In a March 11 decision, Judge Timothy Witkowiak found that Shanquil Merriwether, owner of From Dusk Til Dawn Child Care Center, should not have been suspended from the program in September 2009.
Merriwether, along with more than 200 other providers, was dropped from the program as part of the state Department of Children and Family's (DCF) attempt to crack down on alleged fraud.
Widespread Wisconsin Shares fraud had been alleged by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its nonstop coverage of supposed abuses in the taxpayer-funded child care program for low-income working parents. State legislators and attorneys who are knowledgeable about the program were appalled by the Journal Sentinel's coverage and the DCF secretary's actions.
Then-Gov. Jim Doyle and DCF responded to the Journal Sentinel's inflammatory coverage with hard-hitting reforms and mass suspensions of day care providers.
One of those providers was Merriwether, who received a letter from DCF dated Sept. 25, 2009, stating that she had violated Wisconsin Shares rules, had been overpaid and would be suspended from the program. DCF had sent out similar letters to roughly 100 providers in September and October 2009 to show that it was serious about combating fraud. The Journal Sentinel responded with favorable coverage of DCF's actions.
Violations
Not Detailed or Proven
Merriwether's violations were not detailed in the
letter, nor did DCF provide her with a written notification of the statutes or
regulations that she had violated, although it did inform her of some "red
flags signifying Shares violations" in 2008 and 2009.
Merriwether appealed her suspension and overpayment
before an administrative law judge, who found that DCF had erroneously
suspended her from the program.
But then-DCF Secretary Reggie Bicha had declared
that all Wisconsin Shares-related appeals be returned to him for final
approval. DCF overturned Merriwether's decision, just as the agency had
overturned almost all of the proposed decisions that favored day care
providers.
Merriwether then appealed her case in the Milwaukee
County Circuit Court, which in March affirmed the original decision favoring
Merriwether.
Judge Witkowiak found that DCF should not have
punished Merriwether for alleged violations of rules that had occurred before
those rules went into effect on July 1, 2009. Nor did DCF correctly suspend
Merriwether for actions that are not violations of any applicable program rule
or statute, Witkowiak wrote.
But Witkowiak also wrote that he was "extremely
troubled" by the suspension letter provided to Merriwether, which "failed not
only to inform [Merriwether] of the statutes or regulations violated, but it
also failed to even allege what [Merriwether's] offending conduct was." He
noted that "the fundamentals of due process require that a defendant or
respondent have sufficient opportunity to defend herself."
Similar letters were sent to other Wisconsin Shares
providers, which calls into question whether the state properly informed them
of their violations.
DCF did not return the Shepherd's request to comment on Witkowiak's decision.
*/?>
I agree this woman was unfairly treated. The best way to solve issues with Wisconsin Shares is to eliminate the program altogether. It really doesn't make sense to set up all these phony day care businesses that play the "I watch your kids, you watch mine." Then have all the mothers in the program working at other daycare centers than where their kids are at. Lets replace Wisconsin Shares with mandetory paternal custody demanding that all fathers take custody of their children.
Only have a comment on the previous comment:
" Lets replace Wisconsin Shares with mandetory paternal custody demanding that all fathers take custody of their children."
This is not even relevant to the issue of daycare fraud. You are suggesting a solution for some other problem, and a solution which is not realistic for many working families where both parents work. You also assume the father is fit as a parent, some are most certainly not. I do know and realize that most of the women doing the "you watch mine/I'll watch yours" deals *were* single moms, but this fact is not the issue here at all. Single moms will always be a primary customer of daycares.
I honestly think your comment is more a lashing out at "broken" families being a problem in society, which I do think is a problem also... I just see the real issue here is that the program set out to help families but was not run well and got abused.
The only answer to the overall problem is a system of boarding schools coupled with a strict requirement that every citizen get a high-school diploma.
Here's how it would work: If, in the elementary and middle school years, a pattern of parental non-involvement arises, your child is put into a boarding school. You can visit, but your kid is damn well going to school, and if you are not involved enough to feed him/her, meet with the child's teachers a couple times every semester, and respond to teacher inquiries when they are made, your kid is put in boarding school.
In high school, every child can make the decision to drop out, but the second they make that decision, they are off the dole completely. No welfare, no food stamps, no unemployment checks- NOTHING. You have not fulfilled society's minimum requirement, and you get nothing back from society. On the flip side, you can always come back- come back when you're 25 and starving, and you'll be fed and taught. Maybe even given some housing stipends for "adult learners".
None of this will ever happen because it would inevitably happen to many more African-Americans than other races. The terrible tragedy is that this could pull the African-American community out of its tailspin in a couple generations- then we might not need this type of program anymore. Oh well, let Waukesha Dude and his politically-correct, race-baiting ilk take the reins. I'll end up moving past Waukesha to a gated community somewhere. WD can fiddle and sing songs of protest while the north side burns...
