S854
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the amount of $253.19 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of §
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection appropriation §
20.115(1)(gb), Stats.
6. Jonathan Wojak of West Allis, Wisconsin claims $1,088.63 for cost to repair a vehicle damaged by an Emerald Ash Borer trap that fell from a tree and struck the claimant's truck. On July 1, 2011, the claimant's vehicle was parked at a campsite at Goose Island Campground in LaCrosse, Wisconsin. The Emerald Ash Borer trap fell from a tree and hit the claimant's vehicle, scratching and denting it several places. The claimant has received an estimate of $1,088.63 to repair his vehicle and requests reimbursement in that amount.
DATCP has no objection to payment of this claim in the reduced amount of $750, the claimant's auto insurance deductible. DATCP has been conducting surveys to detect the presence of the Emerald Ash Borer since 2009. As part of that survey program, the department has placed approximately 19,000 purple prism traps in ash trees throughout the state. DATCP staff is trained to install the traps with the utmost care; however severe weather will occasionally cause traps to fall from trees. The department notes that severe weather was reported in the area of the campground at the time of this incident. DATCP also notes that during the three years of this survey program, this is the only reported incident of property damage caused by a falling trap. DATCP has no objection to payment of this claim but recommends the reduced amount of the claimant's insurance deductible. DATCP also requests that because there was no employee negligence in this incident, that the Claims Board not charge this payment to DATCP's budget.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $750.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of §
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection appropriation §
20.115(7)(m), Stats.
7. Oscar Garner of Waupun, Wisconsin claims $175.21 for reimbursement for property allegedly lost by DOC staff. In 2006 the claimant was transferred from Green Bay Correctional Institution (GBCI) to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF). In February 2008 the claimant was transferred to Waupun Correctional Institution (WCI). He states that he received his property form at WCI on February 7, 2008, and realized he was missing a pair of sunglasses, a pair of tennis shoes and three pairs of socks. He filed an Inmate Complaint but it was dismissed as being past the 14 day time limit. DOC stated he was past the time limit because he had received a property list after his 2006 transfer from GBCI to WSPF that showed no sunglasses, tennis shoes or socks inventoried. DOC stated that the claimant should have filed the complaint for missing property at that time. The claimant states that he was in segregation prior to 2008 so he did not have access to his property and therefore had no way to know any was missing. On July 8, 2009, the claimant was placed in temporary lock up and released on July 9. The claimant states that when he received his property inventory on July 9, he noticed that tennis shoes, canteen items and an electric razor were missing. He filed an Inmate Complaint, which was dismissed by DOC on the basis that the items may have been stolen from his unsecured footlocker. The claimant states that he was not given a chance to lock his footlocker because the guard made him come to the door immediately and took him to temporary lock up. The claimant states it was DOC's fault that he was not given a chance to secure his property and he should therefore be reimbursed for his damages.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC notes that the claimant's first complaint regarding missing property was made one-and-a-half years after he was first notified that these items were not in his property inventory. DOC points to the note at the bottom of the 2006 inventory stating that the claimant received a copy of the form on October 24, 2006. As to the second complaint, DOC notes that their inventory form shows no shoes in his inventory when he went into lock-up, however, the form submitted by the claimant has a check mark next to shoes. DOC believes the claimant has submitted a forged form to the Claims Board and is considering disciplinary action against the claimant. DOC further notes that the inventory form notes a razor in the claimant's property but not an electric razor. DOC states that any electric razor possessed by the claimant may have been traded or stolen prior to his being placed in lock-up. Similarly, any canteen items may have been consumed or stolen. DOC records indicate that the claimant's footlocker was unsecured in violation of DOC rules. Inmates are provided with padlocks and are responsible for keeping their valuables secure at all times. DOC believes there is no evidence that any of the claimant's property was lost due to staff negligence and requests denial of this claim.
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.
S855
8. Charles Sheppard of Portage, Wisconsin claims $1,261.14 for value of property allegedly improperly designated as contraband and destroyed by DOC staff. The claimant is an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution. On May 3, 2010, he filed an Inmate Complaint (ICE) relating to property that was designated as contraband when he was placed in segregation in April. On June 15, 2010, the claimant contacted the warden to check on the status of his ICE and was told there was a backlog but that the claimant could appeal directly to the Corrections Complaint Examiner (CCE), which he did on June 17, 2010. The claimant states that at all times he kept property room staff up to date on the status of his complaint and appeal. On July 6, 2010, the claimant received a letter from the CCE extending their response time for his appeal and indicating that his administrative remedies had not been exhausted until they made their response. The claimant states that he believed this meant that no decision had been made regarding disposition of his property. On July 12, 2010, the claimant was released from segregation and was told by the property room that his property had been destroyed after the warden dismissed his ICE. The claimant alleges he was never notified that his ICE had been dismissed and believes that his property should have been retained through the end of his appeals process and then he should have been allowed to mail out his property. The claimant states that DOC's Attachment 1, page 25, shows that he signed the form on April 20, 2010, but the staff note relating to destruction of his property was added later, and is therefore not proof that he was informed he needed to dispose of his property. The claimant also filed an ICE relating to designation of several family photos as gang-related contraband. The claimant believes this designation was unfair, noting that one of the photos was of his one-year-old nephew. The claimant alleges that he never provided an envelope to DOC for them to mail out the photos and believes they were improperly destroyed.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC records indicate that all the property items related to this matter were correctly designated as contraband either because they were broken/altered or were in amounts over institution limits. DOC notes that the claimant is routinely found to have property in excess of DOC limits. DOC records indicate that the claimant's property was held in excess of the required 30 day limit and that the warden had made a decision dismissing the claimant's ICE. DOC form 237A (Attachment 1, page 25), indicates that the claimant was informed that he needed to dispose of his property but refused to deal with property room staff, therefore, his property was destroyed. The department notes that DOC 303.10(3), Wis. Admin. Code provides that the "institution shall retain property until the warden makes a final decision" not until the inmate has exhausted all available appeals. As to the photographs designated as contraband, DOC staff determined that they contained gang-related activity. DOC records indicate that, although the photos were temporarily misplaced, they were eventually located and the two photos that were not allowed were mailed out in an envelope provided by the claimant in September 2010.
