Department of Administration
May 11, 2010
The Honorable, The Legislature:
In accordance with s.16.75(3m)(c)4, Wis. Stats., enclosed is the State of Wisconsin Minority Business Report for Fiscal Year 2009. The report provides information on State Agency and University of Wisconsin purchasing with minority business enterprises (MBE) certified by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce.
Overall MBE purchasing totaled $77,134,785. The Fiscal Year 2009 (FY09) MBE spending level and percentage ratio were the second highest in program history. This figure represents a MBE participation rate of 4.49 percent on overall spending in FY 09. Other highlights include:
State architectural/engineering spend represented a 9.74% MBE participation rate thus meeting or exceeding the five percent goal for the twenty-second consecutive year. State construction MBE spend was 5.27% and state highway MBE contracting increased by more than 22%.
State agency general procurement activity with MBEs grew by more than 18% from Fiscal Year 2008.
Twelve agencies exceeded the five percent MBE goal, and Cabinet agencies specifically have a three year (FY 07-09) average MBE spending rate of nearly six percent.
State government will continue to value its minority-owned business partnership and remain committed to helping minority-owned businesses succeed and compete for state contracts.
Sincerely,
michael l. morgan
Secretary
Referred to committee on Labor, Elections, and Urban Affairs.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
May 12, 2010
The Honorable, The Legislature:
We have completed an evaluation of public health programs and medical education and research initiatives established by the Medical College of Wisconsin and the University of Wisconsin (UW) School of Medicine and Public Health. The schools established these programs and initiatives with funding they received in trust when Blue Cross Blue Shield United of Wisconsin became a for-profit, publicly held stock insurance corporation. They requested our evaluation to fulfill requirements in a March 2000 order by the Commissioner of Insurance.
The Commissioner's order divided the funds equally and restricted their use to medical education and research and public health initiatives. From December 2003 through December 2007, a total of $630.4 million was transferred to permanent endowments managed separately by each school. Through December 31, 2008, the Medical College expended $32.1 million and the UW School of Medicine and Public Health expended $44.1 million on grants and administration.
Both schools have generally complied with the requirements they established for awarding and monitoring their funding, and we found that most grantees met the objectives described in their proposals. However, there were some exceptions, and we include recommendations for the schools to improve grant management and oversight. We also identified policy issues for their consideration, including possible changes to the conflict-of-interest policies for the committees that award some funds at each school and the need to continue careful monitoring of endowment balances. We also suggest the Commissioner of Insurance consider clarifying the definition of supplanting, the degree to which medical education and research funds may be allocated by the schools' Deans on a noncompetitive basis, and the extent to which the schools should directly expend public health funding rather than award it to community-based programs administered by other entities.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the schools and grantees as we conducted this evaluation. Results of our in-depth review of 40 individual projects funded by each school are summarized in a separate document (report 10-7). The schools' responses to our evaluation follow the appendices.
Sincerely,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
May 12, 2010
S817
The Honorable, The Legislature:
We have completed an evaluation of public health programs and medical education and research initiatives established by the Medical College of Wisconsin and the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health. The schools established these programs and initiatives with funding they received in trust when Blue Cross Blue Shield United of Wisconsin became a for-profit, publicly held stock insurance corporation. They requested our evaluation to fulfill requirements in a March 2000 order by the Commissioner of Insurance.
This report includes profiles of the 80 grant projects we reviewed in detail, including 20 public health projects and 20 medical education and research projects at each school. For each project, we interviewed the grantees and reviewed project proposals, budgets, expenditures, and progress reports. Our complete evaluation of each schools' program is report 10-6, which includes an assessment of expenditures and operations, as well as policy issues for consideration by the Commissioner of Insurance, the Wisconsin United for Health Foundation, and the schools.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the schools and grantees as we conducted this evaluation. The schools' responses to our evaluation follow the appendices of report 10-6.
Sincerely,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Veterans Affairs
May 13, 2010
The Honorable, The Legislature:
In accordance with Wis. Stats. s.45.35(3d)(b), the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs and the Wisconsin Council on Veterans Programs jointly submit the biennial report to the Chief Clerk of each house of the Legislature for distribution to the Legislature under s.13.172(2) in odd numbered years. The reports were due September 30, 2009 and included a general summary of the activities and membership for the 2007-2009 of the Council on Veterans Programs and from each organization represented on the Council.
As of the September 30, 2009 deadline, all Council member organizations but the Paralyzed Veterans of America and United Women Veterans submitted reports. Those final two reports have been received and attached hereto.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (608) 266-1315 for further information or assistance.
Sincerely,
kenneth b. black
Secretary
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
May 14, 2010
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on April 28, 2010.
Those claims approved for payment pursuant to the provisions of s.
16.007 and
755.05 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,
Cari Anne Renlund
Secretary
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
The State of Wisconsin Claims Board conducted hearings at the State Capitol Building in Madison, Wisconsin, on April 28, 2010, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
The following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
5.H & J Companies, Financial Institutions $1,654.00
Inc.
6.Papu Corporation Transportation $3,000,000. 00
7.Kevin Ziegert Corrections $129.95
8.William F. Revenue $3,430.00
Markwardt Trust
9.Martin & Julia Revenue $7,420.00
Zielinski
The Board Finds:
S818
1. Workforce Resource, Inc.
of Menomonie, Wisconsin claims $120,833.12 for damages relating to an alleged breach of a lease. The claimant, WRI, has partnered with the state to operate employment programs in western Wisconsin for more than 25 years. The claimant states that in 2004, DWD was looking to consolidate office space at a location near River Falls. WRI states that DWD proposed that the claimant serve as the master lease holder and then sublet space to DWD. WRI relied on the positive work relationship it had with DWD in the past and also on staff assurances that the state had a "rock solid commitment" to the terms of the sublease agreement. Based on these assurances, WRI executed the master lease agreement and proceeded to coordinate the build-out of the facility to DWD's specifications. DWD moved into the premises and began to make rent payments. DWD payments were smaller than agreed upon because DWD indicated it no longer needed to use 200 square feet of the space. WRI repeatedly requested that DWD sign a written sublease agreement and submitted multiple draft agreements to DWD and DOA for signature. The parties worked to revise the draft in the ensuing months. WRI states that WRI and DWD reached an agreement on the final terms of the sublease, which was submitted to DOA for approval. WRI states that DOA provided final approval of the sublease in August 2007. Despite this approval, DOA staff neglected to get the sublease signed, however even without a signed lease, both WRI and DWD honored their obligations under the sublease agreement. Although DWD continued to make reduced rental payments, WRI alleges that state staff did eventually concede that DWD was liable for the higher rent payment, encompassing the entire space that had been prepared to DWD's specifications. WRI believes that all evidence points to the fact that there was an unsigned agreement between the parties. WRI states that DOA/DWD breached this unsigned agreement when DWD vacated the premises in June 2008. The claimant states that although § 704.01(1), Wis. Stats., requires that a lease longer than one year must be in written form, Wis. Stat. § 706.04, provides an exception that an unsigned lease agreement is enforceable "provided all of the elements of the transaction are clearly and satisfactorily proved and - the deficiency of the conveyance may be supplied by reformation in equity." WRI requests reimbursement for the full rental payments for the 37 months remaining on the lease after DWD vacated, as well as $421.90/mo for the 21 months DWD made reduced rental payments in violation of the agreement.
Both DWD and DOA recommend denial of this claim. DWD notes that it has no authority to lease property without the approval of DOA and therefore believes there is no basis for any claim against DWD. DOA and DWD both deny that they persuaded WRI to enter into a master lease for the River Falls facility. DWD notes that discussions between the department and WRI relating to another facility in Rice Lake, Wisconsin, included the possibility of WRI taking on a master lease; however those discussions have no bearing on the negotiations for the River Falls facility. In fact, the lengthy emails and discussions presented by WRI as evidence for their claim actually point to the fact that the parties did not reach an agreement relating to the River Falls facility and one of the main disagreements between the parties was the rental amount. WRI's acceptance of the reduced rental payments from DWD and the absence of a signed agreement constituted acceptance of a month to month tenancy, which the state was forced to terminate In June 2008 for budgetary reasons.
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 Renlund not participating.)
