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
1
1.
Shanquill Bey     Children   $163,691.53
& Families
The following claims were decided without hearings:
Claimant   Agency   Amount
2
2.
Brian St. Lawrence   Transportation $681.43
3
3.
Toyota Financial   Financial   $6,456.00
Savings Bank     Institutions
4
4.
Janari L. McKinnie   Corrections   $50.00
5
5.
Frank T. Whitehead   Corrections   $2,500.00
6
6.
Steven Joseph King   Corrections   $249.58
7
7.
Michael A. Chesir   Corrections   $747.59
8
8.
Alphoncy Dangerfield   Corrections   $43.79
9
9.
Darren Wold     Corrections   $7,398.98
10
10.
Marteze Harris   Corrections   $486.26
11
11.
Kenneth R. Hunter   Corrections   $215.69
12
12.
Dennis S. Rivers   Corrections   $158.71
13
13.
Charles Wilson   Corrections   $404.00
14
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.
Loading...
Loading...