Wednesday, September 13, 1995
The chief clerk makes the following entries under the above date.
__________________
Read first time and referred:
Senate Bill 328
Relating to: collect telephone calls and providing a penalty.
By
Senators
Wineke, Burke, Andrea, Moen, Plewa, Buettner and Schultz; cosponsored by Representatives Powers, Musser, Hanson, F. Lasee, Ryba, Wilder, Ziegelbauer, La Fave, Schneiders, Porter, Brandemuehl, Dobyns, Duff, Freese, Goetsch, Green, Hahn, Hoven, Kreibich, Skindrud, Olsen, Ward, Ott, Seratti, Silbaugh, Albers, Kelso and Walker
.
To committee on Judiciary.
Senate Bill 329
Relating to: the expenditure of a sum sufficient equal to $116,854 plus interest from the transportation fund for payment of a claim against the state made by James Cape and Sons Company.
By
Senator
Petak
; cosponsored by Representative Ladwig
.
To joint committee on Finance.
Senate Bill 330
Relating to: the appointment to the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin System and creating a board of regents nominating council.
By
Senators
Risser, Moen, Clausing, Chvala and Moore; cosponsored by Representatives Baldwin, Baldus, Ryba, Boyle, Turner, Black and Gronemus
.
To committee on Education and Financial Institutions.
Senate Bill 331
Relating to: special distinguishing registration plates associated with professional athletic teams, payments to D.A.R.E. Wisconsin, Ltd., and making an appropriation.
By
Senators
Drzewiecki, Fitzgerald, Rosenzweig, Panzer, Schultz, Clausing and Huelsman; cosponsored by Representatives Kelso, Dobyns, Plombon, Carpenter, Ladwig, Goetsch, Hahn, Riley, Olsen, Handrick, Gunderson, Ward, Ott and Seratti
.
To committee on Transportation, Agriculture and Local Affairs.
Senate Bill 332
Relating to: the midwest interstate low-level radioactive waste compact.
By
Senators
Cowles, Burke and Farrow; cosponsored by Representatives Duff and Bock, by request of Governor Tommy G. Thompson.
To committee on Environment and Energy.
__________________
The committee on Senate Organization reports and recommends:
Senate Bill 289
Relating to: membership of the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin System.
Passage.
Ayes, 6 - Senators Ellis, Rude, Farrow, Jauch, Risser and Moen.
Noes, 0 - None.
Michael Ellis
Chairperson
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Committee on Senate Organization
September 7, 1995
The Honorable, The Senate:
Pursuant to Senate Rule
20, I have made the following appointments to Joint Standing Committees:
Joint Finance: Senator Brian Burke and Senator Russell Decker
With regards to members of the Democratic party, the appointments reflect recommendations of that caucus.
Sincerely,
Senator Michael G. Ellis
Chair
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
September 13, 1995
The Honorable, The Legislature:
We have completed a review of issues related to the effect of mandates on local school districts, as requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. Our efforts focused on developing information that may be of use in completing a future study of the effect of mandates on peer pupil expenditures, including determining the mandates of greatest concern to local officials.
S323
Although discussions about mandates often focus on the 20 standards delineated in s.
121.02, Wis. Stats., school districts are subject to a far larger number of federal and state requirements; state statutes alone delineate at least 280 such requirements. In addition to educational standards, these requirements address such things as safety, finance, and building maintenance.
Based on survey responses of 315 school board presidents and superintendents, it appears the great majority recognize that state mandates stem from the State's overall responsibility for education. However, there is widespread frustration with mandates and general agreement that additional funding and flexibility are needed. Those requirements about which concerns were most frequently expressed were the 20 standards, special education, and limits on district revenue increases.
Despite expressed concerns, we were unable to identify any existing model for efficiently measuring the fiscal effect of mandates, including the extent to which district expenditures are attributable to local initiatives rather than state or federal requirements. In addition, although some local officials offered to assist in the development of information necessary to complete such an analysis, others asserted that the need to develop or provide such information would be viewed as another state mandate.
Rather than develop information about expenditures that have already been incurred, it may be more practical to adopt strategies for measuring the costs of mandates in the future, particularly new mandates. The Legislature has, however, already taken some steps to address concerns about mandates, including increasing district flexibility and eliminating some mandates.
Sincerely,
