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
17. Appropriation Modifications
Sections 172 [as it relates to ss. 20.680 (2) (a) and 20.680 (4) (a)], 602m and 605m
These provisions convert the general program operations appropriations for the director of state courts and the law library from annual to biennial appropriations.
I am vetoing these provisions in order to maintain the stricter fiscal controls provided under annual appropriations and to continue to adequately monitor appropriation expenditures.
E. STATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
ADMINISTRATION
1. Consolidation of State Vehicle Fleet Operations
Section 9158 (1d)
This section requires the Department of Administration to submit to the Joint Committee on Finance implementation plans to consolidate the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Transportation and University of Wisconsin fleet operations into the Department of Administration fleet.
I am pleased that the Legislature adopted my recommendation regarding the study of consolidating state fleets. However, due to the late passage of the budget, requiring submission of the first plan at the December 1999 meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance under s. 13.10 is not achievable. The Department of Administration will require additional time to prepare a suitable plan. I am therefore vetoing the part of this section which requires submission of the first plan by December 1999. The secretary of the Department of Administration will present this plan for the first regular meeting of the Committee under s. 13.10 in calendar year 2000.
2. State Vehicle Purchase
Section 9201 (3m)
This provision requires the secretary of the Department of Administration to lapse a total of $230,000 to the general fund in fiscal year 2000-2001 from the fleet vehicle appropriations of four state agencies. This is intended to delete anticipated savings from these agencies' use of smaller four-cylinder automobiles rather than six-cylinder fleet cars. I object to this requirement because I do not believe four-cylinder fleet vehicles are necessarily adequate in all circumstances nor are they always less expensive when full operating costs are taken into account. This provision would also have a negative effect on my Alternative Fuels program. For these reasons I am vetoing this lapse requirement.
3. State Agency Dues Lapse
Section 9158 (10g)
This provision requires each state agency to lapse 10% of its fiscal year 1998-1999 expenditures for dues and memberships in state or national organizations. I object to this across-the-board provision as an intrusion into the operations of agencies and I am vetoing it. However, I am sensitive to the Legislature's interest in the resources which are being committed for these activities and I agree there should be an assessment. For this reason, I will request each agency to review the dues they are currently paying and to present this information to the Office of the Governor for evaluation. The agency will need the approval of the Governor's Office to keep their memberships. I believe this is a better approach for reducing unnecessary costs.
4. Federal Interest Reimbursements
Sections 79e, 172 [as it relates to s. 20.855 (1) (dm)], 613g, 9101 (19f) and 9201 (2f)
This provision requires that any interest payments received by the state from the federal government be recorded as GPR-earned and that payments to the federal government on interest owed be made from a new GPR sum sufficient appropriation. The Department of Administration (DOA) is further required to lapse to the general fund a balance of $1,300,000 from the program revenue appropriation that is currently used for interest payments and receipts administered by DOA.
While I concur that federal interest receipts and obligations should be treated differently than they are now, I believe the approach included in the budget bill inadvertently applies too broadly and will affect more than just the grants administered by DOA. Because I do not believe it was the Legislature’s intent to affect federal interest transactions in other state agencies such as the University of Wisconsin System, I am partially vetoing this provision to retain the current method of accounting. However, consistent with the language which is retained in the bill, the secretary of DOA will lapse to the general fund the current balance of $1,300,000, less administrative expenses, from the program revenue appropriation used to receive federal grants. I further request the department to propose a solution in the budget adjustment bill which will better implement the original intent.
5. Census Awareness Program
Section 9101 (19wx)
This section authorizes a program for providing grants to municipalities and associations for educational programs designed to ensure a complete and accurate 2000 federal census in Wisconsin. One provision of the program requires the secretary of the Department of Administration to solicit, receive, review and approve grants from qualified applicants within 30 days after the budget is effective. I do not believe all of this can be accomplished within that short period of time and I am vetoing this deadline. This will allow the more time to do a quality job in soliciting and processing grant requests.
6. National and Community Service Board – Technical
Sections 511, 532, 534 and 535
These sections are erroneous provisions related to the National Community Service Board that were inadvertently retained from an earlier version of the budget bill. I am vetoing these sections to remove these errors and improve the clarity of the budget.
BUILDING PROGRAM
7. Restrictions on Acquisition of Leases
Sections 2t, 3d, 3h, 649m, 649n, 2030m, 2033m, 2353s, 3191d, 3191e, 3191f, 3191g, 9101 (18v) and 9307 (1x)
These provisions prohibit the state from entering into a lease-purchase agreement that contains an option for the state to purchase a building constructed for purposes of initial occupancy by the state, unless construction and purchase of the facility is enumerated in the state building program prior to entering into the lease-purchase agreement. In addition, these provisions require the seller or lessor under any such lease-purchase agreement to agree to solicit bids or competitive sealed proposals in accordance with procedures for state-constructed facilities under current law; to require contractors to ensure that at least five percent of the total amount expended on construction of the facility be awarded to minority businesses and to comply, and to require contractors and subcontractors to comply, with the prevailing wage law in the same manner as a state agency and its contractors and subcontractors are required to comply for a state-constructed facility under current law. These provisions also require the Department of Administration to enforce minority contracting requirements and require the Department of Workforce Development to enforce the prevailing wage requirements.
I am vetoing these provisions in their entirety because they place unnecessary restrictions on the Building Commission’s ability to sign lease-purchase agreements on behalf of the state. The Legislature is represented on the Building Commission and is fully aware of lease-purchase agreements as they are considered and signed by the Building Commission
8. Agency Work Plans for Capital Building Maintenance
