I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. The department is working to clarify internal policies for processing special license plate applications.
WISCONSIN HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
88. Farm Assets Reinvestment Management (FARM) Loan Guarantees
Sections 2393c and 9325 (1g)
This provision modifies the calculation of the maximum loan guarantee under the FARM program from one based on the original loan amount to one based on the outstanding principal of the loan.
I am vetoing this provision because it unnecessarily reduces the amount of assistance available to agricultural producers. My budget doubled the maximum loan guarantee under the FARM program. This change would undercut that expansion at the expense of Wisconsin farmers.
C. HUMAN RESOURCES
BOARD ON AGING AND LONG-TERM CARE
1. Ombudsman Position
Section 172 [as it relates to ss. 20.432 (1) (a) and (k) and 20.435 (4) (b)]
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.432 (1) (a) and (k) and s. 20.435 (4) (b)] appropriates $42,500 GPR and $21,200 PR in fiscal year 1999-2000 to fund 2.00 FTE ombudsmen positions and $96,000 GPR and $48,000 PR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to fund 3.00 FTE ombudsmen positions. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the Legislature passed a motion and an amendment during its deliberations to authorize funding for the new ombudsmen positions.
I object to the expansion of funding for the ombudsman program at the level approved by the Legislature. I am willing to approve an increase of $42,500 GPR and $21,200 PR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $74,700 GPR and $37,400 PR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to fund 2.00 FTE new ombudsmen positions. The addition of 2.00 FTE positions is sufficient to carry out the current level of ombudsman services with an adjustment for caseload projections for the 1999-2001 biennium. I am vetoing the part of the bill that adds an additional ombudsman in fiscal year 2000-2001 by decreasing the Board on Aging and Long-Term Care’s s. 20.432 (1) (a) appropriation by $16,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 and s. 20.432 (1) (k) appropriation by $10,600 PR in fiscal year 2000-2001 and the Department of Health and Family Services’ s. 20.435 (4) (b) appropriation by $5,300 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001. This veto is part of a larger write-down in the Department of Health and Family Services’ Medical Assistance appropriation. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the 1.00 FTE position in fiscal year 2000-2001.
HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
2. Kinship Care
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (3) (kc)], 397g, 1134h, 1142g, 1145g, 1145gm, 1145h, 1145j, 1145m, 1145p, 1145t, 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (ze) 1.], 1433x, 1491m, 1521dm and 9123 (10e)
Sections 397g, 1134h, 1145gm, 1145t, 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (ze) 1.], 1433x, 1491m and 1521dm expand the eligibility for kinship care payments to relatives of a person 18 years of age and older if that person is enrolled in, and regularly attends, a secondary education classroom program leading to a high school diploma, has not been absent from that program without an acceptable excuse for part or all of any day on which that program is held during the month preceding the month in which the kinship care payment is made and a kinship care payment was made on behalf of that person immediately prior to his or her 18th birthday. In addition, the agency making the kinship care payment is required to monitor the classroom attendance of the person under the relative’s care.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to the expansion of the kinship care program to individuals 18 years of age and older. In addition to concerns I have about funding for this expansion, counties and the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) will have an increased administrative workload in monitoring school attendance, which would have to be done to ensure compliance with the program.
Sections 1142g, 1145g, 1145h, 1145j, 1145m and 1145p provide that an individual who is denied kinship care payments or the continuation of those payments based on information obtained in the individual’s background investigation may petition DHFS for a review of the action based on the current review process for denial of kinship care payments on other grounds.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to a kinship care relative having to go through the DHFS review process. Current law allows the kinship care relative to appeal the denial of benefits based on information from the background investigation directly to the director of the county social services or human services agency or an individual designated by the DHFS secretary. This appeals process allows the relative to get a decision in a more timely manner than the formal process provided for in these sections.
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (3) (kc)] and 9123 (10e) require DHFS to allocate $500,000 PR in fiscal year 1999-2000 to supplement the kinship care allocations to counties and the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare in DHFS (bureau) in order to prevent the need to place a kinship care relative on a waiting list. If a county or the bureau requests supplemental funding and DHFS determines that the funding is necessary to eliminate a waiting list, DHFS must allocate the funding to the requesting county or the bureau. In addition, if the $500,000 is encumbered before July 1, 2001, DHFS is required to request a supplemental appropriation from the Joint Committee on Finance under s. 16.515.
I am vetoing this provision because I see no need to establish a reserve for kinship care payments. The biennial budget provides a level of funding that fully funds the projected kinship care caseload. In addition, DHFS has the administrative flexibility to reallocate funding among counties if waiting lists become a problem. By lining out the DHFS s. 20.435 (3) (kc) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $500,000 PR in fiscal year 1999-2000, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this program. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and the Department of Workforce Development secretary not to transfer these funds to DHFS.
3. Supplemental Security Income
Sections 1483t, 1483u, 1483v, 1483w, 1483x, 1483y, 1483ym, 1483z, 1483zb, 1484b and 1484c
Sections 1483t, 1483y and 1483ym allow a custodial parent to receive a payment for the support of a dependent child when the parent does not receive a federal or state supplemental security income payment. I am vetoing these sections because I am concerned that these parents will receive special treatment not afforded other recipients of the state’s supplemental payment who must receive a federal payment in order to receive a state payment.
Sections 1483t, 1483u, 1483v, 1483w, 1483x, 1483z, 1483zb, 1484b and 1484c expand the caretaker supplement program to include payments for the support of grandchildren. I am vetoing sections 1483t, 1483u, 1483v, 1483w, 1483x, 1483z, 1483zb and 1484c and partially vetoing section 1484b because I object to the expansion of this program to grandchildren. In addition to concerns I have that the Legislature provided no funding for this expansion, the receipt of a caretaker supplement payment should be based on the relationship between the parent and the child. Elsewhere in the bill is a provision that increases the monthly payment the custodial parent receives for the support of the dependent child from $100 to $250 for the first child and from $100 to $150 for each additional child.
4. Special Needs Adoption Placements
Sections 1131g, 1131k, 1131L, 1131m, 1131r, 1131s, 1148m, 1148p, 1160d, 1160g, 1189p, 1192g, 1192j, 1192m, 3044j, 3197j, 9323 (12g) and 9323 (12h)
These sections provide that: (1) in making an adoptive placement for a special needs child, the placing agency may not consider the location of a proposed adoptive parent’s residence as a factor in making the placement, unless the agency determines that consideration of residency is necessary to ensure the child’s best interest in light of his or her special needs; (2) if the placing agency considers the location of the prospective adoptive parents’ residence as a factor in placing a child with special needs, the agency must document in the child’s permanency plan the reasons why that consideration is necessary; (3) if the placing agency does not consider the location of the prospective adoptive parents’ residence as a factor in placing a child with special needs and the child is placed more than 60 miles from his or her home, the agency must document in the child’s permanency plan the reasons why consideration is not necessary; and (4) if consideration of the proposed adoptive parent’s residence is necessary to ensure the best interests of the child in light of the child’s need for care or treatment to meet the special needs, the child’s permanency plan must include documentation of the reasons why such consideration is necessary.
I am vetoing these provisions because they will result in Wisconsin being out of compliance with Title IV-E of the Federal Social Security Act, which provides that a state may not deny or delay a child’s adoptive placement when an approved family is available outside the jurisdiction that is responsible for the child’s case. If the placement is denied or delayed because of jurisdictional considerations, the state loses its eligibility for federal Title IV-E reimbursement. I will support legislation that amends the state's children code to add the federal jurisdiction provisions to ensure that an adoption placement is not delayed or denied solely because of the residence of the proposed adoptive parent.
5. Child Abuse and Neglect Consent Decrees
Sections 1131gt and 9309 (6g)
These sections extend from six months to one year the time that a consent decree under the children’s code is in effect unless the child, parent, guardian, legal custodian or expectant mother is discharged sooner by the judge or juvenile court commissioner. I am vetoing these sections because extension of the period of time that a consent decree is in effect may lengthen the time that a child and family are in the child welfare system and may delay achieving permanency for the child.
6. Community Based Residential Facilities
Sections 1045, 1045d, 1045g, 1048m, 1059, 1059g and 1064
Sections 1045d and 1048m require the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to establish a pilot project in Chippewa County to effect all of the following: (a) provide that Chippewa County cannot deny Community Options Program (COP) services to an eligible individual who resides in a Community Based Residential Facility (CBRF) solely because the maximum total amount of funding for persons residing in CBRFs has been reached; (b) in discussing the cost effectiveness of a placement in a CBRF, Chippewa County shall consider all state and federal funds needed for all options considered; and (c) provide that Chippewa County may use COP GPR funds to provide services in any CBRF that has 20 or fewer beds. I am vetoing the provision that Chippewa County cannot deny COP services to an eligible individual who resides in a CBRF solely because the maximum total amount of funding for persons residing in CBRFs has been reached, since I want the county to maintain its current flexibility to determine what percentage of COP funds it plans to use to support individuals residing in CBRFs.
Sections 1045, 1059 and 1064 allow a county to waive the COP assessment, in accordance with guidelines established by DHFS, prior to a person’s admission to a CBRF. In addition, these sections provide that a person seeking admission to a CBRF on a private pay basis may waive the assessment, unless the person is expected to become eligible for Medical Assistance within six months of the assessment. Sections 1045g and 1059g prohibit a county department or aging unit from denying COP services to an individual who has refused an assessment. I am vetoing sections 1045g and 1059g and the provisions that an individual can waive the COP assessment because the information obtained from the assessment is important in choosing the most appropriate and cost effective services for the individual.
7. Report on Huntington’s Disease
Section 9123 (8t)
This section requires the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS), by January 1, 2000, to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance on services provided to individuals with Huntington’s disease. Specifically, the report must include, for each county of the state, the following: (a) the number of individuals with any type of disability receiving services through the Community Options Program (COP) and the Community Integration Program (CIP) and county revenues; (b) the number and percentage of individuals with Huntington’s disease receiving services through these programs; and (c) the types of services that individuals with any type of disability, including Huntington's disease, received under these programs. I am vetoing this section because I am concerned about the increased cost to counties that administer the COP and CIP programs. DHFS classifies Huntington’s disease as dementia and requires no separate reports. Counties would have to undertake a special data collection effort to obtain information on individuals with this disease.
8. Community Integration Program (CIP 1B)
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (4) (b)]
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (4) (b)] appropriates $181,700 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $539,800 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to fund 50 new CIP 1B placements in fiscal year 1999-2000 and an additional 50 new CIP 1B placements in fiscal year 2000-2001. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the Legislature passed a motion and an amendment during its deliberations to authorize funding for the new CIP 1B placements.
I object to the expansion of funding for this program at the level approved by the Legislature. I am willing to approve an increase of $181,700 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $359,900 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001. I am vetoing that part of the bill which funds 50 new CIP 1B slots in fiscal year 2000-2001 by decreasing the Department of Health and Family Services’ s. 20.435 (4) (b) appropriation by $179,900 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001. This veto is part of a larger write-down of the Medical Assistance appropriation. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. Elsewhere in the bill is funding for 581 additional Community Options Program placements in fiscal year 2000-2001, a portion of which will be used for community services for developmentally disabled individuals.
9. Uniform Compliance Checks
Section 2485j [as it relates to s. 254.916 (1) (a) and (c), (3) (f), (12) and (13)]
Section 2485j [as it relates to s. 254.916 (1) (a)] defines the authority of the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) under Chapter 254, Investigation of the Sale or Gift of Cigarettes or Tobacco Products to Minors, including the requirement that in using statistically sound sampling techniques in designing annual surveys, DHFS must stratify the sample so as to measure compliance by type of retail outlets, excluding a barroom. I am vetoing the provision that excludes barrooms from the sample because, under 42 USC 300x-021, DHFS has included taverns in its sample of outlets and federal regulations require states to maintain consistency in their samples from year-to-year.