Hmmm, sounds like an invitation! Shall I just be fashionably late?
Well, I could spout off what is expected of me. Pointing back to the Latasha Jackson case with her menominee falls "mansion" that burned (torched?). Remember, it is alright for white daycare operators to take in money from Wisconsin Shares, especially since the right wing believes that the money TOTALLY came from white people in the first place. The crime in their eyes was that someone black appeared to be doing what whites were already doing... taking money earned from Milwaukee and using it to fund building a non-Milwaukee suburb home.
-------------------
Okay, let me bring up the National Taxpayers Union website that claims that the bottom 50% of the country pays only 3% of the 1040 income tax. That statement is the direct consequence of the fact that the top 50% are paying 97% of the taxes. Nobody disputes that as a true statement. But consider analyzing that fact like this...
If the bottom half pays only 3%, then the remember that this is the net effect when the whole bottom half is lumped together. Those at the upper part of the half pay far more than 3%, those lower down just break even, and below that is the group that gets more back than was taken out of their check (if they even had a job). All together, the net effect was still that the bottom half's total tax share was 3%, not -3%. As a collective group, they still paid some in!
Considering that the bottom half still paid some in, then it also means that the money given back to the lowest of the low was paid for by the upper part of that lower 50% of hte people, NOT ONE DIME OF THAT HANDOUT came from anyone in the upper half of the country's taxpayers!
Consider that the upper 50% of the people basically pay for all the other parts of the government operations, the military, NASA, science research funding, EPA and OSHA enforcement, government employee paychecks, highway construction, FARM SUBSIDIES, and CORPORATE WELFARE, etc.
So you got the bottom half living under "Socialism", taking everything they got and splitting it up among them. - And you got the upper half paying to support capitalism and the government structure that preserves a safe playing field for capitalist play (all while not finding the socialist half).
I would call that a WIN-WIN. Both halves are getting what they want.
Paul Ryan? May I have your comment please?
Mr. Ryan: You speak of the top half and the bottom half and those below the bottom half. The top half is 50% the bottom half is 50%. The top half pays 97%, the bottom half pays 3%. This being true, there is nothing left. So who are the lowest of the low? (Who are these prople?) What makes you think that they (or we) are all getting what they (or we) want?
You say the bottom half's total tax share was 3%, not-3%. What are you saying? I looked for the site but could not find these stats. Mr. Ryan, could you express yourself more clearly?
And Mr. Ryan, believe me, nobody is sharing the wealth.
Jzee, the site is "ntu.org", look for the section called "Who pays taxes". The site is a conservative site, spinning the data to play up how hard the upper 50% of the tax filers are being hit by 1040 IRS. Draw it out in a way to get the 50% voter buy-in needed to win tax-cut votes in our democratic elections. They chose not to break down how the lower 50% is divided up.
When I say the "lowest of the low", I am referring to the lower end of that bottom 50%. That includes all those Earned Income Credit people that get a whopping tax refund, on top of getting every penny back that was taken from their paycheck. They file 1040, so they are counted!
Do some "critical thinking" on the numbers that they post, do not blindly follow their twisted truth.
When you add up all of that bottom 50% of filers, the final result is that AS A GROUP THEY ARE PAYING IN 3% of the money the IRS receives. It means that the filer with an AGI of a measly 30,000 gross has a little of her tax money paying that 3%, and the rest of her tax money paying for the EIC for the pothead who flunked the urine test after 1 week's work.
Trying to make the case that these 30,000 and below filers are enough to pay the entire "Socialist" EIC burden, so the 6-figure filer can be said to pay for the other non-socialist stuff they want... subsidies for the farms and businesses, highway building, strong military to protect our global business interests, etc.
That's the win-win... socialism for the democratic bottom 50%, and the republican top 50% takes care of all the non-socialist needs, leaving the socialists to pay for themselves (and still be available to work for the republicans).
Also, log into wpr.org, look up the free archives for the "Joy Cardin Show", listen to the recorded program from 6am Tuesday, 4/12/2011, program # 110412A. It makes the case for raising taxes on the rich. like it was back in the "good old days".
Yesterday at church many of us where shocked to hear a member praise the fact she can quit her job to be a full time mom. Dad is out of the picture so the government will be daddy providing welfare, WIC, Food Stamps, medicaid, rent assistance, utility assistance, plus gifts from the church. I realize the kid needs a full time parent. Any job this woman would ever get would be $8 an hour and probably have to put up with calls from the kid and constant emergencies at home. But mandetory paternal custoday would have required the father to take custody. Fathers would have no choice but to often have to taken in the mother to help with child care. I would think most mothers would want to be with their child and would go along. Good think I don't make the laws or I would have any father who refused to provide financial support castrated to prevent further unwanted reproduction. The answer is not to give single mothers stressing low pay make work jobs but to crack down hard on fathers who don't provide financial support.