10. Lee Alexander Brown of Mauston, Wisconsin claims $55.61 for the cost of legal supplies incurred because of DHS refusal to grant the claimant indigent status. The claimant is confined at Sand Ridge Secure Treatment Center (SRSTC) as a Sexually Violent Person (SVP). The claimant alleges that the court ordered his commitment to a secure "mental health facility" and that SRSTC does not provide mental health or psychological services and therefore is not a mental health facility. The claimant alleges that placement at SRSTC requires and individual's informed, written consent to participate in an individualized treatment plan and that SRSTC has not provided him with such a treatment plan. The claimant states that SRSTC's therapeutic work program is part of the SVP treatment plan. Individuals who do not participate in the SVP treatment plan are ineligible to earn the higher wages and work hours available in the therapeutic work program. The claimant states he does not consent to participate in the SVP treatment plan and therefore his work options are very limited. The claimant believes that he should be granted indigent status, which would provide him with indigent payments to assist with the costs of his legal supplies and telephone calls. The claimant believes that his rights are governed by Chapter 980, not SRSTC's treatment policies and that he cannot be denied indigent status based on his refusal to participate in the SVP therapeutic work program.

DHS recommends denial of this claim. DHS states that the claimant has been found to be a sexually violent person and was committed to the "control, care and treatment" of the department. DHS states that it has established procedures to achieve security and treatment goals. DHS Policy SR-359 Indigent Patient Cash Allowances provides that if a patient is capable of work they will be offered employment. SR-359 further states, "Indigent patients who refuse to accept employment opportunities offered them by SRSTC shall be ineligible to receive indigent payments." DHS states that the claimant is able to work, has been offered employment opportunities, and refuses to work. Pursuant to SR-359, the claimant is therefore ineligible for indigent payments. DHS further notes that the claimant's indigent status has been adjudicated seven times through SRSTC's administrative grievance procedures. DHS believes there has been no violation of the claimant's rights and that the claim should be denied.

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.

S445 11. Gerald Polzin of Green Bay, Wisconsin claims $634.00 for lost wages allegedly incurred because of DOC misconduct. The claimant is an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution (GBCI). He was employed in the kitchen where he earned $0.42 per hour. On March 12, 2010, the claimant was found guilty of a major rule violation and was sentenced to 180 days of Disciplinary Separation (segregation). Although it was not specified as part of the claimant's discipline, the claimant lost his job in the kitchen. The claimant states that GBCI Policy 309.01-02 requires that DOC staff complete form DOC-1408 when they remove an inmate from a job. The claimant states that DOC never completed form DOC-1408 and therefore he was not able to appeal the loss of his job. DOC argues that Administrative Rule DOC 303.70(9) is an absolute prohibition against inmates earning wages while in Disciplinary Separation, however, the claimant points to the fact that the language of this rule states that inmates "may" not earn compensation, it does not state that they "shall" not. The claimant believes that this language is clearly discretionary and therefore does not constitute an absolute prohibition as DOC alleges. The claimant also notes that while DOC argues that Chapter 303 of the Administrative Code does not require DOC to fill out form DOC-1408, GBCI Policy 309.01-02 does require DOC to do so in every instance of "work/program placement, removals, transfers and refusals" as stated on the form. The claimant notes that DOC's response pointedly ignores GBCI Policy 309.01-02. Finally, the claimant responds to DOC's argument that he does not bring this claim with "clean hands" and should not be able to profit from his own misconduct. The claimant states that he is not bringing this claim because of his infraction but because DOC failed to follow its own rules. The claimant believes that the misconduct giving rise to this claim is DOC's and he requests reimbursement for lost wages as outlined in his claim materials.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. The claimant admitted he was guilty of a major disciplinary violation and was sentenced to 180 days of Disciplinary Separation. While in Disciplinary Separation, he was obviously unable to perform his job. DOC states that pursuant to Wis. Admin. Code § 303.70(9), inmates in Disciplinary Separation are prohibited from earning compensation. DOC notes that nothing in Chapter 303 requires that DOC complete form DOC-1408; it is a complete prohibition against Disciplinary Separation inmates earning wages, with no exceptions. DOC also notes that the claimant does not bring this claim before the board with "clean hands." There is abundant case law demonstrating that a person should not be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing. DOC states that it was the claimant's own unlawful conduct, which he admitted, that was the cause of his job loss. DOC believes that he should not now be allowed to profit from his misconduct. DOC believes this claim is without merit and should be denied.

