Section 1873f
This section specifies that no aid may be paid for the student eighteen year old aid program after the first day of the sixth month after the start of W-2 (September 1997). It was my original intent to end this program at the same time W-2 started. Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section so this program sunsets upon the first day of the month after the implementation of W-2. The Department of Workforce Development need not try to make any recoveries for benefits paid for the month of October.
28. Vocational Rehabilitation Case Service Aids
Section 1548m
This section directs the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to amend the state Vocational Rehabilitation plan under
29 USC 721 to include a grant program for the establishment, development and improvement of non-profit Community Rehabilitation Programs. Community rehabilitation programs would be required to provide a 25 percent match to receive funding under this program.
I am vetoing this section because, while the intent of this provision has merit, the section does not provide the department with the flexibility it needs to design a grant program which takes advantage of the capabilities of community rehabilitation programs, is fully integrated with the state Vocational Rehabilitation plan, is consistent with applicable federal regulations and meets the needs of citizens eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. Furthermore, under current law the department already has the authority to enter into agreements with community rehabilitation programs to accomplish the intent of this provision.
__________________
D. JUSTICE
corrections
1. Studies, Reports and Requirements
Sections 9111 (3g), 9111 (3v), 9111 (3x) and 9132 (1k)
These sections require the Department of Corrections (DOC) to:
• Design and propose funding for a secure juvenile detention facility in northwestern Wisconsin and submit a report on the design and funding to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) by March 1, 1998.
• Conduct an evaluation of the use of federal correctional facilities to house Wisconsin prisoners and submit a report to the JCF by March 1, 1998.
• Submit the results of any consultant's study on the reengineering of information systems in DOC to the Joint Committee on Information Policy for approval prior to implementation.
• Submit a plan for review and approval to the JCF regarding proposed revenues and expenditures for the private businesses and prison employment program during the 1997-99 biennium by February 1, 1998.
• Submit a joint plan in conjunction with the Department of Administration for review and approval of the JCF regarding the distribution of assets and liabilities between the prison industries program and the private business program in DOC by February 1, 1998.
I am vetoing these sections because of insufficient time to meet the reporting dates and the heavy additional workload these obligations impose on the department which already has a substantial number of major correctional issues to address in the 1997-99 biennium. However, I am requesting DOC to update its previous study on a secure juvenile detention facility in northwestern Wisconsin and provide the results to the members of the JCF. Additionally, I have asked the department to continue to keep members of the JCF informed on issues related to federal contract beds and members of the Joint Committee on Information Policy updated on the development of DOC information systems. The department is eager to share information and answer any legislative inquiries but the above requirements would create substantial demands on the department at a time when budgets are constrained.
2. Private Industry/Prison Employment Program
Sections 513m, 3909b, 3909m, 3910ce, 3910cf and 9111 (5c)
These provisions make the following changes to the private industry/prison employment program:
• Create a separate appropriation for private business employment of inmates and prohibit expenditures for construction or purchase of equipment from the private business appropriation without Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) approval.
• Limit the Department of Correction's (DOC) ability to purchase equipment for use by a private business.
• Authorize the Prison Industries Board to suspend manufacture, provision or sale of a product or service.
• Require DOC to define "displacement" by rule and make a determination that workers will not be displaced before entering into a contract with a private business.
• Prohibit the expansion of the scope of products or location of prison industries without the approval of the Prison Industries Board and a public hearing.
I am vetoing these provisions in whole or in part because they impose unnecessary restrictions on the ability of the executive branch of government to operate private industry and prison employment programs as efficient and cost-effective business operations.
A350
By vetoing the provision requiring DOC to define "displacement" by rule, I am avoiding making a rule which may conflict with the federal Prison Industries Enhancement Program (PIE) definition of displacement. I am requesting DOC to consult with the Prison Industries Board to address this issue upon completion of the federal Department of Justice's 1997 audit of the prison employment program.