Section 2485j [as it relates to s. 254.916 (3) (f)] requires that, excluding investigations conducted under 42 USC 300x-021 and 21 CFR part 897, detailed information concerning the investigation must be reported to DHFS and to the retailer. I am vetoing the provision requiring that investigation results be reported to DHFS because the reports are not necessary for the department’s efforts to collect data to comply with federal law.
Section 2485j [as it relates to s. 254.916 (1) (c) and (12)] exempts surveys conducted by local units of government that have not entered into contracts with DHFS under 42 USC 300x-021 and 21 CFR part 897 from provisions of Chapter 254 and provides that no local surveys may be used for the purpose of issuing warnings or citations or any other enforcement mechanism. I am vetoing these provisions because one of the purposes in creating Chapter 254 was to strengthen compliance checks across the state to achieve a statewide goal of reducing the use of tobacco products by minors. In addition, I am concerned that the provision that precludes local municipalities from using the results of compliance checks for law enforcement purposes may curtail the ability of local governments in enforcing state law prohibiting tobacco sales to minors.
Section 2485j [as it relates to s. 254.916 (13)] exempts the City of Madison or the local health department or local law enforcement agency of the City of Madison from all provisions of Chapter 254. I am vetoing this provision because no county, town, village or city should have a special exemption from the requirements of Chapter 254.
10. Administrative Funding for the Blind and Visually Impaired
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (6) (kd)], 226c [as it relates to ss. 20.435 (6) (kd) and 196.218 (5) (a) 10.], 445g and 2332n
These sections provide $100,000 in each year from the universal fund for administrative services under the rehabilitation teaching program for blind and visually impaired persons. I am vetoing these provisions because I am concerned about broadening the use of the universal fund for activities not directly related to telecommunications, such as salary and fringe benefit costs for rehabilitation teachers. The Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) did not ask for additional funding for rehabilitation teachers in its biennial budget request. However, I want blind and visually impaired persons to receive the same level of services in fiscal year 1999-2000 and fiscal year 2000-2001 that they received in fiscal year 1998-1999. Thus, I am directing the secretary of DHFS to use base resources to continue the fiscal year 1998-1999 level of services.
11. Healthy Families Program
Section 1099g
This section requires the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to distribute $100,000 in each year to Kenosha Area Family and Aging Services, Inc. for the provision of home visiting services for mothers who are under 18 years of age. I am vetoing this section because I object to providing additional funding for home visiting programs. 1997 Wisconsin Act 293 created a home visiting grant program and required DHFS to evaluate the program. It is premature to expand these programs until the evaluation determines whether home visiting programs are effective in reducing the incidence of child abuse and neglect. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $100,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $100,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 in unallotted reserve in appropriation s. 20.435 (3) (bc) to lapse to the general fund.
12. Nursing Home Wage Pass-Through
Section 9123 (9m) (b), 9123 (9m) (bg), 9123 (9m) (bm) and 9123 (9m) (c)
Section 9123 (9m) (b), (bg), (bm) and (c) provide a wage pass-through supplement to nursing homes to increase the wages or salaries and fringe benefits or increase staff hours of housekeeping and laundry workers, dietitians, and food workers.
I am vetoing section 9123 (9m) (b), (bg) and (bm), and partially vetoing section 9123 (9m) (c), to eliminate the wage pass-through for housekeeping and laundry workers, dietitians, and food workers because this increase has not been sufficiently justified. Many nursing homes contract for dietary consulting services, and to a lesser extent, laundry and food service workers. Therefore, the wage pass-through may not apply to workers in those areas because the nursing home does not pay their wages directly. In light of evidence of high turnover rates and the threat of declining patient care as a result of low wages for nurse’s assistants, it makes sense at this time to direct scarce state resources to those workers who provide direct care.
