Wisconsin Legislature: 2003-05-21 Senate Journal

11. Millers Classified Insurance of Alton, Illinois claims $1,563.17 for vehicle damage caused by a falling tree branch. The claimant's insured had parked her vehicle on the Capitol Square in October 2002. She was in a restaurant across the street for ten minutes when someone told her a tree branch had fallen on her car. The branch destroyed the windshield and scratched the top and hood of the vehicle. The claimant is the insurer for this vehicle and requests reimbursement for the costs to repair the vehicle and provide a rental vehicle to their insured.

DOA recommends denial of this claim based on the Claims Board's long-standing history of denying subrogation claims.

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. [Member Rothschild not participating.]

S192 12. Thomas M. Barcz of Madison, Wisconsin claims $941.05 for damages to a vehicle parked in a state parking lot. The claimant states that his car was parked in the parking garage under GEF 1 in January 2003, when a chunk of concrete fell from the ceiling onto the vehicle. The claimant states that the concrete cracked the windshield, scratched the driver's window and dented the frame. He requests $941.05 reimbursement. The claimant has not submitted a claim to his insurer but the damages would be fully covered under his auto insurance policy.

DOA recommends that this claim be denied by the board. DOA does not dispute that the accident occurred as stated in the claimant's claim. However, the claimant does have full coverage through his vehicle insurance for the damages sustained. DOA therefore recommends denial of this claim based on the fact that the damages are fully covered by the claimant's insurance.

13. Robert L. Collins-Bey of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $2,221.25 for property allegedly lost by DOC. In December 1999 the claimant was transferred from a federal penitentiary in Tennessee to Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI). TransCor America, a private company under contract with DOC, conducted the transfer. The claimant states that, upon arrival at CCI, a TransCor employee told him that his property had been left in Tennessee and that it would be mailed to him at CCI when the employee got back to Nashville. The claimant states that he waited two months but did not receive his property, so he filed an Inmate Complaint with DOC. DOC dismissed the complaint, stating that TransCor had told them they still had the claimant's property and would mail it to him. The claimant was then transferred to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility. He states that he filed a second Inmate Complaint for the property because he was at a new institution but that DOC dismissed the complaint on the grounds that he had never appealed the first complaint he filed at CCI. The claimant alleges that he has contacted TransCor a number of times and has tried to bring legal action against them, all to no avail. The claimant denies that he received his property in June 2000, as asserted by DOC. The claimant states that the property sheet submitted by DOC as evidence of the return of this property is fraudulent. The claimant believes that TransCor is an agent of DOC and that DOC is therefore responsible for the loss of his property, which has now been missing for over 33 months. Finally, the claimant alleges that DOC's contention that the "hold harmless" agreement in TransCor's contract protects the state is "legally frivolous." The claimant believes that this clause in the agreement prevents TransCor from suing DOC if anything goes wrong but does not apply in any way to him or other inmates.

DOC recommends denial of this claim on several grounds. First, DOC states that because the claimant failed to appeal his initial complaint filed at CCI, he has not exhausted his administrative remedies. Second, DOC believes that there is evidence, in the form of a property inventory sheet, that the claimant did receive his property in June 2000. In addition, DOC points to the fact that the claimant has submitted no proof of ownership—not even an itemization—of the allegedly missing property and its value. Finally, DOC states that, even if the claimant is correct and he did not receive his property, his claim is against TransCor America. DOC's contract with TransCor contains a hold harmless clause, which protects the state against "all suits, actions, or claims of any character brought for or on account of any injuries or damages received by any persons or property resulting from the operations of the contractor…" Therefore, TransCor is responsible for any alleged damages suffered by the claimant, not DOC.

