Wisconsin Legislature: S8

12. Laurie Tank $ 250.00

13. Franklin Meats, Inc. $ 320.00

14. Mark W. Hunter $ 315.00

15. Ernest Salathe $ 328.60

16. David Horzewski $ 97.02

17. Kerry Hochstatter $ 123.90

18. CNA Insurance Companies $ 363.80

19. CNA Insurance Companies $ 489.07

20. Carl Petersen $ 272.37

21. Randall Franzke $ 327.60

The Board Finds:

S5 1. Thomas VanRooy of Ashwaubenon, Wisconsin, claims $4,379.65 for damages related to Van Rooy's withdrawal from the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) in 1994. The claimant enrolled in the WRS in 1981. In 1991 he was injured and became permanently disabled. In July 1994 the claimant contacted the Department of Employe Trust Funds to receive a Separation Benefit Application which he filed with ETF on July 8, 1994. In September 1994 the claimant received payment of the separation benefit. He compared the amount paid by ETF to the statement of account that he had received earlier in the year and noticed that he had not received payment of any interest for 1994. He contacted ETF and was told that ETF only paid interest up to the January 1 prior to the separation benefit application and that the counselor to whom he spoke when requesting the application should have informed him of this. He was also told that the "fine print" of the application stated that interest would not be paid on moneys withdrawn before the end of the calendar year. Several days later he received a letter from an ETF supervisor, which acknowledged that this "fine print" could be easily overlooked and apologized for the misunderstanding. The claimant had not yet deposited the checks and asked if the money could be re-deposited into WRS. He was told that this was not possible. The claimant believes that ETF should have pointed out to him that he would not receive 1994 interest when he first called to discuss the separation benefit, since ETF acknowledges that the "fine print" on the application is easy to miss. The claimant requests interest on his WRS account from January through early September 1994. He also requests payment of the lost interest he would have accrued on the money to date. He calculates his loss at the 1993 rate of 11% interest per year, for a total claim of $4,379.65. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

2. Robert and Suzanne Saletra of Bayside, Wisconsin, claim $10,426.14 for refund of overpayments garnished to satisfy income tax delinquencies for 1990 and 1991. The claimants have an established history of timely filing their income tax returns. In the late 1980's the claimants' mother transferred some mutual funds she owned to the claimants. The claimants sold the stocks in 1990. They had never owned stocks and were not educated in the complex record keeping responsibilities involved with mutual funds. The claimants' mother had moved and her records and papers had been lost, therefore, they were unsuccessful in their attempt to examine her financial records and obtain the information about the mutual fund needed to file their 1990 income tax return. The claimants became confused about what to do and, rather than seeking assistance, froze and did nothing. The claimants knew they had to file a 1990 return, but became afraid of the consequences of their procrastination. This fear also led them to neglect their 1991 and 1992 returns. In the fall of 1993, the Department of Revenue began garnishing Mr. Saletra's wages to collect the delinquent taxes. The claimants were never informed of the statute of limitations governing refund of any overpayment. The claimants hired an accounting firm to file their 1993 taxes and prepare the delinquent tax returns for 1990-1992. In May 1996 the late returns were filed. The claimants have been refunded their overpayment of $8,376.51 for 1992, however, overpayments for 1990 ($4,977.35) and 1991 ($5,448.79), have not been refunded due to the statute of limitations. The claimants do not feel it was fair that the DOR never informed them of the statute of limitations and also feel that the amounts assessed were unreasonable. The DOR seized $18,800 for an actual tax liability of only $184.40. Mr. Saletra's health is failing and the claimants request they be refunded the overpayments for 1990 and 1991. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

