1. Wanda Bowers $1,550.85
2. Bradford's Pianos & Organs, Inc
$457.50
3. Jan & Jerry Tesch $169.25
4. Theresa Uicker $1,125.56
5. Tim Kumbalek $26,345.00
6. Susan & Lewis Norman $3,237.91
7. Milwaukee Assoc. of Life Underwriters
$15,341.00
8. Malacological Consultants $27,409.10
9. James Sarlund $1,000,000.00
In addition, the following claims were considered and decided without hearings:
10.Alice Carter $730.00
11.Henry Podgorak $2,441.23
12.Mike & Susan LeClair $425,921.00
13.Thomas Hubl $398.70
14.Security Health Plan $3,699.94
15.Mary Lou Dorzok $5,811.66
The Board Finds:
1. Wanda Bowers of Madison, Wisconsin claims $1,550.85 for repair and replacement of two gold bracelets which were damaged when she was injured at her workstation on July 6, 1995. The claimant is employed by the Department of Health & Social Services and the Division for which the claimant works was moved to a new location. When the claimant began working at her new location, all of her office equipment was plugged into a surge protector under her desk. The surge protector was near her feet so she picked it up to move it away from her feet. When she did, the surge protector exploded and she was knocked to the ground. The claimant's hand was burned and her supervisor administered first aid. The claimant received medical treatment for her injury, which was covered by Worker's Compensation. She had several rings and bracelets cleaned at her own expense. One bracelet was damaged beyond repair and another bracelet, which was an antique, was extensively damaged. The claimant later learned that the surge protector under her desk had been plugged into another surge protector, which is against fire and safety regulations because this could result in an injury such as she received. The claimant disputes several of the DHSS' assertions, stating that she was not plugging anything in at the time of the accident and that there was no way her jewelry could have come in contact with an electrical prong, since they were all fully plugged into the surge protector. Furthermore, several of the plugs had gold colored prongs, which could account for her supervisor seeing "melted gold" on the surge protector. The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $100.00 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s.
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Health and Social Services appropriation s.
20.435 (4)(a), Stats.
S838
2. Bradford's Pianos & Organs, Inc. of Milwaukee, Wisconsin claims $457.50 for damage to a piano. The claimant rented the Family Living Center at Wisconsin State Fair Park for a piano sale. On September 24, 1995, a heating and air-conditioning vent fell from the ceiling onto one of the claimant's pianos, damaging it extensively. The claimant was never informed of the 120 day time limit to file a claim with State Risk Management. The claimant requests reimbursement of $150.00 to transport the piano and $307.50 for repairs. The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the amount of $457.50 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s.
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Wisconsin State Fair Park appropriation s.
20.190 (1)(h), Stats.
3. Jan & Jerry Tesch of Neenah, Wisconsin claim $169.25 for medical costs related to an injury sustained by their daughter when she was visiting the State Capitol Building. On May 17, 1995, the girl's 7th grade class took a field trip to the Capitol Building. The trip was supervised by some parents and the school principal. The claimants were not among the supervising parents. While she was coming down a flight of stairs at the Capitol, the claimants' daughter missed the last step and fell, injuring her left foot. Neither the principal nor any of the supervising parents reported the accident to Capitol staff. One of the supervising parents later told the claimants that the lighting was poor in the area where the girl fell. The girl's foot continued to worsen during the day and the claimants took her to see a doctor to check the injury. The claimants do not have health insurance. The Board concludes there has been an 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. Theresa Uicker of Evansville, Wisconsin claims $1,125.56 for repair costs and expenses related to damage to her truck. On October 3, 1995, at about 7:15 p.m., the claimant came to work to do some overtime. When she arrived at the parking garage under GEF 3 the door was open. The claimant could see no other cars in front of her. She stopped and waited approximately 30 seconds and the door remained open. Thinking the door was locked open, she proceeded to enter the garage. Halfway through the door she noticed a noise and she realized that the door was scraping along the roof of her truck topper. She then felt a lurch as the garage door cleared the back end of the truck. She got out and discovered that the garage door was mostly closed and had damaged the truck topper, tailgate and rooftop antenna. She called the Capitol Police to report the accident. The police officer who responded tested the "bump trigger" mechanism on the garage door, which should cause the door to go back up if it hits something. The "bump trigger" was not working. The claimant asserts that she was not following someone into the garage as the Department of Administration alleges. She has a key card for the door and authorization to park in the building, therefore, she would have no reason to try and sneak in behind another car. The repairs on her truck totaled $890.92. Her auto insurance covered $407.68, leaving $483.24 in uninsured repairs. The claimant also requests reimbursement for expenses related to the accident as follows: $12.78 for pictures of the damage, $4.01 for gas for the rental car, $2.92 for long distance phone calls, and $622.61 in lost overtime wages. The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $483.24 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s.
