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.
D. JUSTICE
CIRCUIT COURT
1. Family Court Counseling Fee
Sections 3096m and 9309 (3t)
These provisions increase the family court counseling service fee for custody and physical placement studies from $300 to $500. A court orders these studies when a custody or placement case has been contested.
I am vetoing these provisions because the fee increase is excessive, has not been justified and may inhibit involved parties from exploring their full range of legal options.
CORRECTIONS
2. Inmate Telephone Solicitation and Access to Personal Information
Sections 2165rx, 2165rz, 2313m, 2313u, 2313y and 2689
These provisions prohibit the Department of Corrections from entering into a contract in which an inmate performs data entry or telemarketing services and has access to any personal identifying information. Personal identifying information is defined to include an individual’s name, address, telephone number, driver’s license number, social security number, employer or place of employment, an identification number assigned to an individual by his or her employer, the maiden name of an individual’s mother, and the numbers of certain types of bank accounts. These provisions also require an inmate making a telephone solicitation or answering a toll-free number to state his or her name, state that he or she is a prisoner, and inform the caller or call recipient of the name and location of the correctional facility in which he or she is a prisoner. Finally, these provisions impose penalties on the inmate and the inmate’s employer for violations of these provisions.
I am vetoing some of these sections in whole and one in part because these provisions impose excessive restrictions that merit further review. Specifically, I am partially vetoing section 2689 so that the provision as vetoed will protect citizens by prohibiting inmate access to social security numbers, financial data and information that could serve to identify a juvenile. I believe this language as vetoed should adequately protect privacy while still providing inmate work opportunities and decreasing inmate idleness. However, I am also asking the Governor’s Task Force on Privacy to review and make recommendations regarding the need for any additional safeguards in this area.
3. Private Business/Prison Employment Program
Sections 359g, 359r, 361m, 491m, 2029y, 2718e, 2718em, 2718g, 2718h, 2718L, 2718p, 2718qm, 2718v, 2718y, 9111 (2d) and 9411 (5d)
These provisions require the Department of Corrections and the Department of Administration to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance for each quarter of calendar year 2000 providing the Department of Corrections’ cash balance summary under each private business prison contract. The 4th quarter report is required to state whether at least two-thirds of the private business prison contracts were profitable during calendar year 2000. “Profitable” is defined as making a profit in three out of four quarters in calendar year 2000. These provisions require the Department of Corrections to terminate the private business employment program if less than two-thirds of private business prison contracts were profitable. These provisions require any modification of the site location under a private business prison contract to be approved by the Joint Committee on Finance.
I am vetoing these provisions in whole or in part because the Department of Corrections already prepares quarterly and annual reports that include the cash balance, revenues and expenditures of each private business contract. Profitability should be based on total business for a calendar year, not quarters. Also, these provisions fail to account for start-up costs of new industries that would begin in calendar year 2000. The two-thirds criterion is ambiguous in the case of fewer than three private business/prison employment projects. Finally, the requirement that any modification of site location under a private business prison contract must receive Joint Committee on Finance approval limits the Department of Corrections’ flexibility to efficiently manage the program.
4. Community Intervention Program
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.410 (3) (f)] and 2709r
These provisions increase the community intervention program appropriation from $3,750,000 GPR to $5,000,000 GPR in each fiscal year of the biennium.
I am vetoing these provisions because a 33% increase in this program is too large. By lining out the department’s appropriation under s. 20.410 (3) (f), which funds this program and writing in a smaller amount, I am vetoing the part of the bill that funds an increase of $1,250,000 GPR in each fiscal year. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot the $1,250,000 GPR saved each fiscal year from this veto. It should also be noted that the budget bill as I am signing it increases funding for juvenile justice programs by $10,200,000 GPR for the biennium, including a $6,000,000 increase in youth aids.
5. Serious Juvenile Offender Program
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.410 (3) (cg)]
This provision increases the serious juvenile offender appropriation under s. 20.410 (3) (cg), by $1,160,200 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $3,593,900 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001.
I am partially vetoing this provision to reflect the most current population reestimates for this program. By lining out the department’s s. 20.410 (3) (cg) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $593,900 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing part of the bill in order to fund an increase of $3,000,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot the $593,900 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001.
