Referred to committee on Colleges and Universities.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Privatization Commission
Department of Administration
Madison
June 22, 1998
To the Honorable, the Assembly:
On behalf of the Wisconsin Commission on Privatization, I am pleased to submit to you our final report as required in the
1995 Wisconsin Act 27. The report provides a summary of the work of the Commission and includes the Commission's vision, goals and recommendations.
The recommendations delineated in the report outline a process that calls for the fair and open examination of state government activities and services and provides a means to determine which activities should be subjected to competitive contracting, given their potential for cost savings and improved efficiency.
Wisconsin currently contracts competitively for a substantial number of services; however, the process documented in this report proposes a far more comprehensive approach to competitive contracting and privatization. The process can be applied by any agency in state government or the State Legislature to determine the competitive nature of the activity and the potential for cost savings.
Anticipating that the next state budget will once again demand tough decisions and difficult choices, we offer the comprehensive process as an additional tool to assist agencies in developing cost-effective budgets. The Commission recommends that all Wisconsin State agencies adopt and implement the Competitive Government Process.
We appreciate your assistance in making a copy of this report available to each member of the State Assembly.
Sincerely,
POLLY W. BEAL, Chair
Wisconsin Commission on Privatization
Referred to committee on Government Operations.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Health and Family Services
Madison
June 30, 1998
To the Honorable, the Assembly:
1989 Wisconsin Act 31, Section
1118i, requires the Department of Health and Family Services to submit to the chief clerk of each house of the legislature a report on June 30 annually on the allocation and expenditure of funds for services for homeless individuals. Attached is the Department's eighth annual report.
Departmental staff are available if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Joe Leean
Secretary, DHFS
Referred to committee on Children and Families.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Higher Educational Aids Board
Madison
June 30, 1998
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
Per
1997 Act 27, section
9156(1)(h) the Higher Educational Aids Board along with the Educational Approval Board have conducted a study to identify all statutes relating to the functions and duties of each board that are obsolete or antiquated. Attached are the findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (608) 264-6181. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jane Hojan-Clark
Acting Executive Secretary, HEAB
Referred to committee on Colleges and Universities.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Justice
Madison
July 1, 1998
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
Section
9131 of
1997 Wisconsin Act 27 requires the Department of Justice to prepare and submit two reports on criminal history background searches. I am pleased to offer these reports to fulfill the requirements of that legislation.
A958
"Criminal Background Record Checks - Uniform Fee Proposal" is a report on the feasibility of establishing uniform fees for criminal history searches performed under ss.
165.82. The Department of Justice has determined that a uniform fee of $7 would provide the revenue necessary to support current costs, but opposes the implementation of a uniform fee structure for reasons detailed in the report.
"Caregiver Background Checks - Determining Convictions in Other States" is a two-part report. The first part, prepared by the Department of Justice, examines whether an efficient method exists to determine if a person employed in the caregiver industry has a relevant criminal conviction in a state other than Wisconsin. Use of the current national record check system would require state legislation and the submission of an applicant fingerprint card. The report outlines some other options available to caregivers searching for out-of-state criminal record information.
The second part of the report, prepared by the Department of Health and Family Services, examines the methods available for determining if a caregiver has been reported for abuse or neglect or misappropriation of property in another state.
Questions about either Department of Justice report should be referred to Michael A. Roberts, Deputy Administrator, Division of Law Enforcement Services, at 608/266-7052. Questions concerning the report developed by the Department of Health and Family Services can be referred to George Watson of DHFS at 267-7949.
Sincerely,
James E. Doyle
Attorney General
Referred to committee on Criminal Justice and Corrections.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Health and Family Services
Madison
July 1, 1998
To the Honorable, the Assembly:
As required by s.
252.04(11), Wis. Stats., enclosed is the Annual Statewide Immunization Program Report. Please distribute this report to the appropriate standing committee.
Sincerely,
Joe Leean
Secretary, DHFS
Referred to committee on Health.