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.
9-25. 17 claimants claim the amounts shown below for value of personal property. On August 24, 2010, the DOC office on Capitol Drive in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was destroyed by fire. Along with departmental property, personal property of DOC employees was destroyed. The claimants were DOC employees at the Capitol Drive office and request reimbursement for the value of their personal property.
DOC recommends payment of these claims in reduced amounts. In order to provide for a fair system of reimbursement, DOC has evaluated the property claimed by Capitol Drive employees using the IRS's general depreciation schedule. DOC recommends reimbursement in the depreciated amounts shown below.
Claimant Claimed Amt DOC Recommended Amt
Elhajjmalik
Brickhouse $395.00 $150.71
Rosemary
Cleveland $259.00 $235.14
Regina Ferrell $151.00 $62.25
Holly Ferry $540.00 $240.73
Brooke Gagliano $250.00 $142.88
Michael Gollinger $726.00 $375.71
Latacia N. Jewell $624.99 $502.84
Kimberly Malone $461.00 $461.00
Nicole McDade $230.00 $173.55
Mandy (Meekma)
Castillo $96.00 $67.87
Jada Miller $826.67 $329.08
Natalie Mustapich $368.00 $236.09
Angelique Richards $325.83 $85.66
Betty E. Salahadyn $1,135.95 $990.35
Heather (Schloerke)
Scharlau $359.30 $148.56
Rebecca Schultz $304.89 $271.48
Alacia Smith $375.00 $260.86
On August 12, 2011, the Claims Board initially reviewed these claims. For each claim, each employee listed various items of personal property that he or she kept at the office. DOC reviewed the claims and, following review, DOC recommended that each and every item of personal property listed be reimbursed, subject only to the standard IRS depreciation schedule.
State Risk Management generally does not provide coverage for employee personal property "except as needed for legitimate state business purposes as determined and agreed to in writing in advance by the agency risk manager."
Given the wide variety of personal property that was listed for reimbursement, the Claims Board questioned whether all of it was actually work related. Because of the Risk Management policy and the Claims Board's questions, the Claims Board asked DOC to confirm the work related nature of the personal property. The Board specifically asked DOC to decide which personal property items could be characterized as having a legitimate state business purpose. DOC responded by affirming that every item listed by each claimant was legitimately work related.
Based solely on DOC's affirmation that all claimed property is legitimately work related, the Board concludes the claims should be paid in the reduced amounts recommended by DOC, based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of §
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Corrections appropriation §
20.410 (1)(b), Stats. The Board further reaffirms the precedent set forth in its December 13, 1977, decision of the claim of Karen Gruba, that state employees not be reimbursed for the loss of "personal property brought to their work station for their convenience and enjoyment," and states that the payment of these claims is not intended to serve as future precedent for similar claims.
The Board concludes:
That the following identified claimants are denied:
James Pawlak
AT&T Wisconsin
Hakim Shirwa
Oscar Garner
Charles Sheppard
That payment of the below amounts to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under S 16.007, Stats:
Steve Means
Gregory D. Murray
howard marklein
Assembly Finance Committee
Brian Hagedorn
Representative of the Governor
__________________
Pursuant to Wis. Stats. 13.172(2) and (3), attached is the list of agency reports received from executive branch and legislative service agencies for the month of April, 2012.
Legislative Audit Bureau
Local Government Property Insurance Fund
Pursuant to 13.94 (1)(de) Wis. Stats.
Received on April 11, 2012
Claims Board
State Claims Board covering claims heard on March 27,
2012
Pursuant to 16.007 and 775.05 Wis. Stats.
Received on April 18, 2012
Joint Legislative Council
RL 2011-10 Special Committee on Nanotechnology, (2011 Senate Bill 553)
Received on March 9, 2012
Government Accountability Board
Weekly Registered Lobbyist Report
Received on April 23, 2012
Legislative Audit Bureau
FoodShare Wisconsin
Received on April 27, 2012
Department of Health Services
Evaluation of WHAIC Reports in the previous calendar
year
Received on April 30, 2012
Department of Administration
Temporary reallocation of balances for March 2012
Pursuant to 20.002 (11)(f) Wis. Stats.
Received on April 30 2012
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
May 7, 2012
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am pleased to nominate and with the advice and consent of the Senate, do appoint Stephen Willett
of Phillips, as a member of the Wisconsin Technical College System Board, to serve for the term ending May 1, 2017.
Respectfully submitted,
SCOTT WALKER
Governor
Read and referred to committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and Higher Education.
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
May 8, 2012
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am pleased to nominate and with the advice and consent of the Senate, do appoint Mark
Cupp
of Muscoda, as a member of the Land and Water Conservation Board, to serve for the term ending May 1, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
SCOTT WALKER
Governor
Read and referred to committee on Natural Resources and Environment.
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
May 8, 2012
The Honorable, The Senate:
