Senate Clearinghouse Rule 11-027

Pursuant to s. 15.377(8), Wis. Stats., enclosed please find a list of nominees to the Professional Standards Council for Teachers. These individuals were selected based upon organizational recommendations as prescribed in statute. Your confirmation of the appointees is requested.

Anderson, Arthur, of Shorewood, as a member of the Professional Standards Council for Teachers, for the term ending June 30, 2014.

Beggs , Joshua, of Milwaukee, as a member of the Professional Standards Council for Teachers, for the term ending June 30, 2014.

Dallas , William, of Medford, as a member of the Professional Standards Council for Teachers, for the term ending June 30, 2014.

Swain , Katherine, of Beloit, as a member of the Professional Standards Council for Teachers, for the term ending June 30, 2014.

Underwood, Julie, of Madison, as a member of the Professional Standards Council for Teachers, for the term ending June 30, 2014.

Referred to the joint committee on Finance, pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e):

Placed the following proposals on the Senate Calendar of Tuesday , September 13 , 2011:

The Honorable, The Senate:

Pursuant to s. 1.11(2)(j), Wis. Stats., please distribute this notice to members of the Assembly. The State of Wisconsin Investment Board did not consider any proposals or major actions in Wisconsin during fiscal year 2011 that would have significantly affected the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the agency was not required to prepare any environmental assessments or impact statements under s. 1.11 Wis. Stats.

Please contact Vicki Hearing at 261-2415 if you have any questions concerning this report.

The Honorable, The Senate:

Enclosed is the report of the State Claims Board covering the claims heard on August 12, 2011.

Those claims approved for payment pursuant to the provisions of s. 16.007 and 755.05 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.

S441 1. Wisconsin State Payphones, Inc. of Brookfield, Wisconsin claims $52,921.87 for costs related to an alleged breach of contract by DNR. In July 2001, Wisconsin State Payphones (WSP) entered into a contract with DNR to provide payphone service at WI state parks. The contract expired in December 2005 but was renewed for another five years. On June 25, 2009, WSP received a 30-day notice to terminate the contract. WSP alleges that prior to this letter it had no notice from DNR of any problems, deficiencies or billing errors relating to WSP service. WSP alleges that DNR failed to notify them of any breach of contract and failed to give WSP the opportunity to cure any alleged problems, as required by the contract. WSP believes that this constitutes breach of contract by DNR. WSP states that in response to the notice of termination, it tried to get documentation from the department relating to any deficiencies of service but that DNR was unresponsive. WSP notes that when the department eventually did provide "evidence" of problems, that evidence consisted of hearsay statements alleging problems at only three parks. WSP believes that it is evident that the department did not even begin to gather documentation of alleged problems until well after DNR cancelled the contract and after WSP filed a Notice of Claim. WSP points to the fact that, although DNR alleges that the contract manager sent a 30-day right to cure letter in mid-2007, DNR has been unable to produce a copy of that letter. WSP believes that DNR has failed to provide any evidence of poor service or non-functioning phones. WSP states that it provided service to numerous WI state parks for nine years with no indication of problems from DNR and that DNR's notice of termination came as a complete shock. WSP believes that DNR's real motivation for terminating the contract was budgetary. Finally WSP states that it initially believed the 2005 contract extension expired on 6/30/10; however, WSP has uncovered an email exchange with DNR staff that indicates that both parties understood the extension expired on 12/31/10. WSP requests reimbursement for the remainder of the contract term from July through December 2010.

DNR recommends payment of this claim, but only in the reduced amount of $3,810. DNR denies that there was no indication of problems. DNR further denies that the contract was cancelled for budgetary reasons. The department states that the only reason for termination of the contract was poor performance by the claimant. DNR states that there were numerous complaints communicated to WSP regarding broken and non-functioning phones, jammed coin boxes, lack of dial tone and other problems at multiple state parks. DNR notes that although the claimant argues that there were zero problems and that they had zero notice of any problems, the claimant also argues that WSP promptly responded to repair requests. (If there were zero problems and zero notice, why would they be making repairs?) DNR states that numerous calls were made to WSP to report problems but eventually their voicemail filled up and stopped taking messages. DNR states that these contacts constitute dozens of verbal right to cure notices, which are allowed under the contract - nothing in the contract requires right to cure notices to be written. DNR states that the contract manger, who is now retired, recalls sending a notice to cure letter in mid-2007. The department has been unable to locate a copy of that letter but again points to the fact that nothing in the contract requires that a right to cure notice be given in writing. Therefore, even if the contract manager's memory is incorrect, there were dozens of verbal right to cure notices provided to WSP. DNR notes that WSP's response to the notice of termination letter, which allegedly came as a complete shock, was not to contact DNR to inquire about the letter, but to immediately file a Notice of Claim. DNR also states that it is untrue that the department was not responsive to WSP's requests for documentation and that there were ongoing settlement discussions conducted by DOJ and the claimant's attorneys. DNR states that although there was a 2005 email exchange referencing a December 2010 end date for the renewal, further evidence shows that by December 2009, both parties agreed that the end date for the renewal was June 30, 2010. DNR believes the claimant has provided insufficient legal basis for why it should receive full payment under the contract when the service provided was poor, unreliable and in many cases non-existent. DNR believes that based on the date of the 30-day termination letter, one can presume that the contract would have ended in July 2009. The department therefore recommends payment for one additional month of service in the amount of $3,810, based on equitable principles.