2. Chaunte Ott
of Oak Creek, Wisconsin claims $25,000.00 compensation for Innocent Convict pursuant to § 775.05, Wis. Stats. The claimant spent nearly 13 years in prison after being convicted of the August 1994 murder of 16 year old Jessica Payne. Payne's body was found outside a vacant house in Milwaukee with her throat slashed and evidence of sexual assault. Police arrested and interrogated Richard Gwin and Sam Hadaway in relation to the murder and both men alleged the claimant was involved in the homicide. The claimant was arrested and charged with 1st degree intentional homicide. Both Gwin and Hadaway testified against the claimant at trial. The defense argued that Gwin and Hadaway's testimony was inconsistent and compromised by the favorable treatment they received from the State. In addition, DNA testing on the semen found at the scene was inconclusive and, despite the violent nature of the crime, there was no physical evidence linking the claimant to the crime scene. However, the claimant was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
In 2002, the Wisconsin Innocence Project requested new DNA testing of the semen found at the Payne crime scene. The new testing technology excluded the claimant as the source of the semen. (The testing also excluded Hadaway and Gwyn.) The new DNA profile did not match any profile in national DNA databanks. In July 2007, the State informed the Innocent Project that this unknown DNA profile had been found on the victims of two other unsolved homicides within a few blocks of the Payne murder. Both of these homicides had occurred while the claimant was incarcerated.
In October 2007, the claimant filed a motion for a new trial based on the new DNA evidence. The motion was denied. The claimant appealed. In addition to the new DNA results, he submitted an affidavit signed by Hadaway recanting his trial testimony. Hadaway stated that he had been pressured by police to implicate the claimant. Hadaway's sister also stated that Hadaway had told her numerous times that he had lied at trial due to police pressure. Furthermore, the State's other witness, Gwin, had also recanted his testimony prior to his death several years after Payne's murder. Gwin's sister stated that Gwin had told her that police put severe pressure on him during the investigation and that he had to lie in order to go home. Based on the new DNA evidence and questions regarding the credibility of Gwin and Hadaway's testimony, the Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court and granted the claimant a new trial. The claimant was released in January 2009 and all charges were dismissed in June 2009.
In September 2009, the Milwaukee County Police Department announced that they had matched the DNA profile from 9 unsolved murders on Milwaukee's north side, including that of Jessica Payne, to a man named Walter Ellis. Mr. Ellis has been charged with the murders of seven of these victims, although he has yet to be charged with the Payne murder.
The claimant believes he has provided clear and convincing evidence of his innocence. The physical evidence at the crime scene implicates Mr. Ellis, not the claimant, indeed, there is no physical evidence linking the claimant to the crime. Furthermore, two of the State's key witnesses against the claimant have recanted their testimony. Finally, the claimant did not in any way contribute to his conviction but has steadfastly maintained his innocence.
The Milwaukee County District Attorney's Office has no response to this claim at this time. The Payne homicide investigation is ongoing and litigation associated with this matter is active and pending.
The Board concludes that there is clear and convincing evidence the claimant was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted. The Board further concluded, under authority of § 775.05, Stats., the claim should be paid in the amount of $25,000.00, and that payment should be made from the Claims Board appropriation § 20.505(4)(d), Stats. (Member Means dissenting.)
S819
3. Paul Penkalski
of Madison, Wisconsin claims $134,149.68 for damages allegedly relating to the 2004 and 2005 revocations of the claimant's Wisconsin Union membership, and related actions by UW-Madison employees. The claimant states that in 2004, his Wisconsin Union membership was revoked without any warning, contrary to Wisconsin Union policies. The claimant alleges that this revocation constituted a breach of contract. The claimant states that the revocation severely damaged his reputation with his potential graduate advisor at UW, fellow members of the Hoofers Sailing Club, and a woman with whom he had a personal relationship. The claimant states that he was forced to spend many hours working to get his membership reinstated. The claimant's Union membership was reinstated two months later, with an acknowledgement by UW that the revocation "did not fully comply with the Union's internal policies for such a sanction." The claimant states that he was continually abused by UW employees who denied him access to public meetings and buildings and issued numerous citations against him. He states that his Union membership was illegally revoked a 2nd time in 2005. The claimant states that fighting this alleged abuse by UW has caused him severe mental distress. He requests reimbursement for the many hours he alleges he has been forced to spend fighting the harassing and illegal actions by UW employees.
