The Department of Corrections recommends denial of this claim. The department does not dispute that the eyeglasses and shoes were misplaced while under staff control. DOC records indicate that the claimant filed an inmate complaint and was reimbursed pursuant to the department's Inmate Property Depreciation Schedule. The claimant's eyeglasses were 9 years old and his tennis shoes were three years old. He was reimbursed $28 for the glasses and $33 for the shoes. (The claimant was fully reimbursed for the cost of the typewriter ribbons.) The department does not believe the Claims Board is the appropriate forum in which to challenge the legal authority of DOC 310 IMP 2. In addition, the DOC believes the claim should be denied due to the fact that the claimant did not file an appeal with the Corrections Complaint Examiner and therefore failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The department notes that nowhere in §
16.007 does it state or imply that an inmate is not required to fully exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a claim with the Claims Board as the claimant argues. Furthermore, DOC 310.05 Adm Code requires that an inmate exhaust "all administrative remedies that the department of corrections has promulgated by rule" prior to commencing a civil action or special proceeding against the DOC. The department believes the claimant was appropriately reimbursed and that he should not be allowed to request review of this matter in a different forum 3 years after the incident.
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 Sherman not participating.]
S331
19.
Victor Edmondson of Waupun, Wisconsin, claims $204.90 for damages relating to property allegedly lost or damaged by the Department of Corrections. The claimant was transferred from Redgranite Correctional Institution (RGCI) to the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF) in 2008. He states that his television was damaged when it arrived at WSPF and that it had not been damaged prior to his transfer. The claimant also alleged that a set of pens and two pairs of insoles were missing from his property after the transfer. He filed a complaint with the DOC relating to the damaged and missing property. A DOC investigation concluded that the TV was damaged during the transfer but the department depreciated the value of the television and only reimbursed the claimant $18. The claimant states that he originally paid $169 for the TV. The department denied the claimant's complaint regarding his missing pens and only reimbursed him $2 for one pair of insoles. The claimant appealed the decision but the DOC destroyed his TV during the appeal process. The claimant believes that the department's $18 TV reimbursement is not sufficient because the unit was in very good condition. The claimant believes he had a right to have the TV repaired and that it was a violation of due process for the DOC to destroy the TV during his appeal. He requests reimbursement for the full value of the TV, his insoles and his pens.
The Department of Corrections recommends denial of this claim. The department agrees that the television was damaged during the transfer from RGCI to WSPF. The DOC reimbursed the claimant $18 for the TV. The department states that damaged property is considered contraband and that pursuant to department policy, contraband must be held for 30 days prior to disposal and/or until the institution Warden makes a final decision regarding a complaint about the property. The DOC states that the claimant's TV was not destroyed until after the Warden made his decision. The department also notes that WSPF does not allow inmates to send electronics out to be repaired unless they are still under warranty, which the claimant's TV was not. The department found that there was no evidence that the allegedly missing pens were in the claimant's property when he was at RGCI. The DOC further notes that the receipt provided by the claimant for the pens is almost two years old. The DOC was able to document that one pair of insoles was incorrectly disposed of by RGCI staff and reimbursed the claimant $2 for those insoles. The department states that it has established a depreciation schedule for inmate property and that the amounts reimbursed to the claimant were correctly calculated according to that schedule. The department does not believe the claimant is entitled to any further reimbursement.
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 Sherman not participating.]
20. John H. Jones of Boscobel, Wisconsin, claims $221.12 for reimbursement of restitution money taken from his account at Redgranite Correctional Institution in 2005. The claimant states that in May 2005 another inmate took a swing at him and that he punched back in self-defense, striking the other inmate on the chin. The other inmate required stitches for his injury. The claimant alleges that he struck out only as a reflex because the other inmate tried to hit him first. In June 2005, a disciplinary hearing was held relating to this incident. The claimant states that the only punishment handed down was 180 days of separation. The claimant states that it was not until he was back in his cell that an officer told him that he also would have to pay $221.12 restitution half of the emergency room bill for the other inmate. The claimant states that Department of Corrections' rules require that punishment can only be given during a hearing when the inmate is present and that it was outside the authority of the Hearing Officer to add restitution after the hearing was over. The clamant states that he has a right to challenge the amount and reasonableness of the restitution and that he was unable to do so because it was added after the hearing. The claimant appealed the late addition of the restitution and was denied.
The Department of Corrections recommends denial of this claim. The claimant was found guilty of fighting at the June 2005 disciplinary hearing. As a result, he received 180 days segregation and was ordered to pay restitution. Although the Hearing Officer did not mention the restitution during the hearing, the claimant was notified of the restitution within 5 minutes of leaving the hearing room. The DOC believes this is no different than giving a postponed or delayed decision, which is allowed under department rules. The department states that, even if this was an error, it was a harmless one. The department notes that the claimant failed to seek certiorari review of the discipline or file a Notice of Claim against the state and that the claimant's conviction for fighting was never reversed. The restitution was paid in full in 2005 and the DOC does not believe the claimant should now be able to bring a claim for reimbursement three and one half years later.
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 Sherman not participating.]
21. Jovanni Lopez of Boscobel, Wisconsin, claims $50.30 for wages allegedly owed by the Department of Corrections. The claimant is an inmate at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, where he works as an inmate barber. The claimant states that he was not paid for 30 hours of work from October 5 - 18, 2008, and for 112 hours of work from October 19 - November 1, 2008. The claimant requests reimbursement for these unpaid wages.
The Department of Corrections recommends denial of this claim. The department states that during the claimed time periods the claimant was out to court (OCO) and therefore could not have performed his barber duties. DOC records indicate that the claimant was OCO for a portion of both of the pay periods in question but that he was paid wages for the days during those pay periods when he was not OCO. Pursuant to institution policy, inmates can not be paid wages while they are out to court and the department recommends denial of this claim.
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 Sherman not participating.]
S332
22.
Robert Osowski of Waupun, Wisconsin, claims $40.75 for the full purchase price of television damaged by Department of Corrections' staff. In December 2008, the claimant was transferred from Redgranite Correctional Institution (RGCI) to Waupun Correctional Institution (WCI). The claimant's television, which was in good working order at RGCI, was broken when it was moved to WCI. The claimant notes that the DOC does not deny that the TV was broken while under staff control. The claimant filed an administrative complaint with the department requesting reimbursement for the $116.75 purchase price of the television. The claimant was only reimbursed $76 because the DOC depreciated the value of the TV, which was purchased in 2005. The claimant appealed the depreciation of the television but was denied. The claimant states that the department's depreciation schedule was not effective until April 2006. The claimant alleges that at the time he purchased his TV, DOC policy was to reimburse inmates for the full value of their damaged property. He believes his claim should be evaluated under that policy. He requests reimbursement for the remainder of the purchase price, $40.75.
The Department of Corrections recommends denial of this claim. The department does not deny the television was damaged while under staff control. The DOC states that it has established a policy to fairly reimburse inmates for property damaged by staff. This policy creates a depreciation schedule for various types of property and the claimant was reimbursed according to this schedule. The department notes that the claimant's television was 45 months old and the DOC does not believe the claimant is entitled to be reimbursed for the cost of a brand new TV. The DOC notes that the predecessor rule to which the claimant refers was virtually indistinguishable from the rule under which the claimant was reimbursed. This prior rule was effective June 1, 2004, and therefore would have been in effect when the claimant purchased his television. The department further states that the purchase date of the television is only relevant for determining its depreciated value. It is the date that property is damaged which determines the rule that is in effect pursuant to which an inmate will reimbursed.
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 Sherman not participating.]
The Board concludes:
That the following claims are denied:
Craig G. BucholzJerome Franke
Stephen Kramer
Joseph M. Huber
Michael and Tammy Reynolds
Kim L. Polinski
Timothy Schimmel
William Wachowiak
Dennis and Diana Denman
Milton Smith
Myron E. Edwards (2 claims)
Victor Edmondson
John H. Jones
Jovanni Lopez
Robert Osowski
That payment of the below amounts to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 16.007, Stats:
The Board recommends:
Steve Means
Dave Hansen
Cari Anne Renlund
Gary Sherman
Assembly Finance Committee
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
September 22, 2009
The Honorable, The Legislature:
As required by s.
39.46, Wis. Stats., we have completed a limited-scope review of the dental education contract between the State of Wisconsin and the Marquette University School of Dentistry for fiscal year (FY) 2006-07 and FY 2007-08. During this period, the State provided tuition aid of $8,753 each to 158 Wisconsin residents enrolled in the undergraduate dental education program in FY 2006-07, and 160 Wisconsin residents enrolled in FY 2007-08, for a total of nearly $2.8 million during the two-year period.