CRIMINAL PENALTIES
6. Fiscal Estimates for Proposed Penalty Bills
Sections 1js, 1jt, 1ju
These provisions require fiscal estimates and population projections to be prepared for bills that create new criminal offenses or increase penalties for existing offenses.
I am vetoing these provisions because they are substantially similar to separate legislation and because the provisions fail to consider the resources needed to prepare the fiscal estimates.
The Criminal Penalties Study Committee (CPSC) has recently issued a report recommending the establishment of a permanent Sentencing Commission. One function of the Sentencing Commission will be to work with the Legislative Fiscal Bureau to project the fiscal impact of any proposed new criminal laws. The CPSC report recommendations, including the creation of the Sentencing Commission, are included in legislation currently being considered by the Legislature.
In addition, the Department of Corrections (DOC) does not currently have sufficient information technology resources or enough reliable data to generate accurate fiscal and population estimates. These provisions do not provide additional funding or position authority to DOC to assist the department in preparing fiscal estimates. As outlined by the CPSC report, a Sentencing Commission would be provided with resources to monitor sentences, carry out sentencing studies, collect data and predict prison populations utilizing both Circuit Court Automation Program (CCAP) and DOC databases.
The Assembly has adopted an amendment to the CPSC report that outlines a joint review committee on criminal penalties. The proposed committee would be responsible for reviewing proposed penalty changes and estimating costs for DOC, the Department of Justice, the state public defender, the courts, district attorneys, and other state and local government agencies.
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
7. Additional Prosecutor Positions
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.475 (1) (d)] and 9101 (3d)
These provisions authorize GPR expenditures of $631,800 in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $841,800 in fiscal year 2000-2001 to fund an additional 17.40 FTE assistant district attorney (ADA) positions annually in Adams, Chippewa, Dane, Jefferson, Kenosha, La Crosse, Manitowoc, Marathon, Milwaukee, Outagamie, Oneida, Portage, Rock, Sauk, Sheboygan and Winnebago Counties and bring the Forest County elected district attorney (DA) to full-time. Section 9101 (3d) specifically increases position authority in La Crosse County by 0.50 FTE and Sauk County by 1.0 FTE by decreasing position authority in Milwaukee County by 1.25 FTE and Columbia County by 0.50 FTE.
I am vetoing these provisions because we cannot afford these additional positions when we have serious fiscal pressures facing us in the next biennium. Furthermore, the budget addresses various personnel needs of Wisconsin’s DA offices through 6.0 FTE additional prosecutors for gun violations, the conversion of several critical positions to permanent status and increased funding to further automate DA offices. In addition, the transfer of position authority between county district attorney offices represents an unnecessary burden on those offices that would be reduced.
By lining out the s. 20.475 (1) (d) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $631,800 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $823,500 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill that funds the additional ADA positions that were provided by these amendments. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
It is my intent to provide 0.40 FTE position authority to increase the elected DA of Forest County to full-time. Therefore, the s. 20.475 (1) (d) appropriation amount includes $18,300 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to enable this increase effective on January 1, 2001, with the calendar year 2000 general election. It should be noted that 53 assistant district attorney positions have been added since the state began funding these positions in 1989, which is a 16% increase.
8. Bureau of Justice Information Systems
Section 115
This provision directs the Department of Administration’s Bureau of Justice Information Systems (BJIS) to use the Legislative Audit Bureau’s weighted district attorney caseload methodology to determine the priority ranking for implementing computer automation and technical assistance to county district attorney offices.
I am vetoing this provision in part because BJIS needs flexibility to effectively manage the implementation of its computer automation systems. Other factors such as determining which district attorney offices are in need of or are prepared for automation need to be considered, and reliance on the workload study methodology is too limiting.
JUSTICE
9. Training for Tomorrow
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.455 (2) (ja)] and 9130 (1t)
As part of the distribution of funds from the penalty assessment surcharge, these provisions affect the creation of 2.50 FTE positions and place $388,100 PR-S in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $345,100 PR-S in fiscal year 2000-2001 in s. 20.455 (2) (ja) in unalloted reserve to begin Training for Tomorrow – a plan to revise and expand law enforcement training throughout the state. Approval of this provision is subject to the Joint Committee on Finance’s 14-day passive review process of a plan submitted by the Department of Justice.
