Wisconsin Legislature: 2017-07-11 Senate Journal

STATE OF WISCONSIN

Senate Journal

One-Hundred and Third Regular Session

3:15 P.M. TUESDAY, July 11, 2017

The Senate met.

The Senate was called to order by Senator Fitzgerald.

Pursuant to Senate Rule 17 (6), the Chief Clerk made the following entries under the above date.

_____________

Petitions and Communications

State of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Ethics Commission

July 11, 2017

The Honorable, the Senate:

Pursuant to Wis. Stats. §13.685 (7), we are providing the enclosed information. Please visit the Wisconsin Ethics Commission’s Eye on Lobbying website, https://lobbying.wi.gov, for more detailed information about lobbyists, lobbying principals (organizations), and state agency liaisons.

Davidson, Lisa Wisconsin Medical Society

Sincerely,

BRIAN BELL

Administrator

_____________

State of Wisconsin

Claims Board

July 11, 2017

Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on June 21, 2017. Those claims approved for payment pursuant to the provisions of s.16.007 and 775.05 Stats., have been paid directly by the Board.

This report is for the information of the Legislature, The Board would appreciate your acceptance and publication of it in the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.

Sincerely,

CHRISTOPHER N. GREEN

Secretary

STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD

On June 21, 2017, at the State Capitol Building in Madison, Wisconsin, the State of Wisconsin Claims Board considered the following claims, which were decided without hearings:

Claimant Agency Amount

Bobbie Bowen Corrections $1714.89

Mark B. Brown Corrections $30.00

Mark B. Brown Corrections $19.23

Dennis Buford, Sr. Corrections $210.00

Edward B. Burgess Corrections $116.03

Keith S. Gary Corrections $102.11

Tduardo J. Head Corrections $161.59

Victor Robinson Corrections $41.76

Jake J. Sizemore Corrections $162.90

10.

Elese Taylor Corrections $76.49

11.

Matthew Tyler Health Services $8,256.53

12.

Dorian Williams Corrections $209.95

13.

David M. Wilson Corrections $65.00

With respect to the claims, the Board finds:

1. Bobbie Bowen of Stanley, Wisconsin claims $1,714.89 for property allegedly lost, destroyed or thrown away by DOC staff while the claimant was an inmate at the Milwaukee Secure Detention Facility (MSDF). On 8/21/15 MSDF staff conducted a search of the claimant’s cell. After the search, the claimant was transferred to segregation. He received his property inventory form in segregation and alleges that multiple items were missing from his property, including numerous photos, legal paperwork, education transcripts, canteen items, eyeglasses, and a litigation manual. The claimant has witness statements from five individuals who state that they saw an MSDF officer throw away the claimant’s photographs and canteen items. They also state that the officer left the claimant’s cell open and unattended, allowing other inmates to steal the claimant’s eyeglasses and other property items. The claimant notes that DOC admits fault for the loss of his eyeglasses and reimbursed him $100, but the glasses cost $250. The claimant disputes DOC’s assertion that several of the missing property items were found during a later cell search. The claimant states that the litigation manual and transcripts found during the December 2015 cell search were replacements that he acquired after the originals were lost by DOC. The claimant believes the mishandling of his property was done in retaliation for his prior claim regarding a bible he purchased. He requests reimbursement for his missing property.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC believes the claimant has failed to provide any proof or evidence that the allegedly missing items were actually in his cell on 8/21/15. DOC states that all of the claimant’s property was properly inventoried at the time of his transfer to segregation and the claimed missing items were not in his cell. DOC notes that the property items could have been previously lost, stolen, given away or otherwise disposed of by the claimant. DOC also notes that several of the allegedly missing property items (a litigation manual, diploma, and transcripts) were found in the claimant’s cell during a December 2015 search. DOC believes the claimant has not proven any negligence on the part of DOC staff and recommends denial of the 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.

2. Mark Brown of Milwaukee, Wisconsin claims $30.00 for the value of three magazines allegedly thrown away by DOC staff. The clamant alleges that CO Johnson threw away three of his magazines on May 19, 2016, while he was out of his cell at a medical appointment. The claimant states that the magazines did have his name and inmate id number on them; therefore, they were not contraband. The claimant states that the magazines were given to him by CO Heft on May 17th and that Heft would not have given him the magazines without his identification on them. The claimant notes that he was never given a ticket reporting that the magazines were contraband. He alleges that CO Johnson has a history of harassing inmates and destroying their property and requests reimbursement for his magazines.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC states that the magazines taken from the claimant’s cell did not have his name and inmate id number on them as required. DOC states the magazines were missing covers and were damaged in such a way that indicated they had been “fished” between cells. DOC notes that the Inmate Complaint Examiner found that, based on the descriptions, these were not the magazines given to the claimant by CO Heft. DOC believes that, although CO Johnson did not dispose of the magazines per procedure, it does not change the fact that they were contraband and therefore subject to seizure and disposal. DOC believes the claimant has failed to provide any evidence of negligence by DOC and that the claim should be denied.

