Under current law, certain proceedings in a criminal case may be conducted by
telephone or live audiovisual means, if available. Some of these proceedings may be
conducted by telephone or live audiovisual means only with the consent of the
defendant. This bill eliminates the requirement for the defendant's consent. Under
the bill, either party may request that the proceedings be conducted by telephone or
live audiovisual means. The court may then permit the proceedings to be conducted
by telephone or live audiovisual means unless the opposing party shows good cause
for not doing so.
Under current law, in antitrust actions, the court may award private parties,
but not the department of justice (DOJ), the costs of a suit, including reasonable
attorney fees. The costs must be paid by the losing party. In pollution discharge
actions, the court may award DOJ the costs of any investigation and monitoring
related to a prosecution. Current law does not give the court authority to provide any
similar awards to DOJ in consumer protection, medical assistance fraud and
environmental protection actions.
This bill permits the court, in consumer protection, environmental protection,
medical assistance fraud and pollution discharge actions, to award DOJ an amount
reasonably necessary to remedy the harmful effects of the violation, the costs of the
suit, including attorney fees and the expenses of investigation and prosecution.
Under current law, the judicial commission, composed of 5 nonlawyers
appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate and 2 judges and 2 state
bar members appointed by the supreme court, investigates any misconduct or
permanent disability of a judge or court commissioner. The supreme court reviews
the actions of the commission and determines the appropriate discipline or action to
take in response to the commission's investigation.
Under current law, the judicial council studies the rules of practice and
procedure in the courts and the organization and methods of operation of the courts.
The judicial council recommends changes in court practice and procedure to the
legislature and to the supreme court and advises the supreme court in the
promulgation of rules that regulate pleadings, practice and procedure in judicial
proceedings.
This bill retains both the judicial commission and the judicial council but
abolishes the executive secretary of and clerical support for the judicial council.
Under the bill, the judicial commission provides staff services to the judicial council.
This bill provides immunity from civil liability for property damage if the
person causing the damage was acting in good faith in containing and stabilizing a
discharge of oil into any navigable waterway and was under the direction of a state
or federal hazardous substance contingency plan, a federal on-scene coordinator or
the secretary of natural resources. This immunity does not apply to a person who
possesses or controls the oil which is discharged, who causes the discharge of the oil
or whose act or omission involves reckless, wanton or intentional misconduct.
Public defender
Under current law, the SPD may seek payment for legal services provided to
persons who are indigent in part, from the parents of children for whom the SPD
provides legal counsel who are not indigent or who are indigent in part and from
persons who have been represented by the SPD and whose financial circumstances
improve.
Under this bill, the SPD must establish a system to verify the income, assets
and expenses of the persons seeking representation, to make redeterminations of
indigency during the course of representation and to collect payments from persons
who have been provided counsel. The bill authorizes the SPD to gain access to, and
to receive copies of, the income tax returns of its clients from whom the SPD seeks
payment for legal representation.
Under current law, if an indigent person is the respondent in a paternity action
and the petitioner is represented by the district attorney, corporation counsel,
attorney responsible for support enforcement or some other state or county attorney,
the indigent person is entitled to state-paid legal counsel under the SPD program
on the issues of paternity determination and initial child support establishment.
The legal services provided by SPD end, however, if during the paternity proceeding
the results of blood tests show that the respondent is excluded as the father or that
the statistical probability of the respondent being the father is 99.0% or higher. This
bill eliminates entirely the entitlement of an indigent respondent in a paternity
action to state-paid legal services provided by SPD.
Under a decision by the Wisconsin court of appeals, which the Wisconsin
supreme court refused to review and thus upheld, an indigent person is entitled to
representation by the SPD in an action for contempt of court that is brought by the
state because the person, if found in contempt, may be incarcerated.
Brotzman v.
Brotzman, 91 Wis. 2d 335 (1979). This bill provides that the SPD may not provide
legal representation to a person who is subject to a contempt of court proceeding for
failure to pay child or family support if the matter is not brought by the state or if
the judge or family court commissioner hearing the matter certifies to the SPD that
the person will not be incarcerated if found in contempt.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
