Also, under current law, a person who is on probation may have the period of
his or her probation extended by a judge if: 1) the probationer has not made a good
faith effort to discharge court-ordered payment obligations, including restitution; 2)
the probationer and the person to whom restitution is owed agree that community
service work to be performed by the probationer during an extended period of
probation will satisfy the restitution ordered; or 3) the probationer agrees to the
extension of supervision and the court finds that extension would serve the purposes
for which probation was imposed. This bill provides that a court may extend a
probationer's period of probation if the probationer fails to pay supervision fees
assessed by DOC. A probationer is entitled to a hearing on the issue of unpaid
supervision fees before a court may extend the probationer's period of probation. If,
after a hearing, a court finds that a probationer owes supervision fees but the court
does not extend the period of probation, the court's findings may be entered as a civil
judgment against the probationer for the fees owed, which DOC may use to collect
the unpaid fees. Finally, the bill allows a court to modify the terms and conditions
of probation or to revoke probation if a probationer fails to pay supervision fees
assessed by DOC.
Under current law, a probationer or parolee may be placed under
administrative supervision or minimum supervision by DOC. Administrative
supervision requires that a minimum of one face-to-face contact occur every 6
months between the probationer or parolee and a representative of DOC and that the
probationer or parolee submit a monthly report to DOC. Minimum supervision
requires that a minimum of one face-to-face contact occur every 90 days between the
probationer or parolee and a representative of DOC and that the probationer or
parolee submit a monthly report to DOC. DOC must charge a fee to any probationer
or parolee who is under administrative supervision or minimum supervision. The
fee must cover the cost of supervision.
Current law also provides that DOC may contract with public, private or
voluntary vendors for the supervision of probationers and parolees who are under
minimum supervision or administrative supervision. The contract must authorize
the vendor to charge a fee to probationers and parolees sufficient to cover the cost of
supervision and administration of the contract.
This bill eliminates the current requirements for administrative supervision
and minimum supervision and provides, instead, that DOC must establish the
requirements by rule.
In addition, the bill provides that DOC may decide not to charge a fee to cover
the cost of administrative supervision or minimum supervision of any probationer
or parolee if the probationer or parolee demonstrates that he or she is unable to pay
the fee, and requires that any contract with a vendor must permit DOC to prohibit
a vendor from charging a fee to any probationer or parolee if the probationer or
parolee demonstrates that he or she is unable to pay the fee, because:
1. The probationer or parolee is undergoing treatment approved by DOC and
is unable to work.
2. The probationer or parolee has a statement from a physician certifying to
DOC that the probationer or parolee should be excused from working for medical
reasons.
Juvenile correctional system
Under current law, if a court of criminal jurisdiction (adult court) imposes a
sentence or places a person on probation, the adult court must impose a crime victim
and witness assistance surcharge of $50 for each misdemeanor offense or count and
$70 for each felony offense or count. This bill requires a court assigned to exercise
jurisdiction under the juvenile justice code (juvenile court) to impose, in addition to
any other disposition imposed, a delinquency victim and witness assistance
surcharge of $20 on a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent.
Under current law, DOC operates juvenile secured correctional facilities for the
placement of juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent or convicted of a crime
and placed in such facilities. Under current law, a juvenile who commits assault or
battery while placed in a juvenile secured correctional facility is subject to the
criminal penalties specified for those crimes, including imprisonment in an adult
prison. This bill permits DOC to transfer a juvenile from a juvenile secured
correctional facility to the Racine Youthful Offender Correctional Facility if the
juvenile is 15 years of age or over and the office of juvenile offender review (OJOR)
in DOC determines that the juvenile's conduct in the juvenile secured correctional
facility presents a serious problem to the juvenile or others. Under the bill, the
factors that OJOR may consider in making that determination must include whether
and to what extent the juvenile's conduct in the juvenile secured correctional facility
is violent and disruptive, the security needs of the juvenile secured correctional
facility and whether and to what extent the juvenile is refusing to cooperate or
participate in the juvenile's treatment programs in the juvenile secured correctional
facility.
Under current law, a county may establish a secure detention facility for
holding in secure custody juveniles who meet certain criteria. This bill permits a
county to contract with DOC for the use of a juvenile secured correctional facility
operated by DOC for holding in secure custody juveniles who meet the criteria for
being held in a county-operated secure detention facility. Under the bill, a county
may use a juvenile secured correctional facility for holding a juvenile in secure
custody only if: 1) there is no county-operated secure detention facility approved by
DOC within 75 miles of the county seat; or 2) there is no bed space available in a
county-operated secure detention facility approved by DOC within 75 miles of the
county seat.
