A. EDUCATION AND TRAINING
ARTS BOARD
1. Arts Board Grant Programs
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.215 (1) (e)] and 9105 (1c)
Section 9105 (1c) provides $150,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 to a nonprofit performing arts foundation to improve handicapped accessibility. I am partially vetoing section 9105 (1c) to return the level of funding for this purpose to that approved by the Joint Committee on Finance. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $100,000 into unallotted reserve in fiscal year 1999-2000 in appropriation s. 20.215 (1) (b) to lapse to the general fund. I am providing a lower one-time increase for this initiative, because I am concerned about the use of the state budget to circumvent the authority of the Arts Board to set priorities and establish standards for awarding grants. Grants should be awarded under a system that objectively evaluates all grant applicants. Furthermore, in the future, Arts Board funds should be used to directly support the arts, not to provide capital improvements to facilities.
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.215 (1) (e)] provides $50,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $50,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to the Milwaukee Foundation, Inc. for investment in the High Point Fund. I am vetoing section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.215 (1) (e)] to delete the $50,000 GPR provided for this purpose in fiscal year 2000-2001. I believe that this funding should be provided on a one-time basis. I am not making a judgment on the worthiness of the High Point Fund, only on the process used to award the funds. The decision regarding which arts activities receive grants should rest with the Arts Board. The High Point Fund is eligible to compete for grants from the Arts Board. It should be noted that the Arts Board gives at least 5% of its grants to minority artists and organizations.
EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS BOARD
2. Public Broadcasting Committee
Section 9113 (1mm)
This provision creates a committee to study the restructuring of public broadcasting and the costs of digital television conversion. The committee is authorized to submit legislation for restructuring public broadcasting and funding the transition to digital television by January 15, 2000.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the January 15, 2000, submission date. It is unrealistic to expect the public broadcasting restructuring committee to prepare detailed legislation concerning the reorganization of public broadcasting and the funding of digital television in such a short period of time. Deleting the submission date will give the committee the opportunity to prepare the best possible plan.
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL AIDS BOARD
3. Talent Incentive Program (TIP) and Wisconsin Higher Education Grant (WHEG) for University of Wisconsin System (UWS) Students
Sections 172 [as it relates to ss. 20.235 (1) (fd) and 20.235 (1) (fe)], 242g, 242r, 918g, 918r and 9458 (6g)
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.235 (1) (fd)] provides $4,311,400 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $4,725,300 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for TIP grants. Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.235 (1) (fe)] provides $18,900,300 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $20,714,700 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for WHEG for UWS students. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes these increases, the purpose of this funding was included in the Conference Committee amendment to the budget bill.
Sections 242g and 242r change the appropriations for TIP and WHEG for UWS students from biennial, sum certain to sum sufficient appropriations. Sections 918r and 918g alter the method for determining the funding for each program by increasing the appropriations by the highest percentage increase in resident undergraduate tuition charged at a UWS institution in the prior school year.
These programs provide financial assistance to resident undergraduate students enrolled at least half time at Wisconsin colleges and universities; both programs grant awards based on a student’s financial need.
I am partially vetoing the increases to the TIP and WHEG programs to reflect the impact of the tuition freeze for UWS resident undergraduate students in fiscal year 2000-2001. By lining out the Higher Educational Aids Board’s s. 20.235 (1) (fd) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $102,200 GPR provided for TIP in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $221,500 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. I am still providing a 14% increase over the biennium for TIP grants, since the program includes students who attend private colleges and Wisconsin Technical College System schools, where tuition will not be frozen in 2000-2001, as well as UWS campuses. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
By lining out the Higher Educational Aids Board’s s. 20.235 (1) (fe) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $1,814,400 of the $20,714,700 GPR provided for WHEG in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. The resulting zero percent increase in funding for the WHEG program between fiscal year 1999-2000 and fiscal year 2000-2001 reflects a tuition freeze for resident undergraduate students attending UWS institutions in 2000-2001. Further, holding students harmless from any tuition increase is comparable to a 20% to 25% increase in the WHEG appropriation in most other years. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
I object to sections 242g, 242r, 918g, 918r and 9458 (6g), because making these appropriations sum sufficient limits the Governor’s and the Legislature’s flexibility to address issues that may affect the level at which these programs are most appropriately funded. By vetoing these sections, both the TIP and the WHEG program will continue to operate as biennial appropriations.
4. Tuition Grant Program
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.235 (1) (b)]
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.235 (1) (b)] provides $20,466,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $21,424,200 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for the Tuition Grant (TG) program. The TG program provides financial assistance to resident undergraduate students enrolled at least half time at private colleges and universities in Wisconsin; the program grants awards based on a student’s financial need. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in the Conference Committee amendment to the budget bill.
