Sections 1250b and 1252
These sections remove any work requirement as a condition of eligibility for W-2 child care assistance while participating in an education program. Under current law, participants are required to have 9 months of previous workforce attachment or be engaged in a W-2 subsidized employment position before becoming eligible to receive child care assistance while going to school. My budget proposal reduced the work requirement to 3 months. Because of anticipated increases in eligibility for child care assistance, an additional $130,000 PR-F was allocated for fiscal year 1999-2000 and an additional $150,000 PR-F was allocated for fiscal year 2000-2001.
W-2 is a work-based program, and attachment to the workforce is a critical aspect of eligibility even for child care assistance. Therefore, I am partially vetoing these sections. This veto will have the effect of requiring W-2 agencies to determine if a basic education program would facilitate the individual’s efforts to maintain employment. Thus, the participant will have to be engaged in unsubsidized work or a subsidized W-2 employment position. Because eligibility for assistance will still increase compared to what I allocated in my budget proposal, I am not removing the additional funding for this provision.
41. Child Care and Development Block Grant Funds
Section 9157 (3mm)
This provision requires the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to create a plan to maximize the use of federal child care and development block grant funds by the first day of the first month beginning after budget publication. This plan would have to be submitted to the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) the following month. Given the publication date of this bill, I feel DWD will not have sufficient time to meet this requirement.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the submission date requirements. Furthermore, I direct DWD to create a plan by December 1, 1999, and submit that plan to DHHS by January 1, 2000.
42. Effective Dates – Child Care Eligibility Changes
Section 9457 (3) and 9457 (4)
This section introduces effective dates for new child care assistance eligibility requirements and specifies that, among other items, s. 49.145 (3) (b) 2. with regards to the repeal of the child care asset test is effective on January 1, 2000. There are two treatments of this section of the statutes in the bill, and I feel that the amendment to s. 49.145 (3) (b) 1., with regard to excluding a dependent child’s income from a family income calculation, should be effective at the same time.
These and other child care eligibility changes including the expansion of eligibility for disabled children up to age 19, exclusion of child support income, the increase in initial eligibility from 165% of the federal poverty line (FPL) to 185% FPL, and the change from gross to net income are scheduled to take effect January 1, 2000. However, they all require reprogramming of the Client Assistance for Reemployment and Economic Support System (CARES), and this system will be unavailable for reprogramming between November 1, 1999, and January 31, 2000, due to a systemwide freeze in preparation for Y2K. Furthermore, with the delayed passage of the budget, I feel the Department of Workforce Development will not have time to make the changes even without a precautionary Y2K freeze.
Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section to make all changes to s. 49.145 (3) (b) effective simultaneously and to remove the January 1 effective date in section 9457, subsections (3) and (4). I direct the Department of Workforce Development to instead make the necessary changes to the CARES system by March 1, 2000.
43. Credit Establishment and Repair
Sections 1221 and 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (cr)]
These sections provide funding to Milwaukee W-2 agencies for the provision of credit establishment and credit repair assistance to participants. I do not support additional funding for this purpose because W-2 agencies already perform budgeting and financial planning counseling to participants. Furthermore, concern has been expressed by many groups, including the Federal Trade Commission, that certain “credit repair” firms are achieving their ends not by helping participants learn good financial habits but by promising quick fixes.
Therefore, I am partially vetoing section 1278g to eliminate the allocation of $3,000,000 in each fiscal year for this program. I also am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to put these funds into unallotted reserve.
Finally, I am partially vetoing section 1221. This partial veto will reinstate the requirement that any W-2 agency intending to provide credit assistance or credit repair services must submit a proposed plan to the Department of Workforce Development (DWD). With this particular veto, DWD can ensure that no W-2 agencies contract with disreputable credit repair firms.
44. Campaign for a Sustainable Milwaukee
Section 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (zi)]
This section allocates $300,000 to the Campaign for a Sustainable Milwaukee (CSM) in fiscal year 1999-2000 from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. CSM has indicated their organization is not prepared to use these funds and have recommended the return of this $300,000 to the general workforce attachment fund.
Furthermore, if CSM provides services for TANF-eligible individuals, any W-2 agency may contract with this organization separately. Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section, eliminating the allocation for this agency. I also am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place these funds into unallotted reserve.
45. Milwaukee Jobs Initiative
Section 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (zm)]
This section allocates $100,000 PR-F in each fiscal year for the Milwaukee Jobs Initiative, Inc. (MJI). I object to making this allocation ongoing and feel a one-time allocation is more appropriate. Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section, instead allocating $100,000 for MJI on a one-time basis. I also am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place the $100,000 in fiscal year 2000-2001 into unallotted reserve.
46. Runaway Services
Sections 397m, 397r and 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (ze) 4.]
This provision transfers funding from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant to the Department of Health and Family Services to distribute $150,000 annually in grants to programs that provide services for runaway children.
