Passage as amended.
Ayes, 5 - Senators
Schultz, Brown, Kedzie, Hansen and Lassa.
Noes, 0 - None.
Dale Schultz
Chairperson
The committee on Economic Development, Job Creation and Housing reports and recommends:
Assembly Bill 508
Relating to: the income and franchise tax credit for sales tax and use tax paid on fuel and electricity consumed in manufacturing.
Concurrence.
Ayes, 4 - Senators
Stepp, Roessler, Brown and Plale.
Noes, 1 - Senator
Moore.
Cathy Stepp
Chairperson
The committee on Senate Organization reports and recommends:
Senate Joint Resolution 49
Relating to: the life and patriotic service of Christopher Glenn Mueller.
Adoption.
Ayes, 5 - Senators
Panzer, A. Lasee, Zien, Erpenbach and Hansen.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Joint Resolution 51
Relating to: proclaiming March 30, 2004, as Sauk City Day in Wisconsin.
Adoption.
Ayes, 5 - Senators
Panzer, A. Lasee, Zien, Erpenbach and Hansen.
Noes, 0 - None.
S539
Senate Joint Resolution 53
Relating to: commending the life and public service of Officer Richard A. Meyer.
Adoption.
Ayes, 5 - Senators
Panzer, A. Lasee, Zien, Erpenbach and Hansen.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Joint Resolution 54
Relating to: the retirement of Pat Coakley following a long and dedicated career in the service of the Wisconsin legislature as a member of the Joint Legislative Council Staff.
Adoption.
Ayes, 5 - Senators
Panzer, A. Lasee, Zien, Erpenbach and Hansen.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Resolution 25
Relating to: notifying the assembly and the governor that Robert J. Marchant is the senate chief clerk.
Adoption.
Ayes, 5 - Senators
Panzer, A. Lasee, Zien, Erpenbach and Hansen.
Noes, 0 - None.
Mary Panzer
Chairperson
__________________
State of Wisconsin
January 8, 2004
The Honorable, The Senate:
Please add my name as a cosponsor of 2003 Assembly Bill 395.
Sincerely,
Tom Reynolds
State Senator
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
December 23, 2003
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on December 5, 2003.
The amounts recommended for payment under $5,000 on claims included in this report have, under the provisions of s.
16.007, Stats., been paid directly by the Board.
The Board is preparing the bill(s) on the recommended award(s) over $5,000, if any, and will submit such to the Joint Finance Committee for legislative introduction.
This report is for the information of the Legislature. The Board would appreciate your acceptance and spreading of it upon the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
John E. Rothschild
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
The State Claims Board conducted hearings at the Department of Administration Building, St. Croix Room, Madison, Wisconsin, on December 19, 2002, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
1. Linda Kilgore Corrections $8,578.89
2. Deborah A. Axelson Workforce $20,778.68
Development
3. Brandy C. Solomon Workforce $74,880.00
Development
4. Market & Johnson Administration $7,569.00
5. David F. Kral Revenue $1,771.06
6. Joyce D. Roettgen Health and $1,052.10
Family Services
In addition, the following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
7. Kwangbae Kim University of $131.88
Wisconsin
8. Oscar I. Winger Transportation $1,043.26
The Board Finds:
1. Linda Kilgore of Cameron, Wisconsin claims $8,578.89 for vehicle and property damage allegedly related to her employment as a Probation and Parole Agent with DOC. The claimant states that she served one of her offenders with revocation papers, at which time he threatened her. The revocation hearing was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on July 12, 2002. Around 3:00 a.m. on July 11, 2002, someone propped a lit propane torch under the gas tank of claimant's vehicle, which was parked in the driveway of her residence. The ensuing explosion and fire destroyed the vehicle and various personal items stored in the car, a tree and five bushes, damaged the driveway, and caused smoke damage to the home. An individual named Scott Ristow is suspected in the crime. The claimant states that Mr. Ristow has strong connections to Loren Purintun, the offender scheduled for revocation on July 12. The claimant believes that Mr. Purintun arranged the arson in retaliation for his revocation. The claimant received a settlement payment of $5,164.25 from her homeowner's insurance, but alleges that her actual damages totaled $13,743.14. The claimant states that she accepted the insurance payment under protest because she had to purchase a replacement vehicle for her family because the vehicle destroyed was their only car and they do not have access to public transportation. The claimant believes that the connection between Mr. Ristow and Mr. Purintun proves that this arson was a direct result of her actions as a Probation and Parole Agent and believes that DOC should reimburse her for her uninsured damages.