Under current law relating to community youth and family aids (generally
referred to as "youth aids"), various state and federal funds are allocated to counties
to pay for state-provided juvenile correctional services and local
delinquency-related and juvenile justice services. DOC charges counties for the
costs of services provided by DOC. This bill imposes new per person daily cost
assessments upon counties for juvenile placements during the 1997-99 fiscal
biennium as follows:
-
See PDF for table 
Under current law, DOC must provide a corrective sanctions program to serve
an average daily population of 105 juveniles, or more than 105 juveniles if the
appropriation and positions authorized for that program are increased. Under the
corrective sanctions program, DOC places a program participant in the community,
provides intensive surveillance of the participant and purchases community-based
treatment services for the participant. Current law specifies that a contact worker
under the program must have a caseload of approximately 10 juveniles and that a
corrective sanctions agent must have a caseload of approximately 15 juveniles. This
bill increases from 105 to 119 in fiscal year 1997-98 and to 161 in fiscal year 1998-99
the average daily population of juveniles that the corrective sanctions program is
required to serve and provides that the corrective sanctions program must serve
more than those average daily populations if the appropriation and positions
authorized for that program are increased or if funding and positions to serve a
greater average daily population are available (by reallocating other funding and
positions within DOC). The bill also eliminates the caseload size requirements
specified under current law.
Under current law, DOC administers a program under which it distributes
moneys to counties for early intervention services for first offenders and for intensive
community-based intervention services for seriously chronic offenders (community
intervention program). This bill transfers administration of the community
intervention program from DOC to the department of health and family services
(DHFS). The bill also eliminates requirements that the early intervention services
be provided only for first offenders and that the intensive community-based
intervention services be provided only for seriously chronic offenders.
Current law requires DOC to establish fees for juvenile correctional services
provided by DOC. Current law also requires DHFS to include DOC's fees in DHFS'
uniform system of fees and requires DHFS to collect the fees owed to DOC. This bill
makes DOC responsible for establishing its own uniform system of fees and for
collecting the fees owed to DOC for the juvenile correctional services provided by
DOC.
COURTS AND PROCEDURE
Currently, the clerk of circuit court collects a justice information system fee
from persons who are required to pay certain other specified fees, such as fees for the
commencement of a civil action for review of an administrative decision or for a
garnishment, wage earner, small claims or forfeiture action. Under current law, the
fee is $5, 80% of which is used for the development and operation of automated justice
information systems. This bill increases the fee to $7 and changes the percentage
to be used for the automated justice information systems from 80% to four-sevenths.
Currently, a sheriff receives a fee of $50 for all of his or her activities related to
the sheriff's sale of real estate under an order of a court. Twenty-five dollars of the
$50 must be prepaid to the sheriff and is nonrefundable. This bill changes that fee
to $150. Seventy-five dollars of the fee must be prepaid and is nonrefundable.
Currently, the director of state courts is required to establish and charge fees
to certain court-related agencies for the provision of data processing services. This
bill removes that requirement. In addition, the bill removes the requirement that
the fees charged by the director of state courts for providing copies of certain
documents and reports equal the fees charged by other state agencies.
Crimes
Current law provides penalties for felonies, which are crimes punishable by
imprisonment of more than one year. A felony created in the criminal code is placed
in one of 6 classes (Class A, B, BC, C, D or E) and each class has a specific maximum
term of imprisonment and a maximum fine. The maximum terms of imprisonment
under current law for the classes of felonies (other than Class A felonies, which are
punishable by life imprisonment) are as follows:
-
See PDF for table
This bill increases the length of sentences for the classes of felonies created in
the criminal code, other than those punishable by life imprisonment, that are
committed on or after July 1, 1998. The maximum terms of imprisonment for the
classes of felonies under the bill are as follows:
-
See PDF for table
The bill also increases penalties for felony violations relating to controlled
substances (dangerous drugs), motor vehicles, taxation and hazardous waste
management. The bill increases the maximum term of imprisonment for these
felonies by 50% or one year, whichever is greater.
The bill also changes the structure of sentences imposed for felony offenses.
(See Correctional system, adult correctional system.)
Current law provides various penalties for the crimes of theft, issuing worthless
checks and criminal damage to property (including graffiti vandalism). In some
circumstances, the penalty for these crimes is based on the value of the property
stolen or damaged or the amount of the worthless checks. If the value or the amount
is $1,000 or less, the crime is a misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine or
imprisonment of less than one year or both. If the value or the amount is more than
$1,000, the crime is a felony, which is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of one
year or more or both. This bill increases from $1,000 to $1,500 the threshold for
determining whether misdemeanor or felony penalties apply in those cases in which
penalties depend on the value of the property stolen or damaged or the amount of the
worthless checks.