14. Berrell Freeman of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $800.00 for wages allegedly owed by DOC. In 1999, while an inmate at Whiteville Correctional Facility (WCF) in Tennessee, the claimant was found guilty of offense 303.18. The claimant was then transferred to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF, f/k/a Supermax) and placed in restricted status, during which he allegedly did not receive wages. In August 2001, the claimant received notice that this offense was being expunged from his record. The claimant alleges that DOC rules and regulations mandate that he be paid back wages at the rate of his former inmate job at WCF, Kitchen Helper. The claimant points to a recent lawsuit filed by a number of inmates, in which, the claimant alleges, the Court ruled that inmates found not guilty of offenses must be paid back wages for any employment lost due to being disciplined for the offenses. The claimant also states that the WSPF warden ruled that the claimant should have been in pay status from his arrival at WSPF until he was placed in administrative confinement status (from December 10, 1999 to April 19, 2000.) The claimant states that he was earning approximately $45 per month as a Kitchen Worker and therefore requests back wages in the amount of $800.00.

S193 DOC recommends denial of this claim. In November 1999 the claimant was involved in an inmate uprising at WCF during which employees were taken hostage. As a result of his active involvement in this incident, the claimant was given a conduct report, which was upheld by the WCF warden. In December 1999 the claimant was transferred to WSPF and placed in program segregation status. In June 2000 several inmates (not including the claimant) who were involved in the uprising filed a court action challenging the disciplinary action, the change in their the security classifications, and their placement in administrative confinement, all of which arose in response to their participation in the original disturbance. In March 2001 the court issued an order to expunge the disciplinary reports of the petitioners, vacate their security classification changes and administrative confinement, and remand the matters back to the appropriate DOC review committees with instructions that they conduct new hearings consistent with the court's decision. Although he was not a named petitioner, the claimant's conduct report was expunged based on this court decision and his status was changed from program segregation to temporary lockup. In April 2001, the WSPF warden informed the business office that the claimant should have been in pay status from his arrival at WSPF until he was placed in administrative confinement (12/10/99 to 4/19/00). The warden indicated that the claimant should be compensated at the unassigned rate of $0.08 per hour. The claimant filed complaints requesting that he be paid at a higher wage rate. These complaints were reviewed and dismissed by DOC. The claimant alleges that he is entitled to wages at the higher rate of pay he received as a Kitchen Helper at WCF because his conduct report was expunged. DOC disagrees. His rate of pay has been set at the unassigned rate because, unlike WCF, there are no inmate job assignments at WSPF. The claimant refers to both DOC 313.11(8) and 309.55(8) of the Administrative Code as justification for the higher wage but DOC points to the fact that neither are applicable to the claimant's situation. The former only applies to Prison Industries jobs and the latter does not apply because WSPF does not have any inmate job assignments. Pursuant to DOC 309.55(7)(a)1 Wis. Adm. Code, all WSPF inmates who are eligible to be paid are placed in the category of involuntarily unassigned, which pays $0.08 per hour. Finally, DOC disagrees with the claimant's conclusions regarding the court action. The court stated that the inmates' pay rate should be determined by their status "immediately prior to placement in administrative confinement." Immediately prior to being placed in administrative segregation, the claimant's was in temporary lock up status due to his involvement in the WCF disturbance. DOC therefore believes that it properly set the claimant's wage rate at $0.08 per hour.