S540
DOC recommends denial of this claim and believes the claimant has already been properly compensated by her insurer. DOC points to insurance payments as follows: 1) Claim for tree removal - $472. Insurance payment $450.00. 2) Claim for driveway replacement -$5058.00. The claimant's insurer limited payment to replacement of the actual damaged portion of the driveway, not the entire driveway as claimant claimed. The insurer paid the claimant $1160 to replace the damaged part of the driveway. 3) Claim for replacement trees and bushes-$2321. The cost of replacing the destroyed bushes, $1500, was completely covered by the claimant's insurance. Replacement of the destroyed tree was limited to $500, per the claimant's policy. Total insurance payment for tree and bush replacement was $2150. 4) Claim for pressure wash of roof, soffit and driveway - $890. The claimant's insurance payment included $1016.25 for "additional subcontractor allowances and labor allowances" which DOC believes would include these costs. 5) Claim for rake, hose, degreaser - $18.59. The claimant's insurer also included a $120 payment to reimburse the claimant for her personal efforts to clean her property, which DOC believes would include these costs. 6) Claim for personal property in automobile - $483. The claimant's insurance reimbursed her $268 for personal property destroyed along with her automobile, however, vehicle floor mats and the 30 cassette tapes allegedly destroyed were not covered pursuant to the claimant's insurance policy. 7) 94 Mercury Cougar - $4500 Blue Book value. According to the claimant's documentation, she had no insurance on the vehicle. DOC believes that this is a very unfortunate incident but that the claimant has been appropriately reimbursed. Since the crime remains under investigation and no charges have been filed, no definitive proof exists to clearly link the incident to the claimant's employment. Finally, DOC states that even were such a link eventually established, it is the person responsible for the crime who should be held accountable for the claimant's damages and she could seek payment under Chapter
949, Wis. Stats.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $4,500.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s.
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Corrections appropriation s.
20.410(1)(b), Stats. The Board further concludes that, in the event that the claimant is able to obtain reimbursement in the future for losses caused by third parties, the Department of Corrections may seek reimbursement of the funds expended from appropriation s.
20.410(1)(b), Stats.
2. Deborah A. Axelson of Waupun, Wisconsin claims $20,778.68 for unpaid wages related to a wage complaint filed with DWD in May 1999 against Brooks Ambulance, Inc. In February 2000 DWD concluded that Brooks Ambulance owed the claimant the wages in question. Brooks refused to pay the wages and in September 2000 DWD referred the case to the Columbia County DA, requesting that he commence an action against Brooks. The claimant believes that from this point onward, Jill Komarek, the DWD investigator deliberately stalled by not responding to requests for information from either the claimant's attorney or the DA's office. The claimant states that Mr. Sarbacker wrote DWD in February 2002 requesting additional investigation by DWD but that Ms. Komarek did not cooperate. The claimant believes that Ms. Komarek was somehow in collusion with Brooks Ambulance to stall the case. The claimant questions why DWD did not file a lien on Brooks' assets after the company refused DWD's order to pay the claimant's wages. The claimant also believes that Ms. Komarek did not follow up properly after Brooks refused other requests made by DWD. The claimant points to the fact that another individual with a wage claim against Brooks has already been paid.