16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Administration appropriation s.
20.505 (5)(ka), Stats.
5. Timothy Kumbalek of Sheboygan, Wisconsin claims $26,345.00 for damages related to the revocation of his parole. On February 4, 1987, the claimant received 5 years probation as part of a felony conviction sentence. The claimant's probation period ended on February 4, 1992, however, he alleges that the Department of Corrections illegally revoked his probation on February 6, 1992, after his probation term had expired. Because of the revocation, the claimant was incarcerated on October 16, 1992, and sentenced to an additional 3 years on December 3, 1992. On October 13, 1993, Manitowoc County Circuit Court found that the DOC had incorrectly extended the claimant's probation beyond February 4, 1992, and terminated the remainder of the claimant's 3 year sentence. The claimant requests reimbursement for lost income as well as the loss of personal possessions. The Board concludes there has been an 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. Susan and Lewis Norman of Chippewa Falls, Wisconsin claim $3,237.91 for refund of wages garnisheed for delinquent income taxes for 1990. It took the claimants until May 1995 to gather the necessary information and fill out the forms to prove that they did not owe any taxes on a business that went bankrupt in 1992. The claimants were not aware of the two year statute of limitations, otherwise they would have filed the return before the two year period expired. The claimants could not afford an accountant and made every effort to rectify the situation without one. The claimants did receive refunds of overpayments for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. They request reimbursement of the 1990 overpayment of $3,237.91. The Board concludes there has been an 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.
S839
7. The Milwaukee Association of Life Underwriters of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin claims $15,341.00 for refund of money seized by the Department of Revenue for non-payment of taxes. The taxes were not paid because of the negligence and criminal activity of an employe of the claimant. In October 1994 the president of the Association discovered that an employe had falsified the association's account statements, failed to pay bills, and failed to file federal or state tax returns for four years. The employe had also ignored phone calls and letters from the DOR. The employe was fired as soon as this activity was discovered. Because the employe failed to file taxes, money was seized by the DOR from the claimant's bank accounts. The claimant was not aware of the seizure until after the employe was fired because she had falsified account information. The claimant believes that the employe failed to file taxes to cover money she had taken from the claimant's account. The claimant tried to rectify the tax situation with the DOR, however, the overpayments could not be refunded because the statute of limitations had expired. The Board concludes there has been an 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. Malacological Consultants of La Crosse, Wisconsin claims $27,409.10 for expenses related to a Department of Transportation project involving mussel relocation on the Wolf River. On August 9, 1994, the claimant signed a contract to conduct this project. The contract was not signed by the governor, however, the DOT gave no indication that there was any doubt as to the governor's approval. The earliest possible start date for the project was September 9 and the first phase completion date was set for October 1, 1994. Because of the time frame involved and the fact that there was no indication that the contract would not be approved, the claimant began to prepare for the project. The contract was not approved by the governor and the project did not proceed in 1994. In March 1995 the claimant signed another contract for the same project (with a reduced scope of work). Again, the governor did not sign the contract. The claimant incurred a number of expenses related to the project. Divers were hired and equipment was purchased specifically for the project. The claimant obtained a bank loan to cover the start-up costs of the project. Conditions of the loan required implementation of a new bookkeeping system which required extra help and expense. The claimant also renewed her workers compensation insurance in August 1994. It has always been her practice to not renew the insurance if no employes were scheduled to work, however, she renewed the policy specifically for this project, which would have involved employes working through early 1995. The claimant would not have incurred these extra expenses if she had any indication that the contracts which she had signed and which had the DOT's approval, would not be approved by the governor. The Board concludes there has been an 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. James Sarlund of Madison, Wisconsin claims $1,000,000.00 for payment for services allegedly provided to the Department of Justice, Division of Narcotics Enforcement (DNE). The claimant alleges that DNE agents approached him in June 1991 to act as an informant and make steroid purchases in local gyms. He also alleges he was promised a car as well as a cash bonus when he completed the assignment and that he has only received $3,500 ($2,500 for information and $1,000 for expenses). The claimant believes that he did all of the work involved in these cases and deserves to be paid the same rate as a DNE agent. Furthermore, the claimant alleges that he injured his back while lifting weights undercover at local gyms and that the medication for this injury caused bleeding ulcers in his stomach resulting in the loss of one third of his blood and 50 pounds. The claimant also alleges that he has been constantly harassed and threatened by drug dealers because of his involvement in the case and that he was evicted from his apartment because of the continual harassment and threats. He believes that the DNE and the DOJ have refused to help protect him because he reported several agents for misconduct while he was working as an informant. The claimant requests payment in the amount of $1,000,000 for pain and suffering due to his injury and continual harassment. The Board concludes there has been an 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. (Alan Lee not participating.)