Specifically, I am partially vetoing the portion of section 513m which prohibits expenditures for construction of buildings or purchase of equipment without JCF approval. I am also partially vetoing the portion of section 3909b which restricts the purchase of equipment and authorizes the Prison Industries Board to suspend the manufacture, provision or sale of a product or service. I am vetoing in whole all of the remaining sections.
3. Secure Inmate Work Program
Sections 3910g, 3913g and 9411 (1t)
These sections repeal the secure work program for inmates effective July 1, 1998. I am vetoing these sections to restore the secure work program as a permanent part of Wisconsin's correctional programs. Maintaining the secure inmate work program gives the Department of Corrections the required programming flexibility necessary to operate the correctional system effectively and efficiently.
4. Transfer Authority Relating to Juvenile Placements
Section 5268
This section authorizes the transfer of a juvenile age 15 and over from Lincoln Hills or Ethan Allen School to the Racine Youthful Offender Correctional Facility (RYOCF) only if the juvenile has been placed in the serious juvenile offender program, is subject to the extended jurisdiction of the juvenile court or has been convicted under original adult court jurisdiction. I am vetoing these restrictions on transfers to the RYOCF to allow the Department of Corrections (DOC) to operate the Lincoln Hills and Ethan Allen schools more effectively for the treatment and rehabilitation of youthful offenders. This partial veto will allow the Office of Juvenile Offender Review (OJOR) to transfer any juvenile age 15 or over from Lincoln Hills or Ethan Allen School to the RYOCF if, considering such factors as whether and to what extent the youth's conduct is violent and disruptive and the youth is refusing to cooperate or participate in the treatment programs provided, OJOR determines that the conduct of the juvenile presents a serious problem to the juvenile or others. However, it is my intent that the highest priority for placements at RYOCF be given to the juveniles that have been either (1) placed in the serious juvenile offender program, (2) subject to the extended jurisdiction of the juvenile court, or (3) convicted under original adult court jurisdiction.
5. Youth Aid Sum Sufficient Appropriation
These sections provide that the unencumbered balance of the serious juvenile offenders appropriation at the end of each fiscal year shall be transferred to the community youth and family aids appropriation, for supplemental distribution to counties by the Department of Corrections. Further, the community youth and family aids appropriation is changed from an annual sum certain appropriation to a sum sufficient appropriation equal to the amounts in the schedule plus the amounts transferred from the serious juvenile offenders appropriation.
I am partially vetoing these sections because I do not believe it is necessary for the community youth and family aids appropriation to be sum sufficient. By partially vetoing these provisions, the community youth and family aids appropriation will return to a GPR annual sum certain appropriation, limited to the amounts in the schedule, plus any unencumbered balance from the serious juvenile offenders appropriation.
6. Juvenile Justice Report
Section 9111 (4t)
This provision requires the Department of Corrections to evaluate the impact of the 1995 juvenile code changes and declining juvenile correctional populations on state and county costs of juvenile corrections and youth aids funding. Further, the Department of Corrections is required to submit a report to the Governor and the Joint Committee on Finance by March 1, 1998, which provides recommendations for funding state juvenile correctional care, including the possible reallocation or reduction of facility care costs if populations continue to decline.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the required date of March 1, 1998, to ensure that the Department of Corrections has adequate time to thoroughly analyze these issues and prepare the report. Although I am vetoing the date, I am requesting that the Department of Corrections make every effort to ensure the report is completed and submitted to the Governor and to the Joint Committee on Finance at the earliest possible date.
courts
7. Prison Impact Assessments
Sections 3m and 9101 (4t)
A351
These sections provide $26,600 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $42,800 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 and 1.0 GPR FTE research analyst position annually and require the Director of State Courts to prepare a prison impact assessment for any bill that creates a felony or modifies the period of imprisonment for a felony. Section 3m requires the Director of State Courts to prepare a prison impact assessment for any bill or, if requested, for any bill draft that creates a felony or modifies the period of imprisonment for a felony. Section 3m also requires the Director of State Courts to prepare an annual report reflecting the cumulative effect of all relevant changes in the statutes taking effect during the preceding calendar year. Further, section 3m requires the Department of Corrections and the circuit courts to provide the Director of State Courts with information to assist the Director in preparing the assessments. Finally, section 3m provides that no public hearing before a standing committee may be held and no committee vote may be taken regarding any bill or bill draft unless the assessment has been prepared. Section 9101 (4t) provides that the Department of Administration shall transfer all records of the Sentencing Commission to the Director of State Courts.