3. Mark Brown of Milwaukee, Wisconsin claims $19.23 for the value of property allegedly stolen or improperly thrown away by DOC personnel. On 5/14/16 the claimant was housed as an inmate at Redgranite Correctional Institution (RCI). He alleges that he was told to leave his cell to go to segregation. He states that he placed all of his property in his wall locker before exiting the cell and that an RCI captain saw him place his property in the locker, including his canteen items and his magazine. The claimant alleges that the RCI officer who packed his property, CO Fisher, either stole or threw away some of his canteen items and a magazine. The claimant notes that CO Fischer was solely responsible for packing up the property. The claimant alleges that CO Fischer has threatened him, made up conduct reports about him, and harassed him in the past. The claimant believes that CO Fischer has a grudge against the claimant. The claimant notes that none of the missing property was declared contraband. He also notes that he had only ordered the canteen items ten days prior to this incident. He requests reimbursement for his missing property.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC believes the claimant has submitted no evidence that his property was not properly inventoried, packed, and stored upon his transfer to segregation. DOC also believes the claimant has provided no proof that the allegedly missing items were actually in his possession at the time he was transferred. The items may have been consumed, lost, traded, or stolen prior to the date of the claimant’s transfer to segregation. DOC notes that the claimant’s assertions are not evidence. DOC believes the claimant has failed to prove there was any negligence on the part of DOC staff and recommends denial of this claim.

4. Dennis A. Buford, Sr. of Green Bay, Wisconsin claims $210.00 for the value of television allegedly damaged due to DOC negligence. The claimant is an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution. On 9/17/16 the shelf on the wall of claimant’s cell fell down, damaging his television, which was underneath the shelf. The claimant states that he had reported to DOC staff that the shelf was loose on September 8, 2016, and DOC staff has submitted a work order to repair the shelf. The claimant notes that cells are supposed to be inspected by staff before an inmate moves in, but that his cell was never inspected. The claimant believes that DOC was negligent in failing to inspect his cell, when the loose shelf would have been discovered and repaired. The claimant believes it is DOC’s responsibility to provide a safe environment for inmates. The claimant notes that he only had a Bible and a cup with pens and pencils on the shelf, and that the weight of these two items could hardly have been enough to cause the shelf to fall. The claimant also points to the fact that the Inmate Complaint Examiner found that the shelf had fallen due to “normal wear and tear.” The claimant believes DOC should have inspected his cell and also had ample time to repair the shelf once they were notified. He requests reimbursement for the cost of his television.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. The claimant admits that he knew the shelf was loose yet he chose to store personal items on it, which added weight to an already unstable shelf and precipitated the failure of the shelf. DOC believes this is the primary reason for the claimant’s damages and that the claimant has failed to meet his burden to show that DOC negligence caused his damages.

5. Edward B. Burgess of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $116.03 for the value of property allegedly improperly seized as contraband and destroyed by DOC. The claimant states that he arrived at Green Bay Correctional Institution on 6/10/15 with all of the property. On 12/25/15 CO Schmitt packed up the property in the claimant’s cell. The claimant states that CO Schmitt had never packed property before and was unfamiliar with the limits on various types of property. CO Schmitt designated a number of items in claimant’s property as over the limit and therefore contraband. The claimant alleges that CO Schmitt later admitted that she was mistaken in designating the property as over the limit. The claimant believes his property inventory forms prove his property was within allowable property limits. He filed an inmate complaint, which was denied. The claimant then appealed to the Corrections Complaint Examiner (CCE). The claimant states that, pursuant to DOC’s procedures, the CCE had until 6/14/16 to respond to his appeal, however, the CCE did not respond until 11/1/16. The claimant believes that because the CCE was so late in responding to his appeal, they lost the appeal by default and he should therefore be reimbursed for his confiscated property.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC believes the claimant has provided no evidence that DOC staff improperly handled his property. The claimant filed an inmate complaint alleging missing property items. The Inmate Complaint Examiner found that the claimant provided no proof that he possessed the missing property items at the time his property was packed. The ICE found that the property could have been lost, stolen, given away, or otherwise disposed of prior to the packing up of claimant’s cell. In making his determination, the ICE reviewed the claimant’s property inventory log, communication from the officer who packed the claimant’s property, and the contraband property tag issued by the officer. DOC notes that the claimant was issued a conduct report of possessing contraband, of which he was later found guilty. DOC points to the fact that three items: hobby pens, a power strip, and new socks were returned to the claimant as not over the limit, but the remaining property was upheld as contraband. The claimant’s appeal was reviewed by the Corrections Complaint Examiner, who determined that the items contested by the claimant exceeded property limits and were properly disposed of as contraband. DOC believes the claimant has not provided evidence that DOC was negligent in the handling of his property and recommends denial of this claim.

