Senate Bill 519
Relating to: security deposits made by motor fuel dealers.
Assembly substitute amendment 1 adoption:
Ayes: 10 - Representatives Seratti, Vrakas, Kreibich, Kaufert, Owens, Huebsch, Rutkowski, Wilder, Plombon and Springer.
Noes: 0.
Concurrence as amended:
Ayes: 10 - Representatives Seratti, Vrakas, Kreibich, Kaufert, Owens, Huebsch, Rutkowski, Wilder, Plombon and Springer.
Noes: 0.
To committee on Rules.
Lorraine Seratti
Chairperson
Committee on Small Business and Economic Development
The committee on Urban Education reports and recommends:
Senate Bill 290
Relating to: children-at-risk programs operated by the Milwaukee Public Schools.
Concurrence:
Ayes: 7 - Representatives Williams, Duff, Nass, Lazich, Grothman, Walker and Black.
Noes: 0.
To committee on Rules.
Annette Polly Williams
Chairperson
Committee on Urban Education
The committee on Ways and Means reports and recommends:
Senate Bill 360
Relating to: exempting all transfers between spouses from the real estate transfer fee.
Concurrence:
Ayes: 15 - Representatives Lehman, Klusman, Coleman, Underheim, Seratti, Gard, Goetsch, Huebsch, Handrick, Wood, Robson, Turner, Hanson, Riley and Ziegelbauer.
Noes: 0.
To committee on Rules.
Michael Lehman
Chairperson
Committee on Ways and Means
__________________
Executive Communications
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
Madison
To the Honorable, the Assembly:
The following bills, originating in the Assembly, have been approved, signed and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State:
Bill Number Act Number Date Approved
571287
April 25, 1996
550288
April 25, 1996
591 (partial veto)289April 25, 1996
495
290April 25, 1996
528291
April 25, 1996
585296
April 29, 1996
Respectfully submitted,
Tommy G. Thompson
Governor
__________________
Governor's Veto Message
April 26, 1996
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
I have approved
Assembly Bill 591 as
1995 Act 289 and have deposited it in the Office of the Secretary of State. I have exercised the partial veto in a number of areas.
I am very pleased to sign the country's most significant piece of welfare reform legislation. Through a series of waivers and pilot programs, beginning with Learnfare in 1987, we have established the basic premise that for those who can work, only work should pay, and that everybody should work to the extent of their abilities. Welfare should be used as a temporary last resort, and should provide incentives to promote individuals' efforts to attain self sufficiency. It should provide only as much service as an individual asks for and its fairness should be measured by comparison to working families who are supporting their families without public assistance. This set of principles has been one of the keystones of this administration. It culminates with the signing of this bill.
Several years ago, as a result of those waivers and pilot programs, we had established a foundation which resulted in significant consensus between the executive and legislative branches on the need to move forward to meaningful, comprehensive restructuring of the welfare system. It remained only to determine the design of that reform. AB 591, Wisconsin Works or W-2, is that design. It is the result of many months of concentrated work by both of these branches of government, and I have every confidence that it will change and improve both the lives of those who must rely on some support from their government and the communities in which they live.
Working together to implement the provisions of AB 591, we can change our state forever to one where those who are able to work do so, and where those who are not are given the incentives and supports they need to enable them to do so. We will be a state where all citizens are educated and trained to work and expected to do so, where communities work together to provide temporary help to those who need it, and where the government of the state acts to enable persons to work, instead of simply providing cash to individuals who are not working.
WISCONSIN WORKS PROVISIONS
A1091
The Wisconsin Works (W-2) initiative that I proposed in September 1995 is enacted in this legislation. It responds to the directive in
1993 Wisconsin Act 99 to replace the current welfare system by January 1, 1999. That replacement system, as embodied in this legislation, will have the following characteristics for clients:
• For those who cannot immediately enter the workforce, provide 3 levels of employment support:
- Trial jobs, for which a subsidy is provided to employers for a limited time, to meet the needs of those without a work history;
- Community Service jobs, for those who need to practice the work habits and skills necessary to be hired by a private business; and
- W-2 Transition jobs, for those not yet able to perform self-sustaining work, where they can participate in activities consistent with their abilities.
• Provide health care, delivered through managed care providers, to all families with low incomes and low assets who do not have coverage provided by their employers. All families will pay a portion of their health care premium based on income.
• Provide child care for all eligible families with low income and low assets who need it to work. All families will pay a portion of their child care costs based on income.
• Provide educational or training opportunities for those who are in Community Service or W-2 Transition employment, to enable them to increase their earning potential.
• Provide other services that a client needs such as transportation, job access loans and the services of a financial and employment planner for every client who needs assistance in developing a plan for self-sufficiency.
• Assure that child support payments go to whom they belong - working custodial parents and their children.
To underline that W-2 is intended to help people become self-sufficient, not substitute for self-sufficiency, participation in the employment components will be limited to 60 months overall, with some exceptions, and will be limited to shorter periods for each component. To insure that clients receive the assistance they need, W-2 agency contracts will be performance-based, so funds will be channeled to the agencies that are the most successful in placing and keeping people in private sector employment.
Not only does this legislation provide supports to people differently than in the past, it also provides those supports through a different delivery system. The new system is intended to strengthen the ties between people and their communities by creating more support for the needed services at the local level, and to integrate employment programs at the state level. To achieve this the W-2 legislation includes the creation of:
• Local Community Steering Committees, made of up community leaders to oversee the creation of job opportunities; and
• Children's Services Networks, to provide a link from families to a comprehensive array of services such as food and clothing centers, transportation and housing.
In
1995 Wisconsin Act 27, the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR), the department responsible for other state-level job programs was given responsibility for the current welfare program and, therefore, for its replacement. DILHR, to be renamed the Department of Industry, Labor and Job Development (DILJD), will integrate the W-2 program into its Partnership for Full Employment system. As a result of these programs coming together, W-2 will be able to offer its clients the advantages of "one stop shopping" in areas where the W-2 agency and the Job Center are co-located. It will therefore make the established network between employers and job seekers more accessible to W-2 clients.
W-2 means the end of the automatic welfare check. This comprehensive replacement will demand more of participants, but in the long run it will provide independence and a future. The process of developing this legislation has involved citizens and professionals all over the state. Without that help this dramatic break with the past could not have occurred.
Partial Vetoes
We now face the equally difficult task of implementing W-2. While I am very pleased that AB 591 passed with bipartisan support, I am using the partial veto in a number of areas. I have done so primarily to remove some of the more onerous and unnecessary rule making requirements or to provide increased flexibility for the operation of the program. Both of these are necessary to ensure its success.
W-2 Implementation Date
Section 84 [as it relates to the W-2 program implementation date] specifies that if a federal waiver is granted or legislation passed, DILJD shall implement W-2 statewide no sooner than July 1, 1996 and no later than September 1, 1997. I am exercising the partial veto in this section to remove the specific date in September by which W-2 must be implemented statewide because the department needs one additional implementation month. The original timetable was constructed last summer and assumed passage by fall or early winter.
State as a Provider of Last Resort
Section 85 [as it relates to the state as the provider of last resort] specifies that if no acceptable provider in a geographical area is selected under the competitive or noncompetitive processes outlined in the bill, DILJD shall administer the W-2 program directly for that geographical area. I am exercising the partial veto in this section to strike the word "directly" because DILJD needs more flexibility in this situation to either subcontract the administration of the W-2 program or operate the program itself.
A1092
W-2 Contract Requirements
Section 85 [as it relates to requirements for the W-2 agency contracts] requires the department to award the W-2 contracts at least six months before statewide implementation. It also specifies that the W-2 contract may only be terminated by the mutual consent of both parties. I am exercising the partial veto in this section to remove both the six month requirement and the restriction on when a W-2 contract may be terminated because the department will need additional flexibility in the implementation of W-2, which will be a challenging and difficult task. The department may need to adjust timeframes as statewide implementation draws closer. I do recognize, however, that the W-2 agencies must be given sufficient time to prepare, especially in those geographical areas where the county has elected to not participate in W-2. I am, therefore, directing the department to come as close as possible to the six month timeframe, reporting to me if this goal is not achievable. In addition, I am partially vetoing the language regarding the need to have the mutual consent of both parties to terminate a contract to allow the department to terminate the contract of a non-performer.
Rulemaking
Sections 85 [as it relates to rulemaking for W-2 contract components], 88, 94 [as it relates to rulemaking regarding refusal to pay certain child care providers], 95 and 99g all require DILJD to promulgate rules for certain W-2 program components. I am exercising the partial veto in these sections to remove the rulemaking requirement. First, I do not believe that it was necessary to put this much programmatic and operational detail either into the statutes or to require the development of administrative rules on almost every component in W-2. The legislature understandably wants to maintain oversight over this program because it is new and radically different than the current welfare system. However, in order for the department to be able to successfully implement W-2 in the timeframe outlined in AB591, it needs a certain amount of flexibility. The department must focus on the development of federal waivers, the W-2 request for proposals and other critical steps in the transition from AFDC to W-2. Having to promulgate rules for so many parts of W-2 will only consume valuable staff resources that are needed elsewhere. The Legislature will be very involved in the W-2 implementation through upcoming s.
13.10 requests, the 1997-99 biennial budget and, more than likely, follow-up legislation. It is not prudent to impede the department's ability to implement W-2 by requiring it to promulgate rules on matters that can be done either in the W-2 contracts or as part of the administrative handbook and policy clarification memos to the W-2 agencies.
Requirements on Employers
Section 85 [as it relates to requirements for written contracts with trial job employer] specifies that the W-2 agency must enter into a written contract with each trial job employer. The contract terms shall include the hourly wage at which the trial job participant is to be paid, which may not be less than minimum wage. I am exercising the partial veto in this section because it is not necessary to include the requirement to have a written contract in the statutes. Without statutory language directing this, written contracts are already used in the on-the-job (OJT) training programs and will also be used in the W-2 program.
Extensions of the 60 Month Lifetime Limit
Section 86 specifies that the W-2 agency may extend the 60 month overall time limit on participation, if warranted by unusual circumstances, only in 12-month increments. In addition, DILJD must approve each extension. I believe that the W-2 agencies should work intensively with each client who needs to receive an extension of the 60 month time limit. To be able to provide only as much service as needed, their cases should be extended only as needed, not in 12-month increments. These extensions should be determined by the W-2 agency, in accordance with rules promulgated by the department, as the W-2 agencies are the most familiar with the client's case history. I do not believe it is necessary that the department review each and every case, but it will retain the right to review any case in any geographical area. I am therefore exercising my partial veto of this section to remove the specific 12-month increment and the requirement that the department review each extension of the 60 month time limit.
Exemption from Work Requirements for Mothers with Young Children
