Under current law, DOC may, until July 1, 1999, operate the juvenile secured
correctional facility at Prairie du Chien as a state prison for nonviolent offenders who
are not more than 21 years of age. This bill extends that authority to July 1, 2001.
This bill requires DOC to establish a probation and parole holding and alcohol
and other drug abuse treatment facility in Milwaukee, a medium security
correctional institution in Redgranite and a medium security correctional facility in
New Lisbon.
Juvenile correctional system
Under current law relating to community youth and family aids (generally
referred to as "youth aids"), various state and federal funds are allocated to counties
to pay for state-provided juvenile correctional services and local
delinquency-related and juvenile justice services. DOC charges counties for the
costs of services provided by DOC. This bill provides new per person daily cost
assessments upon counties for juvenile placements during the 1999-2001 fiscal
biennium as follows:
-
See PDF for table 
Under current law, DOC may operate or contract for the operation of secured
correctional facilities for holding in secure custody juveniles who have been
adjudicated delinquent and placed in a secured correctional facility under the
supervision of DOC by the court assigned to exercise jurisdiction under the juvenile
justice code (juvenile court). Current law also permits DOC to license child welfare
agencies to operate secured child caring institutions (secured CCI's) for holding in
secure custody juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent and referred to the
child welfare agency by the juvenile court or by DOC. A juvenile court may place a
juvenile in a secured correctional facility or a secured CCI only if the juvenile has
been adjudicated delinquent for committing an act that would be punishable by a
sentence of six months or more if committed by an adult and has been found to be a
danger to the public and in need of restrictive custodial treatment.
This bill permits the county board of supervisors of not more than one county
to establish, and DOC to license, a secured group home for holding in secure custody
juveniles who have been adjudicated delinquent for committing an act that would be
punishable by a sentence of six months or more if committed by an adult, who have
been found to be a danger to the public and in need of restrictive custodial treatment
and who have been placed under the supervision of DOC by the juvenile court.
Under current law, various laws apply to juveniles who are placed in a secured
correctional facility or a secured CCI. Those laws relate to such subjects as sex
offender registration, the commitment of sexually violent persons, a
deoxyribonucleic acid data bank of sex offenders, human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV) testing when certain persons have been significantly exposed to HIV, adult
jurisdiction and criminal penalties for certain persons who commit assault, transfers
to a state treatment facility, aftercare planning, escape, notification of victims and
witnesses when a juvenile is released or escapes from correctional custody, taking
runaways into custody, strip searches and an exception to the open records law when
disclosing a record would endanger the security of an institution. This bill applies
those laws to juveniles who are placed in a secured group home in the same manner
as those laws apply to juveniles who are placed in a secured correctional facility or
a secured CCI.
Under current law, DOC provides a corrective sanctions program for juveniles
who have been placed under the supervision of DOC. Under the corrective sanctions
program, DOC must place a participant in the community, provide intensive
surveillance of the participant and provide an average of $5,000 per year per slot to
purchase community-based treatment services for participants. This bill reduces
the amount that DOC must provide to purchase community-based treatment
services for corrective sanctions program participants to $3,000 per year per slot.
courts and procedure
Circuit courts
Current law provides for limited payment of attorney fees by the unsuccessful
litigant to the successful litigant in all civil actions. In a civil action concerning
money damages or property, the successful litigant is entitled to attorney fees based
on the following schedule:
-
See PDF for table
This bill changes the amount of attorney fees allowed in these cases as follows:
-
See PDF for table
The bill also increases the amount of attorney fees recoverable in civil cases that
do not involve money damages or property from a maximum of $100 to a maximum
of $500.
Under current law, in civil cases certain disbursements, such as those made for
the costs of certified copies of public papers or records, postage and depositions, are
recoverable by the successful litigant, but are limited to $50 for each item. This bill
expands the list of disbursements that are recoverable to include such items as
overnight delivery and facsimile transmissions and increases the limit to $100 for
each item. The bill also increases the amount that a successful litigant may recover
for the cost of each expert witness testifying on behalf of the successful litigant from
$100 to $300 and for filing a motion from $50 to $300.
