1. Concerns expressed about limiting complaints to 25 per year.
Response: Accepted. The department decided to expand this limit to be one complaint per week.
2. Concerns expressed about 500-word limit.
Response: Rejected. The department decided the limit was reasonable and provided sufficient room for alleging a complaint.
3. Concern expressed about complaint process timelines.
Response: Rejected. The comment did not address specific timeline concerns, and the Department decided timelines addressed in rule were sufficient.
4. Concern expressed about lacking data to support changes.
Response: Accepted. The department reviewed data to support its decision to expand the previously drafted limit of 25 complaints per year, and modified that limit to be rather one per week.
5. Concern expressed about lack of an impartial third party involved in complaint
process.
Response: Rejected. The Department determined that inmate complaints would best be addressed as established in this rule.
6. Concern expressed about the postage cost for sending in complaints.
Response: Rejected. The Department determined that legal costs would not be properly addressed in this particular rule.
7. Concern expressed that portions of the rule were vague concerning s. DOC 310.07(1). Response: Rejected. The department determined that the rule was not vague rather the process will vary per institution handbooks.
8. Concern expressed that the rule lacked flexibility for late complaints.
Response: Rejected. Timeframes and proper procedures were carefully considered by the Department in developing the procedures. Moreover, the rule permits inmates to substantiate a late complaint by substantiating the untimely complaint with good cause.
Explanation of modifications made to the proposed rule in response to public comments received:
DOC 310.07 (7) - The Department changed the complaint per year limit from 25 complaints per year, to be one per week. The department reviewed data to support this decision.
LIST OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED OR REGISTERED FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED RULE AT A PUBLIC HEARING.
A. Two public hearings were held on the rule:
Public Hearing Location 1 Public Hearing Location 2
December 5, 2016 December 12, 2016
8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m.
1001 Maple Bluff Road, Conf Room 1 819 North 6th Street, Room 40
Stevens Point, WI 54482 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
B. List of persons who appeared or registered for or against the proposed rule at the public hearings:
In person:
Judy Erthum, Public Hearing on December 5, 2016 in Stevens Point
Rickie Fields, Public hearing held December 12, 2016, in Madison
Persons who submitted written comments:
Ardell, Korry L.
Berg, Jordan
Brossard, Ben
Carpenter, David
Culen, Donna
Davis, Jeffrey
Downing, Charles
Elliot, Matthew
Errthum, Judy
Faber, Jason
Fields, Rickie
Gates, Jonathan
Gehrke, James
Geraghty, Maureen
Haldemann, Herbert
Hamilton, Robert
Henrichs, Scott
Jackson, Jevon
Leiser, Jeff
Lelinski, Steven
Mueller, Terry
Overturf, Jared
Parmer, Larry
Rogers, Roy
Ruegg, Paul
Shaw, Terrance
Wield, Donald
Wollschlager, Scott
EXPLANATION OF ANY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE RULE SUMMARY OR THE FISCAL ESTIMATE:
There are no changes that have been made to the rule summary or fiscal estimate.
RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CLEARINGHOUSE REPORT:
