Relating to open end credit, maximum periodic rates and licensed lenders under s.
138.09, stats.
Submitted by Office of the Commissioner of Banking.
Report received from Agency on May 20, 1996.
To committee on Financial Institutions
.
Referred on May 28, 1996
.
__________________
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
1048 (partial veto)351May 22, 1996
853353
May 23, 1996
459354
May 23, 1996
786355
May 23, 1996
781356
May 23, 1996
895357
May 23, 1996
913358
May 23, 1996
427361
May 28, 1996
510362
May 28, 1996
728363
May 28, 1996
782364
May 28, 1996
926365
May 28, 1996
1079366
May 28, 1996
1004372
May 28, 1996
438373
May 28, 1996
Respectfully submitted,
Tommy G. Thompson
Governor
__________________
Governor's Veto Message
May 23, 1996
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
I have approved
Assembly Bill 1048 as
1995 Wisconsin Act 351 and have deposited it in the Office of the Secretary of State. I have exercised my partial veto authority in sections 41 (7) and (7q).
Section 41 (7) requires the Educational Technology Board (ETB) to recommend in its 1997-99 budget request statutory changes to s.
16.992 to provide the ETB with the opportunity to provide school districts with a waiver of the 25% local match requirement for grants awarded by the Pioneering Partners Program for districts unable to meet the match requirement.
A1165
I am vetoing this provision because current law already permits Pioneering Partners applicants to fulfill the program's match requirement through the use of in-kind contributions. Furthermore, eliminating the match requirement for certain school districts limits the state's ability to leverage available funds to provide as much local investment in educational technology projects as possible. Finally, I am vetoing this item because the legislative branch should not mandate what specific initiatives executive branch agencies must include in their biennial budget requests.
Although I am exercising a partial veto of Section 41 (7), I recognize the special needs of small, rural school districts that may have fiscal constraints limiting their ability to meet ETB match requirements. As a result, I will work with the ETB in the 1997-99 biennial budget process to provide a mechanism that addresses this concern.
Section 41 (7q) expresses the Legislature's intent to appropriate an additional $5,000,000 for grants to be distributed by the ETB to school districts and library boards in the 1997-99 biennium. This section also expresses the Legislature's intent to exclude this amount from state school aids for the purposes of section
121.15 (3m) (a) 2. of the statutes, which is the definition of state school aids for determining partial school revenues and the state's two-thirds share of school revenues.
I am partially vetoing section 41 (7q) to eliminate the intent to exclude the additional $5,000,000 from the definition of state school aids under section
121.15 (3m) (a) 2. of the statutes. Under current law, the amount appropriated for grants by the ETB under section 20.505 (4) (er) is included in the definition of state school aids under section 121.15 (3m) (a) 2. I am partially vetoing this section because the intent is inconsistent with the treatment of the appropriation under current law. In addition, I object to the precedent this intent statement establishes regarding excluding state school aid appropriations or portions thereof from the state's share of partial school revenues.
Sincerely,
Tommy G. Thompson
Governor
__________________
Communications
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Secretary of State
Madison
To Whom It May Concern:
Acts, Joint Resolutions and Resolutions deposited in this office have been numbered and published as follows:
Bill Number Act Number Publication Date
Assembly Bill 745337May 31, 1996
Assembly Bill 821338May 31, 1996
Sincerely,
Douglas La Follette
Secretary of State
__________________
Agency Reports
State of Wisconsin
Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations
Madison
March 1, 1996
To the Honorable, the Assembly:
As specified in 101.122, we are submitting last year's annual report for the Rental Weatherization Program. This program began on January 1, 1985. This is the tenth report of the program's operation. Additional copies of the report are available by contacting the program staff at:
Rental Weatherization Program
DILHR-Safety and Buildings Division
GEF I, Room 103
Telephone: (608)266-0671
Sincerely,
carol skornicka
Secretary, DILHR
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Industry, Labor and Human Resources
Madison
March 8, 1996
To the Honorable, the Assembly:
In accordance with Public Law 97-300, Part A, Section 104(b)(13) the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), and s.
101.26, Stats., the Preliminary Job Training Plans for the Wisconsin JTPA Service Delivery Areas have been submitted. They are hereby transmitted to you for your review.
If you have any questions concerning these reports or need additional information, please feel free to contact me or my staff.
Sincerely,
Gary Denis
Section Chief
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
March 11, 1996
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
We have completed our evaluation of the State Group Health Insurance program, as requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. In 1995 $75,487 active and retired state employes participated in the program at a total cost of more than $310 million.
A1166
Since 1984, the State's contribution to employe health insurance premiums has been based on the lower of 90 percent of the Standard Plan, which is the State's self-insured indemnity plan, or 105 percent of the lowest-cost alternative plan. The policy was designed to encourage health care providers to compete for enrollees through a competitive bidding process, resulting in cost savings for the State. By 1995, as a result of financial incentives, almost 90 percent of state employes were enrolled in one of the alternative plans offered by 24 participating health maintenance organizations and one preferred provider plan.
Although the program's costs increased 255.7 percent between 1983 and 1994, it is likely costs increased at a slower rate than would have otherwise been expected had the change in the contribution formula not been made. Cumulative cost savings to the State are, however, difficult to quantify, given changes in benefit levels and in the number and type of services provided. Other effects of the State's focus on cost control are more evident.
Because the State's current policy sets premium levels on a county-by-county basis, employe contributions towards insurance premiums for the same coverage offered by the same plan can vary dramatically. In 1995, employe contributions for family coverage under Standard Plan varied from $62.16 per month to $224.93 per month, or almost $2,000 annually. In addition, because premiums are set on an annual basis, premiums within a county can vary widely from year to year, particularly if there is a change in the lowest-priced plan. In 1995, employes in Milwaukee, Outagamie, Waukesha, and Winnebago counties experienced increases in their contribution toward health insurance premiums of up to 382 percent compared to the previous year if they did not switch to the lowest-cost plan available.
Options are available to the Legislature for modifying the program to address these concerns. However, most options available to address perceived program inequities will likely affect the ability of the State to control costs. Therefore, the merits of any possible modification must be weighed against the potential effect on the State's cost-control efforts.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the Department of Employe Trust Funds and members of the Group Insurance Board. A response from the Department is Appendix II.
Respectfully submitted,
Sincerely,
dale cattanach
