Hearing on alleged DPI failures focuses on requests for statutory change as well
Vague Wisconsin laws have allowed teachers who are sexual predators to groom children without fearing either appropriately severe criminal penalties or sufficient scrutiny of their teaching licenses, according to testimony Thursday from law enforcement and education administrators.
The testimony was given during a hearing of the Assembly Committee on Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency held in the wake of stories in a Madison news outlet, the Capital Times, critical of the Department of Public Instruction’s handling of hundreds of teacher misconduct allegations.
The newspaper’s investigation criticized the DPI for dedicating scant resources to investigations and for a lack of transparency. The agency issues and controls teachers’ licenses.
Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) was harshly critical of DPI Superintendent Jill Underly, who did not show up for the hearing and instead sent underlings to answer questions from incredulous legislators.
One of those DPI underlings, Deputy Superintendent Tom McCarthy, focused in part on the portion of state statutes, 115.31, that defines “immoral conduct” as “behavior that is contrary to commonly accepted moral or ethical standards and that endangers the health, safety, welfare or education of any pupil.”
Aside from mention of distributing pornographic material, the statute — which outlines when licenses can be revoked by the DPI — does not specifically define immoral conduct.
“You’re asking us to make judgment calls about a vague and ambiguous statute,” said McCarthy.
There have been times, he said, when teachers have been able to successfully challenge a DPI finding in court by claiming what they were doing was normal — a potential roadblock for the agency successfully pursuing some cases. A better definition of grooming will eliminate any chance that districts will fail to report cases to the DPI, he also suggested.
Some of his comments echoed a statement Underly herself made in a public letter to the Capital Times.
“The statutory definition of ‘immoral conduct’ does not currently include grooming or professional boundary violations, limiting our agency’s ability to obtain critical pieces of information,” she wrote. “I welcome a long overdue discussion about the need to both modernize our licensing systems and update existing statutes to clarify, broaden and deepen this limited statutory authority DPI has in these serious matters.”
Nedweski responded that the statute is “already adequate,” questioned how Underly “is unsure about this common-sense definition,” and said she thought the DPI’s “confusing statement could throw schools into chaos.”
Underlying such criticisms is a clear insinuation from some Republican legislators that the DPI is trying to shift blame or make excuses for its failures to properly investigate allegations of misconduct or to make them known to the public. Several legislators noted that while the agency seemed to show a sense of urgency since the news broke, none of its actions or proposals prior to the Capital Times story suggested that such investigations were a priority.
Nedweski does believe, on the other hand, that a different part of state statutes that lays out prosecutable crimes against children, Chapter 948, does need clarification. She focuses in part on the case of former Kenosha teacher Christian Enwright.
“Since Kenosha County Eye exposed Christian Enwright’s predatory behavior toward a student, I have been working on anti-grooming legislation that will establish hard penalties for any adult convicted of grooming a minor for sexual activity,” Nedweski said in a recent press release. “This proposal will be modeled after comprehensive laws passed in other states and will give our law enforcement and prosecutors the tools they need to keep children safe.”
Kenosha Police Chief Patrick Patton testified at the hearing Thursday. He said that Enwright texted a student with, among other things, a picture of himself in a towel but not totally exposed. There were many other images that, he said, that “you would almost refer to as flirting” if it were between adults. Enwright’s victim, according to media accounts, was 14 years old.
The police chief said there were thousands of messages exchanged at all hours of the night and, at one point, more than 600 messages in a 72-hour period both during and outside of school. Police identified 112 images that they found “concerning.”
Nevertheless, he said, law enforcement was unable to charge Enwright with anything more than multiple counts of disorderly conduct.
He was fired in May 2024 and recently sentenced to over a year and a half in jail as well as three years of supervised probation.
The chief mentioned in this testimony that legislators have now passed Act 200, which added a new crime of “sexual misconduct” against a pupil. But he also asked legislators for help with additional laws or changes that might more appropriately be used to prosecute grooming in a variety of instances.
“Currently, Wisconsin has no criminal penalty for grooming written into state statutes,” Nedweski has said. “This lack of clarity often prevents prosecutors from charging offenders, even when evidence of manipulative or predatory behavior is overwhelming.”
She is drafting bills to specifically address incidences of grooming.
Any use or reproduction of Badger Institute articles or photographs requires prior written permission. To request permission to post articles on a website or print copies for distribution, contact Badger Institute Marketing Director Matt Erdman at matt@badgerinstitute.org.
Submit a comment
Go to the full page to view and submit the form.
