Relating to: the placement, possession, transportation, loading or discharge of a firearm by certain private security persons.
Concurrence.
Ayes, 4 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki and Darling.
Noes, 3 - Senators Risser, Adelman and Burke.
Assembly Bill 83
Relating to: battery to an emergency room worker and providing penalties.
Introduction and adoption of Senate amendment 1.
Ayes, 6 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling, Risser and Burke.
Noes, 1 - Senator Adelman.
Concurrence as amended.
Ayes, 6 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling, Risser and Burke.
Noes, 1 - Senator Adelman.
Assembly Bill 88
Relating to: seized dangerous weapons.
Introduction and adoption of Senate amendment 1.
Ayes, 7 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling, Risser, Adelman and Burke.
Noes, 0 - None.
Concurrence as amended.
Ayes, 7 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling, Risser, Adelman and Burke.
Noes, 0 - None.
McCrory, Marc T.,
of Janesville, as a member of the Public Defender Board, to serve for the term ending May 1, 1998.
Confirmation.
Ayes, 7 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling, Risser, Adelman and Burke.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 213
Relating to: polygraph testing of prospective employes of a law enforcement agency.
Passage.
Ayes, 5 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling and Burke.
Noes, 2 - Senators Risser and Adelman.
Relating to: disarming a peace officer.
Introduction and adoption of Senate amendment 1.
Ayes, 7 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling, Risser, Adelman and Burke.
Noes, 0 - None.
Passage as amended.
Ayes, 7 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling, Risser, Adelman and Burke.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 292
Relating to: creating immunity from liability for the owner of recreational property if a person dies while involved in a recreational activity on the property.
Passage.
Ayes, 5 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling and Risser.
Noes, 2 - Senators Adelman and Burke.
Senate Bill 323
Relating to: testing criminal defendants who are found not competent to proceed or not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect for the presence of the human immunodeficiency virus and sexually transmitted diseases.
Introduction and adoption of Senate amendment 1.
Ayes, 7 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling, Risser, Adelman and Burke.
Noes, 0 - None.
Passage as amended.
Ayes, 7 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling, Risser, Adelman and Burke.
Noes, 0 - None.
Senate Bill 72
Relating to: persons who are ordered to be confined as a condition of probation and providing a penalty.
Introduction and adoption of Senate amendment 1.
Ayes, 7 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling, Risser, Adelman and Burke.
Noes, 0 - None.
Passage as amended.
Ayes, 7 - Senators Huelsman, Welch, Drzewiecki, Darling, Risser, Adelman and Burke.
Noes, 0 - None.
Joanne Huelsman
Chairperson
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on June 8, 1995.
The amounts recommended for payment under $4,000 on claims included in this report have, under the provisions of s.
16.007, Stats., been paid directly by the Board.
The Board is preparing the bill(s) on the recommended award(s) over $4,000, if any, and will submit such to the Joint Finance Committee for legislative introduction.
This report is for the information of the Legislature. The Board would appreciate your acceptance and spreading of it upon the Journal to inform the members of the Legislature.
Sincerely,
Edward D. Main
Secretary
State of Wisconsin
Claims Board
The State Claims Board conducted hearings at the State Capitol Building, Madison, Wisconsin on June 8, 1995, upon the following claims.
In addition, the following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
The Board Finds:
S414
1. Jeffrey G. Stellings of Oshkosh, Wisconsin claims $250.00 for reimbursement of his insurance. On December 6, 1994, the claimant was en route to work-related training at MATC. He was coming down a hill toward an intersection and was unable to stop his car because of the icy conditions. The claimant's car slid into the rear of a vehicle stopped at the stop sign. The police did not issue any citations for the accident; attributing it to icy road conditions. The vehicle which the claimant struck was not damaged. Since the accident occurred while the claimant was traveling on work-related business, while he was in pay status, and was not the claimant's fault, he requests reimbursement of his $250.00 insurance deductible. The Board concludes there has been insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
2. Jerome E. Van Natta of Milwaukee, Wisconsin claims $250.00 for vehicle damage which occurred on August 8, 1994. The claimant an employe of DOC, was attending Agent Basic Training in Milwaukee during the week of August 8-12. The Claimant's vehicle was parked in a hotel parking lot and was undamaged as of 8:30 p.m. August 8. At 8:00 a.m. August 9, the Claimant discovered that unknown persons had thrown a piece of concrete through the rear window of his vehicle. The entire window had to be replaced. The Claimant requests reimbursement of his $250 insurance deductible. He feels he should be reimbursed because he had been assigned to be at the training site as a condition of his employment and completion of his probation. The Board concludes there has been insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
3. P. & M. Processing, Inc. of Juda, Wisconsin claims $118,543.49 damages related to a fire which occurred on January 13, 1992. Dr. Gene Killam, a DATCP veterinarian, visited the plant that day and ordered the condemnation of large quantities of inventory and supplies. No follow-up inspection of any of the inventory ever occurred and the claimants were never informed of their right to an immediate hearing. Almost all of the inventory and supplies that were condemned were located in closed freezers or coolers that remained running at all times and were not affected by the fire, which had been contained in the attic area. The claimants believe that DATCP improperly condemned the inventory in violation of Chapters
93 and
