Department of Revenue
November 29, 2000
The Honorable, The Senate:
In accordance with section 71.55(10)(e), Wis. Stats. (1997-98), I am enclosing copies of the Department of Revenue reports on distribution of enrollment cards for the Wisconsin State Medical Society "Partnercare" program.
Sincerely,
Cate Zeuske
Secretary
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
December 5, 2000
The Honorable, The Senate:
We have completed a financial audit of the Unemployment Reserve Fund for fiscal years 1999-2000 and 1998-99. This audit was performed at the request of the Department of Workforce Development, which administers the Fund.
As necessary parts of the financial audit, we reviewed the Fund's control procedures, assessed the fair presentation of its financial statements, and reviewed compliance with applicable laws and regulations. We were able to provide an unqualified auditor's report on the Fund's financial statement, and we found no instances of material weaknesses in the internal control structure or material instances of noncompliance.
The Unemployment Reserve Fund's cash balance related to taxable employers increased $83 million during the past fiscal year, to nearly $1.8 billion as of June 30, 2000. This cash balance is used to determine the tax rate schedule to apply to taxable employers. Since the cash reserves exceed the amount that allows employers to be taxed under the lowest rate schedule, the Fund is able to charge employers the lowest authorized tax rates.
Copies of the report have been distributed to members of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and those required by law to receive them. If you are interested in receiving a copy of this report, please contact our office and request report number 00-14. The report is also available on line at www.legis.state.wi.us\lab\windex.htm.
Sincerely,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor
State of Wisconsin
Ethics Board
December 5, 2000
The Honorable, The Senate:
The following lobbyists have been authorized to act on behalf of the organizations set opposite their names.
For more detailed information about these lobbyists and organizations and a complete list of organizations and people authorized to lobby the 1999 session of the legislature, visit the Ethics Board's web site at http://ethics.state.wi.us
Kay, Jason AARP
Kuehn, Ronald W Dells Boat Company, Inc.
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
July 27, 2000
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on June 27, 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
S703 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 June 27, 2000, upon the following claims:
Claimant Agency Amount
1. Roque Chavez Department of $3,306.18
Transportation
2. Veaster Tillmon, Jr. Department $2,997.42
of Revenue
3.Ameritech, Inc. Department of $6,266.57
Transportation
4. Hazel Samuel Department of $2,014.67
Corrections
5. Westra Construction Department of $55,971.08
Administration
In addition, the following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
Claimant Agency Amount
6. Jodi Dabson Department. of $10,097.23
Bollendorf District Attorneys
7. Robert & Carol Department $4,731.95
Hawthorne of Revenue
8. Georgianne Henning Department $15,695.00
of Revenue
9. Ronald Springer Department of $11,018.59
Transportation
10. Peggy S. Thran Department $250.00
of Corrections
11. Ken Truman Department of $96.97
Corrections
12. Anthony W. Department of $340.34
Wielgosz Natural Resources
In addition, the following claim, which was previously presented and decided at hearing, was reconsidered and decided without hearing:
Claimant Agency Amount
13. Barbara Hestekin Department of $5,000.00
Transportation
In addition, the board considered the question of whether or not to hold a hearing for the following claim prior to resolution of legal appeals.
Claimant Agency
14. Frederick Saecker Wrongful Imprisonment
The Board Finds:
1. Roque Chavez of Waukesha, Wisconsin, claims $3,306.18 for auto damage allegedly caused in an accident with a state employee in March 1999. The Claimant states that a state driver failed to give him the right of way and caused the accident. The claimant alleges that his vehicle, a 1986 Isuzu, had completely body restoration in 1997 and a new motor, clutch, and exhaust installed in 1998. He requests reimbursement for the estimated cost of repairs, $3,306.18.
The Department of Transportation recommends payment of this claim in the reduced amount of $570.00. The accident occurred at the intersection of E. St. Paul Ave. and Union St. in Waukesha, WI. The state driver was attempting to cross E. St. Paul Ave. from his residence a short block from the intersection. The state driver was approximately 3/4 of the way across E. St. Paul Ave. when the claimant struck his vehicle. The claimant does not carry any insurance on his vehicle. The claimant submitted two repair estimates, both of which exceeded the value of the vehicle. The claimant's vehicle is over 13 years old with well over 100,000 miles on the body. The claimant alleges that the vehicle had extensive repair and restoration several years ago, however, he has offered no documentation of these repairs, nor has he submitted a certified appraisal proving that the value of his vehicle prior t the accident. The DOT states that one of the repair estimates submitted by the claimant indicated that the general condition of the vehicle was "poor". The Kelly Blue Book value of the claimant's vehicle (trade-in value, fair condition) is $670. The amount of the settlement for totaled vehicles is the Blue Book value minus the salvage value of the vehicle. The submitted salvage bid was $100.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $1,170.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s. 16.007(6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Transportation appropriation s. 20.395(4)(er), Stats.
2. Veaster Tillmon, Jr. of Tucker, Arkansas, claims $2,997.42 for overpayment of state income taxes for the years 1981, 1988, 1989 and 1990. The Department of Revenue garnished the claimant's wages from September 1992 until June 1993. The claimant states that he was not a Wisconsin resident during the years in question and believes that, in fairness, the money taken by the DOR should be returned to him.
The Department recommends denial of this claim. the claimant filed income tax returns in 1979 and 1980, reporting taxable income of $17,000 and $20,000, respectively. The Department issued an estimated assessment for 1981 on April 4, 1983 and estimated assessment for 1988 through 1990 on January 18, 1993. The DOR corresponded extensively with the claimant in 1986 and 1987 regarding his residency but the matter was never resolved. the Department began garnishment of the claimant's wages in 1992 and collected $2,997.42. On June 3, 1999, the claimant provided sufficient documentation to verify that he was not a Wisconsin resident during the years in question and the Department canceled the balance of the assessment. Section 71.75(5), Wis. Stats., prohibits the Department from refunding the collected amount since no refund was claimed within the prescribed two-year period.
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. Ameritech, Inc., of Waukesha, Wisconsin, claims $6,266.57 for damage to fiber optic cable owned by the claimant. The claimant states that in July 1999, Department of Transportation employees, while digging to place a traffic signal, struck and damaged the fiber optic cable. The claimant states that s. 182.0175, Wis. Stats., requires hand digging within 18 inches of a marked utility and that the employees' failure to follow this statute caused the damages. The claimant requests $6,266.57 for repair of the cable.
The Department of Transportation recommends payment of this claim. The DOT acknowledges that on July 22, 1999, while installing a traffic signal in Ashland, WI, a DOT employee negligently damaged the fiber optic cable.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $5,000 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s. 16.007(6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Transportation appropriation s. 20.395(3)(eq), Stats.
S704 4. Hazel Samuel of Sussex, Wisconsin, claims $2,014.67 for cost of supplemental insurance allegedly purchased due t an error by the Department of Corrections. The claimant states that when she retired in November 1994, she called the payroll office to request that they send a letter to Social Security indicating that she was retired and eligible for Medicare. The claimant states that she requested a copy of this letter so that she could purchase supplemental insurance. The claimant states that no one informed her that she was still covered by any state insurance but that she later found out that she was still covered by state insurance. She requests reimbursement for the cost of the supplemental insurance she purchased.
The Department of Corrections recommends denial of this claim. According to DOC and ETF records, the claimant, who originally planned to retire in May 1994, contacted ETF in May 1993, inquiring about her sick leave conversion to health insurance premiums. ETF sent her a pamphlet that clearly explained that premiums for health insurance coverage are first paid out of accumulated sick leave. The pamphlet also explained how health insurance coverage is maintained and that it is the employee's responsibility to set up a meeting with ETF to discuss health insurance after retirement, which the claimant did not do. In July 1993 the claimant wrote ETF and stated that she would not retire in May 1994 because she "did not have enough sick day hours left to compensated for health insurance." ETF responded, informing the claimant that if she had no sick leave left when she retired, health insurance premiums would be deducted from her annuity or the health insurance company would bill her directly. In October 1994, the DOC sent a letter to the Social Security Administration verifying that the claimant was an active employee until November 1994. DOC routinely notifies the SSA when employees are no longer covered under its insurance plan and that Medicare may be established when that person turns 65. When an employee retires, health insurance terminates from the employing agency and converts to a policy handled by ETF. On 11/7/94 the DOC sent the ETF certification that the claimant's unused sick leave provided 6.8 months of insurance premium coverage beginning 2/95. The claimant purchased supplemental Medicare insurance in 1/95. The DOC contends that the letter sent to the SSA was a technical letter intended to notify the SSA; it is not intended to provide the retiree with information about health insurance. The DOC points to the fact that three days prior to her retirement, the claimant had still not taken the common steps made by retirees to reliably inform herself about the status of her health insurance after retirement. She did not call anyone at DOC or ETF to answer any questions but instead, just went ahead and purchased insurance. The Department sympathizes with the claimant, however, DOC believes that it was the claimant's own misunderstanding and lack of preparation that caused her losses, not any negligence on the part of the state.
Loading...
Loading...