I am vetoing entirely sections 3m and 9101 (4t) to remove these provisions from the bill. While I recognize the need to improve our ability to estimate the fiscal ramifications of proposed legislation on our criminal justice system, it is not apparent that the courts are in the best position to collect the necessary data or examine all the issues involved. The effect of this veto will be to reduce expenditures in the sum sufficient appropriation under s.
20.680 (2) (a) by $26,600 in fiscal year 1997-98 and by $42,800 in fiscal year 1998-99. I am requesting the Department of Administration Secretary to reestimate expenditures by these amounts and I am also requesting the Secretary not to authorize the 1.0 FTE research analyst position.
justice
8. DOJ Representation in Clouded Title Cases
Sections 642q, 3092c, and 3094g.
These provisions allow the Department of Justice to represent any public official, a member of the public official's immediate family, or a family corporation in a proceeding to clear title to real property that has been clouded by the false, fraudulent or frivolous filing, entry or recordation of any instrument relating to title.
I am vetoing these sections entirely for two reasons. First, while the bill does not appropriate any money for the department in the 1997-99 biennium, it does open the door for significant GPR expenditures in future biennia. These provisions were not debated thoroughly enough to determine the extent of the problems public officials face or the extent to which the department would represent public officials. Second, I am not convinced that the state is the appropriate entity to provide legal representation in all of these matters. While I support the concept of these provisions, I believe these issues should not be included in the state budget and instead should be considered as separate legislation.
9. Collection of Delinquent Obligations
Section 3096m
This section broadens the authority of the Department of Justice to recoup reasonable and necessary legal expenses in matters involving the collection of delinquent obligations.
I am vetoing this section entirely because I am concerned about the duplication among the Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Administration (DOA) and the Department of Revenue (DOR) regarding the collection of delinquent obligations. Under
1995 Wisconsin Act 27, the Department of Justice was required to "monitor bankruptcy cases filed in bankruptcy courts in this state and other states, notify departments that may be affected by those bankruptcy cases, and represent the interests of the state in bankruptcy cases and related adversary proceedings" (s.
165.30(2) Wisconsin Statutes). Further,
1995 Act 27 enabled DOJ to recoup its legal expenses associated with collecting debts owed to the state by persons or legal business entities which have declared bankruptcy. These provisions were intended to be a self-supporting program revenue function limited to bankruptcy-related matters. All other legal expenses DOJ incurs related to representing agencies in delinquent obligation matters under s.
165.25, Wisconsin Statutes, are funded with general purpose revenue through appropriation s.
20.455 (1)(d), Legal Expenses. I am concerned that section 3096m would expand not only DOJ's ability to recoup its legal expenses, but its level of involvement in acting as collection agent for the State of Wisconsin.
DOA has entered into contractual agreements with private collection agencies to manage the collection of obligations owed to the state. I am pleased with the progress DOA has made in helping agencies collect delinquent obligations. By vetoing this section I am maintaining current law which limits the Department of Justice to recouping its legal expenses while representing the state in delinquent obligation collection matters to those cases involving bankruptcies.
The collection of obligations owed to the State of Wisconsin is a serious matter. For this reason, section 9143(6g) of the bill directs DOR to conduct a study on centralized debt collection for state government and report its findings to the Joint Committee on Finance. Until the conclusions of this study are released, I am not comfortable expanding DOJ's involvement in the collection of delinquent obligations. In the meantime, I am hopeful DOJ will continue to work with DOR to maximize the state's efforts to collect delinquent obligations in cases involving bankruptcy. The remainder of the state's collection activity should stay with DOA and DOR.
