Wisconsin Legislature: 2018-06-19 Senate Journal

STATE OF WISCONSIN

Senate Journal

One-Hundred and Third Regular Session

TUESDAY, June 19, 2018

The Chief Clerk made the following entries under the above date.

_____________

Petitions and Communications

State of Wisconsin

Office of the Senate Minority Leader

June 15, 2018

The Honorable, the Senate:

Pursuant to Wis. Stats. §15.62 (1)(a), I appoint the following individual to serve on the Ethics Commission:

Tamara Packard of Madison

Sincerely,

JENNIFER SHILLING

Minority Leader

_____________

State of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Ethics Commission

June 19, 2018

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.

Bohl, James City of Milwaukee

Johnson, Kevin Amgen

Sincerely,

COLETTE REINKE

Administrator

_____________

State of Wisconsin

Claims Board

June 11, 2018

Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on May 22, 2018. 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,

GREGORY D. MURRAY

Secretary

STATE OF WISCONSIN CLAIMS BOARD

The State of Wisconsin Claims Board conducted hearings at the State Capitol Building in Madison, Wisconsin, on May 22, 2018, upon the following claims:

Claimant Agency Amount

Shanquill Bey Children $163,691.53

& Families

The following claims were decided without hearings:

Claimant Agency Amount

Brian St. Lawrence Transportation $681.43

Toyota Financial Financial $6,456.00

Savings Bank Institutions

Janari L. McKinnie Corrections $50.00

Frank T. Whitehead Corrections $2,500.00

Steven Joseph King Corrections $249.58

Michael A. Chesir Corrections $747.59

Alphoncy Dangerfield Corrections $43.79

Darren Wold Corrections $7,398.98

10.

Marteze Harris Corrections $486.26

11.

Kenneth R. Hunter Corrections $215.69

12.

Dennis S. Rivers Corrections $158.71

13.

Charles Wilson Corrections $404.00

14.

Fernando Guarnero Corrections $568.08

The Board Finds:

1. Shanquil Bey of Milwaukee, Wisconsin claims $163,691.53 for monies allegedly owed to her licensed child care center. Claimant’s center cared for children whose care was subsidized by the Wisconsin Shares program; she did not have private-pay clients. Claimant’s center was enrollment-based; she was paid a set weekly amount for each child, regardless of the number of hours they were present that week. On August 20, 2010, the Department of Children and Families suspended Wisconsin Shares payments to claimant’s child care center. Clamant states that she was one of many child care centers which were “raided” in the Milwaukee area due to media coverage about child care fraud. She states that she was suspended based on “red flags” in DCF’s system, not due to any finding or evidence of guilt. Claimant was granted a hearing before an administrative law judge, who found that her suspension was not warranted, however, the DCF Secretary overturned the judge’s decision. Claimant does not believe this hearing process was fair because the opposing party—DCF—was allowed to make the final decision. Claimant appealed her suspension to Milwaukee County Circuit Court. The court found that DCF violated claimant’s due process rights and ordered DCF to issue payments to her for previously provided child care and to resume Wisconsin Shares payments. Clamant alleges that DCF has failed to make the payments ordered by the court and is in contempt of the court order. She alleges that the checks DCF issued in March 2011 were for care provided prior to August 20, 2010, and that she is still owed $60,336.36 for unpaid child care from October 2010 through early January 2011. Claimant believes that the authorizations for child care issued by DCF constitute contracts and that DCF is in violation of those contracts. Claimant also states that DCF alleged she received overpayments but that these alleged overpayments were based on hourly attendance, even though she was an enrollment-based provider and was not paid hourly. She notes that if her center had been paid on an hourly attendance basis DCF would have, in fact, underpaid her for child care in the amount of $103,355.17. She does not believe it was fair for DCF to deduct payments from her on an hourly basis for alleged violations, when she was actually reimbursed for fewer hours of care per week than she provided. Claimant believes she was caught up in an overzealous, media-driven campaign to root out alleged fraud in the Wisconsin Shares program. She believes that DCF over-reacted to allegations of very minor violations and points to the fact that both the administrative law judge and the circuit court agreed that her suspension from the program was unwarranted. She believes DCF destroyed her business and requests reimbursement for her damages.

DCF recommends denial of this claim. DCF states that it issues child care authorizations to parents, not child care providers, and therefore had no contract with claimant to provide services. DCF states that the determination of the administrative law judge was only a proposed decision and that the DCF Secretary did not agree with that proposed decision. DCF notes that the circuit court directed DCF to issue payments to claimant for any eligible care previously provided and to resume Wisconsin Shares payments for any eligible care. DCF did pay claimant for eligible care she provided prior to her suspension, issuing checks on March 24, 2011, in the amounts of $5,023.45 and $2,861.36. DCF states that claimant has not submitted any bills for care provided after her suspension, therefore, DCF is not able to pay for that care. DCF believes claimant has submitted no evidence supporting her allegation of underpayment. DCF notes that claimant has pursued her claim for additional money in a variety of forums to no avail. DCF believes her claims are without merit and should be denied.