I am requesting that the Department of Administration secretary place $1,722,500 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $2,277,500 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 in unallotted reserve in appropriation s. 20.435 (4) (b) to lapse to the general fund.
13. Supplemental Outpatient Hospital Payments
Section 1384g
This section directs the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to distribute not more than $2,451,000 (all funds) in each fiscal year, beginning on July 1, 2000, as a supplemental payment to hospitals for which Medical Assistance (MA) revenues were at least 8% of the hospital’s total revenues in the hospital’s most recent fiscal year prior to the year of the payment. I am partially vetoing this provision to make this a one-time payment in fiscal year 2000-2001. The intent of the payment is to offset a portion of hospitals’ increasing costs related to providing uncompensated care to patients without health insurance coverage. With the BadgerCare program in place, these costs are likely to decline, therefore reducing the need for an on-going supplemental payment.
I am also partially vetoing this section to correct a technical error in the statutory language outlining the distribution methodology. The methodology contained in this section would result in each hospital’s supplemental payment being equal to the hospital’s total amount of MA revenues in the previous year. I am partially vetoing the section to correct the methodology so that each qualifying hospital would receive the percentage of the supplemental funds available that is equal to that hospital’s percentage share of total MA revenues of all qualifying hospitals.
Finally, I am also partially vetoing this section to allow DHFS to calculate payments based on data from the prior state fiscal year, as opposed to calculating the payments based on each hospital’s fiscal year. Not all hospitals operate on the same fiscal year. Requiring DHFS to calculate payments over differing time periods is needlessly burdensome. This partial veto will standardize the time period over which all payments are calculated.
14. Medical Assistance Asset Test
Sections 1433t, 1433tm, 1433u, 1437m, 1437n, 1437p, 1437q, 1439g and 1439q
These sections eliminate the asset test for AFDC-related Medical Assistance (MA) eligibility. No funding was provided for this provision based on the assumption that all adults who do not meet the current AFDC-related categorically needy MA test would be BadgerCare eligible. I am vetoing this provision because I disagree with this assumption. BadgerCare will not cover the following individuals: (1) nonlegally responsible relative caregivers; (2) adult parents and their spouses with access to an employer-subsidized family group health plan where the employer pays at least 80% of the premium; and (3) adult parents and their spouses with health insurance coverage in the last three months that meets the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) standard plan definition. The Department of Health and Family Services estimates that the elimination of the asset test will increase MA program costs by approximately $1,723,900 GPR and $2,460,000 FED per year.
15. Irrevocable Burial Trusts and Medical Assistance (MA) Eligibility
Sections 2923mn and 9442 (2c)
Under the budget bill, the amount of an irrevocable burial trust that may be excluded from assets when calculating MA eligibility increases from $2,000 to $2,500 on January 1, 2001, and to $3,000 on July 1, 2001. Because funding has only been provided for the last six months of the 1999-2001 biennium, this provision creates a significant cost-to-continue problem for the next biennium, which is unacceptable.
I am vetoing section 2923mn and partially vetoing section 9442 (2c) to eliminate the second increase from $2,500 to $3,000 because it commits the state to increased general purpose revenue expenditures in the next biennium.
16. Medical Assistance (MA) School-Based Services
Sections 1427j and 9123 (13d)
Section 1427j directs the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to reimburse school districts, cooperative educational service agencies and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) (on behalf of the Wisconsin Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired and the Wisconsin School for the Deaf) for 90% of the federal share of allowable administrative costs on a quarterly basis. I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the requirement that DHFS reimburse these entities on a quarterly basis. Reimbursement on a quarterly basis does not coincide with the nine-month school year and this requirement would be administratively cumbersome to DHFS and to school districts. The reimbursement schedule currently in place, under which school districts receive reimbursement twice per year, is sufficient to ensure regular participation in the program.
