8033 Excelsior Dr. Madison
Management: James Buchen, Daniel Petersen, Ed Lump and Earl Gustafson
Labor: Phillip Nuenfeldt, Dennis Penkalski, Robert Lyons, and Red Platz
Chair: Greg Frigo
Department staff present: Hal Bergan, Dan LaRocque, Lutfi Shahrani, Tom Smith, Dick Tillema, Ruth Tucker, Carla Breber, and JoAnn Hium
Others present: Bob Anderson, Larry Smith, Linda Roth and Bill Lee
The meeting was opened with a review of the minutes of the September 1, 2005 meeting. The minutes were unanimously approved.
Hal Bergan: Wisconsin has sent ten UI claims takers to Mississippi. We will maintain that level of assistance through about mid October by rotating staff. Wisconsin will be compensated through the interstate compact.
Bill Lee of UC Express spoke to the Council regarding proposed legislation affecting employers and third party agents and their provision of information on UI claims. Two points Mr. Lee wanted to discuss were 1) failure of employers to provide timely, complete and accurate information and 2) suspension of agents.
One problem regarding the failure of employers providing timely and complete information is when information is stored in a centralized location away from the actual facility where the person was employed. Another issue is when the request for information is received by the employer or the third party agent and the date the information is due may just be a matter of days, so the employer is unable to provide the information in a timely manner. Another point was the concern that if an employer did provide information at the ALJ stage that was not available at the initial determination level that the decision that the employer willfully withheld the information would be subjective. Finally, Mr. Lee did agree, but only in a limited number of cases, that some employers do withhold information at the initial determination level because of possible litigation and the initial determination could be used as fact finding.
Mr. Lee’s second concern, the suspension of agents, centered on the measurement used for noncompliance. He felt the use of ten occurrences was unreasonable because, when comparing volume, a person with ten noncompliance issues out of 100 thousand are treated the same as someone with ten claims and doesn’t provide information on any of the claims. He suggested looking at a different measurement such as a percentage. The Council agreed this may be a possibility.
Mr. Bergan pointed out the legislation is aimed at dealing with the employers and agents who willfully withhold information at the adjudication stage. He also pointed out that if an employer or agent needs more time to get the needed information and requests time they are usually given it.
D05-64: Use Reed Act funds for IT projects in 2006 and 2007: Mr. Bergan spoke with the legislative leaders about including this proposal in the agreed bill and writing the legislation so that any actual expenditure of the appropriated amount would be subject to Council approval. The legislators could not be persuaded to accept the proposal. Mr. Bergan pointed out that getting the approval from the Council and putting it in the proposed legislation is still preferable to having separate legislation and needing to go to the legislature each time money is needed from Reed Act funds.
D05-65: Use Reed Act funds for general UI administration in 2006 and 2007: A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved by the Council to use Reed Act funds to fund general UI administration. One million dollars is budgeted for each year. Projection is that these funds will not be needed for the balance of 2006 but possibly will be needed for 2007. It was agreed the expenditure of funds would be subject to Council approval.
Council voted to go into closed caucus at 11:20 a.m.
Council reconvened in public session at 2:20 p.m. Next meeting was set for October 3, 2005 at 1:00 p.m.
Meeting adjourned.Updated March 25, 2013