The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $10,000, which is the maximum amount the Board may award on its own motion pursuant to § 16.007(6)(a), based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of § 16.007(6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Children & Families appropriation § 20.437(2)(cm), Stats.

2. Brian St. Lawrence of Brookfield, Wisconsin claims $681.43 for tire damage due to an October 18, 2017, incident on I-94. Claimant was traveling eastbound in the far-right lane when he noticed two police cars on the left side of the eastbound lanes with their emergency lights activated. The police cars were about 1000 feet apart from one another. The claimant slowly passed the first police car, which was traveling at approximately 35-40 mph. The claimant then slowly passed the second police car, which was parked in the left side emergency lane, with the officer walking from the middle lane back towards the vehicle. As claimant passed both police cars, he watched to make certain the officers did not motion for him to stop or pull over. Neither officer did so. Immediately after passing the second police car, both the tires on the right side of his vehicle went flat and claimant realized he had run over spike strips in the roadway. The vehicle traveling behind him also ran over the spike strips. Both vehicles pulled off to the right shoulder and waited for assistance. The officer who had laid out the spike strips apologized for what had happened and indicated the strips were intended to stop another vehicle farther behind the drivers. The officer arranged to have the vehicles towed and indicated several times that the state would pay for any damages. Several days later, claimant received a call from the State Patrol indicating that the officer had misstated the facts and that claimant would have to fill out paperwork with Risk Management to get reimbursement for the damages. He did so but his claim for reimbursement was denied. Claimant requests reimbursement for the cost of towing his vehicle and replacing his tires.

The Department of Transportation recommends denial of this claim. Trooper Kneisler deployed the spike strips for a high-speed chase; claimant’s vehicle was not the intended target. Although Trooper Kneisler did tell claimant the state would pay for the damages, he should not have done so because this is not proper procedure for processing claims. An investigation into claimant’s claim for damages found no negligence on the part of any state employee, therefore his claim was denied.

The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the amount of $681.43 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of § 16.007(6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Transportation appropriation § 20.395(5)(dq), Stats.

3. Toyota Financial Savings Bank of Henderson, Nevada claims $6,456 for refund of an alleged overpayment of fees due to an error on its Foreign Corporation Annual Report for 2016. Claimant states that its 2016 Wisconsin assets were accidentally overstated on the report, resulting in an incorrect annual fee of $6,456. Claimant asserts that the correct fee should have been $0. Claimant requests reimbursement for the overpayment.

The Department of Financial Institutions recommends denial of this claim. DFI notes that it has no means by which to verify the accuracy of the information provided by claimant, because claimant has exclusive control over the information on which the Annual Report’s calculations are based. DFI points to the fact that there was no error by DFI or any of its employees. DFI points to a 1981 letter of the Attorney General opining that filing fees of a foreign corporation that are later alleged to be erroneous are non-refundable. DFI notes that the Claims Board has a history of denying similar claims and recommends that the board deny this claim as well.

The Board notes that claimant would be able to use this overpayment as a credit against fees for future annual reports as the company’s capital represented in Wisconsin increases. 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. Janari L. McKinnie of Redgranite, Wisconsin claims $50 for the value of a money order allegedly stolen by Department of Corrections staff. Claimant is an inmate at Redgranite Correctional Institution (RGCI). Claimant alleges that in July 2017, mailroom staff told him they had received a money order with the wrong address and that claimant needed to mail the money order out of the institution and back to himself at the correct post office box. Clamant did so but alleges that he never received the money order back. He states that his family found that the money order had been cashed by someone other than claimant. Claimant alleges that RGCI mailroom staff stole the money order. He disputes DOC’s claim that the money order was deposited in his account. He states that DOC is mixing up the reference numbers on two money orders that were sent to him around the same time and that he received one of the money orders but not the other.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC records indicate that the money order referenced by clamant was deposited to his account on July 17, 2017. Claimant has provided no evidence of a second money order or any negligence on the part of DOC staff.

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.