15. David K. Dellis of Portage, Wisconsin claims $82.25 for the cost of replacing a radio allegedly damaged by DOC personnel. The claimant states that, while he was at Green Bay Correctional Institution, his radio was in good repair and had been inspected and approved as such by DOC staff. In March 2003 the claimant was transferred to Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI). The claimant alleges that when he received his property at CCI, his radio was broken. The claimant alleges that he reported the damage immediately to CCI staff and shortly thereafter filed a formal complaint about the damaged radio and other allegedly missing property. The claimant states that DOC dismissed his complaint based on the missing property issues but never actually addressed the issue of the damaged radio. The claimant states that he continued filing requests in an attempt to get DOC to address the broken radio. He states that in July 2002 DOC took the radio away from him because it was broken and told him that he would have to get it fixed before it could be returned. The claimant believes that DOC never properly addressed or investigated the broken radio. He states that it took DOC five months to finally reply that they "had no way of knowing how (the radio) was broken." He alleges that there were witnesses available who could testify that the radio was broken from the moment he received it at CCI and that DOC never interviewed these witnesses. The claimant states that it will cost more to repair the radio than it is worth. The claimant states that DOC has changed property rules so that radios such as the claimant's, which have cassette players, are no longer allowed. Pursuant to DOC policy, the claimant's radio, which was already in his possession when the rules changed, was "grandfathered in". The claimant alleges that there is a higher incidence of property damage and loss to this type of "grandfathered" property and believes that DOC is intentionally damaging "grandfathered" property in order to take it away from inmates.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. The claimant received his property on March 20, 2003, but failed to file any complaint until April 5, 2003. DOC states that the claimant's complaints all focused on allegedly missing property, not the damaged radio and that his own statement on his initial complaint indicates "issue: property taken from me upon arrival at CCI." DOC points to the fact that the Administrative Code provides that repair of inmate property shall be at the inmate's expense and that DOC is not responsible for loss or damage caused by the inmate or other inmates. Although DOC is responsible for property damaged by DOC staff, the claimant has provided absolutely no evidence to support his contention that DOC personnel caused the damage. Barring such evidence, DOC does not believe the state should be held responsible for the damages.

The Board concludes:

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

Mike and Julie Savidusky

University Avenue Stamps

Colleen Eidt

George T. Harrell

Jeffrey LaBudda

Frank T. Teumer

Martha Gesch

Kimberley M. Aldridge

Millers Classified Insurance

Thomas M. Barcz

Robert L. Collins-Bey

Berrell Freeman

David K. Dellis

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

Chris Hendrickson $831.30 s. 20.505(2)(k), Stats.

The Board recommends:

1. Payment of $17,568.12 to Mullins Cheese, Inc. for damages related to a Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection milk inspection.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this __15_ day of May 2003.

Alan Lee, Chair

Representative of the Attorney General

John E. Rothschild, Secretary

Representative of the Secretary of Administration

Stan Davis

Representative of the Governor

Robert Welch

Senate Finance Committee

Dan Meyer

Assembly Finance Committee

S194 State of Wisconsin

Ethics Board

May 20, 2003

To 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 2001 session of the legislature, visit the Ethics Board's web site at http://ethics.state.wi.us

Cullen, Lee Madison Gas & Electric Company

Elliott, Brian Paratech Ambulance Service

Jadin, Paul Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce

Mc Coshen, William J Scientific Games International Inc

Mowry, Bryan American Heart Association

O'Meara, Jack Self-insurance Institute of America

Patchett JD, John Wisconsin Medical Society

Pawlisch, Curt Madison Gas & Electric Company

Pawlisch, Curt Waterkeepers of Wisconsin

Ranous, Jeffrey CMC Heartland Partners

Reimer, Mark S Foth & Van Dyke and Associates

Rogowski, Michael Paratech Ambulance Service

Springer, Thomas J Paratech Ambulance Service

Viohl, Bridget American Cancer Society

Wineke, Joseph Scientific Games International 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 organizations that employ lobbyists.

Sincerely,

R. Roth Judd

Director

__________________

ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE

State of Wisconsin

Office of the Governor

May 2, 2003

The Honorable, The Senate:

I am pleased to nominate and with the advice and consent of the Senate, do appoint Pruitt , Chuck, of Shorewood, as a member of the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, to serve for the term ending May 1, 2009.

Sincerely,

JIM DOYLE

Governor

Read and referred to committee on Higher Education and Tourism.

State of Wisconsin

Office of the Governor

May 14, 2003

The Honorable, The Senate:

I am pleased to nominate and with the advice and consent of the Senate, do appoint Cuene , Mary, of Green Bay, as a member of the Wisconsin Technical College Systems Board, to serve for the term ending May 1, 2007.

Sincerely,

JIM DOYLE

Governor