Current law prohibits forgery, which includes: 1) falsely making or altering
certain legal or commercial writings, public records or official certifications with
intent to defraud; or 2) passing off such a writing, record or certification as genuine
knowing that it is falsely made or altered. A person convicted of either of these kinds
of forgery may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10
years or both. This bill changes the penalty for either of these kinds of forgery by
providing that the current penalty applies only if the value or purported value,
whichever is greater, of the writing, record or certification is more than $1,500.
Under the bill, if the value or purported value, whichever is greater, is $1,500 or less,
the person may be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than 9
months or both.
Education
Primary and secondary education
Under current law, a school district may admit a pupil who resides in another
school district if the pupil's parents pay tuition. In addition, a pupil may attend a
public school located outside his or her school district of residence if the 2 school
boards agree, the state superintendent of public instruction approves and the school
district of residence pays tuition.
This bill creates an interdistrict school choice program. Beginning in the
1998-99 school year, the bill provides that a pupil may attend any public school
located outside his or her school district of residence if the pupil's parent complies
with certain application dates and procedures, and requires the school district of
residence to pay tuition or an amount agreed to between the 2 school districts. The
school district of residence continues to count the pupil in enrollment for state aid
purposes.
The school board of attendance may reject an application if there is no space
available in the school or the program in which the pupil wishes to enroll, the pupil
is involved in a disciplinary proceeding, or the pupil has been suspended or expelled
from school in the current or 2 preceding school years. A school district may prohibit
a resident pupil from attending school in another school district if the pupil is
involved in a disciplinary proceeding. A school district must prohibit a resident pupil
from attending a school in another school district if allowing such attendance would
violate a voluntary or court-ordered plan to reduce racial imbalance in the school
district. In addition, in the 1998-99 school year, a school district may limit the
number of resident pupils attending public school in other school districts to 3% of
its enrollment. In each of the 7 succeeding school years, that percentage increases
by one.
The parent of a pupil whose application is rejected or who is prohibited from
attending school in another school district by the school district of residence may
appeal the decision to the state superintendent, whose decision is final.
Beginning in the 1998-99 school year, this bill also creates an interdistrict
enrollment options program under which a pupil enrolled in a public school may
attend a public school in another school district to take one or 2 courses under certain
circumstances. The school board of the other school district must determine that
there is space available; if the course is offered in the high school grades, the school
board of the resident school district must determine that the course satisfies high
school graduation requirements; and the pupil must meet all of the prerequisites for
the course.
Acceptance and rejection criteria and procedures for the interdistrict
enrollment options program are identical to the acceptance and rejection criteria and
procedures for the interdistrict school choice program.
The school board of the school district of residence must pay to the school board
of the other school district an amount equal to the cost of providing the course to a
nonresident pupil under the program, as determined by the state superintendent.
This bill creates, in the office of the governor, a standards development council
consisting of the lieutenant governor, a representative of the department of public
instruction (DPI), legislators and one public member. The bill directs the governor
to submit to the council pupil academic standards in mathematics, science, reading
and writing, geography and history. The council must review the standards and may
modify them. By September 15, 1997, the council must transmit its recommended
standards to the governor. By October 15, 1997, the governor must approve or
disapprove the standards. If the governor approves the standards, he or she must
issue them as an executive order.
The bill also directs each school board, by August 1, 1998, to adopt pupil
academic standards. If the governor has issued approved standards, the school
board may adopt those standards. In addition, DPI must develop a high school
graduation examination designed to measure whether pupils meet the standards
approved by the governor. Each school board must adopt a high school graduation
examination designed to measure whether pupils meet the standards adopted by the
school board. If the school board has adopted the standards approved by the
governor, it may satisfy this requirement by adopting the high school graduation
examination developed by DPI.
Beginning in the 1999-2000 school year, the bill directs each school board to
administer the high school graduation examination adopted by the school board.
Beginning on September 1, 2001, a school board may not grant a high school diploma
to any pupil unless the pupil has passed the high school graduation examination.
A school board must provide a pupil with at least 4 opportunities to take the
examination in grades 9 to 12.
Under current law, a charter school is a school operated by an individual (or
group) who has entered into a contract with a school board. The school board is
responsible for overseeing the operation of the charter school and may revoke the
charter school contract under certain circumstances. A charter school is exempt from
most laws governing public schools.
