CLAIMS COMMITTEE

The People's Subcommittee --
Panel sifts through state's Wapner-like cases


Tucked away in the 1990 Laws of Minnesota is a $14 appropriation
to compensate Mark H. Deshazer for a "Led Zeppelin" shirt that
was lost in the prison laundry at St. Cloud.

In the following year, three families from the Little Falls area
were each paid $5,000 (a fourth got $7,000) to help pay for their
connection to the city water system because a nearby MnDOT salt
pile was threatening their wells.

And Harrison T. Alink of Austin got $60 from the state that year
as part of his state veterans bonus for serving in the Merchant
Marine during WWII.

All three filed claims with the joint legislative claims
subcommittee, a little-noticed panel whose existence -- save for
a few prison inmates -- is virtually unknown outside the Capitol
complex.

The panel, composed of three members from the House and three
from the Senate, serves as a sort of collective Peoples Court,
dispensing justice after sifting through claims that are often
quite odd.

"You feel a little like Judge Wapner," said Rep. Andy Steensma
(DFL-Luverne), the House chair of the subcommittee. "We just ask
all kinds of questions."

The committee usually meets just two or three times a year,
sometimes when the Legislature is not in session. And all things
considered, most subcommittee members would probably rather be
elsewhere.

"To tell you the truth, it's one of the most thankless committees
in the House," said Steensma. "Nobody wants to do it. . . . If I
could be chair of another committee, I'd take any committee 
there is."

Its hearings are informal, with fewer rules than would apply in a
court of law. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the
subcommittee says no to claims.

But sometimes it will pay a claim when the argument is "very
compelling on a moral basis, even though the legal argument isn't
very good," said Harry Walsh, acting Revisor of Statutes who has
served as co-counsel for the subcommittee.

For example, he doubted whether the four families from Little
Falls would have won in court had they chosen to sue. And Rep.
Steve Wenzel (DFL-Little Falls), who appeared before the claims
subcommittee with his constituents, said it was better to resolve
the dispute this way than to hire expensive lawyers and fight it
out in court.

"It's [the subcommittee] one of the best kept secrets in state
government," said Wenzel. That may be true, but claims against
the state have been around for years.

The 1891 appropriations bill contained the following provision:
"To reimburse George Jenkins for feed and lodgings furnished
refugees during the Indian outbreak in 1862, at Crow Wing,
Minnesota, $500."

Although some of the claims are fairly straightforward -- such as
the ones that compensate prisoners for on-the-job injuries -- the
overwhelming majority have a distinctly odd flavor.

The subcommittee handles cases that "sort of slip through the
cracks," said Carla Riehle, the subcommittee's co-counsel. For
example, several thousand dollars of the $133,186 claims bills of
1991 went to reimburse 24 different people for "fines assessed
due to erroneous weight limits posted on the Champlin bridge."

And $3,500 was appropriated to reimburse a Minnesota State Patrol
officer "for legal defense costs relating to possible criminal
negligence charges resulting from a motor vehicle accident while
performing duties for the state patrol."

"You don't have to look very far to find interesting claims,"
said the subcommittee's clerk, who processes the claims.
In one case an escaped prisoner ditched a pillow case full of his
worldly goods, then, after he was apprehended, lodged a claim
against the state for the lost items. Another time an inmate
brought a claim because he didn't like the perm he received at
the prison barbershop. Neither claim was allowed.

The case of prison inmate Mark Deshazer's shirt is also a bit
unusual.

Although prison rules explicitly state that the Department of
Corrections is not responsible for inmates' personal laundry, the
subcommittee made an exception in Deshazer's case.

Why? Apparently because the shirt was lost while he was sent to
the intensive care unit. Since he didn't place the shirt in the
laundry himself, he couldn't be blamed for its loss. Similarly, a
prisoner was once paid $50 for damage to her television set after
it fell from a cart that was being pushed by a guard.

"We do have a duty to be at least partially careful," said Jean
Whitney, assistant to the commissioner of the Department of
Corrections who oversees prison claims. "If you're in our
institutions, we do have a duty to provide for your well-being.
We can't cut their fingers off -- that's not part of the deal.
And we can't break their stuff."

Even though it's been about 50 years since Harrison Alink, now
72, served in the Merchant Marine during WWII, the approval of
his $60 bonus was fairly routine.

In 1989, the U.S. Congress changed the legal definition of
"veteran" to include those who served in the Merchant Marine --
reflecting the danger under which enlistees served.

When Alink, a machine gunner on an ammunition ship, heard about
becoming eligible for a bonus, he went to see his local veterans
service officer, who processed the claim. (WWII vets could
receive up to $400; the bonuses of Merchant Marine vets are
prorated based on the time spent outside the 12-mile U.S.
territorial limit.) 

Oftentimes, however, the claim process begins at the urging of a
legislator, which can make the job of saying no that much
tougher, said Steensma.

"It's [serving on the subcommittee] kind of enjoyable, but you
sure don't make any friends," said Steensma.
-- Grant Moos

Serving on claims panel was not always un popular


Although serving on the Joint Claims Subcommittee is probably one
of the least desirable assignments at the Capitol, it wasn't
always that way. 

In 1955, a full-fledged commission was created to hear the claims
to reduce the workload on the full House Appropriations and
Senate Finance committees, which had heard the claims prior to
that time. Capitol insiders say the commission was once on a par
in status with the powerful Legislative Building Commission,
which recommended to the Legislature what state building projects
should be funded.

But the commission disbanded in 1973 for both political and
pragmatic reasons. DFLers in the 1972 elections had made an issue
of the numerous Republican commissions, and eliminated many of
them when they took control of the House and Senate, said Peter
Wattson of Senate Counsel and Research, who advised the
subcommittee for several years.

The other reason was a landmark 1962 Minnesota Supreme Court
decision that eliminated the age-old doctrine of government
immunity, which paved the way for lawsuits against the state.
Prior to that time, it was legally impossible to successfully sue
the government.

"Now all the good ones [claims] are heard in court and the poor
Legislature is left with all the others," said Wattson. In the
early 1970s, the Legislature also gave state departments the
authority to settle claims of up to $2,500 -- eliminating much of
the commission's work.



Originally printed in 1992 in the Session Weekly, a weekly
newsmagazine published by the Minnesota House Public Information
Office.

***Last Update 8/5/94 (jtt) Last Review 8/5/94 (jtt) ***