Fire Chiefs Assn, Wisconsin State
Brown, George 9/21/98
Johnson Controls, Inc
Brown, George 9/21/98
Lake Como Sanitary District
Brown, George 9/18/98
Podiatric Medicine, Wisconsin Society of
Brown, George 9/21/98
Property Valuation Associates Inc
Brown, George 9/21/98
Also available from the Wisconsin Ethics Board are reports identifying the amount and value of time state agencies have spent to affect legislative action and reports of expenditures for lobbying activities filed by the organizations that employ lobbyists.
Sincerely,
Roth Judd
Director
State of Wisconsin
Ethics Board
September 29, 1998
The Honorable, The Senate:
At the direction of s.
13.685(7),
Wisconsin Statutes, I am furnishing you with the names of organizations recently registered with the Ethics Board that employ one or more individuals to affect state legislation or administrative rules, and notifying you of changes in the Ethics Board's records of licensed lobbyists and their employers. For each recently registered organization I have included the organization's description of the general area of legislative or administrative action that it attempts to influence and the name of each licensed lobbyist that the organization has authorized to act on its behalf.
Organization's authorization of additional lobbyists:
The following organizations previously registered with the Ethics Board have authorized to act on their behalf these additional licensed lobbyists:
Plastics Council Inc, American
Fonfara, Thomas
Termination of lobbying authorizations:
The following individuals are no longer authorized to lobby on behalf of the organizations listed below, as of the dates indicated.
Amusement and Music Operators, Wisconsin
Brown, George 9/23/98
Electric Power Co, Wisconsin
Brown, George 9/23/98
Johnson-Keland Land Company Inc
Brown, George 9/23/98
Also available from the Wisconsin Ethics Board are reports identifying the amount and value of time state agencies have spent to affect legislative action and reports of expenditures for lobbying activities filed by the organizations that employ lobbyists.
Sincerely,
Roth Judd
Director
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
September 16, 1998
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on August 27, 1998.
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,
Edward D. Main
Secretary
CLAIMS BOARD
The State Claims Board conducted hearings in the State Capitol, Room 417 North, Madison, Wisconsin on August 27, 1998, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
1. Ringhand Meats Agriculture, Trade $5,144.05
& Beverages, Inc. & Consumer Protection
2. Marcia Klein Health and $5,274.29
Family Services
3. Green Tree Financial $20,532.00
Financial Services Institutions
4. Delmar L. Smith Revenue $10,954.74
5. Tillman Mosley Revenue $9,392.14
6.Eugene Parks Revenue $49,659.70
7. Wisconsin Gas Transportation $965.49
Company
8.Wisconsin Gas Transportation $1,590.07
Company
9.Wisconsin Gas Transportation $450.77
Company
In addition, the following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
10. Cedar Grove Agriculture, Trade $711.61
Cheese, Inc. & Consumer Protection
11. National Agriculture, Trade $102.38
Farmers & Consumer Protection
Organization
12. Gus W. Ernst Natural Resources $2,754.00
13. Lichtfeld Administration $172.00
Plumbing, Inc.
14. Scott & Brenna University $720.21
Miles of Wisconsin
15. Barbara Mariann Health and $93.19
Rush Family Services
16. James D. Weichelt Revenue $673.13
In addition, the following claim, presented at a previous hearing, was considered and decided:
Claimant Agency Amount
17. Deiss Sanitation University $33,305.00
of Wisconsin
In addition, the board discussed its long-standing policy of not holding hearings for stale-dated checks over six years old.
The Board Finds:
1. Ringhand Meats and Beverages, Inc., of Evansville, Wisconsin claims $5,144.05 for the cost of refinishing the floor of the claimant's meat processing plant. The claimant alleges that the floors of the plant were finished in accordance with instructions from Arthur Ness of DATCP's Meat Safety Division. The claimant claims that Mr. Ness instructed the floor contractor to finish the floors to a smooth finish and that they are now extremely hazardous when wet, causing several people to slip and fall. The claimant buffed the floors in an attempt to roughen them but this was not successful. The claimant has received a $5,000 estimate for shot blasting the floors to provide a rougher surface. He requests reimbursement for the cost of renting the buffer ($144.05) and the cost of refinishing the floors ($5,000). DATCP states that neither Mr. Ness nor any other state employe recommended that the floors in the plant be smooth. Department regulations require that the floor be impervious, not smooth. Furthermore, Department regulations state that floors that become wet must have a non-slip surface. The claimant received written materials that included these specifications for floors. The floors were apparently finished according to the architect's specifications, which state, "Interior concrete slabs shall have a monolithic steel-trowelled finish". The architect's spec sheet for the plant was never submitted to the Department prior to construction. A DATCP inspector states that he overheard the floor contractor ask the claimant if the floor was smooth enough for him and that the claimant told the contractor to make another pass to make the floor smoother. The claimant has been in the business for approximately 30 years. He has two facilities and has remodeled an existing one. He received written information from the Department, including the floor specifications, in 1988 and again in 1996. 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.