This bill permits the city of Milwaukee, the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UW-Milwaukee) and the Milwaukee area technical college
(MATC) to establish and operate charter schools or to contract with an individual or
group to operate charter schools. These charter schools must be located in the
Milwaukee public school district (MPS) and only pupils who reside in MPS may
attend them. The city of Milwaukee, UW-Milwaukee and MATC are responsible for
either operating or overseeing the operation of their respective charter schools and
may revoke their charter school contracts under certain circumstances.
For each pupil attending one of these charter schools, the bill directs DPI to pay
to the operator of the charter school an amount equal to MPS's shared cost per
member (the amount of MPS's school expenditures for which state aid is payable
under the general equalization aid formula divided by the MPS enrollment) in the
previous school year. DPI must reduce the general equalization aid to which MPS
is entitled by the same amount.
Under current law, a charter school may be established either by school board
initiative or by a written petition signed by: 1) at least 10% of the teachers employed
by the school district; or 2) at least 50% of the teachers employed at one school of the
school district. Within 30 days after receiving such a petition, the school board must
hold a public hearing on the petition. After the hearing, the school board may grant
the petition. The MPS board, however, must either grant or deny a petition within
30 days after the required public hearing. If the MPS board denies a petition, the
person seeking to establish the charter school may appeal the denial to DPI. DPI's
decision is final and is not subject to a court's review. In addition, a contract to operate
a charter school may be for any term not exceeding 5 school years and may be
renewed for one or more terms not exceeding 5 school years.
This bill eliminates the requirement that a petition be signed by a certain
percentage of teachers, unless the charter school replaces a public school in whole or
in part. If a school board is petitioned to establish a charter school it must either
grant or deny the petition within 30 days following the required public hearing. If
a school board denies the petition, the person seeking to establish the charter school
may appeal the denial to DPI. DPI's decision is final and is not subject to a court's
review. The bill also provides that a contract to operate a charter school may be for
any term and may be renewed for any term.
Current law provides that a charter school is an instrumentality of the school
district in which it is located and the school board of that school district must employ
all personnel for the charter school. This provision does not apply to charter schools
located in MPS. This bill requires the MPS board to determine whether a charter
school located in MPS and under contract with the MPS board is an instrumentality
of MPS. If the MPS board determines that the charter school is an instrumentality
of MPS, then the MPS board must employ all personnel for the charter school; if the
MPS board determines that the charter school is not an instrumentality of MPS, then
the MPS board may not hire any personnel for the charter school. The bill also
provides that a charter school established by the city of Milwaukee, UW-Milwaukee
or MATC is not an instrumentality of MPS and that the MPS board may not hire any
personnel for that charter school.
Current law requires school boards to administer certain statewide
examinations to pupils and to ensure that instructional staff of public and charter
schools hold licenses and permits issued by DPI. Under this bill, the city of
Milwaukee, UW-Milwaukee and MATC are required to assume these
responsibilities for their respective charter schools. Current law limits the increase
in the total amount of revenue that a school district may receive from general school
aids and property taxes unless the electors in the school district approve a higher
limit by referendum. In each school year, the maximum allowable increase per pupil
is $206. The limit is based on the difference between the average number of pupils
enrolled in the 3 previous school years and the average number of pupils enrolled in
the current and 2 preceding school years. This bill provides that, beginning in the
1998-99 school year, the number of pupils enrolled for MPS excludes pupils
attending the charter schools established by the city of Milwaukee, UW-Milwaukee
or MATC in the 3 previous school years.
Under current law, the number of pupils enrolled for determining MPS revenue
limits excludes the number of pupils attending private schools under the Milwaukee
parental choice program, under which eligible pupils in MPS may attend certain
private schools at state expense. Beginning in the 1997-98 school year, this bill
provides that for MPS the number of pupils enrolled excludes pupils attending
private schools under the Milwaukee parental choice program in the 3 previous
school years, resulting in less of a decrease in the revenue limit for MPS.
Under current law, several exceptions to the revenue limit exist, including an
exception for a school district with a per pupil base revenue for the previous school
year that is less than the statutorily prescribed revenue ceiling of $5,600 per pupil.
Such a school district is allowed to increase its per pupil revenue up to this ceiling
without holding a referendum. This bill changes the revenue ceiling to $5,800 per
pupil for the 1997-98 school year and to $6,000 per pupil in subsequent school years.
Under the current enrollment options program, a public school pupil enrolled
in the 11th or 12th grade may enroll in an institution of higher education (a UW
campus, a technical college or a private, nonprofit institution of higher education
located in this state) to take one or more courses under certain circumstances. If the
course is taken for high school credit and is not comparable to a course offered in the
pupil's school district of residence (as determined by the school board of that school
district), the school board must pay the institution of higher education the cost of the
pupil's tuition, fees and books. If the pupil is taking a course for postsecondary credit
or a course that is comparable to a course offered in the school district, the pupil is
responsible for the tuition and fees.
