Although few specifics have been released about the circumstances surrounding the resignation of a top University of Wisconsin Athletics official, an investigation into allegations of misconduct is underway.
Senior Associate Athletic Director John Chadima resigned in early January after allegations of misconduct surfaced. Chadima was placed on administrative leave Jan. 6 by Athletic Director Barry Alvarez. He resigned later that day.
The events prompted Interim Chancellor David Ward to appoint an independent review board to investigate the allegations. UW officials have declined to comment on what the allegations involves, including if criminal charges are likely to be filed.
On Thursday, Chadima released a formal statement apologizing for his “recent lapse of judgment.”
“I have resigned as associate athletic director from UW-Madison so as not to bring disrepute to the University of Wisconsin,” Chadima said in the statement. “I deeply regret leaving under these circumstances and disappoint those people with, and for whom, I have worked.”
According a statement from Ward, the independent review panel will be led by retired Dane County Circuit Judge Patrick Fiedler. Other members of the panel include a former assistant chief of the UW Police Department and two former UW deans.
Vince Sweeney, vice chancellor for University Relations, confirmed a panel is reviewing an allegation of misconduct but declined to elaborate on the allegations against Chadima, saying he could not comment on the details while the process of review is ongoing.
“We’re simply allowing the process to unfold,” Sweeney said. “The independent review panel is doing its work, and we’re waiting for word from the panel.”
Sweeney added the review panel is determining its own schedule, and he was not aware when new information would be released.
Rep. Steve Nass, R-Whitewater, released a statement earlier this month criticizing UW for a lack of transparency in the review. His spokesperson, Mike Mikalsen, said Nass was concerned both about the potentially criminal nature of Chadima’s conduct and the validity of the UW panel.
“We are concerned that there is an attempt on the part of the university to contain the information until a time when it wouldn’t be as damaging, which by all indication now is clearly something serious,” Mikalsen said. “It’s not just your run-of-the-mill employee misconduct.”
He said Nass also spoke with Ward, who said he would not change the review panel. Mikalsen added Nass is concerned over the composition of the panel being mostly former administrators with strong ties to UW.
Mikalsen added it seems clear the incident occurred while Chadima was in California for the Rose Bowl, raising concerns over why police were not contacted.
When asked if recent allegations of Chadima’s intoxication during a party in California played a role in the incident, Mikalsen said intoxication may be one factor. He added he believes new information will come to light in the coming days.
Shortly after Nass’s call for transparency, Ward released a second statement saying the panel must be allowed to complete its work to protect the integrity of the review and those who have shared their information.
“UW-Madison employees are held to a high standard of professional conduct,” Ward said in the statement. “We encourage reporting and take reports of misconduct very seriously.”