6. Keith S. Gary of Portage, Wisconsin claims $102.11 for damaged and lost property allegedly due to the negligence of DOC staff. The claimant is an inmate at Columbia Correctional Institution. The claimant’s property was packed up when he was placed in segregation on 5/5/16. The claimant received his property back when he returned to his regular cell on 5/16/16. The claimant states that he went through his property in front of Sgt. Jordan, who witnessed the fact that the claimant’s TV antenna was damaged and he was missing items, including 40 photos. The claimant filed a complaint with the Inmate Complaint Examiner (ICE). He notes that the ICE did not interview Sgt. Jordan, even though he was a witness to the claimant’s missing and damaged property. The claimant states that DOC is speculating when they allege that the claimant’s property could have been lost, traded, or stolen prior to his being sent to segregation. The claimant believes that the ICE is biased against inmates and routinely uses that allegation to excuse the misconduct or negligence of DOC staff. The claimant points to the fact that DOC staff put the wrong inmate number on his property inventory form on several occasions, which speaks to the staff’s negligence. The claimant alleges that DOC staff is routinely negligent in handling inmate property because they know that the ICE will always back them up. The claimant requests reimbursement for his lost and damaged property.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC notes that the ICE compared the segregation inventory to the claimant’s prior property inventory and found that he no longer possessed a number of items when he was sent to segregation, including a TV antenna and radio antenna. The ICE also found no evidence that any of the claimant’s property was confiscated as contraband. DOC believes that the claimant may have possessed the allegedly missing property at one time, but that the property was lost, traded, or stolen prior to the claimant’s transfer to segregation. DOC states that the incorrect inmate number written on the claimant’s property inventory was a minor error. DOC staff checked with the other inmate and determined that he does not have any of the claimant’s allegedly missing property. DOC believes the claimant has failed to provide any evidence of negligence on the part of DOC staff and recommends denial of this claim.

7. Tduardo J. Head of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $161.59 for a damaged television allegedly caused by DOC staff. The claimant states that on 7/16/15 he asked DOC staff to assist him in removing a cable cord from the back of his TV. The claimant states that Corrections Officer Bast took the TV into the hallway and used a wrench to remove the cord. The claimant alleges that CO Bast broke the cable connector on the back of the TV when he was trying to remove the cord. The claimant states that his television was in good working order until that time. The claimant notes that he does not have access to any tools, therefore, if CO Bast couldn’t remove the cord with a wrench, as DOC claims, how could the claimant have removed it without one? The claimant asserts that the only person who could have broken the TV was CO Bast. The claimant notes that the Inmate Complaint Examiner only spoke to CO Bast and never reviewed the camera footage from the hallway, which would have shown CO Bast breaking the television. Finally, the claimant alleges that staff breaking inmates’ televisions is an ongoing issue at the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility. He requests reimbursement for the cost of his TV and antenna.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC states that CO Bast attempted to remove the cable cord from the TV at the claimant’s request. CO Bast used a wrench but was unable to remove the cord from the back of the TV. DOC alleges that CO Bast did not force or break the connector on the back of the TV. DOC states that the TV was returned to the claimant with the cord still attached and was not broken when it was returned. The claimant filed an inmate complaint and appeal; both were dismissed. DOC believes the claimant has provided no evidence of negligence on the part of DOC staff and that this claim should be denied.

8. Victor Robinson of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $41.76 for the value of property allegedly improperly destroyed by DOC staff. In September 2015, the claimant was transferred from the Wisconsin Secure Program Facility (WSPF) to Dodge Correctional Institution (DCI) in preparation for a transfer to an out-of-state facility. The claimant states that WSPF staff packed up his property before the transfer to DCI and noted seven open canteen items, which had to be destroyed because they could not be transferred. In November 2015, after the claimant’s transfer to a facility in South Dakota, DCI staff went through the claimant’s property and destroyed more canteen and hygiene items which were allegedly open, however, the claimant states that WSPF staff had already destroyed all open items. The claimant also alleges that pursuant to the Division of Adult Institutions Policy 309.20.03, DCI staff should have notified him of contraband property and he should have been allowed to send the canteen/hygiene items out instead of them being destroyed. The claimant states that DCI never notified him that he had contraband items in his property, but simply destroyed the items. The claimant states that he did not find out about the destroyed items until he returned to Wisconsin in August 2016. The claimant filed an Inmate Complaint, which was denied. His appeal was also denied. He requests reimbursement for the value of the destroyed canteen and hygiene items.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. The claimant was transferred to a facility in South Dakota pursuant to the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC). DOC states that property allowed by ICC partner institutions is limited. Therefore, in November 2015 DCI staff inventoried the claimant’s property and found open/unsealed items. DOC states that open perishable/consumable items cannot be transferred to another institution. Open hygiene items may be transferred, but only if they are in clear containers, which the claimant’s open hygiene items were not. DOC staff completed a property receipt/disposition form and also an incident report on the destroyed items. An ICE filed by the claimant was rejected because the examiner found that DOC had properly disposed of the property items. That decision was upheld on appeal.