Under current law, when the clerk of circuit court collects a fee from a person
commencing a civil action, including garnishment, small claims and forfeiture
actions, the clerk is also required to collect a $7 justice information system fee.
Four-sevenths of the $7 fee is used to pay the costs incurred by the department of
administration to develop and operate the automated justice information system.
Two-sevenths of the $7 fee is used to pay the costs incurred by the director of state
courts for the operation of the circuit court, court of appeals and supreme court
automated information systems and for the payment of interpreter fees. The
remaining $1 of the fee does not have a specified purpose.
This bill raises the justice information system fee from $7 to $9 and uses the
additional $2 of each fee to pay the costs incurred by the director of state courts for
the operation of the circuit court, court of appeals and supreme court automated
information systems and for the payment of interpreter fees.
Public defender
Under current law, the state public defender (SPD) provides legal
representation to indigent persons in criminal, delinquency and certain related
cases. The SPD assigns cases either to staff attorneys in the agency's trial division
or local private attorneys. A staff attorney working in the trial division is expected
to meet an annual caseload standard. This bill provides that, beginning on July 1,
2000, the SPD may exempt up to ten staff attorneys in the trial division from the
annual caseload standards based on the need of those attorneys to perform other
assigned duties.
Other courts and procedure
Under current law, the department of agriculture, trade and consumer
protection (DATCP) administers and enforces certain consumer protection and trade
practices laws. These laws include laws prohibiting or regulating methods of
competition, fraudulent representations, fraudulent drug advertising, prize notices,
mail-order sales, purchases of vegetables and dairy products from farmers and
advertising of telecommunication services. They also include laws relating to
weights and measures. A person found to have violated one of these laws is subject
to a forfeiture or a fine.
This bill requires a court to impose an assessment equal to 15% of the fine or
forfeiture if the court imposes a fine or forfeiture for a violation of any of these laws
or local ordinances enacted pursuant to these laws. The assessments that are
collected are appropriated to the department of agriculture, trade and consumer
protection to pay for providing consumers with information and education.
Currently, the state is immune from most lawsuits. Although state authorities,
local governments and state and local governmental officers, employes and agents
may be sued, statutory and common law limitations severely limit the types of
lawsuits that may be brought against, and the amounts and types of damages that
may be recovered from, these entities. Currently, these entities may also limit their
liability by contract.
This bill prohibits lawsuits, to the extent that they are now permitted, against
these entities for the alleged failure to deal with the failure of a computer system to
handle any date, or the inability of a computer system to interpret, produce,
calculate, generate, utilize, manipulate, represent or account for any date, if the
entities make a good faith effort to address the alleged failure. The immunity
provided by the bill may not be waived.
The bill also eliminates current requirements for the state and local
governments to pay interest to vendors on late payments arising from date-related
failures described above.
Under current law, the governmental unit that provides certain public
assistance benefits as a result of an injury, sickness or death that creates a claim or
cause of action on the part of a public assistance recipient or beneficiary or his or her
estate against a third party must be joined by the plaintiff as a party to the claim or
action. The governmental unit has the right to recover from the third party the
amount provided in public assistance benefits. This is known as subrogation. The
governmental unit may make a claim or maintain an action or intervene in a claim
or action by the recipient, beneficiary or estate against the third party. A party that
is joined in a cause of action based on subrogation may, among other things, agree
to have his or her interests represented by the party who caused the joinder. If this
option is selected the subrogated party must sign a written waiver of the right to
participate in the action.
Under this bill, if the department of health and family services (DHFS) is joined
based on subrogation because of the provision of medical assistance (MA) benefits,
DHFS need not take any affirmative action in order to have its interests represented
by the party causing the joinder.
