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
Sections 5163e and 5163m
These provisions allow state or local units of government to waive bond requirements for projects between $10,000 and $25,000, if the state or local government unit has developed written criteria as to what projects would require a bond to be submitted and the state or local government unit guarantees payment to any subcontractors on the project and all those who have claims for labor on the project. A bond would be required for state and local projects in excess of $25,000. Bond requirements would not apply to the contract for the direct purchase of material by the state or local unit of government.
I am partially vetoing the requirement of a bond for projects in excess of $25,000 because the state can potentially save millions of dollars from very large projects where it has the authority to waive bonds. Since I took office, the state has paid $14,200,000 for surety bonds. During the same time frame, the state has recovered less than $100,000 in settlement payments. In addition, a veto provides the Building Commission with the flexibility to determine the type of security necessary given the specific needs of each project. The decision to obtain surety bonds for local projects should be a local decision and not mandated by the state. The requirement that written standards be established provides the department, boards, and bodies the assurance that adequate guarantees are in place to successfully complete the projects.
OFFICE OF THE
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
14. Elimination of Certain State Government Boards, Councils and Commissions
• Metallic Mining Council
Sections 67q; 3636m; 3636p; 3730m; and 3730p.
• Council on Affirmative Action
Sections 59m; 695n; 3290p; and 3316e.
• Depository Selection Board
Sections 26m; 50m; 744e; 744m; 744s; 747m; 840m; 1150c; 1150g; 1150L; 1150p; 1150t; 1150x; 4291t; 4677m; and 9101(13m).
The Legislature adopted most of the recommendations made by the Lieutenant Governor to eliminate unnecessary government bodies. Repealing 50 councils, boards or commissions is a significant achievement and, with three exceptions, I support these actions.
The Metallic Mining Council, the Council on Affirmative Action, and the Depository Selection Board are making what I consider to be relevant contributions and should be retained. By my veto I am removing these three entities from the list of government bodies being repealed.
Department of
employment relations
15. Investigations Relating to Code of Ethics Violations
Section 3308m
This section requires the Administrator of the Division of Merit Recruitment and Selection in the Department of Employment Relations to establish, by rule, procedures that state agencies should follow in the investigation of alleged violations of the code of ethics. The department would further assume investigatory and disciplinary responsibilities if it were determined that a state agency was not following the prescribed rule.
I object to this change because I believe that existing laws and agency compliance with them are adequate. These additional requirements will not improve the quality of investigations of agency or employe misconduct or of the corrective actions being taken. I am therefore vetoing this provision.
16. Audit of Public Employe Training Functions
Section 9132 (1g)
A355
This section requests the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to perform a financial and performance audit of the public employe training functions in the Department of Employment Relations.
The Audit Committee is fully able to decide which agency programs it wishes to review. This request in the budget bill is therefore unnecessary and I am vetoing it.
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
17. WRS Service Adjustments to Milwaukee County District Attorneys
Sections 169 [as it relates to s.
20.475 (1) (d)], 652z, 1315b, 1315c, 1317m, 2693mm,
5485c, 5485g, 5485n, 5485r, 5485w and 9316 (2q)
The biennial budget grants prior service credit for certain Milwaukee County assistant district attorneys for years earned under the Milwaukee County Retirement System which did not carry over as credit in the Wisconsin Retirement System when these positions became employes of the state. The associated unfunded liability is to be paid off over a ten year period through annual deductions in fringe benefit cost reimbursements to Milwaukee County from the appropriation under s.
20.475(1)(d). The Legislature also appropriated one-time funding of $50,000 GPR each year in this appropriation to help offset the reduction in payments to Milwaukee County.
I object to these provisions because they create an additional burden on the property taxpayers of Milwaukee County without providing an opportunity for them to be heard through the public hearing process. I also object to the use of state funds in the disposition of this matter. Milwaukee County has raised concerns about these provisions. I am therefore vetoing these provisions in their entirety. By lining out the District Attorneys s.
20.475 (1) (d) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount to delete the $50,000 in fiscal years 1997-98 and 1998-99, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds the one-time subsidy. I am also requesting the Secretary of the Department of Administration not to allot the associated dollars.
retirement research committee
18. Required Reports
Section 9132 (1h) and (4z)
These provisions request the Retirement Research Committee to conduct two studies and make reports on: (1) the feasibility of reopening the variable retirement investment trust to participants in the Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS); and (2) the extent to which participants in WRS are currently receiving both a salary from a participating employer in the WRS and an annuity from the WRS.
I object to these requests being elements of the biennial budget bill. There are other more appropriate legislative avenues available for pursuing these policy issues which will ensure a broader opportunity for input by interested parties. I am therefore vetoing both provisions.
general provisions
19. Delegation of Pension Fund Investment Authority
Section 2198 v and w
These sections permit the Milwaukee public school district to delegate the investment authority over any of its funds not immediately needed and held in trust for its qualified pension plans to an investment manager who meets requirements and qualifications specified in the trust's investment policies and who is registered as an investment adviser under federal code. Such investment of funds is made subject to the "prudent person rule" defined in s.
881.01 of the Wisconsin Statutes.
I object to the way this delegation of authority dilutes the direct responsibility for investment decisions currently vested with the elected Milwaukee Board of School Directors, who are the trustees of their pension fund. I am vetoing these sections in order to preserve this more direct accountability.
REGULATION AND LICENSING
20. Credential Application and Fee Effective Dates
Sections 9442(1) and 9442(1j)
These provisions make new application information requirements and new initial and credential renewal fees effective September 1, 1997 or on the first day of the second month beginning after publication of the budget act, whichever is later.
I am vetoing these provisions because the Department of Regulation and Licensing needs its new fee schedule and application information requirements effective immediately upon publication of this Act. This will enable the department to collect projected revenues and keep application forms consistent with the new initial fee and credential renewal fee schedule. Professions regulated by the department renew their licenses once every two years. While the department has lost a small amount of revenue in the first three months of fiscal year 1997-98 by not being able to charge higher fees established in the new schedule, the loss of revenue in November, 1997, would be significant. By vetoing these provisions, I am making the department's new credential renewal fees effective upon publication of this Act so its new fee schedule will be effective in November 1997 instead of December 1997.
