One-Hundred and Second Regular Session
TUESDAY, November 8, 2016
The Chief Clerk makes the following entries under the above date.
_____________
Petitions and Communications
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Reference Bureau
November 8, 2016
The Honorable, the Legislature:
The following rules have been published in the October 31, 2016Wisconsin Administrative Register No. 730: Clearinghouse Rules Effective Date(s)
Sincerely,
BRUCE J. HOESLY
Senior Legislative Attorney/Code Editor
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Wisconsin Ethics Commission
November 8, 2016
The Honorable, the Senate:
Pursuant to Wis. Stats. §13.685 (7), we are providing the enclosed information. Please visit the Government Accountability Board’s Eye on Lobbying web site, https://lobbying.wi.gov, for more detailed information about lobbyists, lobbying principals (organizations), and state agency liaisons. McDermott, Catherine Badger State Sheriffs’ Association
Pirlot, Randall Badger State Sheriffs’ Association
Sincerely,
BRIAN BELL
Administrator
_____________
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
November 2, 2016
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on October 13, 2016. Those claims approved for payment pursuant to the provisions of s.16.007 and 775.05 Stats., have been paid directly by the Board.
This report is for the information of the Legislature, The Board would appreciate your acceptance and publication of it in the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
GREGORY D. MURRAY
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
The State of Wisconsin Claims Board conducted hearings at the State Capitol Building in Madison, Wisconsin, on October 13, 2016, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
11.
Monroe & Weisbrod University $24,000.00 of Wisconsin
2. Ronald Fouts Administration $48,637.73
3. George & Sharon Transportation $7,500.00
Thuecks
4. Donna Cvetan Revenue $6,487.12+
The following claims were decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
5. Thomas Hetzel Revenue $38,377.67
6. Larry E. Jones Revenue $9,307.60
7. Renee Miller Transportation $3,524.44
8. Bill Ross Transportation $3,286.00
9. DeAndre Johnson Corrections $199.00
10. Izelia A. Golatt Corrections $18.88
11. Mark Brown Corrections $19.93
12. Antonia D. Manns Corrections $220.00
The Board Finds:
1. Monroe & Weisbrod of Austin, Texas, claims $24,000.00 for monies allegedly owed for recruitment services performed by the claimant for the UW. In October 2013, the UW contracted with the claimant to provide psychiatrist recruitment services for two positions at UW-Madison University Health Services (UHS). The search began in November 2013. In December 2013, the claimant began discussions with Dr. Claudia Reardon regarding one of the positions. Because Dr. Reardon worked elsewhere at the UW, the claimant contacted UHS to clarify that Dr. Reardon would be considered a “hire” under the contract. Dr. Van Orman at UHS confirmed that Dr. Reardon would be considered a new hire even though she already worked at the University. In February 2014, Dr. Reardon declined one of the positions and removed herself from consideration. As part of its recruitment work, the claimant sent a series of “auto-drip” emails to Dr. Reardon regarding whether she had reconsidered accepting the position. Auto-drip emails were sent in May, August, and November of 2014, and February of 2015. During this period the claimant successfully recruited two psychiatrists for UHS. Later in 2015, the claimant saw on UHS’s webpage that Dr. Reardon had been appointed to a part-time position at UHS. The claimant contacted Dr. Van Orman at UHS regarding whether the hire of Dr. Reardon was covered under their contract with UW. Dr. Van Orman agreed that Dr. Reardon’s hire was conducted under that contract and told the claimant to send an invoice for the placement fee. The claimant’s placement fee for a single hire is $24,000 and the claimant sent an invoice in that amount to the UW. In December 2014, the UW informed the claimant that it could not pay the invoice because the purchase order related to their contract was closed and that they could not issue payment without a purchase order.The claimant states that the UW has received the benefit of the claimant’s work recruiting Dr. Reardon but the claimant received no payment for their work. The claimant believes they are due this money under the theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. The claimant states that it reasonably relied on the assurances made by Dr. Van Orman that Dr. Reardon’s recruitment was legitimate work under the contract and that her eventual hire was related to the contract. The claimant believes the UW has been unjustly enriched and requests payment of its single hire fee of $24,000.
The UW recommends denial of this claim. The UW points to the terms of the contract, which called for a 12 month search to fill two positions. Under the contract the claimant was paid a $10,000 flat fee, two $17,000 placement fees, and approximately $2,000 for expenses. UW notes that the search began in November 2013; therefore, the contract expired in November 2014. The UW states that Dr. Van Orman misinterpreted the contract when she stated that Dr. Reardon would be considered a “new hire.” Because Dr. Reardon already worked for the UW, her eventual appointment to a part time position at UHS was, in fact, a partial transfer, not a new hire. In addition, UW points to the fact that neither Dr. Van Orman nor anyone else at UW ever agreed to extend the terms of the contract past one year and Dr. Reardon’s transfer occurred after the expiration of the contract. Dr. Van Orman was not authorized to modify the terms of the contract and the purchase order clearly stated that no modifications could be made without the authorization of UW purchasing services. The UW also believes it is unreasonable to interpret the contract as allowing the claimant to indefinitely lay claim to individuals the claimant contacted during the original search. The claimant made contact with a number of individuals during the search who were not hired. Are they forever to be considered as falling under the claimant’s contract simply because the claimant continues to send them “auto-drip” emails? UW also points to the fact that the theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment do not apply when there is a valid contract in place. And even if they did apply, the claimant has provided no evidence of any work done in addition to the work completed under the contract, for which the claimant has already received $46,000. The claimant’s discussions with Dr. Reardon were performed under the original contract which has been paid in full. The claimant’s only additional contact with Dr. Reardon after the original recruitment was in the form of two automatically generated emails. The claimant cannot justify a fee of $24,000 for sending two emails. Finally, UW notes that $24,000 placement fee requested by the claimant is 7,000 more than the placement fee negotiated under the original contract. UW believes that the claimant has presented no evidence that the partial transfer of Dr. Reardon to UHS after the expiration of the contract, was included in the original contract terms, or that it was a separate search conducted by the claimant in addition to the original contract, for which additional payment is due.
