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.
13. Report on Environment Enforcement Training
Section 9158 (8c)
This provision directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to jointly review educational and training objectives from the Midwest Environmental Enforcement Association (MEEA). The agencies would submit a report of their review to the Joint Committee on Finance during the second quarterly s. 13.10 meeting in 2000.
The report would include recommendations on developing a training seminar, utility of the current Roll Call Law format, production of a training CD-ROM, use of distance education, and potential funding sources including the fish and wildlife account and environmental account funds from DNR and law enforcement training funds from DOJ.
I am vetoing this provision because this study represents an unfunded and unnecessary demand on DOJ and DNR. The two agencies already interact through the participation of DNR on the Law Enforcement Standards Board under DOJ. The board sets minimum training standards for law enforcement officers and consults with other government agencies regarding the development of training courses. Additionally, the early 2000 deadline would not permit enough time to compile a meaningful report.
14. Methamphetamine Intelligence Analyst
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.455 (2) (a)]
This provision appropriates $154,600 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $233,200 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to fund 1.0 FTE GPR program and planning analyst and 3.0 FTE GPR special agent positions starting in January 2000 to investigate methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking.
While I support the earlier start date for the special agent positions, I am partially vetoing this section to delete the analyst position because it is less critical to the effective investigation and direct enforcement of methamphetamine manufacturing, use and trafficking. By lining out the s. 20.455 (2) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $32,100 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $64,200 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill that funds the 1.0 FTE GPR program and planning analyst position. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. I am also directing the Office of Justice Assistance to explore ways to allocate additional money to help local law enforcement agencies with this problem.
OFFICE OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
15. Grants Specialist Position Report
Section 9101 (7f)
The budget bill creates a new grants specialist position in the Office of Justice Assistance (OJA) with the goal of increasing the amount of federal and private grant funds available to state agencies, local governments and nonprofit groups. Statutory language in this section requires OJA to submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2001, detailing the accomplishments of the position and grants received attributable to the position’s efforts.
I am partially vetoing this section in order to eliminate the January 2001 reporting requirement because this provision represents a long-term investment for the state, local governments and nonprofit organizations. A report covering such a short time period would not accurately represent the full benefit of this position and its efforts.
STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
16. Representation in Children in Need of Protective Services (CHIPS) and Juveniles in Need of Protective Services (JIPS) Cases
Sections 1130m, 1130p, 1130r, 1130t, 1130v, 1131gm, 3130m, 3131m, 3142g, 3142m, 3142p, 3143m, 3148m, 9358 (4cs) and 9358 (4ct)
These provisions require the State Public Defender to represent parents in CHIPS and JIPS cases. This requirement is estimated to increase the private bar costs of the State Public Defender by $2,726,500 GPR over the biennium, yet no additional funding is provided to the State Public Defender’s office.
I am vetoing these provisions in whole or in part because of the significant unfunded cost created by these provisions for the State Public Defender’s office. Specifically I am partially vetoing section 3142p to delete State Public Defender representation of parents and partially vetoing sections 9358 (4cs) and 9358 (4ct) to delete the initial applicability dates for legal representation of parents in CHIPS and JIPS cases.
SUPREME COURT