I object to these increases because they are not consistent with anticipated tuition increases at Wisconsin’s private colleges and universities over the next two years. By lining out the Higher Educational Aids Board’s s. 20.235 (1) (b) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $803,800 GPR provided for this purpose in fiscal year 1999-2000, and $385,600 GPR provided for this purpose in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. This will provide a 14% increase over the biennium, an amount which should reflect expected tuition increases for the 1999-2001 period. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
5. Neighborhood Schools Initiative
Sections 14g, 15m, 40k, 1630d, 2108s, 2143p, and 9158 (7tw).
These sections relate to the financing, planning, legislative oversight and implementation of the Neighborhood Schools Initiative. The intent of the initiative is to allow the board of directors of the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) to expand the number of neighborhood schools in the district and to reduce the number of MPS students that are involuntarily bussed within the school district. These provisions create a hold harmless provision limiting the reduction of intradistrict transportation aids the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) will receive under the special transfer (Chapter 220) program, require MPS to submit a report to the Legislature describing its plan for increasing the number and capacity of neighborhood schools in the district, create a Milwaukee School Construction Board to review the report drafted by MPS, place limits on the school facilities that can be constructed under the initiative and specify minority contracting requirements for construction funded under the initiative.
I am partially vetoing section 2143p to eliminate language that provides an inflationary adjustment to the intradistrict transportation aid received by MPS under the hold harmless provision included in the section. I am partially vetoing this section because the intent of the hold harmless provision, to provide a stable funding stream the district can use to retire the debt issued to finance the construction of neighborhood schools, can be met without indexing MPS’ intradistrict transportation aid. Given that MPS currently does not spend all of its intradistrict Chapter 220 aid on actual transportation costs, the current level of funding is adequate to cover annual debt service on the $170,000,000 in bonding authority provided under this initiative.
I am partially vetoing section 9158 (7tw) [as it relates to public hearings held by the MPS board] and vetoing section 2108s in its entirety because the detailed meeting requirements contained in these sections are overly prescriptive. The MPS board has assured me it intends to solicit broad public input from employes, parents and the greater Milwaukee community as it prepares its plan for reducing involuntary busing and opening neighborhood schools. Yet the board, as the duly elected representatives of the people of Milwaukee, knows best when, where and how to schedule hearings and listening sessions on this initiative. Setting in statute requirements for a specific number of hearings is an excessive infringement on local control that could affect the board’s ability to prepare its proposal in time to meet the timelines spelled out elsewhere in this section.
I am also partially vetoing section 9158 (7tw) [as it relates to s. 121.85(2) through (5) of the statutes] to remove the requirement the MPS board include in its report a plan for complying with current Chapter 220 provisions. I object to this requirement because the bill does not alter existing Chapter 220 requirements and the additional reporting requirement is an unnecessary mandate.
In addition, I am partially vetoing section 9158 (7tw) [as it relates to the Milwaukee school construction board] and vetoing sections 14g, 15m and 40k in their entirety to eliminate the Milwaukee school construction board. I object to these provisions because this new entity will create an unnecessary level of oversight and will undermine the authority of the elected Board of Directors of MPS. I have been impressed with the changes already instituted by the new school board and I am willing to give them time to pursue reforms that will produce the well-trained, highly skilled graduates Milwaukee needs. The voters of the City of Milwaukee have embraced a platform of change to place MPS on the right track, and I trust them and their representatives on the board to implement this plan to improve the delivery of education to every child under their care.
I am also partially vetoing section 9158 (7tw) [as it relates to Senate or Assembly education committee hearings] to remove a provision that allows a member of either the Senate or Assembly education committees to call a hearing on the report submitted by the MPS board to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF). I object to this provision because the bill already provides for adequate review by the Legislature, as the board must submit its plan for neighborhood schools to JCF. Furthermore, vetoing this provision does not limit the ability of either committee to call a hearing on this matter if it so chooses at any time. I expect the members of the MPS board to hold extensive meetings with the Milwaukee legislative delegation and the members of the Senate and Assembly committees as the Neighborhood Schools Initiative progresses. Regular and complete consultations with legislators and members of the general public will ensure the plan has the necessary support and input to make the board’s vision a success.
Because of the delayed passage of the budget bill, I am partially vetoing section 9158 (7tw) [as it relates to deadlines for submission and review of the Special Transfer Aid report] by striking the digit “1” in two places, thereby providing the MPS board with an additional month to deliver its report to the JCF and allowing the JCF an additional month to review the report. The late approval of the budget has already shortened the amount of time the MPS board has to develop and write its plan. An extra month is a reasonable extension under the circumstances to allow the board to garner the public comment and perform the financial and strategic analysis required to produce the document.