3. Barb Abelmann of Madison, Wisconsin, claims $206,124.00 for medical expenses and related damages allegedly caused by a surgical error. The claimant required pelvic reconstruction surgery at UW Hospital and Clinics in January 1986 due to a motorcycle accident. Since the surgery, the claimant has been unable to adequately control her bladder or bowel functions. The claimant believes this is because the surgeon accidentally cut a nerve. She was told by a UW neurologist that her bowel/bladder dysfunction was a complication of the surgery and would probably correct itself within a year. The claimant was placed on a regimen of medications and catheterization to deal with the problem. In July 1986 the claimant re-entered the work force. It was very difficult for her to maintain a normal work and social schedule due to continuing bladder/bowel dysfunction. She experienced a number of embarrassing public episodes of fecal and urinary incontinence and was forced to leave her job in 1988. In 1994, the claimant had a urinary pump implant to help eliminate the dysfunction. This is an expensive surgery which will need to be repeated every six to seven years. She is no longer eligible for regular private health insurance, however, she is eligible for Medicare. She requests reimbursement for the medical supplies, HIRSP insurance and repeated surgeries she will require for the rest of her life. Her estimated expenses are $206,124. The UW did "write off" some of the costs of the urinary pump implant surgery. The claimant believes their decision to do so was an indirect admission that the hospital had accidentally injured her. Consequently, she believes that the UW has a continuing obligation to assist her with her future medical costs. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

4. Poornima Srinivas of Madison, Wisconsin, claims $1,055.46 for vehicle damage caused by an accident with a UW employe in the Eagle Heights parking lot. The claimant saw the UW vehicle pass by her parking space and she then began backing out of the space. When she was about 3/4 out of the parking space, the UW vehicle began backing down the drive aisle towards her vehicle. She honked her horn but was not able to quickly pull back into her parking space because of the angle of her vehicle. The UW vehicle backed into the claimant's car, causing damage to the rear left panel. The claimant requests reimbursement of her repair cost, which is not covered by insurance. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

5. Scott Kaun of Loganville, Wisconsin, claims $200.00 for damages related to slaughter of a cow. The animal had been imported from the United Kingdom, prior to the 1989 ban on such importation by the USDA. After the scare and publicity regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("mad cow disease"), the animal was quarantined by the DATCP. At the request of the USDA and the DATCP, the claimant agreed to have the cow slaughtered in order to eliminate the threat of disease. The cow was appraised at $2200. The USDA has reimbursed the claimant $2000 and he now requests payment for the remaining $200. The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the amount of $200.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s. 16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection appropriation s. 20.115(2)(a), Stats.

S6 6. Gary Stelpflug of Lancaster, Wisconsin claims $932,331.50 for damages relating to the quarantine of two herds of swine due to an outbreak of pseudorabies. On May 17, 1993, the swine were quarantined by a DATCP veterinarian. The claimant told the vet that he had 89% ownership of the animals in a partnership agreement with Farmers Hybred Financial Services (FHFS). He also told the vet that he was involved in a lawsuit with FHFS for breech of contract. The claimant states that the vet told him that, for all practical purposes, he was the owner of the swine and would receive the indemnity checks. The vet also allegedly told the claimant that the DATCP would make sure FHFS replaced any lost breeding stock. The claimant cleaned and disinfected the farms as required in the DATCP herd plan. FHFS never replaced the breeding stock. The first indemnity payment by the DATCP was issued as a two party check to both FHFS and the claimant. Because of the lawsuit, this check was placed in a trust account pending the court decision. The remaining indemnity checks were issued to FHFS only and not placed in the trust account. The claimant has not received any of the $65,792.50 in indemnity payments. The claimant does not understand how the DATCP could determine that FHFS was the owner of the swine when the claimant has 89% ownership of the animals and that the decision regarding ownership was a legal decision and should not have been made by a DATCP veterinarian. The court eventually decided that FHFS was the owner of the swine and released the trust account payments to FHFS. The claimant believes that the court relied on the word of the DATCP that FHFS owned the animals. He alleges that, in this manner, the DATCP directly interfered in his lawsuit and contracts with FHFS. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

