Unsolicited text messages lead to complaint in New London
By John Faucher
The New London School Board voted 4-3 on Nov. 8 to censure board member John Heideman for sending an unsolicited text message to a district resident.
The text message was in regards to an email that the resident sent in October to some district staff and board members regarding district COVID-19 mitigation strategies.
Board members Chris Martinson, Pete Bosquez and Heideman were not included as recipients of the resident’s Oct. 19 email.
Heideman had learned of the email and its author from another board member.
That’s when he made contact via text.
The resident said she did not initiate a text with Heideman and she stated once the conversation began she attempted to end it twice, but he continued messaging.
The resident subsequently filed a complaint with the district.
The resident felt the conversation was” inappropriate for a member of the school board” and it made her feel “very uncomfortable” that Heideman was contacting her since she did not initiate it.
School Board Vice President Pete Bosquez conducted an investigation of the complaint and brought board members up to date at the Nov. 8 meeting.
Bosquez explained that Wegner stepped away from the investigative role because the complainant is a family member of Wegner’s.
“I was informed that a woman from the district had complained of receiving inappropriate text messages from Mr. Heideman. I was also informed Mr. Wegner stepped away from the investigation of the complaint. So as the vice-president it falls onto me,” said Bosquez.
Investigation
“As the investigator I initially had to determine who should conduct the full investigation,” said Bosquez.
He said that if there had been any possibility of a crime, law enforcement would have conducted the investigation. He also said if the complaint had involved too many board members, then an outside agency would have conducted the investigation. Neither of which occurred.
“The investigator of this type of complaint has two responsibilities to the board. Protect board members from false accusations and protect the board’s integrity when a legitimate complaint comes to the board,” Bosquez said.
“The public demands and deserves to know the board takes complaints seriously and will hold members accountable for their actions when appropriate,” said Bosquez.
He said he met with the complainant at the district office.
“She had several issues with being contacted by Mr. Heideman regarding an email she had sent to several staff and school board members. Mr. Martinson, Mr. Heideman and I were not included in the email. She stated she wanted an investigation into the matter and would forward a copy of the text messages to me for review,” said Bosquez.
He also noted that District Administrator Scott Bleck shared the email at 6:13 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 19, with the full board as part of standard operating procedures.
Nothing illegal or immoral
“I received a copy of the text messages and found that the messages were not illegal or immoral. The text messages were only between the complainant and Mr. Heideman. With that information I began the full investigation,” Bosquez said.
He then set up a meeting with Heideman to discuss the allegations.
Bosquez said Heideman acknowledged receiving copies of the text message exchange and confirmed that it was a true and accurate representation of the text conversation.
Bosquez said in reviewing the school district’s policies he felt Heideman violated Policy 165, under the Board Member Code of Ethics.
Board debates censure
Heideman was given a chance to explain why he contacted the woman via text.
“The reason I reached out to her is because I was informed of the email and I believe it’s important we try to get back to everybody who contacts us. We try. Sometimes that’s not possible,” said Heideman.
“I have had a previous dealing with her. We previously advocated for her and her kids on a different matter in the past, when she contacted me and that’s why I instantly had her contact info,” said Heideman.
“So I got back to her. Because a lot of times you forget somebody on the email link and I wanted to know what we were talking about. I don’t like to take somebody else’s word for something. I’ll ask a question rather than guess. That’s how this got initiated,” said Heideman.
Board members debated the topic for the next one hour and 15 minutes.
The debate included several different attempts at motions and amendments to motions.
They also looked at printed copies of the text message exchange between Heideman and the complainant.
Text messages
The Press Star obtained a copy of the exchange in the days after the Nov. 8 meeting.
District officials said the documents were public record and at least one individual had filed an open record request to obtain them.
At 3:49 p.m. Tuesday, Oct. 19, Heideman texted the complainant’s cell phone number and asked, “Did you send an email to some of the school board?”
“Who is this?” the complainant asked.
“John Heideman.”
“Yes I did, but I didn’t email you so who circulated it and why are you contacting me?” the complainant texted. “I already know what your beliefs are on covid/masking/vaccines etc. I’ve seen the board meetings.”