I am vetoing these provisions because they do not allow for the full review of funding and staffing issues that this plan deserves. Numerous law enforcement agencies have contacted my office to request this veto and have expressed their concern over a lack of consensus regarding the Training for Tomorrow plan. Because of the complexity of this issue and its potential impact on the law enforcement community, Training for Tomorrow should be introduced as separate legislation. Funding and resources for this purpose should only be approved following its complete review as a stand-alone bill.
By lining out the s. 20.455 (2) (ja) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $388,100 PR-S in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $345,100 PR-S in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill that places these funds in unalloted reserve in that appropriation and authorizes 2.50 FTE positions. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
10. Collection of Information at Motor Vehicle Stops
Section 2289t
This section requires law enforcement officers to collect certain information during motor vehicle stops pertaining to the driver’s age, gender, race or ethnicity, the nature of any search of the vehicle, and whether a citation or warning was issued. This information is intended to examine the presence of “racial profiling” – the practice of targeting motorists on the basis of their race or color.
I am vetoing this section because it creates an unfunded burden on local law enforcement and the Department of Justice. Law enforcement says that of every four motor vehicle stops, one generally results in a citation. According to the Department of Transportation, more than 1.1 million citations were issued in 1998. This means it would cost law enforcement 250,000 hours to complete the approximately 3 million additional reports if they spend a mere 5 additional minutes completing each required report. While a study as to whether racial profiling exists in Wisconsin is important, this provision’s manpower price is too great.
State law enforcement, almost as one voice, has also raised concerns over the fiscal consequences that would come with an additional 3 million reports to be collected and filed. Law enforcement also raises the very valid issue of officer safety, as an officer is most vulnerable when standing alongside a vehicle stopped at the side of a road. This provision would significantly increase this exposure, thus putting our law enforcement members in greater danger.
While I am vetoing this provision, I must also emphasize I do not condone the practice of racial profiling. Therefore, I will create a task force to investigate this issue to more efficiently determine whether Wisconsin law enforcement engages in racial profiling.
11. Telecommunications Advocate
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.455 (1) (kt)], 480m and 2336gm
These sections convert 1.0 FTE attorney position from project to permanent status and authorize related expenditure authority. These sections also extend the sunset date for the Public Service Commission’s (PSC’s) authority to assess utilities for the cost of this position from June 30, 1999, to June 30, 2001.
I am vetoing the sections related to the telecommunications advocate position and the related assessment on utilities because it is unnecessary to dedicate an attorney position at the Department of Justice exclusively to telecommunications issues. Furthermore, assessing utilities to cover the cost of this position results in a pass-through to customers that increases costs for all telephone consumers.
By lining out s. 20.455 (1) (kt) and writing in zero, I am vetoing the part of the bill funding the 1.0 FTE attorney position dedicated to this purpose. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot $119,200 PR-O in each fiscal year.
By vetoing the sections relating to the sunsets for the s. 20.455 (1) (kt) appropriation and the authority of the PSC to assess utilities for the costs of the position, I am retaining the June 30, 1999, sunset of both the telecommunications advocate position and the authority of the PSC to assess utilities for the cost of the position.
The Attorney General will continue to have the authority to appear before the PSC on telecommunication matters related to consumer protection and antitrust until the newly established sunset date of June 30, 2001.
12. Wausau Crime Lab Expansion Study
Section 9101 (5g)
This provision directs the Department of Administration (DOA) to perform a study to assess the feasibility of expanding the Wausau crime lab to include a DNA/serology unit. The study is to be completed by December 31, 1999.
I am vetoing this provision because introducing DNA capabilities at the Wausau crime lab is an unnecessary duplication of services and expensive equipment. The existing DNA resources at the state crime labs in Madison and Milwaukee have been sufficient to provide commendable service to prosecutors and law enforcement agencies throughout the state.
In addition, the December 31, 1999, deadline would not permit enough time to compile a meaningful report, and the study would represent an unfunded demand on DOA.