10. Alice Carter of Brown Deer, Wisconsin claims $730.00 for replacement of a dental appliance (an upper partial) which disappeared from her desk at the State Public Defender's office. On January 16, 1996, the claimant removed the appliance because it was irritating her mouth, placed it on her desk and covered it with a tissue. At the end of the day the claimant forgot to take it with her. When she arrived at work the next morning, the appliance and the tissue were gone. The claimant's office is locked whenever she is not at her desk, including lunch, breaks, and overnight. She believes that the cleaning staff must have removed the appliance, even though they are instructed never to discard or remove any items on desks. The cleaning staff has a key to her office in order to clean it at night. The company which provides the cleaning service has refused to reimburse the claimant for her loss. The claimant's insurance paid $480 towards replacement of the appliance, leaving an uninsured balance of $250. The Board concludes there has been an 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.
11. Henry Podgorak of Superior, Wisconsin claims $2,441.23 for automobile damage incurred on September 5, 1995, while he was traveling on state business for the Department of Agriculture, Trade & Consumer Protection. A state vehicle was not available, so the claimant used his personal vehicle. The claimant's car was struck by an oncoming vehicle as he was stopped part way across an intersection, making a left hand turn. The claimant's automobile insurance expired the day before the accident. The Board concludes there has been an 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.
S840
12. Susan & Michael LeClair of Baileys Harbor, Wisconsin claim $425,921.00 for attorney fees and loss of revenue related to a Department of Natural Resources' administrative rule which reduced commercial fishing quotas. This claim was originally considered on October 20, 1992. At that time, the Claims Board denied the claim. The claimants have resubmitted this claim under the belief that new information has come to light which requires reconsideration of the claim. The claimants believe that it was inappropriate that some of the members of the Commercial Fishing Board, which changed the fishing quotas, were also commercial fishermen, who stood to benefit from the decision. To support this assertion the claimants have submitted a letter from the Ethics Board which states: "We have previously advised that a member of the Commercial Fishing Board who has a quota or other interest that would be affected by a change in the allocation rules...not to participate in any discussions or vote on the proposal." The claimants also submitted a letter from the Fishing Board's legal counsel in which he urges them to comply fully with ethical standards as interpreted by the Ethics Board. The claimants believe that this situation represents a violation of anti-trust laws and asks the Claims Board to reconsider their claim. The Board concludes there has been an 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.
13. Thomas R. Hubl of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $389.70 for damage to a fence and porch caused by a falling tree limb. The claimant owns property adjacent to property owned by the Department of Natural Resources. During a wind storm in July 1995, a large limb from an oak tree on the DNR land fell on a building owned by the claimant, damaging the porch. The repair estimate for the damage is $389.70. The claimant has insurance for the damage but has a $250.00 deductible. The claimant believes that the claim should be paid since he would be held responsible if a tree on his property damaged a building on his neighbor's property. The Board concludes there has been an 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.
14. Security Health Plan of Marshfield, Wisconsin claims $3,699.94 for subrogation damages related to an accident involving the claimant's insured. On July 25, 1995, the claimant's insured tripped on the concrete pad at the entrance to the rest room area at Interstate Park, sustaining injuries to her hand, face and teeth. Based on its long standing tradition of denying subrogation claims, the Board concludes there has been an 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.
