Wisconota / Minneconsin A New State of Risk Management State of Wisconota Rollie Boeding Director of State Risk Management

3 Part Presentation State of Wisconota Background / Political Perspective Ideas Generated Risk Management Issues and Solution

Wisconsin – Minnesota Collaboration Aaron Olver Deputy Secretary of Commerce

WISCONSIN – MINNESOTA COLLABORATING? Can you say Rivalry?

HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? Similar Budget Deficits Similar Cultures & Issues Similar Operations Trust Between Governors “Hello, Governor?” …It all started with a phone call

PROCESS Validate Opportunities Generate early hypotheses Initial Diagnostic Create Framework Executive Orders Agency Dialogue Reports & Outcomes Agency Instructions Areas of Focus Agency mapping across states Interview Guides Report templates Contact information Executive leadership Media opportunity Minimum requirement of 1 meeting One of several potential models Interim report Cabinet update to Governor Final report available for public

INITIAL DIAGNOSTIC Team conducted initial interviews with agencies to identify potential opportunities Validated opportunity and structured areas for further investigation

CREATE FRAMEWORK Mapped Minnesota agencies to Wisconsin agencies to determine equivalencies Created contact information sheets for cabinet Identified five areas of focus based on diagnostic (later added a sixth) Issued agency instructions Created a discussion guide for agencies Created a report template

EXECUTIVE ORDERS “These challenging times provide us an opportunity to make state government more accountable and efficient” - MN Governor Pawlenty “We are committed to taking action now and building on these efforts in the future” - WI Governor Doyle Executive Orders Required State Agencies to meet with their counterparts and report within 45 days on opportunities

AGENCY DIALOGUE Agencies met with counterparts to discuss potential opportunities Minimum of 1 meeting within 45 days was required Meetings were conducted in person in both Capitols and in between Follow-up meetings by phone and Alternative model could have centralized review of functions and opportunities (more later)

REPORTS & OUTCOMES Interim report to review language and interim progress review with Governor to ensure compliance Over 80 potential initiatives were identified in a report to the Governor Key areas included: Full report can be viewed at: 1. Joint Procurement 2. Cross Border Collaboration 3. IT Systems 4. Reciprocity 5. Shared Resources 6. Sharing Best Practices

EXAMPLES FROM SIX AREAS OF FOCUS Joint Procurement Cross Border Collaboration IT Systems Reciprocity Shared Resources Best Practices AREAEXAMPLE Ammunition, Vehicle Tires, Delivery Services Invasive Species, Midwest Rail, Tourism Program Integrity, Licensing Services Oversize Trucks, Residential Facilities Communication Towers, Dairy Products Vendor contracts, Food Menu & Procurement

KEY TAKEAWAYS Opportunities to collaborate likely to exist Greatest savings likely to be in procurement and sharing best practices Configuration of programs likely to differ more than expected across states which raises costs of collaboration and reduces benefits Keep expectations realistic

AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL Easier to manage Taps existing expertise Aids implementation Few resources required Decentralized Agency-led Review Centralized Review StrengthsWeaknesses Less likely to generate bold ideas Agencies sometimes invested in status quo More likely to generate big ideas Can be independent of interests Requires dedicated resources Disconnected from implementation resources Difficult without experts

Ideas Generated WI and MN Agency Staff Met Within 45 Days of Executive Order – January 13 th Face to Face Meetings Follow Up Conference Calls Risk Management Staff Met at UW LaCrosse Compared Programs / Opportunities Monitor Other Agency Programs for Potential Risks and Coverage Issues State of Wiscononta

Ideas Generated Many Ideas Had Minimal Risk Joint Purchase of Institutional Food Joint Tourism Promotion Joint Vendor Contract for Vehicle Maintenance Coordinate Midwest Rail Initiative Shared Shipping Services Contract Joint Export Promotion State of Wisconota

Ideas Generated Others Had Significant Risk Exposure Mainframe Disaster Recovery Data Center Disaster Recovery Dairy and Food Inspection Cooperative Agreement for Child Welfare Trout Stream Habitat Improvement Joint Bridge Inspection Amusement Ride Inspection & Enforcement State of Wisconota

Potential Risk Issues Loss of Sovereign Immunity Loss of Notice of Claim Requirement Loss of Statutory Caps Loss of Discretionary Immunity State of Wisconota

Solution Make Wisconsin State Employees Minnesota Employees When Performing Work for the State of Minnesota Make Minnesota State Employees Wisconsin Employees When Performing Work for the State of Wisconsin State of Wisconota

Solution Wisconsin and Minnesota Similar Laws Both Have Sovereign Immunity Both Have Notice of Claims Requirements Both Have Claim Caps WI - $250,000 Cap Per Claimant Per Defendant MN - $1 Million Per Occurrence Both Defended by Department of Justice State of Wisconota

Process for Solution Risk Managers Collaborated to Develop Proposed Solution & Implementation Plan Involved Department of Justice Involved Governor’s Office Legal Counsel Obtained Consensus on Problem and Solution State of Wisconota

Implementing Solution Language Drafted and Inserted into Respective Budget Bills MN – Language Added to Section Defining “Employee of the State” “ and any officer, agent or employee of the State of Wisconsin performing work for the State of Minnesota pursuant to a joint state initiative” State of Wisconota

WI Language SECTION Nonstatutory provisions; Other. (2f) LIABILITY, REPRESENTATION, AND EXPENSES ARISING FROM AGREEMENTS WITH MINNESOTA. (a) For purposes of sections and of the statutes, any employee of the state of Minnesota performing services for this state pursuant to an agreement made under executive order number 272, dated January 13, 2009, is considered to have the same status as an employee of this state performing the same services for this state, and any employee of this state who performs services for the state of Minnesota pursuant to such an agreement is considered to have the same status as when performing the same services for this state in any action brought under the laws of this state. (b) The department of justice shall represent any employee of the state of Minnesota who is named as a defendant in any action brought under the laws of this state as a result of performing services for this state under an agreement specified in paragraph (a) and any employee of this state who is named as a defendant as a result of performing services for the state of Minnesota under such an agreement in any action brought under the laws of this state. (c) Any employee of the state of Minnesota who is named as a defendant and who is found liable as a result of performing services for this state under an agreement specified in paragraph (a) shall be indemnified by this state to the same extent as an employee of this state performing the same services for this state pursuant to section of the statutes. (d) Witness fees in any action specified in this subsection shall be paid in the same manner as provided in section of the statutes. The attorney general may compromise and settle any action specified in this subsection in the same manner as provided in section (6) (a) of the statutes. (e) Paragraphs (a) to (d) do not apply after January 2, State of Wisconota

Summation State Maintains Liability Protections Excess Insurance Carriers Protected Employees Assured of Legal Defense and Indemnification Department of Justice Maintains Control Over Legal Defense Risk Management Looks Great in the Process of Solving the Issue! State of Wisconsin

THANK YOU ? s. State of Wisconota