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
11.
Bobbie Bowen Corrections $1714.89 22.
Mark B. Brown Corrections $30.00 33.
Mark B. Brown Corrections $19.23 44.
Dennis Buford, Sr. Corrections $210.00 55.
Edward B. Burgess Corrections $116.03 66.
Keith S. Gary Corrections $102.11 77.
Tduardo J. Head Corrections $161.59 88.
Victor Robinson Corrections $41.76 99.
Jake J. Sizemore Corrections $162.90 1010.
Elese Taylor Corrections $76.49 1111.
Matthew Tyler Health Services $8,256.53 1212.
Dorian Williams Corrections $209.95 1313.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Ignatowski dissenting.)
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.