Currently, an attorney retained to represent a current or former recipient of
public assistance benefits, or the recipient's estate, in asserting a claim that is
subrogated, must provide notice of the claim, and of any award or settlement, to the
governmental unit that provided the benefits. If an attorney is not representing the
current or former recipient of public assistance in asserting a claim that is
subrogated, the current or former recipient or his or her guardian most provide the
notice. If the recipient is deceased, the personal representative of the recipient's
estate must provide the notice if an attorney is not representing the estate.
This bill requires a person against whom a subrogated claim is made, or that
person's attorney or insurance company, to provide notice of the claim, and of any
award or settlement, to DHFS if that person, or that person's attorney or insurer,
knows or should know that the claim is subrogated because of the provision of MA
benefits. Additionally, under this bill, if DHFS or a county is a subrogated party
because of the provision of MA benefits, the subrogation creates a lien on the
claimant's recovery, equal to the amount of the MA paid as a result of the injury,
sickness or death that gave rise to the claim.
Under current law, DHFS must file a claim against the estate of a recipient of
certain health aids for the amount of aid paid to the recipient. If the recipient's
spouse or minor or disabled child survives the recipient, and the recipient's estate
includes an interest in a home, the probate court must, in the final judgment, assign
the interest in the home subject to a lien in favor of DHFS for the amount of DHFS's
claim. Currently, small estates may be settled or assigned summarily, in which case
a final judgment is not entered. Instead, a summary order is entered. This bill states
that the lien requirement extends to cases in which assignment of the home is made
by summary order.
education
Primary and secondary education
Current law allows up to 15% of the enrollment of the Milwaukee Public Schools
(MPS) to attend, at no charge, any private school located in the city of Milwaukee
under certain circumstances. The state pays the parent or guardian of the pupil an
amount equal to the amount of per pupil aid that MPS receives from the state or an
amount equal to the private school's educational cost per pupil, whichever is less.
The parent or guardian must endorse the check for the use of the private school. The
state reduces the MPS school aid entitlement, for each pupil participating in the
program, by the amount of per pupil aid that MPS would otherwise receive.
Under current law, the city of Milwaukee, the University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee and Milwaukee Area Technical College may establish and
operate a charter school or may initiate a contract with an individual or group to
operate a school as a charter school. For each pupil attending the charter school, the
state pays the charter school an amount equal to the shared cost per pupil (the
portion of a school district's costs that are aided by the state divided by the school
district's enrollment) of MPS and reduces the MPS school aid entitlement by an
identical amount.
Current law also generally limits the increase in the total amount of revenue
per pupil that a school district may receive from general school aids and property
taxes in a school year to $208.88 per pupil in the 1998-99 school year and, in
subsequent school years, to the amount of revenue increase allowed per pupil in the
previous school year increased by the percentage change in the consumer price index.
To determine the total allowable revenue increase for a school district under the
revenue limit, the department of public instruction (DPI) uses a three-year rolling
average pupil enrollment, which includes, for MPS, some of the pupils enrolled in the
choice program and the charter schools described above. DPI may adjust a school
district's revenue limit upwards or downwards for a number of contingencies,
including transfers of service responsibilities between a school district and another
governmental unit and changes in a school district's boundaries. Any school district
that received less in revenue per pupil in the previous school year than a revenue
ceiling of $6,100 (low-revenue district) may increase its revenues up to the revenue
ceiling. A low-revenue district is not subject to a revenue limit and its concomitant
adjustments.
Beginning in the 1999-2000 school year, this bill replaces the per pupil inflation
adjustment with a fixed revenue limit of $208.88 per pupil. The bill also provides
that, beginning with aid paid in the 1999-2000 school year, pupils participating in
the choice program or attending one of the charter schools described above are not
counted in the enrollment of MPS for state aid purposes and are not counted in the
three-year rolling average for revenue limit purposes. The MPS school aid
entitlement is not directly reduced as a result of such participation or attendance.
In addition, the bill directs DPI to adjust the revenue ceiling of a low-revenue school
district as if it constituted a revenue limit.
