Under current law, the SPD may provide legal representation on behalf of an indigent person in a case attacking the conditions of the person's confinement, if the SPD believes the case should be pursued. This bill eliminates this authority.
*** Analysis from -2431/2 ***
Current law provides caseload standards that a staff attorney in the SPD trial division is expected to handle. This bill increases those standards for felony cases from 166.8 to 184.5 per year, for misdemeanor cases from 410.9 to 492 per year and for juvenile cases from 228.4 to 246 per year.
*** Analysis from -1867/1 ***
Current law reduces the caseload standards of 12 SPD staff attorneys to 50% of the full caseload standards imposed by law and requires them to perform supervisory duties. This bill repeals this provision.
*** Analysis from -2436/2 ***
Under current law, the SPD assigns some cases to staff attorneys and some cases to private local attorneys. In each county, the SPD creates a list of qualified private local attorneys for each type of case handled. Generally, the SPD assigns cases in order according to the applicable list. An attorney may not be excluded from a list unless the SPD states in writing the reasons for the exclusion. This bill allows the SPD to assign cases to a private local attorney, without regard to the lists, for reasons related to that attorney's performance.
*** Analysis from -2433/4 ***
Under current law, a private local attorney who receives an assignment from the SPD generally receives $50 per hour for time spent in court, $40 per hour for time spent out of court, excluding travel, and $25 per hour for travel in certain situations. The SPD may also enter into annual contracts with private local attorneys to handle vehicle-related cases and to pay those attorneys an amount set in the contract that does not exceed the previously described rates. This bill authorizes such contracts in all cases, requires the SPD to enter into as many of these contracts as possible, allows the contracts to be made with attorneys or law firms and requires that the contracts set a fixed-fee total amount (subject to the hourly rate limits).
*** Analysis from -0950/2 ***
Current law requires that a prosecutor make available to a person charged with a crime certain information, such as statements of witnesses, police reports and reports of scientific testing, that the prosecutor has in his or her possession. This bill requires the SPD to pay any fee charged for photocopying any such items made available to a person charged with a crime if the SPD or a private attorney appointed by the SPD represents the person. The fee that the SPD may be charged for photocopies may not exceed the actual, necessary and direct cost of photocopying.
*** Analysis from -0876/4 ***
Current law requires a court in criminal, children's code, mental health act and protective services proceedings to consider the ability of the person who is the subject of the proceeding to cooperate and understand the proceeding. If the court has notice that the person has a language difficulty, current law requires the court to hold a hearing to determine if that person needs an interpreter.
Current law requires the state to pay for an interpreter provided to an indigent if the proceedings are in the supreme court, a court of appeals or a circuit court. In Appointment of Interpreter in State v. Le, 184 Wis. 2d 860 (1994), the Wisconsin supreme court decided that the director of state courts is the state agency responsible for the payment of the fees of an interpreter for an indigent in circuit court proceedings and that the SPD is responsible for the payment of fees for those services provided outside a court proceeding. Current law limits the payment of interpreter fees in court proceedings to $35 per one-half day.
This bill codifies the supreme court decision, requiring the SPD to pay the interpreter fees for out -- of -- court assistance to the SPD. The bill sets a payment limit of $35 per one-half day for interpreter services provided to the SPD outside of court proceedings.
*** Analysis from -0776/1 ***
Current law requires the clerk of circuit court to collect a fee of $1.25 per page for copies of general court documents. The register in probate and sheriff collect a fee of $1 per page for copies of similar documents. This bill requires the clerk of circuit court, the register in probate and the sheriff to instead charge the actual, necessary and direct costs for those documents when copies of those documents are requested by the SPD.
*** Analysis from -2348/2 ***
Crimes
Under current law, with certain exceptions for repeat serious felony offenders, if a person is convicted of first-degree intentional homicide or another crime punishable by life imprisonment, the court must sentence the person to life imprisonment and must make a parole eligibility determination either allowing ordinary parole eligibility provisions to apply or setting a later parole eligibility date. This bill gives the court a 3rd option: the court may provide that the life imprisonment is without the possibility of parole.
*** Analysis from -2556/3 ***
Current law provides a number of penalty enhancement provisions to allow for increased penalties whenever crimes are committed under specified circumstances. This bill provides penalty enhancement for violent crimes committed on or within 1,000 yards of school premises or a school bus. If the underlying crime is a felony, the maximum period of imprisonment is increased by 5 years. If the underlying crime is a misdemeanor, the maximum period of imprisonment is increased by 6 months. In addition, unless the person who is convicted of a crime poses a public safety risk, the court may require the person to complete 100 hours of community service work.