I am partially vetoing section 1630d [as it relates to the allowable uses of bonds issued under this provision] to expand the types of schools the district can construct with the proceeds of bonds authorized under this section. While I am sensitive to the concerns of some in the Milwaukee community about the types and locations of schools the board might create in its neighborhood schools plan, the bill as drafted would have unnecessarily restricted the board’s ability to find creative and cost-effective ways to meet its goals. I am greatly encouraged the new MPS board and superintendent have embraced innovation and greater options for Milwaukee families and vowed to compete on the strength of the district’s programming. The board should have the flexibility to make school construction decisions best suited to the needs of its students. I am preserving the restriction on modular schools, however, to reassure the representatives and parents of Milwaukee that the children of the city deserve first-class, permanent structures as they return to schools in their own neighborhoods.
Finally, I am also partially vetoing section 1630d [as it relates to minority contracting] because I find the targets specified in the bill nearly impossible to meet. While I fully support the goals of this provision, I am concerned that attempting to meet the percentages set forth in the bill could unnecessarily delay the completion of these critical construction projects. I have had extensive discussions with the MPS board and superintendent on this matter, and they assure me they will follow their declared policies to ensure a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts or subcontracts for the Neighborhood Schools Initiative go to historically underutilized businesses. The board has expressed a willingness to pursue a goal that at least 30% of the aggregate dollar amount of contracts awarded to construct or renovate neighborhood schools go to businesses owned by minorities and women. In addition, the board has a strong commitment to increasing the participation of minority and women employes in its construction projects. The board has also expressed a willingness to set a goal that at least 30% of the workers hired to complete the neighborhood schools facilities plan be women and members of minority groups. I am willing to support legislation that includes minority contracting language related to this initiative that is similar to language in effect for other recent state building projects in Milwaukee. In an era in which nearly half of our skilled tradesmen will be retiring in the next five years, the MPS board has also assured me it understands its responsibility to make sure its schools train the workers needed to solve this looming labor shortage and fulfill these important minority contracting and participation goals.
6. SAGE Program Eligibility and Bonding Program
Sections 172 [as it relates to ss. 20.255 (1) (a) and 20.255 (2) (ac)], 2096, 2099, 2100 and 2140
These provisions authorize the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to expand the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program by entering into a third round of 5-year achievement guarantee contracts with school districts, provide the department with additional positions to administer the program, appropriate funding for the SAGE bonding program and exclude funding for that program from the definition of state school aids.
I am partially vetoing section 2140 to include funding under DPI’s s. 20.255 (2) (cs) appropriation in the definition of “state school aids.” I am partially vetoing section 2140 because the purpose of the SAGE bonding program and the distribution of program funding are similar to categorical aid programs that are included in the current law definition of “state school aids.” By lining out DPI’s s. 20.255 (2) (ac) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $1,000,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am reducing the general equalization aids appropriation to reflect the impact of this change on the funding required to meet the state’s commitment to fund two-thirds of partial school revenues. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. This is a technical change to reflect the proper calculation of the funding needed to meet the state’s commitment to fund two-thirds of school costs.
I am partially vetoing section 2099 because, as worded, it would limit participation in the third round of SAGE contracts to school districts, other than the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS), which contain a school whose enrollment is at least 65% low-income. I am partially vetoing the section to remove the 65% low-income threshold. I am also partially vetoing the section to remove the exclusion of MPS. I am vetoing section 2100 in its entirety because the partial veto of section 2099 eliminates the need for this section. I am also partially vetoing section 2096 to expand eligibility for the program to all school boards regardless of the percentage of their students that meet the program’s low-income standard. These vetoes will remove the arbitrary barrier to allowing schools to participate in the program as intended by the Legislature.
Finally, section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.255 (1) (a)] provides $112,800 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $205,500 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for an additional 3.0 FTE GPR positions to administer the SAGE program. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in the Conference Committee amendment to the bill.
By lining out DPI’s s. 20.255 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes the $318,300 GPR provided for this purpose in fiscal year 1999-2000 and fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds these 3.0 FTE GPR positions. While the bill expands the SAGE program, the department does not require a permanent staff increase to accommodate these workload changes. If the initial expansion of the program creates increased workload, the department should consider an internal reallocation of staff resources to meet the short-term staffing needs. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. Furthermore, I am requesting the secretary not to authorize 3.0 FTE GPR positions.