In the budget, I created a Community Youth Grant program in which the Department of Workforce Development will award grants on a competitive basis to organizations providing services to TANF-eligible youth. Any organization that provides services to runaway children would be eligible to compete for a grant under this new program. Furthermore, W-2 agencies may contract separately with any organization that provides these services to TANF-eligible youth. Therefore, I am partially vetoing these sections, eliminating a separate TANF allocation for a runaway services program. I also am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place these funds into unallotted reserve.
47. Joint Committee on Finance TANF Expenditure Review Authority
Section 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (2)]
This section eliminates the current Department of Workforce Development (DWD) authority to transfer 10% from one allocation under s. 49.175 (1) to another allocation for a specified purpose with Department of Administration (DOA) approval. It would institute a process whereby any redistribution of funds between DWD allocations would require approval from DOA and the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF).
The transfer authority, which exists under current law, allows DWD flexibility in making adjustments to its public assistance allocations which are funded primarily by GPR and the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. This flexibility is necessary in maintaining DWD’s ability to manage and respond to changes that are needed in the W-2 program.
Under current law, two sets of statutes govern the use of TANF funds – the federal block grant review language under s. 16.54 (2) (a) 2. and the allocations, established by the Legislature in the 1997-1999 biennial budget, under s. 49.175. Because these statutes overlap and are occasionally contradictory, my budget proposal tried to strike a new, more workable balance between the Legislature’s legitimate desire to oversee the use of TANF and DWD’s need for some flexibility in managing these programs. As such, under my budget TANF was exempt from federal bock grant review. However, the Legislature retained oversight of the use of TANF through the s. 49.175 allocations. In addition, I changed the TANF block grant from a continuing to an annual appropriation so that JCF approval would be needed before any TANF not appropriated by the Legislature could be expended. I believe this proposal struck the correct balance because it retained the flexibility for DWD to transfer up to 10% from one allocation to another without Legislative review.
Unfortunately, the Legislature removed the 10% transfer flexibility and consequently upset this balance. I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate JCF review of all transfers between allocations. DOA review of any transfers will continue. Furthermore, I direct DWD to not request any redistribution which exceeds its authority under current law to transfer 10% of any s. 49.175 allocation for a specified purpose with DOA approval. I would be willing to support separate legislation to restore JCF review to any transfer greater than 10%.
48. Administration of Medical Assistance
Sections 466, 1356m, 1356n, 1373v, 1460m, 9101 (18m), 9157 (2p) and 9423 (10m)
These sections transfer responsibility for Medical Assistance (MA) eligibility administration and the management of the Client Assistance for Reemployment Economic Support System (CARES) from the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) effective March 1, 2000. In addition, the Department of Administration (DOA) is directed to identify the exact number of full-time equivalent (FTE) positions and dollars that should be transferred and to submit this information to the Joint Committee on Finance for action at its December s.13.10 quarterly meeting.
Under current law, DHFS sets MA policy and DWD has responsibility for income maintenance (IM) administration. IM is another term for eligibility determination of the major public assistance programs. Consequently, DWD manages the CARES system, on which eligibility is determined for W-2, MA, BadgerCare, food stamps and child care. While CARES is the primary administrative tool used by DWD and the W-2 agencies to manage cases of public assistance recipients, to compile data for research and statistics, and to generate required quarterly and annual reports for submittal to the federal government, it also plays an important role in determining eligibility for the MA program. Finally, DWD also manages the local IM contract and provides services like training and manual writing to the counties, tribes and W-2 agencies.
Given the overwhelming success of welfare reform, it is now appropriate to follow-up with some reform of MA administration. However, I am not convinced that it is necessary, at this point in time, to transfer the management of the CARES system from one department to another or split the administration of public assistance programs in the manner proposed under the bill. I am, therefore, partially vetoing these sections to remove these requirements.
To improve the current arrangement between the two departments, I am retaining language that directs the DOA secretary to submit a report to my office which details the FTE positions and funds that are involved in MA administration. In addition, I am directing that DWD move the management of the CARES system to the Bureau of Information Technology in the Administrative Services Division of DWD and that DOA become more involved in setting the priorities for work on the system especially in areas that support more than one public assistance program.
Second, I am directing DOA to place all of the IM funds in unallotted reserve. DWD and DHFS will determine the funding and FTE positions related to state-level activities, CARES administration and local IM contracts that are billed to MA, W-2, food stamps and child care. Further, DOA, working with the two agencies, should develop a plan for withdrawing the funds from unallotted reserve and allocating the FTE positions between the agencies. Once a spending plan has been agreed to by all three agencies, I am directing DOA to oversee the transfer of the agreed upon FTE positions and funding related to MA administrative activities to DHFS. The plan will also address separation of contracts at the local level.
