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
These provisions convert the information technology services appropriation from a continuing appropriation to an annual appropriation.
I am vetoing these provisions because an annual appropriation will prevent the Division of Information Technology Services from ensuring the state's systems are functioning with adequate response times by providing capacity for any workload changes, specifically those associated with the KIDS child support system and the CARES economic support system. Annual program revenue appropriations do not allow the division to guarantee system availability or to produce cost savings in a technological market.
5. Large Information Technology System Oversight
Sections 143n and 9101(11g)
A353
These provisions require the Department of Administration to submit, semiannually, a joint report to the Joint Committee on Information Policy and the Joint Committee on Finance that identifies and describes all existing or planned projects for information technology system development or procurement that will have a total cost to the state exceeding $1,000,000 in the current or any succeeding fiscal biennium.
I am vetoing these provisions because they create an unnecessary duplicative requirement for agencies which currently report all information technology projects in planning and development or procurement through the annual strategic planning process. The provisions also create additional agency workload at a time when staff and funding are being reduced.
6. Performance-Based Budgeting Pilot Program
Section 9156 (5m)
This provision requires the Departments of Transportation, Workforce Development, Natural Resources, Health and Family Services, Corrections and the TEACH Board to submit agency budget requests for the 1999-2001 biennium on a performance-based budget basis. Further, it requires that each of the agencies, under the direction of the State Budget Office, develop program outcome measures and associated budget requests for the agencies' programs. Program outcome measures must be submitted to the State Budget Office for approval by July 1, 1998.
I am partially vetoing the requirement for performance-based budgets for all specified agencies except the Department of Transportation and the TEACH Board. I am supportive of the concept of performance-based budgeting, but believe the pilot should be phased in with fewer agencies in order to be implemented more effectively. The other enumerated agencies have undergone major reorganizations in the last two biennia and would not be appropriate for a pilot at this time. Preparing budget requests in a new format will be a time consuming, additional responsibility at a time when agency resources are being reduced. However, the Department of Administration will evaluate and monitor the pilot program and may expand performance-based budgeting to other agencies in future biennia.
7. Biennial Budget to Budget Comparisons
Sections 105p, 105q, 105r and 105t
These provisions require the Department of Administration, when preparing the biennial budget executive summary, to provide both a comparison of the base level of appropriated funding for the current biennium with the Governor's proposed level of appropriations for the forthcoming biennium and a comparison of the estimated level of actual expenditures for the current biennium with the Governor's proposed level of appropriations for the forthcoming biennium.
I am vetoing these provisions because it is more meaningful to present annual increases in revenues and expenditures and to present the proposed budget increases compared to the last year of the current biennium. In addition, compiling the information for the executive summary in a new format will create still another budget presentation format at a point in the process when timing is key in distributing and announcing Governor's recommendations to the Legislature and the public.
land information board/
wisconsin land council
8. Geographic Information Systems Authority
Section 133c
This provision allows the Department of Administration to develop and maintain geographic information systems (GIS) relating to land if legislation to fund the activity is enacted and the department submits a report to the Joint Committee on Finance explaining use of this authority.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the requirement to enact legislation and Joint Committee on Finance oversight because these requirements would delay implementation of this important project. GIS allow the correlation of data necessary in the development of local and statewide land use policy, and I want to ensure that this information be available to land use decision makers as quickly as possible.
State Building Program
9. Local Inducements for State Building Projects
Section 2198m
This provision creates an exception to the current law that prohibits a town, village, or city from making an appropriation or bonus of any kind, incurring a liability or levying a tax as an inducement for the state to locate a public institution. The exception allows municipalities to make a donation of land.
I am partially vetoing the words "of land" to eliminate the restriction on the type of donation that municipalities can provide as an inducement for the state to locate a public institution in a specific locality. The ability to donate these types of services should be a local decision and not restricted by state law.
10. State Fair Park Board Program Revenue Authority
Section 740bs
This provision reduces the program revenue supported borrowing for utility improvement and other maintenance projects for the park.
I am vetoing this provision to provide the bonding authority necessary to support the State Fair Park's share of utility improvement and other maintenance projects for the park and to provide the Building Commission with flexibility on funding of the improvements.
11. Nash Auto Museum
Section 9107 (12zt)
A354
This provision enumerates $1,000,000 as the state's contribution toward the construction of the Nash Auto Museum at Kenosha. The provision further provides that the Building Commission give priority to funding the museum project over funding of unenumerated minor projects. In addition, the provision states that the Department of Administration shall not supervise any services or work for the project and eliminates any approval made by the Governor or secretary on the project.
I am partially vetoing the provision that requires priority funding of the museum project because the funding is targeted for much needed maintenance of state-owned facilities and a new project should not take priority over maintaining the state's investment in its existing facilities. I also am partially vetoing the elimination of the Department of Administration's oversight of the services and work performed on the project and the elimination of my gubernatorial approval of the project. Since the state is making a significant investment towards the museum, it is only proper that it maintain some oversight and approval of the project.
12. UW-Center Moveable Equipment Acquisition
Section 123m
This section provides that the Department of Administration shall not require the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System to acquire moveable equipment for the University of Wisconsin-Center System under a master lease.
I am vetoing the provision because it is too restrictive and because it is unnecessary, since full funding for moveable equipment was provided in the 1997-99 biennial budget for the UW-Center System. The veto allows the UW-Center System to utilize master lease as an option when bonding is not appropriate or available.
13. Surety Bonds for Public Works Contracts