Overall, we found that Marquette University was in compliance with its contract with the State and with requirements set forth in s.
39.46, Wis. Stats. During our review, we confirmed the students for whom Marquette University claimed tuition aid were certified by the Higher Educational Aids Board as Wisconsin residents and were eligible to receive this aid. In addition, Marquette University spent funds from the State only for the undergraduate dental school program, it targeted Wisconsin residents for enrollment in the program, and it promoted minority enrollment.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by Marquette University staff during our review.
Sincerely,
janice mueller
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
September 22, 2009
The Honorable, The Legislature:
As required by s.
13.94(1)(dg), Wis. Stats., we have completed a limited-scope review of the dental services grant provided by the Department of Health Services to the Marquette University School of Dentistry for fiscal year (FY) 2006-07 and FY 2007-08. During our review period, Marquette University received general purpose revenue funding of $2.8 million in each year to provide dental services to low-income individuals at clinics in various locations throughout Wisconsin.
Overall, we found Marquette University has developed and implemented adequate procedures to ensure compliance with statutory and grant requirements. In addition, we confirmed that funds provided by the State were expended only for services normally considered a part of comprehensive general dental treatments.
S333
We note that dental services expenses exceeded revenues by $2.6 million in FY 2006-07, and $2.7 million in FY 2007-08. Marquette University staff indicate that clinic revenues, which include the State's grant as well as patient fees and other revenues, are not intended to cover all costs.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by Marquette University staff during our review.
Sincerely,
janice mueller
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
September 23, 2009
The Honorable, The Legislature:
Earlier this year, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee directed this office to conduct a comprehensive audit of the State's child care subsidy program, Wisconsin Shares, which is administered by the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Our June 2009 letter report on the first phase of that audit identified numerous eligibility, wage verification, and record-keeping problems and estimated that, as a result, $22.5 million in improper subsidy payments had been made in 2008. Our evaluation of the overall effectiveness of child care regulation is ongoing, but we are writing at this time to disclose a serious problem we discovered during the course of our work.
In July 2009, we began to compare the addresses of registered sex offenders to addresses for the sites at which all licensed and certified child care providers care for children. We subsequently found four matches. DCF and the Department of Corrections (DOC), which maintains Wisconsin's Sex Offender Registry, were notified immediately and have confirmed the accuracy of the matches we found in electronic records. They are continuing to follow up and at this point believe that no child was harmed as a result of the situations we identified. However, we could not independently determine whether registered sex offenders had ever been present while care was being provided, and unless procedures are implemented to ensure similar situations do not occur in the future, such a potential will exist.
In response to our findings, DCF issued a memorandum on August 25, 2009, directing state licensing and county certification staff to search an electronic database of registered sex offenders for anyone who applies for licensure or certification as a child care provider.
Our work on sex offender data matches is complete, but we are continuing to compare DCF's information on child care providers, their employees, and other household members with both criminal records maintained by the Wisconsin Department of Justice and records of substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect maintained by DCF. If necessary, we will report our findings separately upon completion of our analyses. We expect that the entire child care regulation evaluation will be completed in December 2009.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation of DCF and DOC in completing this analysis.
Sincerely,
janice muller
State Auditor
__________________
Relating to commercial fishing in outlying waters and affecting small business.
Submitted by Department of Natural Resources.
Report received from Agency, September 22, 2009.
Referred to committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources, September 23, 2009.
Relating to the use of designations or certifications purporting to demonstrate special expertise in the financial or retirement needs of seniors.
Submitted by Insurance Commissioner.
Report received from Agency, September 21, 2009.
Referred to committee on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing, September 23, 2009.
Relating to minor revisions to securities administrative code sections for conformity with Wisconsin securities statutes, filings and securities agent examination matters.
Submitted by Department of Financial Institutions.
Report received from Agency, September 21, 2009.
Referred to committee on Veterans and Military Affairs, Biotechnology, and Financial Institutions,
September 23, 2009.
Relating to statutory residents.
Submitted by Technical College System Board.
Report received from Agency, September 22, 2009.
Referred to committee on Small Business, Emergency Preparedness, Technical Colleges, and Consumer Protection, September 23, 2009.
