4. Antwan I. Slater of Oneida, Wisconsin claims $143.38 for refund of money deducted from his inmate wages, allegedly in violation of a court order. Slater was convicted of a crime in 2004 and his judgment of conviction (JOC) states that 25% of his wages are to be deducted for restitution. Slater believes that this language means that DOC can take no more than 25% of his wages for restitution. However, in 2016, DOC began deducting 50% of his wages for restitution. Slater believes that DOC is using 2015 Wis. Act 355 to justify the additional deduction. However, he points to the fact that Act 355 took effect years after his conviction and is therefore not applicable to his case. Slater does not dispute that he owes restitution, but he does not believe DOC has the authority increase the restitution rate of “up to 25%” that was ordered by the court. The Department of Corrections recommends denial of this claim. DOC denies Slater’s allegation that the department is incorrectly applying Act 355 to his deductions. In 2016, DOC increased the rate of restitution deductions from inmates’ funds from 25% to 50%. DOC notes that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals found that the department’s authority to deduct funds for restitution payments existed prior to the passage of Act 355. The court noted that Act 355 simply “codified the common law by specifically authorizing the department to take restitution from an inmate’s account at ‘an amount of a percentage the department determines is reasonable for payment to victims.’” DOC points to the fact that Slater’s JOC does not say “up to 25%” as he alleges. It states, “25% of prison wages to be applied to restitution and court costs.” DOC is not ignoring the JOC—the department is deducting 25% as ordered. DOC is choosing to exercise its broad authority over inmate accounts to deduct an additional amount for victim restitution, resulting in a total deduction of 50%. DOC believes that because Slater has not lost the benefit of these funds, which have been applied to his outstanding legal obligations, reimbursement by the board is not appropriate.
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. Shawn G. Fink of Redgranite, Wisconsin claims $856.87 for refund of child support and restitution payments which DOC deducted from his third Economic Impact Payment (EIP3) authorized by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). Fink alleges the deductions violate federal law as well as his due process and equal protection rights. He points to the fact that the law authorizing the second Economic Impact Payments, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CCA), prohibited deductions from those payments. Fink believes this clearly indicates that it was congress’ intent that every American receive the full benefit of all COVID-19 stimulus payments without any deductions. He believes congress did not feel it necessary to repeat the same language prohibiting deductions in ARPA because CCA was still in place and had not been repealed. Fink notes that statutes must be read in a manner that harmonizes them and that federal has supremacy over state law when there is a conflict between them.
The Department of Corrections believes there is no legal or equitable reason to pay this claim. DOC agrees that it could not (and did not) take deductions from the second round of stimulus payments because CCA contained a broad definition of the term “deduction” which prevented DOC from doing so. By contrast, the language in ARPA only prohibited specific types of deductions related to taxes and unemployment compensation debts. ARPA did not prohibit deductions for child support and victim restitution. DOC believes that the difference in language between CCA and ARPA clearly illustrates congress’ intent to allow deductions from the third round of payments that had been prohibited in the second round. DOC notes that when child support and victim restitution deductions are allowed under federal law, the department is required by Wis. Stat. § 973.20(11)(c) to make those deductions. DOC does not dispute that federal law has supremacy over state law when there is a conflict, however there is no conflict between ARPA and state law. ARPA allowed the deductions, DOC was required by state law to make the deductions, and the money was used to pay Fink’s lawful debts, which is to his benefit. 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.
6. Michael Hudson of Redgranite, Wisconsin claims $551.08 for refund of child support and release account payments which DOC deducted from his third Economic Impact Payment (EIP3) authorized by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA). Hudson alleges the deductions violate federal law as well as his due process and equal protection rights. He points to the fact that the law authorizing the second Economic Impact Payments, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CCA), prohibited deductions from those payments. Hudson believes this clearly indicates that it was congress’ intent that every American receive the full benefit of all COVID-19 stimulus payments without any deductions. He believes congress did not feel it necessary to repeat the same language prohibiting deductions in the ARPA because the CCA was still in place and had not been repealed. Hudson notes that that federal has supremacy over state law when there is a conflict between them. Hudson points to Kellar v. Inch, in which a judge in Florida stated that “the rules regarding protections of EIP3 are governed by the ARP, which provides protection against only reduction or offset of past-due Federal taxes, unpaid child support, debts owed to Federal agencies, past-due State income tax obligations, and unemployment compensation debts.”
The Department of Corrections believes there is no legal or equitable reason to pay this claim. DOC agrees that it could not (and did not) take deductions from the second round of stimulus payments because CCA contained a broad definition of the term “deduction” which prevented DOC from doing so. By contrast, the language in ARPA only prohibited specific types of deductions related to taxes and unemployment compensation debts. ARPA did not prohibit deductions for child support and release accounts. DOC believes that the difference in language between the CCA and the ARPA clearly illustrates congress’ intent to allow deductions from the third round of payments that had been prohibited in the second round. DOC notes that when child support deductions are allowed under federal law, the department is required by Wis. Stat. § 973.20(11)(c) to make those deductions. A deduction taken for an inmate release account is simply a transfer of money, which is then held in the inmate’s name for their use upon release. Wis. Admin. Code DOC 309.466 requires that DOC make release account deductions from monies earned or received by inmates. DOC does not dispute that federal law has supremacy over state law when there is a conflict, however there is no conflict between ARPA and state law. ARPA allowed the deductions and DOC was required by state law to make them. DOC notes that payment of Hudson’s child support is to his benefit, and the money in his inmate release account will be available to him upon his release from prison. 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.
The Board concludes:
That payment of the amounts below to the identified claimant from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 16.007(6)(b). That the following identified claimants are denied:
Mark Knetter Antwan I. Slater ($143.38)
Leshaun Benjamin Shawn G. Fink
Michael Hudson
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 15th day of December, 2021.
COREY FINKELMEYER
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
ANNE L. HANSON
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
MARY FELZKOWSKI
Senate Finance Committee
TERRY KATSMA
Assembly Finance Committee
RYAN NILSESTUEN
Representative of the Governor
