Ayes, 5 - Senators
George, Risser, Clausing, Huelsman and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 354
Relating to: collection of data concerning motor vehicle stops, law enforcement training standards and granting rule-making authority.
Passage.
Ayes, 5 - Senators
George, Risser, Clausing, Huelsman and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 380
Relating to: eliminating emergency detention under the fifth standard of dangerousness, eliminating termination of involuntary civil commitments under the fifth standard of dangerousness, permitting only petitions approved by the attorney general to be filed for involuntary civil commitment under the fifth standard of dangerousness and providing access by the counsel for the interests of the public to court records and treatment records of persons receiving services for mental illness, developmental disabilities, alcoholism or drug dependence.
Passage.
Ayes, 5 - Senators
George, Risser, Clausing, Huelsman and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 404
Relating to: sexually violent person commitment proceedings, escape from custody by a person who is subject to a sexually violent person commitment proceeding, sentencing of persons who have prior convictions for certain crimes, requiring persons who commit certain offenses to register as a sex offender and providing penalties.
Passage.
Ayes, 5 - Senators
George, Risser, Clausing, Huelsman and Darling.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 425
Relating to: authorizing the department of justice to prosecute violations of certain laws regulating firearms.
Passage.
Ayes, 4 - Senators
George, Risser, Clausing and Darling.
Noes, 1 - Senator
Huelsman.
Gary George
Chairperson
__________________
State of Wisconsin
March 8, 2000
The Honorable, The Senate:
On Wednesday, March 1, 2000, I introduced LRB 3696/4, relating to a property tax exemption for an air carrier with a hub terminal facility.
After introduction and referral of the proposal - Senate Bill 411, it came to my attention that a member of my staff made an error in the listing of Assembly cosponsors. It was my intention that the listing of Assembly cosponsors begin with State Representative Jeff Plale, followed by State Representative Jeff Stone. The cosponsorship list for Senate Bill 411 currently indicates Representative Stone as the first cosponsor and Representative Plale as second. Otherwise, the listing of cosponsors was correct.
I would appreciate your assistance in correcting the records of the Senate to indicate my intention of listing Representative Plale as the first Assembly cosponsor of Senate Bill 411. If you have any questions concerning my request, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Richard Grobschmidt
State Senator
State of Wisconsin
Department of Workforce Development
February 29, 2000
The Honorable, The Senate:
Pursuant to Chapter
109 of Wisconsin Statutes I hereby submit the department's 1999 annual report on business closings and or mass layoffs to you. The report lists all businesses that notified the department in 1999 of planned closings/mass layoffs and complaints the department received of alleged notification infractions. The report indicates the involved business, location, date complaint received, determination issued and disposition of each complaint. Beyond complaints filed in 1999, the updates of disposition of complaints pending at the end of 1998.
At the end of 1998 eleven business closing complaints remained under investigation. One of those complaints against the Menasha Corporation, remains under investigation at this time. The department anticipates completing this investigation by the end of March. Nine of the completed investigations of cases pending at the end of 1998 resulted in findings of no violation. The final completed investigation involving the Louis Allis Company resulted in the documentation of a violation. The Louis Allis case currently is pending in federal bankruptcy court.
In 1999 the department received ten complaints alleging violations of the notification law. The department completed investigation of six of the ten complaints in 1999 or early 2000. In five of the cases the department concluded no violations occurred. In the sixth case, the department initially concluded the company violated the business closing notification requirement. The employer has appealed that ruling and the matter remains under review at this time. The other four complaints remain under investigation at this time.
If you have any questions regarding the information in this report, please contact me.
Linda Stewart, Ph. D.
Secretary
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
March 8, 2000
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on February 17, 2000.