DWD recommends this claim not be paid and denies any mishandling of the claimant's wage claim. DWD conducted an investigation and agreed that Brooks owed wages to the claimant. When Brooks did not pay the wages within 15 days, DWD followed standard procedure and referred the claim to the Columbia County DA's Office. The case was referred to Columbia County in September 2000, with ample time for the DA to file a civil action against Brooks. (The statutory deadline to file a civil complaint was May 13, 2001.) Once DWD refers a case to a district attorney, the handling of the matter is within the discretion of the DA and DWD's involvement in the matter is concluded. DWD points to the fact that the statutes provide that wage complaints do not have to be filed with DWD. At any time in this process, the claimant's attorney could have filed a civil action against Brooks directly, on behalf of the claimant, however the claimant's attorney failed to do so. In addition, for reasons unknown to DWD, the Columbia Co DA chose not to file a civil claim against Brooks but instead attempted to bring criminal charges against the company. The criminal charges were dismissed as insufficient and the DA requested additional information from DWD in an attempt to correct this insufficiency. DWD points to the fact that this information was not requested until February 12, 2002, well after the May 2001 deadline for filing a civil complaint and that DWD responded to this request within 7 days. The claimant also believes that DWD acted inappropriately by not filing a lien against Brooks. DWD states that it files wage liens only in exceptional circumstances (such as an employer on the verge of bankruptcy or that appears to be leaving the state) none of which were applicable to Brooks. DWD also points to the fact that a lien would not have prevented the running on the statute of limitations on filing a civil claim. If the DA's office had filed a civil claim and obtained a judgment, that judgment could have been used to obtain a lien. DWD believes that it handled the claimant's wage claim appropriately and that her losses are attributable to the failure of both her attorney and the Columbia County District Attorney's Office to file a civil action against Brooks Ambulance.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles. [Member Fitzgerald dissenting.]
3. Brandy C. Solomon of Milwaukee, Wisconsin claims $74,880.00 for lost wages alleged caused by DWD's approval of forged documents. In August 1999 the claimant was hired by M & I Data Services and her employment was terminated 120 days later. The claimant has since learned that her name (among others) was used in a tax fraud scheme perpetrated by Annette Fabry. Ms. Fabry offered to prepare and submit necessary documentation for several WI businesses to obtain tax credits for hiring individuals who qualified under the Work Opportunity Tax Credit or Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit programs. Ms. Fabry collected a fee of 15% of the tax credits earned for her clients. A federal investigation uncovered that Ms. Fabry fraudulently obtained certification from DWD by submitting forged documents, altered to make it appear that the employees in questions met the eligibility requirements for these tax credit programs, when in fact, they were not eligible. (Ms. Fabry was convicted in August 2003.) The claimant has learned that her name was submitted by Ms. Fabry to fraudulently obtain a tax credit for M & I Data Services. The claimant believes that DWD was careless in approving Ms. Fabry's forged documents. She also believes that because of DWD's approval of the fake documents, she was falsely classified by M & I Data Services as a "high-risk" employee in need of training and rehabilitation. She points to the fact that she was put under constant supervision by the company and counseled daily regarding meeting expectations. In addition, she states that the company employed her for exactly 120 days, which is the minimum required to obtain the tax credit. The claimant believes that DWD should have been more diligent in reviewing the documents submitted by Ms. Fabry. She states that since her termination, she has been mostly unemployed or underemployed. She requests reimbursement of three year's lost wages in the amount of $74,880.
S541
DWD recommends denial of this claim. DWD believes that the claimant has not established any basis for a claim against the state. The fraud uncovered by the federal investigation involved false documents filed by Ms. Fabry, who benefited from the fraud because her company received a percentage of the tax credits received. DWD believes that there is no evidence that the false tax credit documents had any effect on the claimant's work at M & I Data Services. A review of her discharge by the Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission on April 3, 2000, found that the claimant was discharged for misconduct (excessive absenteeism) connected with her employment and ordered her to repay previously paid unemployment benefits. DWD states that it has had no involvement with the fraud perpetrated by Ms. Fabry. DWD was a victim of the fraud and fully cooperated with the investigation into the matter.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