5. Frank T. Whitehead of New Lisbon, Wisconsin claims $2,500 for property allegedly damaged or improperly destroyed by Department of Corrections staff. Claimant, an inmate at New Lisbon Correctional Institution, was transferred to segregation on February 20, 2017. His property was packed and inventoried by CO Holsclaw and others. On March 2, 2017, claimant was released from segregation and his property was returned. He states that he noticed right away that the cable connector on the back of his TV was broken off and his TV no longer worked. He points to the fact that CO Holsclaw admits that the TV was working when it was removed from his cell. He believes this is proof that the TV was damaged while under staff control. Claimant also alleges that he is missing four typewriter ribbons from his property. He alleges he had four new ribbons and seven or eight old ribbons in his possession when he was sent to segregation. He believes that DOC staff accidentally threw away the new ribbons when they inventoried his property. Claimant also alleges that four pictures are missing from his property, two related to a court case and two which had priceless sentimental value. Claimant filed inmate complaints regarding his damaged TV, missing typewriter ribbons, and missing pictures. All of his complaints were denied. Claimant alleges that CO Holsclaw has a history of breaking or throwing out the property of African American inmates. He believes his rights have been violated and requests reimbursement of $2,500 for his property.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. Claimant filed three inmate complaints regarding his damaged TV and allegedly missing property. DOC investigations found no evidence of DOC staff negligence and his complaints were denied. During the packing and inventorying of claimant’s property, it was discovered that his TV had a large amount of tape connecting the wires/cables and TV together. Pursuant to DOC policy, which does not allow inmates to possess damaged or altered items, this tape was removed as contraband. It is possible that claimant’s TV was working at the time he was sent to segregation only because of the tape holding it together, but that does not change the fact that the TV was damaged and altered prior to being in DOC’s possession. Claimant has presented no evidence that DOC staff damaged his TV. Inmates are allowed to have six typewriter ribbons in their possession. DOC’s inventory records indicate that clamant had seven ribbons upon his transfer to seg. and that one was properly disposed of pursuant to the property limit. Claimant has presented no evidence that DOC improperly destroyed four typewriter ribbons. DOC inventory records also indicate that claimant had 50 pictures in his possession at the time of his transfer and that 50 pictures were returned to him. Claimant has presented no evidence that DOC destroyed any pictures. DOC believes that claimant has failed to present any evidence of DOC negligence and recommends denial of this claim.

6. Steven Joseph King of Waupun, Wisconsin claims $249.58 for the value of a TV, fan, radio, and sandals allegedly lost or damaged by Department of Corrections staff. Claimant is an inmate at Waupun Correctional Institution. On January 11, 2018, he was sent to temporary lock-up (TLU). He states that he had all four of these items in his possession and that they were all in working order at the time of his transfer to TLU. When he received a copy of his property inventory form on January 16th, his sandals and radio were not listed on the form and he was told his TV and fan were broken and therefore contraband. Clamant states that only DOC staff had access to the items in his cell at the time of his transfer to TLU. He points to a November 2017 property inventory that showed he had all four items in his possession. He also points to the fact that after his prior transfer from TLU on January 5, 2018, his TV and fan were returned to him, which would not have happened if they had been broken. Claimant believes DOC staff was negligent in handling his property and requests reimbursement.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. An investigation into claimant’s complaint found that his fan and TV were inspected on January 11th and that the fan’s power cord and the TV’s “F” jack were missing. Because both items were broken, they were designated as contraband. The investigation also found no evidence that claimant had sandals or a radio in his possession at the time he was transferred to TLU. DOC notes that the property inventory from claimant’s most recent transfer to TLU did not list a radio or sandals as being in his possession.

7. Michael Chesir of Stanley, Wisconsin claims $747.59 for repayment of restitution and court fees deducted from his inmate account. Claimant was convicted in February 1997. In August 1997, he notified the court that he disagreed with the restitution determination and wanted a restitution hearing. The court never held a restitution hearing for claimant. In June 2005, the court filed a restitution order and the Department of Corrections began deducting restitution from claimant’s inmate account. In June 2017, claimant filed a motion asking the court to vacate the restitution order. In its September 2017 decision, Milwaukee County Circuit Court found that the 2005 restitution order had been incorrectly filed without granting claimant a restitution hearing. The court also found that the more than 20-year delay between claimant’s sentencing and the restitution order was without justification and prejudicial to claimant. The court vacated claimant’s restitution order nunc pro tunc “to facilitate the [claimant’s] opportunity for reimbursement of funds deducted from his inmate account for restitution in this case.” Claimant points to a DOC memo dated January 19, 2017, which states that the “only refunds will be for those that have Restitution obligations” as proof that the deducted restitution is refundable by DOC. Claimant notes that he is not requesting a refund from the entity who received the restitution, as alleged by DOC. He is requesting that DOC pay the refund based on equitable principles. Claimant also notes that DOC’s reference to State v. Minniecheske is irrelevant because he is not requesting that the court order a refund, but that the Claims Board provide the refund based on equitable principles.

DOC recommends denial of this claim because the department was following the directives of a valid court order and was not negligent. DOC had no reason not to make restitution deductions from claimant’s account based on the 2005 restitution order. DOC is charged with the supervision of inmates, including their funds. Wis. Stat. § 301.32(1), authorizes DOC to use inmate funds “for the benefit of the prisoner” and paying down an inmate’s lawful debt is clearly to his benefit. DOC notes that 2015 Act 355 amended § 301.32 to expressly authorize DOC to use an inmate’s funds for payment towards applicable surcharges, victim restitution, or the benefit of the prisoner. DOC points to Division of Adult Institution Policy 309.45.02, which provides that if an inmate receives an amended Judgement of Conviction, DOC is not responsible to seek reimbursement from the entity that received the funds. DOC believes that doing so would revictimize the victim. In addition, DOC points to State v. Minniecheske, which found that a sentencing court lacks competency to order the state to reimburse inmates for money taken from their accounts. Finally, DOC states that the January 29, 2017, memo referenced by claimant is completely unrelated to the collection of court ordered restitution and is therefore not relevant to this claim.