Lawmakers ding Underly for failing to show at hearing over grooming, sexual misconduct in schools

State Superintendent Jill Underly’s absence at an informational hearing on grooming and sexual misconduct in Wisconsin schools drew bipartisan criticism from lawmakers. 

Meanwhile, DPI staff said the agency takes allegations of misconduct “deadly seriously” and argued ambiguity in current law limits DPI’s authority to address them. 

The Assembly Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency hearing yesterday followed a Capital Times report that the Department of Public Instruction had investigated more than 200 teachers, aides, substitutes and administrators between 2018 and 2023 following accusations of sexual misconduct or grooming behaviors. 

Underly missed the hearing while out of town accepting a distinguished alumni award from Indiana University. Committee Chair Amanda Nedweski said she was “deeply disappointed” in Underly for not attending the hearing or reaching out to her directly. 

“Maybe what distinguishes Dr. Underly is that she rarely, if ever, makes any kind of appearance in this building before the legislative body,” Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, said. 

Rep. Mike Bare, D-Verona, said he was also “disappointed” by Underly’s absence.

“She should be here. I conveyed that to her team twice in the last week,” Bare said. 

Bare said he approves of the committee looking into grooming in schools, adding: “I think you will find agreement on both sides here that this is something worth looking into.” 

He argued the Capital Times report included some fair characterizations, while others were unfair or not characterized to their full potential. He also raised concerns that kids are less safe in private schools, which aren’t required to employ licensed teachers.

The hearing at times yielded tense exchanges between DPI staff and GOP lawmakers. Republicans took issue, among other things, with Underly’s comments saying state law’s definition of immoral conduct in the context of licensing doesn’t currently include grooming or professional boundary violations. 

Underly in a letter to the Capital Times argued the definition limits DPI’s ability to obtain critical information, though she said the agency works to remove unfit educators and prevent further harm. 

Both DPI and law enforcement at the hearing voiced the need for a statutory definition of grooming.

State law in the context of license revocations defines immoral conduct as conduct or behavior that is contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards and that endangers the health, safety, welfare, or education of any pupil.

“Can you honestly say sitting here that you could take a survey of the people in this room … three-quarters of whom I don’t know … that a vast majority of them would not say that grooming children is obviously immoral behavior?” said Rep. Shae Sortwell, R-Two Rivers. 

Deputy State Superintendent Tom McCarthy said DPI is using its authority to revoke licenses. 

“We’re doing that in a space right now where the authority doesn’t necessarily clearly back us in every instance. We’re still doing these, but you’re asking us to make judgment calls about a vague and ambiguous statute,” McCarthy said. 

After the hearing, the committee voted unanimously to ask Assembly Org to submit a request to Dem AG Josh Kaul to address whether state law governing immoral conduct by teachers includes grooming.

The committee also heard from Kenosha Police Chief Patrick Patton to discuss the case of former Kenosha School of Technology teacher Christian Enright. Enright was convicted of disorderly conduct charges after exchanging messages over Snapchat with a 14-year-old student. 

Patton voiced support for a definition of grooming in state law, saying current law doesn’t necessarily clearly apply to all incidents. 

Lawmakers in 2024 created a new crime for sexual misconduct of a pupil. The legislation also expanded the list of crimes that constitute immoral conduct for the purpose of revoking licenses issued by DPI to include sexual misconduct, representations of nudity, and exposing genitals, among other things. 

Patton said if Act 200 had been in place at the time, it would have helped in the Enright case. Still, he said cases involving behavior similar to Enright’s have occurred since Act 200 was enacted that wouldn’t be prohibited under the law. The law applies to any school staff member or volunteer who commits an act of sexual misconduct against a pupil enrolled in the school. 

“We have had instances of the same type of behavior between a teacher and a student and we’re not able to apply that law because that teacher has started that communication after they left and they were a substitute teacher in the school. They are no longer in the same school, so that law cannot apply,” Patton said.