7. Foreign Language Requirement
Section 2128m
This provision eliminates the current law requirement that school districts provide regular foreign language instruction in the 7th and 8th grades.
I am vetoing section 2128m in its entirety to restore the current law foreign language instruction requirement. Wisconsin children must be prepared to participate in the global economy. I support school districts' efforts to provide foreign language instruction, which provides our students with the tools they need to succeed in the global economy. In addition, to help school districts expand foreign language instruction, I am directing the Technology for Educational Achievement in Wisconsin (TEACH) Board to expand the criteria it uses to award TEACH training and technical assistance grants to give additional weight to proposals that incorporate plans to use educational technology to deliver foreign language instruction.
8. High School Graduation Test
Section 2086h
This section provides that school boards and charter school operators must adopt a written policy specifying criteria, in addition to current law requirements, for granting a high school diploma. The criteria must include the pupil’s score on the high school graduation test, the pupil’s academic performance, the recommendations of teachers and any other criteria specified by the school board.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the provision allowing a school board to include additional criteria in their graduation policies. I object to this provision because nonacademic criteria should play no role in the determination of a school board to award diplomas. Our students will be asked to compete in an ever-changing global workplace and our responsibility is to prepare them to succeed in that environment. I proposed a high school graduation examination on our core academic subjects to provide accountability at the secondary school level, and school boards should use this tool along with other academic criteria to evaluate whether their students have earned diplomas.
9. Revenue Limit Increase for Positive Tax Increment of a Tax Incremental District
Sections 2108m, 2126m, 2135t, 2139 and 2158m
These provisions allow an annual revenue limit exemption for school districts that include within their boundaries a Tax Incremental District (TID) that is terminated prior to its expiration date. The provisions allow a school board to create a capital improvement fund and to deposit in the fund the school district’s portion of the positive tax increment of a TID that is terminated prior to the maximum number of years for the TID. The school district could deposit this sum each year beginning in the year TID is terminated until the year after the year the TID would have terminated if it had existed for the maximum number of years allowable under law. The school district’s revenue limit would be increased by a sum equal to the positive tax increment that is deposited in the fund.
I am partially vetoing sections 2108m, 2135t and 2139, and vetoing sections 2126m and 2158m in their entirety to eliminate these provisions. I object to these provisions because the revenue limit exemption they create is too broad. A technical error in the language would create a general revenue limit exemption rather than the limited exemption intended by the Legislature. I also object to the broad applicability of the provision. Notwithstanding these objections, I support legislation that is crafted to address the specific school construction needs of the Kenosha Unified School District and I will work with legislative leaders to address this issue. The impact of TIDs and tax incremental financing (TIF) plans on school district financing is a complex issue that requires a comprehensive review. The impact of TIF law on school districts should be included in the work plan of the working group that the Department of Revenue secretary convenes to study the TIF law.
10. Foreign Language Instruction Grants
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.255 (2) (fL)], 262p and 2042e
These provisions establish a foreign language instruction grant program at the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) providing $350,000 GPR beginning in fiscal year 2000-2001.
I am vetoing these provisions because they do not reflect my intent to have the TEACH Wisconsin Board assist in the development of an innovative and efficient delivery system for foreign language instruction using distance learning and other educational technology. For Wisconsin to compete globally, students must develop their foreign language skills throughout their elementary, middle and high school years, and in the most technologically advanced way. In its current form, this provision will not allow us to maximize the use of cutting edge distance education strategies. I am not opposed to traditional classroom instruction, but to reach all students, especially those in low-enrollment rural districts, foreign language instruction needs to develop new methods of delivery. While vetoing these provisions does not restore the foreign language instruction grant program at TEACH, I am directing the TEACH Board to incorporate innovative foreign language instruction criteria into the competitive grant process for training and technical assistance grants.
11. Minority Group Pupil Scholarships
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.255 (3) (fz)]
This provision increases funding for minority group pupil scholarships by $950,000 GPR in fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.
I am vetoing this provision because it nearly doubles the expenditure authority for this appropriation in each year of the biennium. By lining out the Department of Public Instruction's s. 20.255 (3) (fz) appropriation for minority group pupil scholarships and writing in smaller amounts that delete $475,000 GPR in each fiscal year, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. Despite the veto, the minority group pupil scholarships program will still receive a 45% increase. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
12. Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Pupil Income Eligibility
Sections 2109m and 9339 (7c)
These provisions modify the eligibility criteria for the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to allow a pupil to participate in the program if the pupil’s family income, averaged over a four-year period, does not exceed an amount equal to 1.75 times the federal poverty level.