7. Charles Plach for Plach GM Chrysler of New London, Wisconsin, claims $6,100.00 for damages related to titles issued by the DOT. The claimant, a car dealership, accepted two vehicles. Each vehicle had a clear Wisconsin title at the time it was accepted by the claimant. When the claimant later tried to sell the vehicles, they discovered that both vehicles had been previously salvaged. Previous titles had stated "this is a salvage vehicle," however, the DOT later issued clean titles for both vehicles. The claimant can not sell a vehicle without disclosing that it has been previously salvaged and does not feel it was right for the DOT to "launder" the titles for the two vehicles. The claimant requests $6,100 for lost profits from the two vehicles. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

8. Donald H. Nerenhausen and Associates of Oconto, Wisconsin, claims $6,494.53 for the difference between the contract overhead rate and the actual overhead rate incurred for a 1994 DOT project. Payment to the claimant under the standard contract with the DOT includes an overhead rate established by the DOT accounting office. An estimated overhead rate is used in the contract and after the project is completed the actual overhead rate is determined by a DOT audit. The contractor is required to reimburse the DOT for any overpayment if the actual overhead rate falls below the contract rate. Likewise, the DOT reimburses the contractor if the actual rate goes above the contract rate. Contrary to Facilities Development Manual Procedure 8-25-5, the DOT allowed the claimant to use the 1991 audit overhead rate of 98.66% for the years 1992 and 1993. The actual overhead rates for 1992 and 1993 were below 98.66% and therefore, the claimant owed the DOT $43,968.48. The claimant believes it is unfair that the DOT withheld all payments for a 1995 project to satisfy this debt and wants the department to make arrangements for a reasonable payment schedule as it has done in the past. The claimant alleges that the DOT said the 1994 overhead rate could be fixed "so there would be no adjustment." The 1991 rate of 98.66% was again used and an item was added to the 1994 contract stating "Overhead rate will be fixed at 98.66% of direct labor, without adjustment..." The actual 1994 audited overhead rate was determined to be 115.76%, however, the claimant was told it could not collect the difference from DOT. The claimant believes the DOT misrepresented the meaning of the word "fixed" in the contract and that they really meant "capped." The claimant requests payment of $6,494.53, the difference between the contract overhead rate and the actual overhead rate for 1994. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

9. Mews Companies, Inc. of Butler, Wisconsin, claims $114,212.74 for damages related to a DOT highway construction project in 1992. The claimant alleges that it did 13,402 cubic yards of extra borrow excavation on the project for which it was not paid and that it has also not been paid for 2,000 cubic yards of scheduled excavation. The claimant requests $56.371.32 for unpaid borrow excavation. The claimant also alleges the DOT improperly denied access to the median strip, causing additional damages. Prior to the borrow excavation, the claimant needed to strip topsoil from the median. Free fill was available to the claimant from a nearby company during the time they planned to have access to the median. The claimant relied on access to this free fill when bidding for the project. They allege that the DOT denied them access to the median, delaying the topsoil removal and the borrow excavation. Because of the delay, the claimant lost the free fill and had to purchase fill. The claimant alleges that the delay also caused weather problems as it pushed work further into the "wet" season. The claimant requests $56,694.75 for damages related to denial of access to the median strip. The claimant also requests $25,046.37 for crushed aggregate base course installed along the shoulder of the project. The total claim for damages related to the project is $138,112.32. The DOT has paid the claimant $23,900 as a result of a change order for the crushed aggregate installation reducing the claim to $114,212.74. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

10. Brevak Construction, Inc. of Washburn, Wisconsin, claims $25,034.47 for damages relating to the construction of the Hurley Information Center on Highway 51 in 1992. The claimant was a subcontractor for Angelo Luppino, Inc. (ALI), the prime contractor for this project. The claimant states there was rock that needed to be excavated at the project site and that payment for removal of this rock was not included in the contract between the state and ALI. The claimant spoke with DOT personnel and alleges that they agreed there was rock at the site which needed to be removed and that a change order should be submitted for payment of this excavation. The claimant submitted costs to ALI and requested that they submit a change order request to the state. ALI apparently made an oral request but never submitted a written change order request to the DOT. The oral request was denied. The claimant also alleges that the DOT did not correctly calculate the excavations below subgrade (EBS) and as a result, ALI and the claimant, as its subcontractor for excavation, did not receive the full amount due to it for EBS for this project. The claimant requests the sum of $15,816.15 for expenses with regard to rock removal plus 15% for profit and 12% for overhead, for a total of $20,086.51, together with the sum of $4,948.32 for under reported EBS. The claimant brought a lawsuit against ALI which was settled for $4,000. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