Through these actions, my intent is to improve the ability of DHFS to ensure that MA functions as effectively as possible at both the state and local level and to balance the priorities of both agencies and my administration.
49. Unified Program Eligibility
Section 9157 (3e)
This provision requires the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to coordinate with the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to develop and implement a plan for a simplified application process for low-income families applying for Medical Assistance, BadgerCare, Food Stamps, reduced and free school lunches, and the supplemental food program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC). These agencies would have to submit this plan to the Joint Committee on Finance for a 14-day passive review process prior to implementing the new application process.
The application for these programs is currently handled by the Client Assistance for Reemployment and Economic Support System (CARES), a computerized system which can determine eligibility for all programs through one application. DWD, DHFS, and representatives of local government have already worked to develop a new application process in CARES for Medical Assistance, BadgerCare, W-2, Food Stamps and child care assistance.
In their proposal, these departments did not include a discussion of school lunches or WIC benefits because they are not part of the CARES system. These programs have much simpler applications than other assistance programs and adding the applications for these programs into a streamlined application for other public assistance programs could significantly burden those individuals who only want WIC or free and reduced school lunch and those organizations which accept applications for school lunches or WIC.
Because a simplified application process has already been developed and because the proposal in this bill could complicate applications for school lunches and WIC, I am vetoing this section. However, I direct the departments to develop a report detailing the findings of their work group and share that report with the Co-Chairs of the Joint Committee on Finance.
50. Public Assistance Eligibility Determination
Section 9123 (7w)
This provision requires the Department of Workforce Development and the Department of Health and Family Services to make improvements to the Client Assistance Reemployment and Economic Support (CARES) system such that individuals applying for more than one assistance program could have their eligibility determined for each program independently of their eligibility determinations for other programs.
CARES collects a general set of personal information when individuals apply for public assistance. This system uses that information to determine eligibility for an array of public assistance programs, but eligibility for each program is currently determined independently of eligibility for other programs. Because CARES already functions in the way specified by this provision, I am vetoing this section and removing the provision requiring these two departments to change the CARES system.
51. Medical Assistance Outstationing
Section 1361v
This section requires counties to provide outstationed Medical Assistance (MA) eligibility workers the necessary security clearance to review and update information on existing records in the Client Assistance for Reemployment and Economic Support (CARES) system that have been assigned to other caseworkers. The Department of Health and Family Services has already implemented administrative procedures to address the concern that MA recipients cannot get immediate service when they go to outreach locations. Because a change in law is not required to make these administrative adjustments, I am vetoing this section and removing this additional proposed change to the CARES system.
52. Public Assistance Funerals and Burials
Sections 1355wb and 9423 (14d)
Under the bill, the maximum amount of unpaid funeral and burial expenses of public assistance recipients for which state reimbursement is provided increases from $1,000 to $1,500 on January 1, 2001, and to $2,500 on July 1, 2001. Funds to cover these increases have only been provided for the last six months of the 1999-2001 biennium.
Because these provisions would commit the state to increased general purpose revenue expenditures in the next biennium, I am vetoing section 1355wb and the effective date for this provision in section 9423 (14d). This veto will permit the first reimbursement increase from $1,000 to $1,500, but will strike the second increase to $2,500.
53. Public Assistance Overpayments
Section 1340
This section amends current law by requiring a county, tribal governing body, W-2 agency or the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to determine whether overpayments of public assistance have been made and, if so, the amount of the overpayment. The bill would require notification of that overpayment to the public assistance recipient in question, and it would prevent any agency from recovering overpayments resulting from departmental error.
Regardless of the source of the error, recipients of an overpayment obtained assistance to which they were not entitled. For the same reason a financial institution can recover incorrect interest credits to accounts, the department should be able to recover overpayments. Therefore I am partially vetoing this section in order to allow DWD to collect any overpayments regardless of how the error occurs.
54. Legal Custody and Physical Placement of Children
Sections 3054cg, 3054ch, 3054cs, 3054cw, 3054de, 3065cq, 9357 (9yo) and 9457 (7yo)
A Conference Committee amendment to the budget made significant changes to the statutory law governing the legal custody and physical placement of children. Among the changes were the creation of a presumption that joint legal custody is in a child’s best interests. Other provisions encourage courts to award maximum physical placement to both parents. I feel these changes are consistent with the idea that both mothers and fathers should maintain important roles in their children’s lives. While I agree with most of the provisions, some sections will require additional work and public input.
Physical Placement Schedules and Parental Agreement. This section creates a presumption that any proposal submitted to the court with respect to periods of physical placement that has been voluntarily agreed to by the parties is in a child’s best interests. This presumption would be notwithstanding the factors the court normally may consider when awarding physical placement to parents.
