Old Car Unearthed  |   Home  |   Obey Pork

Georgia Thompson Sues State

I admit… this puzzles me.

Department of Administration employee Georgia Thompson filed a claim with the state today seeking reimbursement for nearly $360,000 in costs stemming from her prosecution and conviction on bid-rigging charges.

Thompson, who was rehired by DOA after the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out her conviction in early April, seeks more than $206,000 in legal fees, $130,000 in taxes due on those fees and more than $14,000 in costs and disbursements. The claim also seeks just less than $10,000 for fines paid, preparation of her claim and assessments.

Thompson has already paid more than $162,000 of the legal fees owed, according to the claim.

Thompson was prosecuted by the federal government and later acquitted by a federal appeals court.  Why are state taxpayers obligated to reimburse her?  This wasn’t a state prosecution.  Does anyone know the applicable law here?

Posted by Owen at 1844 hrs
Law + Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

1. Owen,

   If I recall correctly (and this is based solely on my recollection), state employees are eligible to have their legal expenses reimbursed in any action brought against them involving their on-the-job responsibilities, provided that said employee is acquitted of the charge.  I believe that Georgia Thompson falls outside of this policy because she was convicted and then had her conviction overturned.  Technically she wasn’t acquitted, and therefore is ineligible - even though the end result is, for all intents and purposes, the same.

   I remember discussing with some people when the conviction was tossed out whether or not Thompson would try to file a claim with the state Claims Board for reimbursement.  I’m sure that she’s taking the advice of her lawyer in pursuing this route.

   If this is indeed the state policy, I wouldn’t have any problem with state covering her costs.  After all, the same would’ve held true for legislators tried in the caucus scandal had they been found not guilty.  If it’s good enough for the politicians, it’s probably good enough for the bureaucrats.

   I can’t recall offhand if this is statutory language, in an administrative rule, or simply a standing policy over at DOA.  Someone can feel free to correct me if any of this is incorrect. 

   Hope I answered more questions than I created.
   - RS

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 15, 2007 at 2210 hrs
   
   
   

2. Thanks, RS.  I appreciate the info.

   Posted by Owen on June 15, 2007 at 2220 hrs
   
   
   

3. I really don’t have a problem witht he lawyer fees but the rest seems kind of strange.  Taxes on the lawyer fees?  Penalties? Something doesn’t seem right.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 15, 2007 at 2255 hrs
   
   
   

4. Actually, she was acquitted.  Her conviction overturn, remanded w/ an order to enter a judgment of acquittal.  Just as though the jury had come back not guilty.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 15, 2007 at 2359 hrs
   
   
   

5. My apologies, Bob.  You are correct.  The distinction is apparently that it was a federal court and not a state court.  State policies currently allow only for reimbursement for acquittals in state court.

   To Dan, I’d guess she’s seeking payment for taxes presumably because she’d be liable for income taxes on the reimbursement amount.  Accordingly, she’s looking for the total reimbursement amount minus taxes owed to equal the legal fees.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on June 16, 2007 at 0155 hrs
   
   
   

6. And if it was in state court, she could go for compensation for pain and suffering—and perhaps a home to replace the one she lost.

   Now, as for our losses, can the state sue in federal court for the feds to reimburse the state, since this was a federal mistake?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 16, 2007 at 0821 hrs
   
   
   

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.