S7 11. Charles E. Crook of Waupun, Wisconsin, claims $137.81 for restitution money taken from his inmate account. In October 1995 the claimant was involved in a disturbance at Oakhill Correctional Institution. As a result of that disturbance, the claimant was transferred to Columbia Correctional Institution. As partial restitution, the claimant was charged $137.41, or one-fourth of the mileage and staff wages for his transfer to Columbia Correctional. The claimant does not believe the Department of Corrections has the authority to seize funds from his account for this reason without due process. The claimant agrees that the DOC is allowed to require inmates to pay restitution, however, he contends that mileage and wages do not fall under the definition of "damages" for which DOC is allowed to collect restitution. The claimant does not deny that he was involved in the disturbance which resulted in his transfer, however, he believes he has been adequately reprimanded by being placed in segregation and having 9 months added to his sentence. He does not believe that DOC has the authority to also seize restitution money from his account. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

12. Laurie Tank of Waupun, Wisconsin, claims $250.00 for damage to the her personal vehicle caused by an accident which occurred while she was traveling to a work related activity. The claimant was on her way to present certified copies of DOC records at the Federal Courthouse in Madison. The claimant was driving on a one-way street looking for a place to park and made a right-hand turn into a parking lot. As she turned into the lot, another vehicle struck her car on the passenger side. Her insurance covers all but her $250 deductible. She requests reimbursement for this amount. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

13. Franklin Meats, Inc. of Franklin, Wisconsin, claims $320.00 for damages related to the failure of a DATCP inspector to appear for a scheduled animal slaughter. The claimant's business, Franklin Meats, may not slaughter animals to sell for meat unless a DATCP inspector is present. In December 1995 the claimant had a two day slaughter scheduled on December 27 and 28. A DATCP inspector was scheduled to be present on both days. The claimant had 131 animals to slaughter over the two days. On December 27, the DATCP inspector told the claimant she could not come for the second day of slaughter because she had to take a vacation day or she would "lose" it. The claimant called DATCP to see if another inspector could be scheduled, however, there was no inspector available. The claimant was not able to finish slaughtering all 131 animals in one day and had to send 10 hogs and 8 goats to another meat processor to be butchered. The claimant would have received $20 per hog and $15 per goat if he had been able to slaughter the animals. He requests reimbursement of $320 for these losses. The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the amount of $320.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s. 16.007(6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection appropriation s. 20.115(1)(a), Stats.

14. Mark W. Hunter of DePere, Wisconsin, claims $315.00 for the cost of a cellular phone which was stolen from a locked, state owned vehicle parked at the Public Defender's Office in Green Bay. The cellular phone was purchased by the claimant's girlfriend because a credit card number was required for the purchase agreement. The claimant was the one who carried and used the phone. The claimant needed the phone because he was often inaccessible because of the travel requirements of his job as an Assistant State Public Defender. The claimant has not turned in bills for his calls because he purchased a flat-rate of time on the phone which was not reimbursable on an expense voucher. The claimant used the state vehicle in question several days before the phone was discovered missing and he left the car locked. Two other SPD employes used the car after the claimant and both have indicated they locked the vehicle. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

15. Ernest Salathe of Darlington, Wisconsin, claims $328.60 for repairs to a boat that was damaged at a state park. In June 1996 the claimant was boating at Yellowstone Lake State Park. As he came along side the dock, his boat was scratched by a nail sticking out of the side of the dock. At the time of the accident the boat was only three weeks old. The claimant requests reimbursement for the repair costs to fix his boat. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

