I am vetoing this provision because I object to the potential expansion of the SAGE program to districts that do not meet the current eligibility requirements. The SAGE program should be dedicated to those districts that have an above average number of low-income pupils. The effect of this veto is to honor the Legislature's recommendation to provide $5,700,000 in fiscal year 1998-99 to implement the SAGE program in kindergarten and first grade for districts that meet the current eligibility requirements.
5. Revenue Limits--School Districts with Declining Enrollments
Section 2902v
This section provides that, beginning in 1998-99 and thereafter, a school district with a decline in its three-year rolling enrollment average would receive a three-year revenue limit adjustment providing a dollar amount equal to: (1) 75% of the revenues lost in the most recent year; (2) 50% of the revenues lost in the second most recent year; and (3) 25% of the revenues lost in the third most recent year. No further adjustments would be provided after the third year. These adjustments would be non-recurring and calculated separately.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the adjustment to district revenues in 1999-2000 and thereafter. This veto will not affect the declining enrollment provisions in this act for the 1997-99 biennium. However, while providing some immediate fiscal relief to districts with declining enrollments is reasonable, the fiscal impact of enrollment changes, both increasing and decreasing, needs a more comprehensive review. I will work with the Legislature to permanently resolve this issue in a way that will address both state and school district concerns.
6. Date Requirement for Full-Time and Part-Time Open Enrollment Policies
Sections 2843g and 2843r
These sections provide that school boards must adopt guidelines and policies for full-time and part-time open enrollment by December 1, 1997.
Due to the late passage of the 1997-99 biennial budget bill, I am partially vetoing these sections by striking the digit "1", thereby providing school boards with the entire month of December to fulfill these requirements as they relate to these programs. Given the delayed passage of the budget, school boards should have additional time to adopt guidelines and policies for the open enrollment program.
7. Wisconsin Educational Opportunity Program
Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.255 (1) (a)] provides $68,900 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $137,800 in fiscal year 1998-99 for an additional 3.0 FTE positions for the Wisconsin Educational Opportunity Program (WEOP). Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in a Senate amendment to the bill.
A330
By lining out DPI's s.
20.255 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes the $206,700 GPR provided for this purpose in fiscal years 1997-98 and 1998-99, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds these 3.0 FTE positions. With the Senate's restoration of the proposed reduction to DPI's base budget, the Department will have additional resources beyond what was originally anticipated. If expanding WEOP services is a DPI priority, consideration should be given to the internal reallocation of resources. I am also requesting the Department of Administration Secretary not to allot these funds. Furthermore, I am requesting the Secretary not to authorize 3.0 GPR FTE positions.
State historical society
8. Nonresident Library Fee
Sections 1345ej, 1345em and 9424 (1x)
These sections require the Historical Society to charge a fee for the use of the main library or for research services to any nonresident who is not a member of the Historical Society, a member of the faculty or academic staff of the University of Wisconsin or a student enrolled in a University of Wisconsin campus. Section 1345em also requires the society to submit a fee schedule to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) for approval under a passive review process.
I am partially vetoing section 1345em to remove JCF approval of the fee schedule because this adds an unnecessary level of review on an administrative matter that should be determined by the Historical Society's Board of Curators. I am partially vetoing sections 1345ej, 1345em and 9424 (1x) because I also object to the requirement that the Historical Society charge a fee for the use of the main library. While charging a fee for research services is reasonable considering the substantial level of staff resources that are involved in such activities, charging a fee for nonresidents' use of the publicly accessible resources of the main library would be administratively cumbersome and unlikely to generate sufficient revenue to cover costs. The Historical Society will still be required to charge a fee to nonresidents who are provided research services by the society.
Technology for Educational Achievement in wisconsin board (Teach)
9. TEACH Membership
Section 52
This provision authorizes the chairperson of the Educational Communications Board (ECB) to appoint a member of the ECB to the TEACH Board.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the ECB chairperson's responsibility for appointing a member of the ECB to the TEACH Wisconsin Board. The effect of this veto will be to retain ECB membership on the TEACH Board while giving appointing authority for this position to the Governor. Since the Governor is ultimately accountable for the success of the TEACH program, he or she should have primary responsibility for appointing members of the TEACH Board.
10. Emergency Rulemaking
Sections 1347 [as it relates to s.
44.72 (1) (d) and
(4) (a)], 3150, 9101 (9m), (9s) and (13p) and 9141 (1)
These provisions require the TEACH Board to do the following:
• Promulgate rules establishing procedures and criteria for awarding educational technology training and technical assistance grants.
• Promulgate rules for making subsidized educational technology infrastructure loans.
• Promulgate emergency rules related to educational technology and software purchases by school districts, cooperative educational service agencies, technical college districts and the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents.
• Submit all proposed rules to the Joint Committee on Finance for a 14 day passive review.