*** Analysis from -2457/2 ***
Under current law, the sentencing commission promulgates rules providing guidelines for use by judges whenever sentencing most felony defendants. Judges must take the guidelines into account when imposing a sentence, but may deviate from the guidelines by stating on the record the reasons for the deviation. This bill abolishes the sentencing commission and eliminates the requirement that judges consider the guidelines.
*** Analysis from -0707/4 ***
Education
Primary and secondary education
Article X, Section 1, of the Wisconsin Constitution provides that "the supervision of public instruction shall be vested in a state superintendent of public instruction and such other officers as the legislature shall direct ...." The constitution provides for the election of the state superintendent. The statutes provide that the state superintendent directs and supervises the department of public instruction.
Effective July 1, 1996, this bill changes the name of the department of public instruction (DPI) to the department of education (DOE) and provides for DOE to be under the direction and supervision of a secretary of education who is nominated by the governor, and with the advice and consent of the senate appointed, to serve at the pleasure of the governor. All duties and powers currently assigned or granted to the state superintendent, including membership on various boards and councils, are transferred to the secretary of education. The bill creates an office of the state superintendent, attached to DOE, under the direction and supervision of the state superintendent, and directs the state superintendent to:
1. Visit, ascertain the condition of and stimulate public interest in the public schools.
2. Advocate for the needs of children and school districts.
3. Provide information to the public on the public schools and school districts.
4. Annually submit to the governor and the legislature a plan for improving the public schools and the academic achievement of public school pupils.
*** Analysis from -2568/6 ***
This bill transfers from DPI to the department of revenue (DOR), effective July 1, 1996, the responsibility for calculating and distributing general school aid, the responsibility for distributing handicapped education aid, pupil transportation aid, bilingual-bicultural education aid, school library aids and tuition payments. The bill transfers 10 FTE positions from DPI to DOR, but no incumbent DPI employes are transferred.
*** Analysis from -2003/4 ***
Current law requires any person having under his or her control a child between the ages of 6 and 18 years to ensure that the child attends school regularly. Current law provides certain exceptions to that general rule:
1. With the written approval of the parent or guardian of a child who is at least 16 years old and a child at risk, the child may attend, part time or in lieu of high school, a technical college. A child at risk is a pupil in grades 5 to 12 who is one or more years behind his or her age group in the number of high school credits attained, or 2 or more years behind his or her age group in basic skill levels, and is also a dropout, a habitual truant, a parent or an adjudicated delinquent.
2. With the written approval of the parent or guardian of a child who is 16 years old, the child may be excused by a school board from school attendance if the child will participate in an alternative program that leads to high school graduation.
3. With the written approval of the parent or guardian of a child who is at least 17 years old, the child may be excused by a school board from regular school attendance if the child will participate in an alternative program leading to high school graduation or to a high school equivalency diploma.
4. With the written approval of the parent or guardian of a child who is at least 17 years old, the child must be excused by a school board from regular school attendance if the child began a program leading to a high school equivalency diploma in a secured correctional facility and the child and his or her parent or guardian agree that the child will continue to participate in such a program.
This bill reduces the age of compulsory school attendance from 18 to 17 years of age. The bill modifies the exception described in item 3, above. Under the bill, upon the request of any child who is at least 17 years old, the school board may allow the child to participate in an alternative program. Finally, the bill eliminates the exception described in item 4, above.
*** Analysis from -0866/5 ***
Under current law, a school district may admit a pupil who resides in another school district if the pupil's parents pay tuition. In addition, a pupil may attend a public school located outside his or her school district of residence if the 2 school boards agree, the state superintendent approves and the school district of residence pays tuition.
This bill creates an interdistrict school choice program. Beginning in the 1996-97 school year, the bill provides that a pupil may attend any public school located outside his or her school district of residence if the pupil's parent complies with certain application dates and procedures, and requires the school district of residence to pay tuition or an amount agreed to between the 2 school districts. The school district of residence continues to count the pupil in enrollment for state aid purposes.