16. David Horzewski of Fitchburg, Wisconsin, claims $97.02 for cost of sunglasses lost while he was on duty as a conservation warden. On July 1, 1995, the claimant was patrolling the Yahara River. He was wearing a pair of Ray Ban sunglasses that he had purchased to protect his eyes from harmful ultraviolet rays. Sunglasses are not provided for wardens. The claimant stopped a boater to issue a citation. During his contact with the boater he removed his sunglasses, which he always does when dealing with the public in order to assure good communication. He placed the sunglasses on the gunwale of the boat; an eleven inch wide, flat surface with a raised edge on both sides. The only other place to put the sunglasses would have been on the floor of the boat, where they might have been easily stepped on by either the claimant or the other warden in the boat. During the course of issuing the citation he accidentally knocked the sunglasses into the river. After he finished with the boater, he attempted to retrieve his glasses but could not find them. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

17. Kerry Hochstatter of Mukwonago, Wisconsin, claims $123.90 for replacement of the front grill on her vehicle. The claimant is employed at the Ethan Allen School for Boys. On August 18, 1995, after finishing her shift, the claimant discovered that the front grill on her vehicle had been stolen while the vehicle was parked in the school parking lot. The claimant is certain that the grill was not missing when she arrived at work that morning because she does a visual check of her vehicle every morning before she leaves Milwaukee. The claimant believes that she should be reimbursed because the parking lot is state property. The claimant's insurance covers $23.90 of the damage, leaving an uninsured balance of $100.00. The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

18. CNA Insurance Companies of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, claims $363.80 for worker's compensation payments made to an employe of J.P. Cullen & Sons, the claimant's insured. The employe, Jason Schlough, was working at a job site at Mendota Mental Health Institute when he came in close contact with a MMHI employe who had whooping cough. Because of this exposure, he was required to miss one week of work. The claimant paid the above amount to cover lost wages and requests reimbursement from the state. Based on its long-standing policy regarding subrogation claims, the Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

S8 19. CNA Insurance Companies of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, claims $489.07 for worker's compensation payments made to an employe of J.P. Cullen & Sons, the claimant's insured. The employe, Kenneth Reeves, was working at a job site at Mendota Mental Health Institute when he came in close contact with a MMHI employe who had whooping cough. Because of this exposure, he was required to miss one week of work. The claimant paid $365.57 for lost wages and $123.50 for medical bills and requests reimbursement from the state. Based on its long-standing policy regarding subrogation claims, the Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.

20. Carl Petersen of DePere, Wisconsin, claims $272.37 for medical bills for treatment of injuries incurred in an accident at Wisconsin State Fair Park. The claimant was visiting SFP on August 13, 1992, to attend a concert. The Claimant was a passenger in a SFP tram which tipped over. The claimant was thrown to the ground and dragged some distance. His medical bills totaled $762.40, $272.37 of which was uninsured. The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the amount of $272.37 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s. 16.007(6m), Stats., payment should be made from the State Fair Park appropriation s. 20.190(1)(h), Stats.

21. Randall Franzke of Little Chute, Wisconsin, claims $327.60 for medical bills incurred when the claimant was injured in a tram accident at SFP. The claimant was visiting the park on August 13, 1992, when the SFP tram he was riding in tipped over, spilling him to the ground and dragging him some distance. The claimant has not submitted bills to his insurance company, Aetna Insurance. Aetna has indicated that they would pay 70% ($229.32) towards the claimant's medical bills if he were to submit a claim. This would leave an uninsured balance of $98.28. The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $98.28 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s. 16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the appropriation s. 20.190(1)(h), Stats.

The Board concludes:

1. The claims of the following claimants should be denied:

Thomas VanRooy Rob & Suzanne Saletra

Barb Abelmann Poornima Srinivas

Gary Stelpflug Plach GM & Chrysler, Inc.

Donald Nerenhausen and Associates
Mews Companies, Inc.