Furthermore, these provisions require the PSC to do the following:
• Consult with the Telecommunications Privacy Council before promulgating rules related to the telecommunications access program.
• Submit proposed rules for the telecommunications access program to the Joint Committee on Finance for a passive 14 day review.
I am partially vetoing all of these provisions because I object to having the Legislature manage agency programs and to creating additional demands on agencies at a time when budgets are constrained. Furthermore, the TEACH Board and PSC need the flexibility to respond to the rapidly changing distance education and educational technology environments.
11. Technology Grants for Public Libraries
This provision creates a competitive technology grant program for public libraries and provides funding of $450,000 GPR annually.
I am partially vetoing this provision to delete the separate technology grant program for public libraries. Public libraries will receive a substantial increase in support through an additional $2.6 million provided in the budget for Public Library Systems Aids. In addition, the TEACH program will provide public libraries with subsidized loans for technology wiring projects, subsidized rates for Internet access and an opportunity to receive state funding for technical assistance and technology training.
12. Common School Fund Income Block Grants
Section 270 stipulates that Common School Fund Income (CSFI) monies cannot be used to fund educational technology block grants to school districts after June 30, 1998.
A331
I am partially vetoing these sections to delete the June 30, 1998 sunset date on these block grants. Providing technology block grants to school districts is a central feature of the TEACH program. As Wisconsin moves into the 21st century, a concerted effort must be made to help school districts adapt to the technological demands of public instruction in the future. Retaining CSFI funding of school district technology needs will provide the resources necessary to assist school districts to integrate the latest technological innovations into the classroom, while preserving the CSFI's traditional role of providing financial support to school libraries.
university of wisconsin system
13. Sunset of Tuition Revenue Expenditure Authority
Sections 280 and 281
These provisions authorize the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System to expend up to four percent more than the amount appropriated in the appropriation under s.
20.285(1) (im) in FY98 and seven percent more than the amount appropriated in the appropriation under s.
20.285(1) (im) in FY99, provided that sufficient revenues are available. These provisions also include sunset dates for this additional expenditure authority, so that this authority does not apply after the 1997-99 fiscal biennium.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to eliminate the sunset dates because this authority provides the Board of Regents with the continuing flexibility it will require to meet rapidly changing student needs, including distance education, libraries, advising, faculty recruitment and retention and other emerging priorities.
14. Executive Salaries
Sections 756c and 758
These provisions establish new maximum salaries for the following executive positions within the University of Wisconsin System: president, vice presidents, chancellors of each campus and certain vice chancellors.
I am vetoing these provisions because there is insufficient documentation that the current salary maximums create recruitment and retention problems for all the administrators listed in section 756c. Under current law, the maximum salaries for executive positions within the University of Wisconsin System are already at the highest level of any executive position in state government. However, I recognize that in selected cases, especially with respect to the recruitment of chancellors, the salary maximums may hamper the ability of the Board of Regents to attract the most highly qualified candidates. Therefore, I am requesting the Secretary of the Department of Employment Relations to conduct an analysis of the competitiveness of the salary structure for the University of Wisconsin's top administrators, especially chancellors, compared to public universities in other states. Furthermore, I request that the study be completed by January 31, 1998.
15. Auxiliary Enterprises
Sections 273, 277 and 1173s
These provisions require the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System to promulgate rules regarding the definition of "one-time, fixed duration costs" and "student-related activity," as well as the criteria which the Board would use in approving campus uses of auxiliary reserve funds. Further, these provisions require that any request to transfer auxiliary reserve funds for the purpose of funding non-auxiliary activities be subject to approval by the Joint Committee on Finance under a 14-day passive review process.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to eliminate the requirement that the Board promulgate rules, including the definition of "one-time, fixed duration costs" and "student-related activity," as well as the criteria which the Board would use in approving campus uses of auxiliary reserve funds. This partial veto will also eliminate the requirement that any request to transfer auxiliary reserve funds for the purpose of funding non-auxiliary activities be subject to approval by the Joint Committee on Finance. It is unnecessary to promulgate rules for this initiative. The Board should have the flexibility to independently determine the uses of auxiliary reserve funds.
16. Study of University of Wisconsin Faculty Salaries
Section 9153 (4g)
This provision requires the Robert M. La Follette Institute of Public Affairs of the University of Wisconsin-Madison to study the method that the Board of Regents uses to compare the salaries of faculty at the University of Wisconsin System to the salaries of faculty at other institutions of higher education.
I am vetoing this provision because a study of the methodology used to compare salaries should be done by a third party. While I do not oppose a study of salary comparisons, the study should not be done by the University of Wisconsin System.
17. Institute for Excellence in Urban Education
Section 94mm
This provision creates a council to oversee the Institute for Excellence in Urban Education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, as created by this act.
I am vetoing this provision because there is no need to have a statutory council to oversee the operation of this program. If an advisory body is determined to be necessary, the Board of Regents has sufficient authority to create one without a statutory mandate.
