Open Records #54: Tonja Hesselberg emails 12/10/18-12/12/18

E-mails sent by Tonja Hesselberg between 12/20/18 and 12/24/18
44-page document

Highlighted aspects to e-mails
 Starting from page 44 working to page 5 as this is the order of e-mail exchanges
o Page 44
 E-mail sent from Haili McCulloch to James Feldhausen regarding
interview questions for interviews to take place on 12/20/18
 Reply from James asking if they are all set to be sent to WCCS for
printing
o Page 41
 Email from Daniel Winkleski (warden) to Tonja Hesselberg sent on
12/19/18 at 2:48 pm
 Winkleski asks Hesselberg to have a conversation to get thoughts
on person
o Person is named

 Hesselberg replies with personal phone number on 12/20/18 at 6:38am
o Page 34
 Email sent in reply to interview questions on 12/20/18 at 7:38am
 Include a person by name

o Page 27
 Hesselberg sends an email to DOC CAL DCC New Lisbon Conf Rm
containing her personal number

o Page 26
 Hesselberg emails to people regarding a mediation meeting set for
Thursday December 27 th

 Marks sensitivity as confidential yet includes sensitive information
regarding the mediation meeting with the two people
o Names are used and personal number included

o Page 25
 Email from Hesselberg to Rhondi Dorshorst about availability but also
includes some non-work-related aspects

o Page 19
 Hesselberg forwards confidential email from page 26 to Tonia Schumann
and Daniel Winkleski while including the names of the people again while
including the personal cell phone number
 Asks that both employees are able to be paid for attendance of this

o Pages 7-8
 Include non-work-related messages surrounding the holidays
 Page 7 includes names

o Page 5- 6
 Email from Aaron Sabel to Hesselberg asking for 1271/ information
regarding an investigation at OSCI
 Sabel includes personal cell number
 Page 5 includes Hesselberg’s reply stating they don’t fill out 1271 with
personal information in the email. Douglas Percy is CCed in the email
 Percy replies to say that they need a copy of the intake form to
know what to put
o Hesselberg then replies with a copy of the complaint
investigation findings stating it should be a form for
“potential retaliation”
 states intake notes are confidential and kept separate
from 1271
 includes personal information such as names in this
email

Findings

  1. Health issues
    a. Personal health issues are discussed in some e-mails when discussing why Phila
    was not in the office
  2. Identities of people in mediation
    a. People participating in mediation are named more than once despite the fact this
    information is confidential.
    i. Several e-mails include them, and the e-mail that is forwarded (after being
    marked confidential) includes personal e-mails of these people.
    b. On many occasions it is clear that the confidentiality of these people is
    disregarded.
  3. Personal numbers
    a. On many occasions people e-mail their personal numbers. Hesselberg includes
    their personal number more than once.
    i. Daniel Winkleski includes their personal number with the hope that
    Hesselberg will call and they can discuss their thoughts on a person
    involved in mediation

Concluding Thoughts
Overall, it seems that these e-mails pay no mind to the fact a lot of their information is
sensitive and should not be sent via the internet. The identities of people involved in mediation is
disclosed on several occasions despite being marked as confidential e-mails. Similarly, the same
e-mail is forwarded to more than one person. Another observation shows the lack of
communication regarding forms for the WCCS to print. It is clear that they rushed to finish it
without Hesselberg giving an okay—despite having a 2-day grace period in replies, somebody
went ahead and okayed it to speed up the process. This lack of cohesion appears when
attempting to schedule a meeting as nobody seems to have a decent amount of time where they
can meet, so it gets pushed later than planned.
It appears the DOC does not take personal information/ complaint forms into mind when
distributing them to people who ask. They readily send these forms over in order to speed up
whatever they are trying to accomplish. This includes forms relating to mediation. It is clear they
do not have a working understanding of the best way to do things. Similarly, when they are

attempting to work on WCCS forms in general they lack communication and everybody’s
input—they need to figure out an easier way to share documents rather than e-mailing the same
thing several times.