S778
2. Marcia Klein of Appleton, Wisconsin claims $5,274.29 for reimbursement of attorney's fees and other expenses allegedly incurred because of an open records request. The claimant is employed at Wisconsin Resource Center (WRC). In July 1996 two patients at the center, who were detained there under Chapter
980 Stats., as sexually violent persons, made open records requests for copies of the claimant's personnel file. At that time, the state planned on releasing a portion of the file to the requesters. The claimant retained an attorney and sued the state to keep it from releasing the file. The two patients requesting the records had themselves added to the lawsuit as defendants. After receiving additional patient requests for the personnel files of various other employes, the state reversed its position regarding release of the file. The state refused to release any portion of the claimant's personnel file based on the "balancing test" exemption of the Public Records Law. The claimant argued that position as well, and also argued that the patients were "incarcerated persons" and therefore were not proper requesters under s.
19.32 (3). The Circuit Court agreed with the state's position. The two patients appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the Circuit Court's decision, based on the state's "balancing test" argument, but rejected the claimant's argument that the patients were "incarcerated persons" under s.
19.32 (3). The claimant requests reimbursement for her attorney's fees, interest, lost wages, and travel expenses. DHFS states that from the time it reversed its position and denied access to the records (9/10/96) through the Court of Appeals decision (4/1/98), the claimant and DHFS took the same position; the only difference was their legal reasoning. Both courts adopted DHFS' legal reasoning and rejected the claimant's therefore her legal expenditures during this period did not contribute in any way to the ultimate resolution of the case. DHFS also points out that a portion of her claim is for expenses incurred in supporting legislation to exempt committed inpatients from the definition of "requester" under Public Records Law. DHFS supported this legislation and does not feel the state should pay expenses an employe incurs in backing legislation that is sponsored by the state to improve the employe's working conditions. Finally, DHFS feels the claim should not be paid because the legislature has specified those circumstances in which the State is required to pay private citizens' legal costs, and this situation is not among them. (See ss.
814.245 and
277.485, Stats.) The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $2,500.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s.
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Claims Board appropriation s.
20.505 (4) (d), Stats. (
Member Lee not participating.)
3. Green Tree Financial Servicing Corporation of St. Paul, Minnesota claims $20,532.00 for refund of an alleged overpayment caused by an error in the claimant's 1997 Foreign Corporation Annual Report. The claimant states that it entered an incorrectly calculated apportionment factor showing 36 percent of its business for 1996 in Wisconsin when in fact only 1.39 percent of its business during that period was in Wisconsin. The claimant states that the majority of its business is done in states other than Wisconsin. To support this statement, the claimant points to its 1995 and 1996 Foreign Corporation Annual Reports, which show apportionment percentages for Wisconsin of .8799 and 1.273, respectively. The claimant believes that the documents that it has submitted prove that the apportionment factor on the originally filed report was incorrect and requests reimbursement of the fee overpayment caused by the error. DFI recommends denial of this claim because the Department has no way of verifying the accuracy of the information provided in the original report or in the articles of correction applying to the original report. In filing documents and annual reports and collecting the corresponding statutory fees, DFI performs a ministerial function and relies solely on the information set forth in such reports and documents. The source of that information is in the exclusive control of the corporation. The revenue generated from the collection of these fees ranges from approximately $2 to $4 million annually. It derives from reports and applications filed in the same circumstances as those attending the report on which the claimant seeks recovery. Accordingly, there is the potential of important future consequences in allowing a claim of this nature. To support its recommendation for denial, DFI points to a 1981 informal opinion of the Attorney General relating to a similar claim. 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.