18. Advising Initiative
A332
Section 169 [as it relates to ss.
20.285 (1) (a) and
20.285 (1) (im)] provides $65,000 GPR, $35,000 PR and 2.5 GPR FTE positions in fiscal year 1997-98, and $195,000 GPR, $105,000 PR and 3.5 GPR FTE positions in fiscal year 1998-99 for a pilot program at two campuses to improve academic and career advising efforts. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of the funding was included in a Senate amendment to the bill.
I object to the size of this increase because it is excessive. While this project may have merit, it is more appropriate to initiate this project on one four-year comprehensive campus. Therefore, by lining out the University of Wisconsin System's s.
20.285 (1) (a) appropriation and the s.
20.285 (1) (im) appropriation and writing in smaller amounts that delete $13,000 GPR and $7,000 PR in fiscal year 1997-98, which provides funding for 0.5 GPR FTE positions, and $143,000 GPR and $77,000 PR in fiscal year 1998-99, which provides funding for 3.5 GPR FTE positions, I am partially vetoing the part of the bill which funds this program. The effect of this veto will be to authorize funding for 2.0 FTE positions. I am also requesting the Department of Administration Secretary not to allot these funds, and not to authorize the 4.0 GPR FTE positions. I am also requesting the Board of Regents to ensure that this initiative is initially implemented on a comprehensive campus. If the Board of Regents determines that more positions are necessary to accommodate this project, internal reallocations may be made. (Note: Appropriation s.
20.285(1)(a) is also affected by veto #19, page 8.)
19. University of Wisconsin-Extension
Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.285 (1) (a)] provides $25,000 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $25,000 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 for the Division of Continuing Education. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in a Joint Committee on Finance budget motion.
I object to this increase because the University of Wisconsin-Extension has had $2,000,000 GPR restored to its budget for the next biennium. If UW-Extension believes that additional funding is needed in this area, it has authority to transfer resources to the Division of Continuing Education. By lining out the University of Wisconsin System's s.
20.285 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes the $25,000 GPR provided annually for this purpose in fiscal years 1997-98 and 1998-99, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration Secretary not to allot these funds. (Note: Appropriation s.
20.285(1)(a) is also affected by veto #18, page 7.)
20. University of Wisconsin Medical School
Section 9153 (2zgg)
Section 9153 (2zgg) provides $90,900 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $181,900 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 to the University of Wisconsin Medical School Department of Family Medicine and Practice for the purpose of expanding family practice residency programs in medically underserved areas in Milwaukee.
I am vetoing this provision because family practice residency programs in Milwaukee have been traditionally and effectively administered by the Medical College of Wisconsin (MCW). While I do not object to expanding family practice residencies in Milwaukee, this expansion should be administered by MCW. Therefore, I am requesting the Department of Administration Secretary
not to allot these funds. I would support separate legislation that provides MCW with equivalent resources to expand family practice residency programs in medically underserved areas within Milwaukee's inner city.
Wisconsin Technical
college system
21. Incentive Grants Appropriation
These sections alter the Technical College System incentive grants appropriation to an annual appropriation. I am vetoing these sections because the Wisconsin Technical College System Board needs to have the flexibility to administer these limited grants in the best interest of the Technical College System.
22. Youth Options--Attendance at Technical Colleges
Section 2844 [as it relates to a space available exception to technical college requirement to admit youth option pupils]
This section defines the pupil eligibility criteria, school district and technical college district requirements and payment mechanisms for the technical college portion of the Youth Options program. This section allows a technical college district board to reject a pupil's application to the technical college under the program if the district board determines that there is no space available for the pupil.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the space available exception to the requirement that a technical college shall admit otherwise eligible pupils. This program provides technical colleges with a level of funding for educating Youth Options pupils that is adequate to cover the full cost of instruction. I am concerned that this provision would limit high school pupils' access to the educational opportunities made available through the Youth Options program.
23. Youth Options--Payment Negotiation
Sections 2844 [as it relates to proposing an alternative payment mechanism] and 9140 (6sr)
A333
Section 2844 defines the pupil eligibility criteria, school district and technical college district requirements and payment mechanisms for the technical college portion of the Youth Options program. This section and section 9140 (6sr) also provide a mechanism by which the technical college system board, the Wisconsin Association of School Boards and the School Administrators Alliance can propose an alternate method for determining the amount that a school board must pay a technical college for each pupil attending a technical college under the Youth Options program. If the Department of Public Instruction approves the alternate payment determination method, and if it is approved by the Joint Committee on Finance under a 14-day passive review process, the alternate payment method shall be implemented.
I am partially vetoing these sections because the payment method was established based on discussions involving representatives of the technical colleges, school boards and school administrators. Furthermore, I am satisfied that the provisions contained in this section establish a fair and equitable payment mechanism and no alternative method is necessary.
__________________