This bill renames the enrollment options program the "youth options program"
and makes a number of other changes, including:
1. The bill treats attendance at a technical college differently from attendance
at a UW campus or a private college. Under the bill, a pupil may attend a technical
college under the youth options program if he or she has completed the 10th grade,
is in good academic standing and is not a child at risk (a child who is behind his or
her age group in the number of high school credits attained or in basic skill levels and
who is a dropout, habitual truant, parent or adjudicated delinquent). The technical
college must admit the pupil (unless the pupil has a record of disciplinary problems)
and must ensure that the pupil's program meets the high school graduation
requirements.
2. The bill removes from the program, for technical colleges as well as for other
institutions of higher education, all references to comparability of courses. Under
the bill, if a pupil attends a UW campus, the school board must pay the UW an
amount equal to the cost of tuition, fees and books for the course. If a pupil attends
a private institution of higher education, the school board must pay the institution
the cost of tuition, fees and books, or an amount equal to the statewide average cost
per high school credit multiplied by the number of credits for which the pupil is
attending, whichever is less. If a pupil attends a technical college for less than 7
credits, the school board must pay the technical college the cost of tuition, fees and
books. If the pupil attends a technical college for 7 credits or more, the school board
must pay the technical college the school district's average cost per pupil for regular
instruction and instructional support services multiplied by an amount equal to the
number of credits taken by the pupil divided by 15. The bill specifies that the pupil
is not responsible for any portion of the tuition and fees for the course, regardless of
whether the course is comparable to a course offered in the school district and
regardless of whether the pupil takes the course for high school or postsecondary
credit.
Under current law, each school board must provide access to an education for
employment program approved by the state superintendent of public instruction.
This bill requires each school board to provide, instead, access to a school-to-work
program that has been approved by the department of industry, labor and job
development (DILJD). (See Employment.) The bill also transfers 13 positions
associated with school-to-work programs from DPI to DILJD.
Under current law, each school board must establish a technical preparation
program in each high school in cooperation with a technical college district board.
The program must consist of a sequence of courses, approved by the technical college
system (TCS) board, that are designed to allow high school pupils to gain advanced
standing in the technical college district's associate degree program upon graduation
from high school. This bill provides that the program must integrate applied
academic and technical competency-based curricula and be designed to provide high
school juniors and seniors with both high school and technical college credit or with
advanced standing in a postsecondary institution upon graduation from high school.
The bill directs the state superintendent, DILJD and the TCS board to assist school
districts in developing their programs.
Current law directs DPI, the department of administration (DOA) and the
legislative fiscal bureau (LFB) to jointly certify to the joint committee on finance
(JCF) an estimate of the amount necessary to appropriate as general school aid to
ensure that the sum of state school aids and the school levy tax credit equals 66.7%
of the sum of state school aids and property taxes levied for schools. The amount
appropriated as school aid is a sum sufficient equal to the amount determined by
JCF.
This bill eliminates this process. The bill provides that, beginning in the
1997-98 school year, the amount appropriated is a sum certain determined through
the biennial budget process. Beginning in 1999, the bill directs the governor, by
February 15 of each odd-numbered year, to submit to JCF an estimate of the amount
necessary to appropriate as general school aid in each of the following 2 school years
to ensure that the sum of state school aids and the school levy tax credit in each of
those school years equals two-thirds of the sum of state school aids and property
taxes levied for schools.
Under current law, a school board may apply to DPI for a grant to fund one or
more prevention and intervention programs, including a families and schools
together program, an after-school and summer school program and several alcohol
and other drug abuse programs. This bill transfers administration of these grant
programs from DPI to the department of health and family services (DHFS).
Under current law, referenda are required or authorized to be held by school
districts in order to incur debt or exceed the revenue limits, or to exceed the levy rate
limit for a school construction fund that is applicable only to the Milwaukee Public
Schools. Currently, these referenda are required or authorized to be held at special
elections when no offices appear on the ballot.
This bill provides that such referenda must be held concurrently with the
spring election (held in each year) or the general election (held in each
even-numbered year) or on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in
odd-numbered years.
The 1995-97 biennial budget act (
1995 Wisconsin Act 27) made a number of
changes with respect to the powers of the state superintendent of public instruction
and the name and structure of DPI. The act:
1. Changed the name of DPI to the department of education (DOE).
2. Created an 11-member education commission, including the state
superintendent as chairperson, to function as the policy-making unit for DOE.
3. Vested the administrative powers and duties of DOE in a secretary of
education, to be appointed by the governor with senate confirmation.
