230.80 Definitions. In this subchapter:
(1) “Abuse of authority" means an arbitrary or capricious exercise of power.
(1m) “Appointing authority" means the chief officer of any governmental unit unless another person is authorized to appoint subordinate staff by the constitution or any law.
(2) “Disciplinary action" means any action taken with respect to an employee which has the effect, in whole or in part, of a penalty, including but not limited to any of the following:
(a) Dismissal, demotion, transfer, removal of any duty assigned to the employee's position, refusal to restore, suspension, reprimand, verbal or physical harassment or reduction in base pay.
(b) Denial of education or training, if the education or training may reasonably be expected to lead to an appointment, promotion, performance evaluation or other personnel action.
(c) Reassignment.
(d) Failure to increase base pay, except with respect to the determination of a discretionary performance award.
(3) “Employee" means any person employed by any governmental unit except:
(a) A person employed by the office of the governor, the courts, the legislature or a service agency under subch. IV of ch. 13.
(b) A person who is, or whose immediate supervisor is, assigned to an executive salary group under s. 20.923 or a person who has, or whose immediate supervisor has, a position specified in s. 36.115 (3m) (ae) to (f).
(4) “Governmental unit" means any association, authority, board, commission, department, independent agency, institution, office, society, or other body in state government created or authorized to be created by the constitution or any law, including the legislature, the office of the governor, and the courts. “Governmental unit" does not mean any political subdivision of the state or body within one or more political subdivisions that is created by law or by action of one or more political subdivisions.
(5) “Information" means information gained by the employee which the employee reasonably believes demonstrates:
(a) A violation of any state or federal law, rule or regulation.
(b) Mismanagement or abuse of authority in state or local government, a substantial waste of public funds or a danger to public health and safety.
(6) “Merit further investigation" means reasonably indicates the existence of a situation justifying inquiry.
(7) “Mismanagement" means a pattern of incompetent management actions which are wrongful, negligent or arbitrary and capricious and which adversely affect the efficient accomplishment of an agency function. “Mismanagement" does not mean the mere failure to act in accordance with a particular opinion regarding management techniques.
(8) “Retaliatory action" means a disciplinary action taken because of any of the following:
(a) The employee lawfully disclosed information under s. 230.81 or filed a complaint under s. 230.85 (1).
(b) The employee testified or assisted or will testify or assist in any action or proceeding relating to the lawful disclosure of information under s. 230.81 by another employee.
(c) The appointing authority, agent of an appointing authority or supervisor believes the employee engaged in any activity described in par. (a) or (b).
(9) “Substantial waste of public funds" means an unnecessary expenditure of a substantial amount of money or a series of unnecessary expenditures of smaller amounts of money.
History: 1983 a. 409; 1995 a. 27, 326; 1997 a. 237; 2005 a. 74; 2013 a. 20; 2015 a. 55.
A “pattern of incompetent management actions" under sub. (7) requires more than a claim of a single act of incompetent management. A continuing course of conduct requires multiple actions to constitute a pattern. Hutson v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 2003 WI 97, 263 Wis. 2d 612, 665 N.W.2d 212, 01-2959.
An opinion alone, as to the lawfulness or appropriateness of government activity is not “information" as that term is defined in sub. (5). Department of Justice v. Department of Workforce Development, 2015 WI 114, 365 Wis. 2d 694, 875 N.W.2d 545, 13-1488.
The most reasonable interpretation of sub. (8) (c) is that it is aimed at situations when a supervisor retaliates on the basis of a mistake of fact, such as when a supervisor is told that an employee engaged in conduct that could constitute disclosure of information, but the employee had not in fact engaged in that conduct — not when the employee is not protected by ss. 230.80 to 230.89, but the employer believed the employee was protected by ss. 230.80 to 230.89. Department of Justice v. Department of Workforce Development, 2015 WI 114, 365 Wis. 2d 694, 875 N.W.2d 545, 13-1488.