15. Mary Lou Dorzok of Tipler, Wisconsin claims $5,811.66 for refund of overpayment of income taxes for 1974. The claimant worked with her parents in the family business, a small chain of service stations. The claimant ran one of the stations and she filed her taxes separately. The claimant and her parents made an error on their income statements when they filed their 1974 federal taxes. The IRS conducted an audit and assessed additional taxes. The Department of Revenue assessed additional taxes against the claimant based on the IRS audit and adjustments. The claimant's father refused to cooperate with the IRS or the DOR and ordered the claimant to do the same. The claimant did not feel she could disobey since he was her father, her landlord, and her supplier. The claimant disputes some of the adjustments made by the IRS, specifically, their estimated profit margin of 3.8 cents per gallon of gasoline. The claimant contends that the IRS never supported this estimate and that her margin was only 1 cent per gallon. She was not able to produce records prior to 1976, to prove the 1 cent profit margin, because the records were lost during her divorce. The DOR intercepted 10 tax refunds between 1980 and 1994. In February 1996, pursuant to a compromise petition, she paid $4,500 to settle her delinquency. The claimant maintains that she only owed $114.02 and therefore overpaid the DOR by $5,811.66. She does not feel it is fair that the DOR can collect 50 times what she really owed and then not refund her the overpayment. The Board concludes there has been an 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.
The Board concludes:
1. The claims of the following claimants should be denied:
Jan & Jerry Tesch
Tim Kumbalek
Malacological Consultants
Alice Carter
Susan & Lewis Norman
Milwaukee Assoc. of Life Underwriters
James Sarlund
Henry Podgorak
Mike & Susan LeClair
Thomas Hubl
Security Health Plan
Mary Lou Dorzok
2. Payment of the following amounts to the following claimants is justified under s.
16.007, Stats.:
Wanda Bowers $100.00
Bradford's Pianos & Organs $457.50
Theresa Uicker $483.24
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 3rd day of June, 1996.
Timothy Weeden
Senate Finance Committee
Ben Brancel
Assembly Finance Committee
Alan Lee
Representative of the Attorney General
Edward D. Main
Representative of the Secretary of Administration
Stewart Simonson
Representative of the Governor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
June 7, 1996
To the Honorable, the Senate:
S841
The following bill(s), originating in the Senate, have been approved, signed and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State:
Sincerely,
TOMMY G. THOMPSON
Governor
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
June 7, 1996
To the Honorable, the Senate:
I have approved
Senate Bill 563 as
1996 Wisconsin Act 416 and have deposited it in the Office of the Secretary of State. I have exercised my partial veto authority in Section 8.
Senate Bill 563 provides critical resources to manage unanticipated inmate population growth and other budget adjustments which will allow the Department of Corrections (DOC) to fulfill its responsibilities to provide public safety in Wisconsin for the remainder of the 1995-97 biennium.
Section 8 allows DOC to establish a secure work program in which the inmates are assigned to work, while away from the grounds of the institution to which they are assigned and while appropriately restrained for security purposes, on property that is owned, leased or managed by the department. I am partially vetoing this section to remove the restriction on DOC which limits the department's assignment of work crews to work on property that is owned, leased or managed by the department. This language is too restrictive for DOC to make effective use of the work crews. I believe that it is important to demonstrate maximum utilization of the tax dollars spent on corrections.
The department is still required to promulgate rules before implementing a secure work program.
Respectfully,
tommy g. thompson
Governor
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
June 11, 1996
To the Honorable, the Senate:
The following bill(s), originating in the Senate, have been approved, signed and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State:
Sincerely,
TOMMY G. THOMPSON
Governor
executive order #283
Relating to the Transfer to the Department of Administration of Responsibilities for Higher Educational Aid Programs Currently Assigned to the Higher Educational Aids Board and to the Transfer to the Department of Administration of Responsibilities for the Regulation of Proprietary Schools and the Approval of Schools and Courses of Instruction for the Training of Veterans Receiving Assistance from the Federal Government Currently Assigned to the Educational Approval Board and to the Creation of the Higher Educational Aids Council and the Educational Approval Council
WHEREAS, 1995 Wisconsin Act 27 created a cabinet-level Department of Education under the direction and supervision of an Education Commission; and
WHEREAS, 1995 Wisconsin Act 27 repealed the Higher Educational Aids Board and the Educational Approval Board effective July 1, 1996 and transferred the responsibilities assigned to these two boards to the Education Commission and the Department of Education; and
WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, et al. (1996) held the establishment of the Education Commission and the Department of Education unconstitutional, but did not address the transfer of the responsibilities of the Higher Educational Aids Board and the Educational Approval Board to the Education Commission and the Department of Education; and
WHEREAS, the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision creates uncertainty regarding responsibilities for distributing higher educational aid grants and regulating proprietary schools after June 30, 1996; and