__________________
Agency Reports
DATE: June 6, 1997
TO: Charles R. Sanders
Assembly Chief Clerk
FROM: Kathryn A. Moore
State Employment Options
Department of Employment Relations
Ann Smith
Equal Opportunity Officer
Division of Economic Support
Department of Workforce Development
RE: Draft Mentoring Guidelines
In our efforts to assist state agencies employ and retain W-2 and Food Stamp participants with dependent children, we have developed the attached W-2 mentoring guidelines to assist in this effort. The guidelines provide two sample mentor programs and information on resources, communication skills and helping the employe or community service job trainee become comfortable in the new job or work experience site.
The Guidelines are in draft form and we would like you to review and comment on them before finalization. Please forward comments to Kathryn A. Moore by June 26, 1998.
Thank you for your assistance.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Administration
Madison
June 24, 1998
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
This report is transmitted as required by sec. 20.002(11)(f) of the Wisconsin Statutes, (for distribution to the appropriate standing committees under sec. 13.172(3) Stats.), and confirms that the Department of Administration has found it necessary to exercise the "temporary reallocation of balances" authority provided by this section in order to meet payment responsibilities and cover resulting negative balances during the month of May, 1998.
On May 19, 1998 the Wisconsin Petroleum Inspection Fund balance was -$2.06 million. This shortfall continued until May 21, 1998 when the balance reached $6.43 million. This shortfall was due to the timing of revenues.
On May 7, 1998 the Wisconsin Health Education Loan Repayment Fund balance was -$13 thousand. This shortfall continued until May 14, 1998 when the balance reached $11 thousand. This shortfall was due to the timing of revenues.
On May 29, 1998 the Wisconsin Health Education Loan Repayment Fund balance was -$5 thousand. This shortfall continued into the month of June 1998. This shortfall was due to the timing of revenues.
The Wisconsin Petroleum Inspection and Health Education Loan Repayment Fund shortfalls were not in excess of the statutory interfund borrowing limitation and did not exceed the balances of the Funds available for interfund borrowing.
The distribution of interest earnings to investment pool participants is based on the average daily balance in the pool and each fund's share. Therefore, the monthly calculation by the State Controller's Office will automatically reflect the use of these temporary reallocations of balance authority.
Sincerely,
Mark D. Bugher
Secretary, DOA
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
July 1, 1998
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
We have completed an evaluation of the Department of Natural Resources' expenditures that support Wisconsin's fish and wildlife programs. In fiscal year (FY) 1996-97, the Department spent $81.2 million on fish and wildlife activities. The majority of expenditures, 78.9 percent, were made from the Fish and Wildlife Account, which is primarily funded by fishing and hunting user fees. Although Wisconsin is not unique in its use of user fees to fund fish and wildlife programs, it depends on these fees to a larger extent than most other states.
Because the Department uses funds from the Fish and Wildlife Account for many activities, hunters and anglers have been concerned about whether the fees they pay are used exclusively for hunting and fishing activities, or whether they are used for more broad-based environmental programs. The Department's accounting systems do not allow revenues from specific licenses, such as deer hunting licenses, to be linked directly with particular expenditures. Nevertheless, we could determine that of the $50.4 million in user fees spent in FY 1996-97, 39.7 percent primarily benefited hunters and anglers; 35.3 percent benefited multiple users, who included but were not limited to hunters and anglers; 23.0 percent was used to finance a portion of the Department's overhead costs; and 2.0 percent was spent on activities that did not directly support hunting and fishing opportunities. In addition to expenditures supported by user fees, the Department spent $11.3 million from sources other than user fees on activities that primarily benefited hunters and anglers, and $18.7 million from other sources on activities that benefited multiple users.
The Department has substantial flexibility in how it spends fish and wildlife funds. This flexibility has led some to question the Department's accountability to the Legislature and hunters and anglers, whose fees fund most program costs. We have included recommendations to improve the Department's reporting methods through the development of appropriate performance measures and the reporting of expenditures in the context of progress toward meeting performance goals.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by staff of the Department of Natural Resources. A response from the Department is Appendix VII.
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor