffenegger said. “I never intended to hurt anybody or hurt feelings, and if feelings got hurt, well, sorry; feelings got hurt this week too, so it goes both ways.”
Niffenegger said she knows she comes off as brash and “not sweet and kind” sometimes but only wants the best for students.
She said she felt questioning and independent thought on the board was what made the board great but was also being stifled.
She said many of the examples of her own misconduct as stated in the report could be said about her accusers as well.
“I feel like a lot of scenarios that were in (the report) happen both ways,” she said.
“You have really pushed to damn my business and do horrible things to me in my business.”
Board member Jeff Dickert, who along with Clayton and Chad Jeskewitz was reelected last week, cautioned her about the blanket statement and said he didn’t even know what her business was.
Niffenegger said she believed there were groups with “ringleaders” operating out there.
“We can’t control what the public does based off of your actions,” Tollefson said.
Tollefson asked the district’s attorney, Robert Burns of Renning, Lewis & Lacy, S.C., if she could quote from the report, which hasn’t been released to the public.
He said no, citing attorney-client privilege and the censure vote not having been concluded yet.
So she paraphrased a portion of the report, saying that, regarding Niffenegger’s statement of concern for students and improving the district the report says the opposite.
“It says that you are unwilling to acknowledge any successes of the district, or to acknowledge any of the successes of the administration, or to be happy for the district, or to move forward in a positive way,” Tollefson said.
She said 18 people from a range of areas were interviewed, including all board members, and that Niffenegger could have requested certain people be interviewed if she felt it was one-sided.
“They came to the resounding conclusion that you do not have the district’s best interests in mind,” Tollefson said. “So you coming here and making these statements when this (report) is not available to the public for the public to read and putting it out there that this board is against you when the board is not; your actions have caused this. … Your actions, page after page after page of things that you have done, have caused it.
“I want that to be clear so that it does not come across in the media that’s here, that somehow you were being targeted,” Tollefson said. “Because if we could release this, it would dispute what you were saying.”
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here