I am vetoing these provisions in their entirety to restore the current law eligibility requirements because, while I support the intent of these provisions, as drafted they would create a substantial administrative burden for MPCP schools, students and their families and could exclude some students currently enrolled in the program. I will work with the Legislature to pass legislation that allows MPCP students to remain eligible for the program even if their family’s income rises above 1.75 times the poverty threshold, but ensures that the focus of the program remains on providing a wide range of educational options to students whose choices are constrained by the economic situations of their families.
13. Agricultural Education Consultant Position
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.255 (1) (q)], 252p and 9139 (2g)
These sections create a sum certain appropriation in the Department of Public Instruction funded from the agricultural chemical cleanup fund to provide funding for an agricultural educational consultant at the department.
I am partially vetoing section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.255 (1) (q)] and vetoing sections 252p and 9139 (2g) to remove the 1.0 FTE SEG position and funding. While I support efforts to expand agricultural education, the agricultural chemical cleanup fund is not an appropriate source of funding for this purpose. The segregated fund was created to provide reimbursement of charges associated with the cleanup of agricultural chemical discharges. Funds that are deposited in the agricultural chemical cleanup fund come from fees and surcharges paid by sellers of agricultural chemicals. Furthermore, DPI already has 2.0 FTE, GPR-funded, agriculture education consultants.
14. Direct Instruction Program Grant
Section 2042m
This provision directs the Department of Public Instruction to award a grant of $280,000 annually, from fiscal year 1999-2000 to fiscal year 2002-2003, to the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee to conduct a direct instruction pilot program. The grant funding would come from the department’s PR-F appropriation under s. 20.255 (1) (me).
I am partially vetoing section 2042m to reduce the annual grant award to $80,000. I am partially vetoing this provision because the department, at present, does not have adequate discretionary federal funds to award the higher grant amount without adversely affecting other educational priorities. Notwithstanding this partial veto, I believe that the proposed direct instruction pilot program has the potential to add significantly to our understanding of how the interaction of school reforms can improve student learning. Furthermore, I strongly encourage the department to seek additional federal or private funding to support this important research effort, and I intend to revisit this issue in future legislation.
STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
15. Heritage Trust Program
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.245 (3) (a) and (e)], 247g, 628, 628b, 641m, and 946m
This provision establishes a Heritage Trust Program, establishes definitions regarding the program, and sets limits upon grants made to the trust and grants for preservation. As described in section 946m, the Heritage Trust Program would have provided the State Historical Society (SHS) with bonding revenue to make grants for historic preservation and would have also used bonding revenue to establish a trust for historic preservation.
I am vetoing this provision because it could have a negative impact on the state’s ability to issue bonds. The state has a strategic plan for using its bonding authority with proposals undergoing multiple levels of review. The Heritage Trust Program did not undergo this review, nor was a review done of how this program would fit into the state’s overall debt management. Furthermore, approval of this program would increase the state’s authorized bonding level at a time when many believe it is approaching its limit.
I am vetoing sections 247g and 172 [as it relates to s. 20.245 (3) (e)] because these sections provide $50,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 in a sum sufficient appropriation for the payment of bond interest and principal and section 641m because it provides a schedule for the amount of authorized debt that the state can assume for this purpose. I am also partially vetoing sections 628 and 628b, which reference s. 20.245 (3) (e).
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.245 (3) (a)] provides $25,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $50,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for an additional 1.0 FTE position to administer the Heritage Trust Program. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in the Conference Committee amendment to the bill. By lining out SHS’s s. 20.245 (3) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes the $75,000 GPR provided for this purpose in fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds the 1.0 FTE position.
TEACH WISCONSIN
16. Funding for K-12 Instructional Web Site
Section 9148 (2g)
This provision authorizes the TEACH Wisconsin Board to allocate $502,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 to the University of Wisconsin System (UWS) for the development and maintenance of an Internet site which would instruct K-12 teachers on the integration of technology into the classroom. The web site would be maintained until September 1, 2001.
I am partially vetoing this provision because providing $502,000 GPR to UWS for this purpose would reduce needed resources for training and technical assistance for cooperative educational service agencies (CESAs) and educational consortia, who are the primary beneficiaries of this program. The effect of this partial veto will be to provide $52,000 GPR to UWS during the biennium. Furthermore, I am directing the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to use this funding to partner with the TEACH Board, the Wisconsin Technical College System and the Department of Public Instruction to provide web-based instruction for educators.
17. Training and Technical Assistance Grants
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.275 (1) (et)], 273n, 955m, 955p and 9148 (2x)