97 of Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter AG 47 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, and DATCP's internal rules and regulations. The claimants request $96,343.49 for damages related to this condemnation of inventory. The claimants insurer paid $53,118.09; $6,500 of which was for building damage unrelated to this claim. The claimants also request $22,200.00 for lost profits due to DATCP's November 1991 order to cease transporting inedible meat. The Board concludes there has been insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
4. David and Edith Kinney of Hudson, Wisconsin claim $58,000.00 for damages related to a home which they purchased in 1986. The claimants believe that a North Hudson building inspector improperly passed the dwelling. They state that the building inspector noticed code violations at the initial inspection, was aware of numerous repairs later required to fix the dwelling, and had engineering proof of the structure's deficiencies, yet failed to issue any citations. The claimants understand that the inspector is not a state employe, however, believe that he was inadequately trained and certified by DILHR. The claimants further assert that DILHR was negligent in accepting falsified test results for some of the building materials used in the home, and that DILHR should never have approved these materials. The claimants presented engineering proof to DILHR that the material's test results were falsified, however, DILHR refused to take any action. The Claimants believe DILHR failed in their responsibilities and request reimbursement of $58,000 for the principal and down payment put into the home. In 1993 the claimants were forced to abandon the home, which had no value because of the serious structural defects. The Board concludes there has been insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
5. William G. Shomler of Sun Prairie, Wisconsin claims $4,400.00 for costs related to the installation of a mound septic system. On March 29, 1993, the claimant received a permit to build an underground septic system on his property in Fox Hills Subdivision. On May 10, 1993, that permit was canceled. The claimant received a letter from the Dane County Division of Public Health explaining that, although the County had originally required mound systems in the subdivision, in 1988 DILHR granted approval for underground systems. However, in May 1993 DILHR discovered that ground water conditions in the subdivision were such that underground septic systems were unsafe and rescinded their 1988 decision. This required landowners to cease construction of underground systems and obtain revised sanitary permits for mound systems. It cost the claimant $4,400 more to install a mound system. (The claimant had not yet begun construction of an underground system.) He believes that DILHR should have heeded the County's warning about the ground water situation, and never given approval for underground tanks. The Board concludes there has been insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
6. Maurice and Karen Morley of Dousman, Wisconsin claim $4383.00 for damages relating to the alleged mishandling of a sanitary permit by the Safety and Buildings Division of DILHR. The claimants submitted an plan for a private, mound sewage system for a building they were constructing in Ottawa, Wisconsin. The plan was received by the Waukesha Safety and Buildings Office on March 26, 1993. The claimants did not receive approval for the plan until May 7, 1993, 43 days later. The claimants called the Safety and Buildings office and were told that the employe who entered the address information into the computer mistakenly used the wrong city when addressing the envelope, so the response was delayed in the mail. They were also told that there was some "confusion" over the correct address on their application. The claimants assert that if there was confusion, the Department should have called to clear up the problem (the phone number was correctly provided on the application). They allege the delay cost them $3,033 in increased building costs and $1,350 lost rental income in an apartment. The Board concludes there has been insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
S415
7. Dan and Lynn Peerenboom of Tomahawk, Wisconsin claim $95,595.00 for damages related to monitoring orders placed on their septic system. In May 1993, DILHR issued an order that monitoring wells be placed on a number of lots in the Fox Hills subdivision due to high groundwater. This order reversed two previous DILHR decisions that monitoring was not required in the subdivision. The Claimants believe that this order was unreasonable given the record rainfall. The Claimants state that DILHR staff entered their property uninvited and unannounced to inspect their property. No problem was found with the septic system. DILHR later removed the monitoring orders on 16 out of 20 properties, despite the fact that they only conducted on-site inspections of 3 of the properties. the Claimants also disagree with the fact that the monitoring well was placed immediately adjacent to and downhill from the infiltration trenches for the Claimants' septic system. The Claimants find it impossible to believe that the readings from the monitoring well would not be impacted by the additional hydraulic loading. The Claimants had to move during this monitoring period and agreed to an additional site evaluation because of the difficulty they were having selling their home. The Claimants do not believe that they were given an objective review by DILHR field staff. Statements made by the staff person assigned to do the investigation made it clear that he was opposed to removing the orders and resented being asked to reevaluate the site. There was no water observed in any of the test pits, despite the fact that nearly 4 inches of rain had fallen in the week prior to the investigation; however, DILHR staff still concluded that shallow groundwater was a problem. The Claimants request reimbursement for real estate damages, additional expenses and qualitative costs. The house did not appreciate in value and eventually sold at $28,000 less than its market value. The Claimants had to hire a Realtor, despite the fact that they have successfully sold three homes in the past without one. The Realtor's commission on the sale was $8,670. The Claimants also had to place $10,350 in escrow as a condition of the sale, to cover the possible replacement costs of a new septic system. Because it took over a year for them to sell their home, the Claimants had to maintain separate residences 200 miles apart. The Claimants believe that 5 months is a reasonable selling time for a home and there fore, request $26,745 additional living expenses. Finally, the Claimants request $21,000 for stress, anxiety, prolonged separation, and disruption to lifestyle. The Board concludes there has been insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