10. Attorney for Legal Services
This provision authorizes an additional $49,800 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $59,000 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 in s.
20.455 (1) (a), General Program Operations, and an additional $7,500 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $10,000 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 in s.
20.455 (1) (d), Legal Expenses, for 1.0 GPR FTE project attorney position in the Department of Justice to litigate cases between the State of Wisconsin and Native American tribes residing in the state. Although there is no language in the budget authorizing this funding and the additional position authority, motions passed by the Joint Committee on Finance increased the above appropriations for this purpose.
A352
I am partially vetoing this section because I do not believe an additional attorney position in the Department of Justice to litigate these matters is necessary. The department has represented the State of Wisconsin in these matters successfully thus far without negatively affecting the state's position in any other case in which it participates. I am not convinced that litigation of cases related to Native American tribes will increase enough during the 1997-99 biennium to warrant adding a position for this purpose. My partial veto retains funding for the 4.0 GPR FTE project attorney positions provided in the bill to handle the prosecution and appeal of cases involving persons committed under Wisconsin's sexual predator statutes.
By lining out the department's appropriations under s.
20.455 (1) (a) and
20.455 (1) (d) and writing in smaller amounts, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. I am requesting the Department of Administration Secretary to not allot $49,800 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $59,000 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 in s.
20.455 (1)(a), General Program Operations, and $7,500 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $10,000 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 in s.
20.455 (1)(d), Legal Expenses
. I am also requesting the Secretary to not authorize the 1.0 FTE attorney position.
11. Hazardous Substance Cleanup Study
Section 9131 (1t)
This section requires the Department of Justice to review the effectiveness of the flexible enforcement process used by the Department of Natural Resources for securing compliance with the state spills law.
I am vetoing this section since the Department of Justice does not perform routine evaluations of program effectiveness. The section merely clarifies and codifies a process the department has been using as a means of maximizing environmental compliance while reducing costly litigation. As such, a comprehensive review is unnecessary and would direct scarce resources toward the study of an accepted and successful process.
__________________
E. STATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
Veterans Affairs
1. Payment of Deceased Veterans' Loan Obligations
Section 1373m
This provision eliminates the obligation of a veteran or his or her guarantor of a consumer or personal loan from repaying the loan if the veteran dies after the effective date of the budget bill and if the veteran's estate is not sufficient to cover the outstanding balance on the loan.
I am vetoing this provision because the party that would benefit from repayment of a veteran's loan would be the guarantor of the loan, who may not be a veteran. The veterans trust fund was established to provide benefits and services to veterans. As a result of the provision, the veterans trust fund asset base would be substantially decreased in order to forgive loan repayments of deceased veterans, and thus, limit the benefits available to veterans in the future.
administration
2. Release of Public Records
Sections 155g, 155j, and 9356 (9f)
These sections provide that unless otherwise specified by law, no custodian of a public record has to notify an individual who is the subject of a public record request prior to providing the record, and no person has the right to sue a custodian of a public record to compel the custodian to withhold any information contained in a record.
I am vetoing these provisions because the issue of open public records should be presented and argued before the Legislature in a free and open public deliberation. These provisions are non- fiscal and non-budgetary and should be instead debated publicly as a separate bill. I would be glad to work with the advocates of this provision on legislation that would preserve the spirit of our open records law.
3. Administrative Reporting Requirements
Sections 117s, 123mk, 123n, 123r, and 9301
These provisions require the Department of Administration to do the following:
• Verify and record the country of origin for each motor vehicle purchased for any agency.
• Report to the Legislature no later than January 15 of each odd-numbered year on the costs and benefits of the state's master lease program.
• Promulgate rules for securing sponsorship of state publications which shall be applied to all agencies.
I am vetoing all of these provisions because I object to the degree of legislative oversight of agency operations which this implies and to the additional workload demand this imposes on the department at a time when budgets are constrained.
4. Information Technology Services Appropriation