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
STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD
The State Claims Board conducted hearings in the State Capitol, Grand Army of the Republic Memorial Hall, Madison, Wisconsin on February 17, 2000, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
In addition, the following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
8. Melvin Rice Corrections $800.00
9. Scott A. Bowe Natural Resources $185.00
10. R.L. Elver Health and Family $100.00
Services
11. Wilbert Finke Agriculture, Trade $50.85
& Consumer Protection
12. Troy & Karen Mabie Administration $346.50
13. Ernestine Nelson Revenue $628.00
14. Dennis Robertson University of $200.00
Wisconsin
The Board Finds:
1. Angel F. Williams of Merimac, Wisconsin claims $5,488.93 for medical costs incurred because of an error allegedly made by the Medical Assistance program administered by the Department of Health and Family Services. The claimant states that she was never told that her M.A. health benefits would end 60 days after her pregnancy ended. The claimant elected to have a tubal ligation performed on April 12, 1999. The claimant states that she was first informed that her M.A. benefits had been terminated effective April 1, 1999, by letter dated May 11, 1999. This letter also denied coverage for her surgery. The claimant also alleges that her HMO was not notified about the April 1 benefit termination in a timely manner because she was not removed from the computer until the day after her surgery, April 13. The claimant states that if she had known this procedure would not be covered by Medical Assistance, she would not have had the surgery. She requests reimbursement for her medical expenses. The Department of Health and Family Services recommends denial of this claim. DHFS states that its records show that both the claimant and her HMO received sufficient notice in advance of her surgery that her coverage would end April 1, 1999. The Department's records show that a Notice of Decision dated February 19, 1999, was sent to the claimant stating that her M.A. benefits would end effective April 1, 1999. The Department's records also show that a March 20, 1999, Enrollment Initial Report was sent to the claimant's HMO and that this report provided notice that the claimant's coverage was pending effective April 1, 1999. The purpose of this notice is to allow the HMO to verify the recipient's eligibility prior to any service. Finally, the Department's records show that a notice was sent to the claimant's HMO on April 6, 1999, informing them that the claimant's M.A. benefits were terminated effective April 1. The claimant's HMO did not actually remove her name from their computer until April 13, 1999, however, the Department believes that both the claimant and her HMO were given sufficient warning that her M.A. benefits would end April 1, 1999. 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 not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
S484
2. Jerome and Theresa Wagner of Middleton, Wisconsin claim $69,860.00 for loss of income related to the failure of Ryser Brothers Dairy of Wisconsin, Inc., in 1991. The claimants contend that the Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection is responsible for the loss because of its regulation of Ryser under the dairy plant security law. When DATCP issued a demand for security to Ryser in 1990, the company went bankrupt. The claimants request $69,860, the amount owed to them by Ryser. They attempted to receive some reimbursement through Ryser's bankruptcy proceedings, however Ryser's bankruptcy estate was not sufficient to make any distributions to unsecured creditors. The Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection recommends denial of this claim. At the time of the Ryser plant's closing, the claimants were the only independent producers still shipping to Ryser. While they have not provided any documentation for the amount of their claim, the amount stated is the same as that amount shown to be owed to the claimants in the records of the Ryser plant. However, the claimants also state no basis for their claim, other than the bare statement that the Department would not let the plant keep operating. Since the entire producer security program is to provide only a reasonable assurance that producers be paid, there must be some showing of grounds for a producer claim against the state in a dairy default case other than a mere assertion of loss. This claim is similar to the claims related to the failure of Kasson, Inc., a cheese factory that closed in 1989 under similar circumstances. Producers of that plant filed claims with the Claims Board alleging that the Department had failed to perform its duties under the dairy producer security program. The Claims Board did not find that the Department was negligent in performing its duties but elected to award the producers 50% of their claimed amount on equitable grounds. The board recommends that the claim be paid in the reduced amount of $23,053.80 based on equitable principles. The board further recommends that the claim be paid from the Claims Board appropriation s.
20.505 (4)(d).
3. Julie Leser of Madison, Wisconsin claims $286.43 for vehicle damage allegedly incurred at her workplace. The claimant is employed by Madison Metropolitan School District but was authorized to park in a portion of a lot owned by the UW. The claimant states that in August 1998 her van was parked next to a UW parking sign, which was sunk into a bucket of concrete. She states that when she returned to her vehicle, the sign was tipped over and had damaged the hood of her van. The claimant alleges that the signs in Lot 91 were improperly anchored and states that all of them have blown over in the past and were permanently secured in the ground in December 1998 to alleviate the problem. The claimant believes that the UW was aware of this problem and that she should be reimbursed for her damages. The claimant has a $250 insurance deductible and does have insurance coverage for the remaining $36.43. The University of Wisconsin recommends denial of this claim. The UW states that at the time of this incident they were unaware of a problem with the parking signs in Lot 91. Following a windstorm in November 1998, some signs were blown or tipped over and the UW became aware of the problem. As soon as it became aware of the problem, the University acted to permanently secure all the signs in Lot 91. Since it did not have notice of any problem prior to the claimant's incident, the UW believes it should not be held responsible for these damages and that there is no equitable basis for the claim. The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $250.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s.
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the University of Wisconsin appropriation s.
20.285(1)(h), Stats.