“I was wondering if you could send me a copy?” Heideman asked
“For what?” complainant asked.
“So I could read it rather than taking somebody else’s word for it,” Heideman responded.
The text conversation then ended at 3:49 p.m.
At 6:46 p.m., later that evening, Heideman texted, “No need to send it. Mr. Bleck shared it to all board members. By your email I don’t think there are many things you and I would agree on. I will respond to you to follow your own advice and look at the facts/data. Compare Waupaca county youth suicide numbers to covid deaths. I won’t even bother you with the FACT that policies you support CAUSED much of mental health crisis we are currently dealing with.”
“What are the Waupaca County Health Department, hospitals and health department recommendations?” the complainant asked.
She stated he could choose to “disregard those recommendations as not important,” but she said she would continue to take her advice from experts and people qualified to give those recommendations.
“You are entitled to your own beliefs, but as a school board member it is your responsibility to make sure children and staff are safe even if that interferes with your beliefs,” the woman continued.
Two more exchanges occurred leading up to 7:21 p.m. when the complainant ended her last statement with ”Goodnight.”
Heideman sent another text at 7:23 p.m.
At 7:24 the complainant responded, “Unless you are ready to talk about the questions I asked as a tax payer and parent stop messaging me. Goodnight.”
A minute later Heideman sent, “You didn’t really ask any questions you just made long winded statements.”
School board debates text messages
Board member Chris Martinson said he felt Heideman was targeted because of his difference in opinions.
Martinson even introduced a motion that the board should commend Heideman for reaching out and responding to a constituent. The motion failed.
Board member Katie Batten asked for clarification and if the complaint was based entirely on the texting.
“The text,” said Bosquez.
“That is all the complaint was about. That John reached out to her when she deliberately didn’t send him the email. And then several times [in texts] said goodnight and wanted to end the conversation and John continued,” said Bosquez.
“It’s not so much what he said. It’s the fact that he initially contacted her, and that he continued to send messages when she made it clear, in my eyes, that she didn’t want to talk to him anymore,” Bosquez said.
Wegner said, “Communication with a constituent should take place in the board’s email because that’s the way the message was received.”
Bosquez noted, “Part of that onion too is that now, technically John’s phone is subject to open records request because he conducted board business on the phone.”
“I don’t know why anybody would ask for it but, people have to be aware that if you use your personal device under certain circumstances those devices can be searched for that material,” said Bosquez.
Board member Mark Grossman noted that once Bleck shared the email with all the board members, Heideman’s request and texts to the complainant could have ended.
“He should have stopped at that,” said Grossman.
“We probably wouldn’t be here right now otherwise,” he said.
Grossman also felt part of the Resolution of Censure could be struck down and he asked for removal of section (8) which included language stating Heideman was discourteous to the complainant.
“You could argue that being discourteous or not all night long,” Grossman said.
“I think the main issue is he didn’t follow the procedure per the policy and that is having the communication through his district account,” said Grossman.
Martinson felt that if Heideman was to be censured then he [himself] should be added to the censure resolution stating that he also reached out to the person in a different meeting.
Bosquez noted that would be inappropriate because the complaint was not about Martinson.
“If you choose we can go through the whole process again,” said Bosquez.
Martinson requested an amendment that would have added him to the censure, but the motion failed.
“I want to be clear that I stand for accessibility to our citizens,” said Martinson.
“That’s not what this is about Chris,” said Bosquez.
He then stated any board member feeling they may have a conflict of interest could choose to recuse themselves from voting on the resolution of censure.
Wegner stated he did not have an ethical reason to recuse himself because he did not conduct the investigation, and he did not talk with the complainant about it.
Bosquez made a motion to approve the resolution of censure with the suggested removal of (8) as listed in the Board member code of ethics.
The clerk took a roll call vote. Wegner, Bosquez, Grossman and Ruckdashel voted in favor of the motion. Heideman, Martinson and Batten voted against.
The censure publicly admonishes Heideman for his actions but does not result in any formal punishment or sanctions.
Heideman responded to a request for comment from the Press Star in the days following the vote.
“The board investigated a complaint filed against me and found I did nothing immoral or illegal,” he said. “I will continue to represent the voters of the School District of New London.”