The school board of attendance may reject an application only if there is no space available in the school or program or the pupil is involved in a disciplinary proceeding. The school board must reject an application, however, if acceptance would violate a plan to reduce racial imbalance in the school district or would be harmful to the efforts of the school board to achieve racial balance in the school district. Similarly, a school district may prohibit a resident pupil from attending school in another school district if the pupil is involved in a disciplinary proceeding. A school district must prohibit a resident pupil from attending school in another school district if allowing such attendance would violate a plan to reduce racial imbalance in the school district or would be harmful to the efforts of the school board to achieve racial balance in the school district.
Beginning in the 1996-97 school year, this bill also creates an interdistrict enrollment options program under which a pupil enrolled in a public school may attend a public school in another school district in order to take one or more courses under certain circumstances. The pupil must continue to attend school in his or her school district of residence for at least one course; the school board of the other school district must determine that there is space available; the school board of the resident school district must not offer, or have space available in, a comparable course; if the course is offered in the high school grades, the school board of the resident school district must determine that the course satisfies high school graduation requirements; and the pupil must meet all of the prerequisites for the course. Acceptance and rejection criteria and procedures for the program are identical to the acceptance and rejection criteria and procedures for the interdistrict school choice program.
The school board of the school district of residence must pay to the school board of the other school district an amount equal to the cost of providing a course to a nonresident pupil under the program, as determined by DOE.
Beginning in the 1996-97 school year, this bill allows a pupil enrolled in a public school to attend a public school located within the pupil's school district of residence but outside the pupil's attendance area under certain circumstances. The school board must determine that there is space available and the pupil must meet all of the prerequisites for the course.
The bill provides that the school board may not reject an application to attend a school in a different attendance area based on the pupil's academic achievement. In addition, the provision described above regarding acceptance or rejection based on the effect on the school district's plans to reduce racial imbalance applies to the intradistrict enrollment options program.
The bill allows a school board that is participating in a special transfer program to reduce racial imbalance (commonly known as chapter 220) or in a merged attendance area program to reduce racial imbalance to modify the application deadlines established in this bill if the deadlines would conflict with chapter 220 or merged attendance area program procedures.
In addition, the parent of a pupil who resides in a school district participating in one of the integration programs must submit the application to attend another school district to the school board of the school district of residence for approval.
The bill also authorizes DOE to modify any provision contained in the interdistrict and intradistrict programs if DOE agrees with the school board that the provision is harmful to the integration program or to the school district's efforts to achieve racial balance.
*** Analysis from -0704/6 ***
Current law allows up to 1.5% of the enrollment of the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) to attend, at no charge, any nonsectarian private school located in the city of Milwaukee under certain circumstances. The state pays the private school, on behalf of the pupil, an amount equal to the amount of per pupil aid that MPS receives from the state, and subtracts that amount from the amount paid to MPS.
This bill makes a number of changes in the program beginning in the 1996-97 school year:
1. The bill allows pupils who reside in the city to attend any private school, whether sectarian or nonsectarian.
2. The bill eliminates the 1.5% enrollment limitation described above but provides that no more than 3,500 pupils in the 1996-97 school year and no more than 5,500 pupils in the 1997-98 school year may participate in the program.
3. The bill eliminates a provision that limits the percentage of a private school's enrollment that may participate in the program to 65%.
4. The bill provides that in the 1995-96 school year, the amount paid per pupil is the same as in the 1994-95 school year. Beginning in the 1996-97 school year, the private school receives that amount, increased by the increase in the consumer price index (CPI), or the private school's operating cost per pupil, whichever is less.
5. The bill provides that the MPS aid reduction described above must come first from aid paid to MPS for its special transfer program, commonly known as chapter 220.
6. Finally, the bill directs DOE, when making the payment, to send a check to the private school that is made out to the pupil's parent or guardian. The parent or guardian must restrictively endorse the check for the use of the private school.
*** Analysis from -1972/6 ***
Current law authorizes a school board on its own initiative, or upon receipt of a petition signed by at least 10% of the teachers employed by the school district or by at least 50% of the teachers employed at one school, to contract for the operation of up to 2 schools as charter schools. A charter school is exempt from most laws governing public schools. A school board may not establish a charter school without the approval of the state superintendent, who must approve the first 10 requests for approval and must ensure that charter schools are established in no more than 10 school districts. If the school board acts on its own initiative or if a petition is granted, the school board may contract for the operation of a school as a charter school. The contract must specify the amount that the school district will pay the charter school each year. Charter school employes remain school district employes and may participate in the Wisconsin retirement system.