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.

12. Thomas Seeley of Redgranite, Wisconsin claims $57.86 for remaining value of a watch and a watch strap after a DOC reimbursement allegedly based on an incorrect depreciated value. The claimant is an inmate at Redgranite Correctional Institution. In September 2010, he was placed in temporary lock-up and his personal property was inventoried and packed by DOC staff. When the claimant returned from lock-up and received his property, he noted that his watch was missing. He contacted DOC staff, who acknowledged that they recalled seeing his watch when packing his property. DOC conducted an investigation and determined that the watch had apparently been lost while under DOC control. The claimant submitted receipts showing the value of the original watch ($63.75) and a replacement watchband he had purchased four years later ($14.60). DOC depreciated the watch and band based on a useful life of five years and reimbursed the claimant $20.49. The claimant points to the fact that DOC's Inmate Property Depreciation Schedule states that the value of items made of high-grade plastics is 4% per year. The claimant believes that the DOC incorrectly and unfairly depreciated his property and requests reimbursement for the remaining value.

DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC does not dispute that the claimant's property was lost while under the control of DOC staff. DOC uses an Inmate Property Depreciation Schedule to ensure that inmates are fairly reimbursed for any property lost or damaged by DOC staff. Pursuant to this policy, watches and watchbands are depreciated over the course of five years. Based on that policy, the watch had 1.5 years of remaining useful life and the watchband had 4 years 10 months remaining useful life. DOC notes that the claimant replaced the original watchband after four years, which indicates that the department's 5 year depreciation schedule is more than fair. The claimant was reimbursed $20.49 based on this schedule. DOC believes that the claimant has been fairly reimbursed for his property based on DOC policy and that the claim should be denied.

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.

13. Eric George of Boscobel, Wisconsin claims $219.99 for replacement value of a television allegedly broken by DOC staff. In December 2010, the claimant was an inmate at Green Bay Correctional Institution. He states that on December 30, 2010, two correctional officers entered his cell and extracted him, during which one officer knocked the claimant's television off his desk. The claimant states that he was later informed by the property officer packing up his belongings that the TV would not turn on. Because the TV was no longer working, DOC would not allow the claimant to keep it and it was disposed of. The claimant alleges that the television worked fine before it was knocked off the desk. He requests reimbursement for the replacement value of the TV.

S446 DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC states that on the date of this incident, both the claimant and his cell mate refused a direct order from correctional officers to turn on their cell light and come to the front of their cell. DOC states that while his cell mate attempted to block their view, the correctional officers witnessed the claimant flushing contraband down the toilet. DOC states that when the officers entered the cell, the claimant resisted and did not comply with their orders. The claimant was given two conduct reports related to the incident. DOC states that there is no evidence that the TV was working before the incident and no evidence that DOC staff damaged the television during the extraction. DOC notes that "the propensity of prisoners to lie and harass has been judicially noted." DOC further states that, even if the television was knocked over and damaged as the claimant alleges, such damage would have occurred during the course of a cell entry that was necessitated by the claimant's own conduct. Had the claimant and his cell mate obeyed staff orders, this incident would not have occurred. DOC points to Colon v. Schneider, which supports the idea that the fault for any damage resulting from the use of force lies directly with the disobedient inmate. Finally, DOC points to numerous cases which provide that a person should not be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing. DOC believes that the claimant has not come before the Claims Board with "clean hands" and that any alleged damage to the television was clearly caused by his own refusal to follow orders.

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 the following claims are denied:

That payment of the below amounts to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under S 16.007, Stats:

Senate Finance Committee

Assembly Finance Committee

Representative of the Governor

The Honorable, The Senate:

The following lobbyists have been authorized to act on behalf of the organizations set opposite their names.

For more detailed information about these lobbyists and organizations and a complete list of organizations and people authorized to lobby the 2011-2012 session of the legislature, visit the Government Accountability Board's web site at http://gab.wi.gov/

Foti, Steven National Seating & Mobility, Inc.
Horkan, Peter National Seating & Mobility, Inc.
Petersen, Eric J Capital Midwest Advisors, LLC
Scearce, Dena Medtronic, Inc.

Also available from the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board are reports identifying the amount and value of time state agencies have spent to affect legislative action and reports of expenditures for lobbying activities filed by organizations that employ lobbyists.