Currently, two parties agreeing to a physical placement schedule often have that schedule approved by the court. Instances may arise, however, when an agreed upon schedule may not be in a child’s best interests, and this section would prevent the court from reviewing such agreements. It would also prevent reviews even if evidence of abuse in the family was apparent. Therefore, I am vetoing section 3054cs and removing the presumption that schedules based on parental agreement are in the child’s best interests.
Right of the Child to Placement. This section creates a right of a child to the same amount or substantial periods of physical placement with each parent. Under current law, any placement schedule is evaluated against the standard of what is best for a child. Also under current law, a child is already entitled to periods of physical placement with both parents unless the court determines placement with a parent may be harmful to the child.
Another change introduced creates a goal for the court to award regularly occurring and meaningful periods of physical placement which maximizes the amount of time each parent may spend with a child. I feel this latter change is sufficient to encourage courts to award as much placement as possible to each parent in accordance with what is best for a child. Creating a right of a child, however, goes too far and I object to the use of the budget bill to create new rights for children. If such a right exists, it should receive additional public and legislative review. Furthermore, by framing this issue in terms of a right, this section could arguably override the best interest standard. Therefore, I am vetoing section 3054cw and removing this right.
Enforcement of Physical Placement Injunctions. This section allows a law enforcement officer who has established probable cause to arrest and take into custody an individual who has violated an injunction related to periods of physical placement. Before arresting a party, an officer would have to determine that this violation was intentional and unreasonable. Based on this subjective determination, an officer could arrest a parent without a judicial warrant. I feel this section places a burden upon local law enforcement to determine whether or not a denial of placement is unreasonable.
Courts already have the authority to penalize individuals who violate such injunctions. Therefore, I am partially vetoing section 3054de and removing the provision that permits law enforcement officials to arrest violators of placement injunctions.
Temporary Orders in Paternity Actions. These sections require a court to make temporary orders for medical expenses, legal custody and physical placement when a genetic test shows with 99.0% or higher probability that the alleged father is the parent. Under current law, courts shall assign support and may assign medical expenses when genetic tests show probable paternity.
A temporary order is issued before a final judgement of paternity, and I object to requiring courts to assign custody and placement before a legal relationship between a child and father has been adjudicated. Therefore, I am vetoing sections 3054cg, 3054ch and 3065cq and removing the requirement that courts assign legal custody, physical placement and medical expenses. This veto will return the statutes to current law whereby the court shall assign child support and may assign medical expenses once a genetic test shows probable paternity.
Initial Applicability and Effective Dates. Finally, I am partially vetoing sections 9357 and 9457 to remove the references to all of the vetoed sections listed above from the initial applicability and effective date sections of the bill.
55. Family Literacy Grants
Section 1277g
This section specifies that literacy grants awarded by the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) shall be given only to organizations providing family literacy training. In my budget, I allocated funding for these grants from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. I object to the language added by the Legislature because it would prevent organizations from using these funds to provide adult-only literacy training. Furthermore, I feel this language is unnecessary. Any individual benefiting from these programs must be TANF-eligible, ensuring that organizations only provide services to families. Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section and eliminating the language which allows the funds to be used only for family literacy.
56. Prevailing Wage Law – Contractor Records
Sections 1618m, 2005f and 2005g
Sections 1618m, 2005f and 2005g change the prevailing wage law regarding contractor records. These sections would classify the payroll records of any contractor, subcontractor or agent thereof that works on a public works project as a public record. As a public record, any person could request to inspect and copy those records to the same extent as if those records were in the custody of the state. Under current law, any person can request the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) or the Department of Transportation to inspect the records of any contractor, subcontractor or agent thereof who works on a public works project. Once these records are in the possession of the state they are public records.
I am vetoing these sections because a more suitable forum to address prevailing wage laws would be DWD’s Labor and Management Council. Since both labor and management are represented on the council, it is a more appropriate vehicle for reaching a mutually acceptable compromise.
57. Reorganization of the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Section 9157 (2nx)
Section 9157 (2nx) requires the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) in the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to submit to the secretary of DWD a plan to reorganize the division not later than June 30, 2001. The reorganization plan must include a reduction in the number of program assistant supervisors and an increase in the number of program assistants to provide support for rehabilitation counselors. The plan must also include a provision to convert vacant program assistant supervisor positions to rehabilitation counselor positions or other direct service positions in areas with high caseloads.
I am vetoing section 9157 (2nx) to eliminate these restrictions on DVR’s reorganization plan. While I agree that DVR should focus its resources on serving its clients, determining the organizational structure of executive agencies is appropriately an executive branch responsibility.
58. Transition to Workforce Investment Act
Section 9157 (2xt) (b) 2
I am partially vetoing section 9157 (2xt) to bring Wisconsin’s transition to the Workforce Investment Act into compliance with federal law. Section 9157 (2xt) (b) 2 incorrectly identifies the Governor as the appointing authority for local workforce development boards. Members of local workforce development boards are appointed at the local level.