This bill makes a number of changes in the provisions governing charter schools, including:
1. The bill deletes the requirement for state superintendent approval to establish a charter school, deletes the limit on the number of charter schools that a school board may establish and deletes the 10-school-district limit.
2. The bill deletes a provision that prohibits a school board from spending more per pupil enrolled in a charter school than it spends per pupil enrolled in a public school.
3. The bill provides that a requirement for all charter schools to be nonsectarian in their programs, admission policies, employment practices and other operations does not apply to charter schools established by MPS.
4. The bill deletes the requirement that all charter school personnel be school district employes.
5. The bill authorizes a school board to enter into a contract for the operation of a charter school that results in the conversion of a private school to a charter school. Current law prohibits a school district from entering into such a contract.
This bill authorizes MPS to contract with nonprofit, private schools or agencies located in the city of Milwaukee to provide educational programs to pupils enrolled in grades kindergarten to 12. The bill allows pupils enrolled in MPS to attend, at no charge, any private school or agency with which the board has contracted. The board must establish educational standards for pupil performance for each contracting private school and agency.
This bill authorizes the MPS board to contract with any person to manage or operate one or more schools. The bill also authorizes the MPS board to close a school that it determines is low in performance by adopting a resolution to that effect. The bill provides that if the board closes a school, or reopens the school, the superintendent of schools may reassign staff members without regard to seniority in service.
*** Analysis from -2062/2 ***
This bill directs the secretary of education to reorganize the 12 cooperative educational service agencies (CESAs) into 15 CESAs, effective on July 1, 1997. Each reorganized CESA is coterminous with a technical college district, except that reorganized CESA no. 5 is coterminous with the territory of 2 technical college districts and except that the school board of a school district that is located in more than one technical college district must select the reorganized CESA in which the school district will participate.
The bill adds 2 members to each technical college district board: one member of the board of control of the CESA that is located in the district and one employe of a school district or CESA who represents a school-to-work program. Both are appointed by the board of control.
The bill also adds members to each CESA board of control: one member of the technical college district board of the technical college district located in the CESA and a representative of each University of Wisconsin System institution and center that is located in the agency.
The bill authorizes a CESA to contract with all public and private entities and to apply for state and federal grants for the CESA and on behalf of school districts.
*** Analysis from -1955/2 ***
This bill authorizes a school district, as an alternative to the employment of teachers, to contract with any person for the performance of teaching or other educational services by individuals who are licensed by the state superintendent but who are not employes of the school district.
If a school district decides to subcontract work that would otherwise be performed by employes in a collective bargaining unit for which a representative is recognized or certified, and the decision is primarily related to the wages, hours or conditions of employment of employes in the bargaining unit, the school district must first bargain collectively with the representative concerning that decision. See Unified School District No. 1 of Racine County v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 81 Wis. 2d 89 (1977).
The bill also provides that the statutory duties and powers of school boards are to be broadly construed to authorize any action that is within the comprehensive meaning of the terms of the duties and powers, if the action is not prohibited by federal or state law.
*** Analysis from -0944/4 ***
With certain exceptions, this bill authorizes DPI, upon request of a school board, to waive any school board or school district requirement in the laws administered by DPI or in the administrative rules promulgated by DPI. Before requesting a waiver, the school board must hold a public hearing in the school district on the issue.
In determining whether to grant a waiver, DPI must consider whether the requirement impedes progress toward achieving a local improvement plan under the federal Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and whether the school board has adopted educational goals. A waiver is effective for 4 years and may be renewed for additional 4-year periods.
*** Analysis from -2535/2 ***
Under current law, teachers employed at a public school located in Milwaukee County are permanent employes upon the gaining of a 4th contract in the school or school system after a continuous and successful 3-year probation. This bill repeals the permanent employment status provision.
Under current law, each school board must employ a reading specialist, licensed by the state superintendent, to develop and coordinate a comprehensive reading curriculum in grades kindergarten to 12. This bill eliminates the requirement to employ a reading specialist.
Current law requires each school board to administer pupil assessment examinations adopted or approved by the state superintendent to all pupils enrolled in the 8th and 10th grades. A school board may administer additional examinations only if they are aligned with the school district's curriculum. This bill eliminates this latter requirement.
Current law requires MPS to use 67% of certain funds allocated to MPS to provide a mentor teacher program and a peer coaching program, and the balance for school administrator assessment and development. This bill directs MPS to use all of these funds for professional staff development.