8. Raymond Koss of Mosinee, Wisconsin claims $169,000.00 for loss of property value allegedly incurred because the DNR denied him a permit to remove sand from a spit on Lake DuBay. The claimant wishes to subdivide his property for development purposes. The DNR denied the permit, stating that the area is a wetland and that dredging would be harmful to the area. The claimant maintains that the site is not a natural wetland, but originally consisted of open water until the DuBay dam was built, which caused an abnormal build up of sand and blocked the flow of water from the channel into the river. He further alleges that this blockage has caused fish kill and that removing the sand bay would improve the movement of fish into the channel and would not adversely effect other wildlife in the area. He disputes the DNR's assertion that they did not know of the development plans for the area when they denied his permit, stating that he had forwarded the initial development plans to the DNR for their approval prior to the permit application. The claimant alleges that the most current appraisal of his property, don on July 15, 1993, shows a 77% decrease in the value of his property if the sand spit is not removed. The claimant believes that this devaluation constitutes a taking of his property for which he should be compensated. The Board concludes there has been insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
9. Northern Christmas Trees and Nursery of Merrillan, Wisconsin Claims $60,000.00 for damages to claimant's Christmas tree farm related to flooding allegedly caused by beaver dams. In the spring of 1994, the claimant lost a large number of trees because of flooding. The claimant was told by DNR that he was not allowed to take action to remove the beaver dams. The flooding resulted in a loss of $60,000 worth of trees. The Board concludes there has been insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
10. Carol J. Prasse of Elm Grove, Wisconsin claims $2,382.22 for attorney fees related to her application for certification as a Level 2 School Psychologist. On June 16, 1993, the Claimant submitted her application to UW-Milwaukee for Level 2 certification. UWM refused to endorse her application, stating that she did not fulfill the requirements. The Claimant challenged UWM's decision. Three weeks later, the Claimant received a letter from Professor Teeter, Chair of the School Psychology program. Professor Teeter's letter indicated that, whle her undergraduate coursework could fulfill the statistics requirement, the Claimant was still short by 5 courses. The Claimant's former advisor wrote Professor Teeter on the Claimant's behalf, stating that her coursework did indeed fulfill the requirements for Level 2 certification. Three weeks passed without any reply from Professor Teeter. The Claimant did not believe the Professor Teeter would give her a fair review, due to previous hostilities which Teeter had expressed towards the Claimant's husband. She filed a complaint against Teeter, asking that Teeter not be allowed to participate in the review of her application and named two other professors whom she felt would grant her a fair review. In August 1993, the Claimant received response from Teeter indicating that her coursework was still not acceptable. Without the Claimant's knowledge or consent, UWM submitted her application, along with 3 other applications, to Dr. Peter Burke, Director of the Bureau for Teacher Education, Licensing, and Placement at DPI, for his review. This review was not "blind" as stated in DPI's response; the names of the applicants were clearly stated on the cover letter from Acting Dean Schneider. On September 20, 1993, the Claimant recieved another denial of endorsement from Acting Dean Schneider. In her letter, Schneider now stated that the Claimant's undergraduate statistics coursework did not fulfill the graduate requirement, despite the fact that Professor Teeter's original letter indicated that this coursework was acceptable. Schneider stated that the reviewer (Burke) had recommended denying her application. Dr. Burke had not made this statement, he had indicated that this decision was up to UWM. Schneider also misquoted Dr. Burke's letter in determining that her undergraduate statistics coursework was unacceptable and denied the Claimant's application based on a statement that concerned two other student's applications. The Claimant had 5 UWM professors write on her behalf stating that her coursework was sufficient, however, UWM still would not endorse her certification. The Claimant finally felt forced to hire an attorney. After communication with her attorney, UWM finally agreed to endorse her application and she was granted a Level 2 license on June 15, 1994. The Board concludes there has been insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
S416
11. Ollie Charles of Stevens Point, Wisconsin claims $27,000.00 for life insurance benefits she is entitled to receive as beneficiary under her husband's life insurance policies. This claim was previously considered in Executive Session on February 9, 1993. A rehearing was granted at the request of the claimant. The claimant is the widow of Monte Charles, a former employee of UW-Stevens Point. While employed at the University, Mr. Charles applied for State Group Life Insurance/Basic and Supplemental coverage and National Guardian Life Insurance. It was Mr. Charles' impression, at the time, that he was applying for the maximum coverage available. On Mr. Charles' monthly earning and deductions statements there were deductions for basic, supplemental, and additional life insurance coverage. The State Group Life/Basic and Supplemental Coverage program provides a death benefits equal to two times the employe's annual salary. The "additional" program provides coverage in an amount equal to three times the employe's base salary. Upon Mr. Charles' death, the insurer, Minnesota Mutual Life, paid the benefit indicated on the application form - $54,000.00-or twice Mr. Charles' annual salary. The claimant now seeks to receive an additional $27,000, representing the higher benefit that would have been paid under the "additional" program. The Board concludes there has been insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employes and this claim is not one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