Brevak Construction Charles E. Crook

Laurie Tank Mark W. Hunter

Ernest Salathe David Horzewski

Kerry Hochstatter CNA Insurance Companies

2. Payment of the following amounts to the following claimants is justified under s. 16.007, Stats.:

Scott Kaun $ 200.00

Franklin Meats, Inc. $ 320.00

Carl Petersen $ 327.60

Randall Franzke $ 98.28

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 18 th day of December, 1996.

Alan Lee, Chair

Representative of the Attorney General

Edward D. Main, Secretary

Representative of the Secretary of Administration

Brian Burke

Senate Finance Committee

Ben Brancel

Assembly Finance Committee

Stewart Simonson

Representative of the Governor

State of Wisconsin

Investment Board

January 1, 1997

The Honorable, The Legislature:

Attached is the Investment Board's annual report to the Legislature on investment goals and strategies, as provided under section 25.17(14g) of the Statutes. Objectives for each of the major funds managed by SWIB are described and significant changes since our last report are noted.

The Board currently manages over $35.5 billion for the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS), the ninth largest public pension fund in the U.S. and the 20th largest public or private pension fund in the world. The Board also manages over $4.6 billion in cash balances of state agencies, local governments and the WRS in the State Investment Fund (SIF).

Our investment objectives remain fundamentally the same from year-to-year. A long-term focus guides the investment strategy for the Retirement System trust funds, in keeping with their long-term obligations. Broadly diversified portfolios reduce market risk in these funds. Safety of principal and liquidity are emphasized for SIF, reflecting its shorter-term cash-management objectives.

Key points of note in this report:

• Management of the Fixed (or balanced) Retirement Trust Fund follows a disciplined, long-term approach to the allocation of assets among various markets (such as stocks, bonds, loans and real estate). Experience suggests that this approach is more likely to continue to produce needed rates of return over time that a strategy which attempts to enter or leave the markets at the peaks or lows ("market timing").

The continued strength of the domestic market has caused the Fixed Fund to be slightly overweighed in stocks. We rebalance to achieve targeted levels in each asset class. We are making somewhat greater use of index funds in domestic and international equities to complement our predominantly active style of investment and to facilitate rebalancing.

• We continue to maintain a high degree of liquidity in SIF. With input received from local governments, we reviewed and renegotiated more favorable insurance coverage for the Local Goverment Investment Pool component of the State Investment Fund, effective January 1, 1997.

• The Board is also in the process of reviewing the program under which SWIB purchases certificates of deposit from qualified Wisconsin banks and thrifts. We are examining steps that might increase demand for the program without impairing SWIB's ability to earn a competitive rate of return. More discussions are planned with banking associations and financial institutions.

S9 • As you know, 1995 Wisconsin Act 403 designated SWIB to manage the Tuition Trust Fund for the EdVest Wisconsin program. We are in the process of developing the investment guidelines for the Fund. The Department of Administration is managing the program, which is scheduled to begin operation this spring.

The development of investment strategy is critically affected by the availability of resources. As we approach the 1997-99 biennial budget deliberations, our most urgent resource need is for a substantial upgrade of our information systems. this need must be addressed if we are to have the portfolio management, accounting and compliance monitoring tools that are essential to stay competitive and properly manage risk. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this initiative with you.

As provided under 1995 Wisconsin Act 274, we will submit a report to you by March 31 which discusses investment performance through the end of 1996.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this report or other matters.

Sincerely,

Patricia Lipton

Executive Director

State of Wisconsin

Department of Employment Relations

January 6, 1997

The Honorable, The Legislature:

The Department of Employment Relations, Division of Affirmative Action is very pleased to present the 18th edition of the Affirmative Action Report for Wisconsin State Government for your information.

The report represents the fiscal year July 1995 through June 1996. It includes a summary of the Division's EEO/AA programs and services, key findings and numerous statistical reports which illustrate the status of affirmative action group members (women, racial/ethnic minorities and persons with disabilities) in the classified state service.

We look forward to continuing cooperative efforts in achieving equal employment opportunity in Wisconsin's civil service.

Sincerely,

Gregory C. Jones

Administrator

State of Wisconsin

Department of Administration

December 1996