Section 9123 (13d) specifies that DHFS shall reimburse school districts, cooperative educational service agencies and DPI (on behalf of the Wisconsin Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired and the Wisconsin School for the Deaf) for 90% of the federal share received for school-based services in excess of $16,100,000 annually. Under this provision, participating entities would receive 60% of the federal reimbursement for school medical services provided and 90% of federal reimbursement for administrative costs until federal reimbursement exceeds $16,100,000, at which point participating entities will receive 90% of federal reimbursement for both school medical services and administrative costs. The section further directs DHFS to submit, as part of its 2001-2003 biennial budget request, an increase in the percentage of the federal share received by educational entities for the provision of school-based services to reflect the total percentage of the federal share for which these educational entities were reimbursed in state fiscal year 1999-2000. I am vetoing this directive because it replaces the two-tiered reimbursement system aimed at encouraging participation in the program, with a flat, blended rate. I am directing DHFS to monitor participation based on the new rates and, if it is determined that improvements are needed, to propose a different rate structure in the next biennial budget.
17. BadgerCare Outreach
Section 1476f
This provision directs the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to coordinate with the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to develop and implement an outreach mailing targeted at families of children enrolled in the federal school lunch program to inform them of the BadgerCare program.
I am vetoing this provision because a similar effort is already underway. DPI recently sent a letter to every school district in the state encouraging them to inform families of the BadgerCare program. As a result, the Milwaukee Public Schools created a flyer about BadgerCare which was distributed to students. Several other school districts have included BadgerCare information with applications for the federal school lunch program. In addition, it is my understanding that President Clinton has initiated a similar campaign at the federal level. I am directing DHFS to continue to coordinate with DPI to conduct BadgerCare outreach activities in Wisconsin schools.
18. Nocturnal Enuresis Feasibility Study
Section 9123 (7t)
This section directs the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to conduct a study on the cost and efficacy of urine alarms used in conjunction with behavior modification therapy and case management, including bimonthly visits with a specialist, as a treatment for nocturnal enuresis (commonly referred to as bedwetting).
I am vetoing this study because the Wisconsin Medical Assistance (MA) program currently covers a number of methods and services that parents can use to address this problem, including case management, counseling and urine alarms. DHFS has concluded the successful use of urine alarms is best achieved when supervised by the child’s primary care physician as part of a comprehensive care plan. In addition, current literature and recommendations from the Nocturnal Enuresis Society do not indicate the need for outside supervision in conjunction with the use of urine alarms. Finally, the vast majority of MA recipients with this diagnosis are children who are enrolled in managed care plans. Health maintenance organizations routinely evaluate the effectiveness of such treatments and choose what they believe to be the most effective option.
Sections 30d, 172 [as it relates to s. 20.436 (1) (tb) and (tc)], 717t, 2486g, 9101 (20c) and 9158 (11mg)
These sections create the Tobacco Control Board (board) to develop a state plan for spending the funds received under the tobacco settlement and set aside $25,992,000 of those funds in a separate segregated fund. The board is attached administratively to the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS). The sections also define the duties of the board, identify the activities on which the funds can be spent and provide 2.0 FTE SEG positions. An annual report is required each year evaluating the success of the grant program and audits are required of the University of Wisconsin Center for Tobacco Research and Intervention and the Medical College of Wisconsin. Finally, the Department of Administration (DOA) is required to study the possibility of selling and transferring the state's rights to the monies to establish a permanent endowment fund.
Prior to outlining my vetoes, I want to underscore the importance of investing dollars in worthy and effective programs to prevent smoking, as well as further research on both the health-effects of smoking and medical care for those who suffer from tobacco's ill effects. I fully expect this funding, which provides more than ample resources, will enable Wisconsin to be a bold leader in an aggressive battle to tackle smoking.
First, I am partially vetoing section 30d [as it relates to the board members, terms and number of meetings] because I am dissatisfied with the board's composition. My concern with the board as statutorily constituted stems from what I believe is an unbalanced composition that keeps important constituencies, such as retailers and parents of teenagers, from having a place at the table. I am also vetoing section 9158 (11mg) which specifies the expiration dates of certain members because it is no longer necessary if the specific membership of the board is not set statutorily.