Currently, if a school district's three-year rolling average for the 1998-99
school year is less than the average of the number of pupils enrolled in the school
district in the three previous school years, the school district's revenue limit is
increased for the 1998-99 school year by the additional amount that would have been
calculated had the decline in the three-year rolling average enrollment been 25% of
what it was. This bill extends this one-year revenue limit increase for declining
enrollment to subsequent school years.
Current law generally provides that the enrollment of a school district in the
previous school year must be used to calculate general school aid for the current
school year. The enrollment of MPS, however, includes pupils in the choice program
in the current school year who were enrolled in grades kindergarten to three in a
private school located in Milwaukee in the previous school year and who did not
participate in the choice program. This bill eliminates these additional choice pupils
from MPS enrollment for calculating general state aid.
Current law provides two special state aid adjustments for any school district
that would otherwise receive in any school year less than 85% of the aid that it
received in the previous school year. If a school district is eligible for both of these
special state aid adjustments, the school district's state aid is increased to an amount
equal to 85% of the state aid that the school district received in the previous school
year. A school district is entitled to receive a special state aid adjustment only if the
additional aid does not result in a state aid payment greater than the school district's
shared cost. This bill provides that, if a school district is eligible for both special state
aid adjustments, the school district receives the greater adjustment if the additional
aid does not result in a state aid payment greater than the school district's shared
cost.
Under current law, if a school district exceeds its revenue limit without
referendum approval, DPI must reduce the school district's state equalization aid
payment by the excess revenue amount. If a school district's equalization aid is less
than the penalty amount, DPI must reduce the school district's other state aid
payments until the remaining excess revenue is covered. If the aid reduction is still
insufficient to cover the excess revenues, DPI must order the school board to reduce
the property tax levy by an amount equal to the remainder of the excess amount or
refund the amount with interest, if taxes have already been collected. DPI does not
include the excess revenue in the school district's base. This bill imposes these same
penalties on low-revenue school districts that exceed their revenue ceilings.
Current law requires each school board to adopt either its own academic
standards or the academic standards contained in the governor's executive order
issued January 13, 1998, and to administer fourth and eighth grade promotional
examinations to fourth and eighth grade pupils enrolled in the school district,
including pupils enrolled in charter schools located in the school district. Beginning
in the 2000-01 school year, each school board must also administer a high school
graduation examination that is designed to measure whether pupils have met the
academic standards adopted by the school board. A school board may either adopt
examinations developed by DPI or develop its own examinations. A school board
must notify DPI if it adopts its own high school graduation examination instead of
the high school graduation examination developed by DPI, and it must determine the
high school grades in which the examination is administered each school year.
This bill provides that a school board must administer the high school
graduation examination to all pupils enrolled in a charter school located in the school
district other than a Milwaukee charter school described above. The bill also
provides that the operator of a Milwaukee charter school must adopt academic
standards and administer fourth, eighth and high school graduation examinations
to pupils enrolled in the charter school. The operator may either adopt DPI's
examinations or develop its own. In addition, the bill requires a school board or the
operator of a Milwaukee charter school to notify DPI annually by October 1 if it
intends to administer its own high school graduation examination in the following
school year and provides that, beginning in the 2001-02 school year, the high school
graduation examination may be administered only to 11th and 12th graders.
Current law requires each school board and operator of a Milwaukee charter
school to administer the tenth grade examination developed by DPI to all tenth
graders enrolled in the school district or the charter school. This requirement does
not apply after the 2000-01 school year. This bill eliminates the expiration of the
tenth grade examination requirement.
Under current law, beginning September 1, 2002, a school board may not grant
a high school diploma to a pupil unless he or she passes the high school graduation
examination. Beginning July 1, 2002, a pupil may not be promoted from the fourth
to the fifth grade or from the eighth to the ninth grade unless the pupil passes the
fourth and eighth grade promotional examinations. A pupil's parent or guardian,
however, may excuse a pupil from taking any of these examinations. A pupil who is
excused must satisfy alternative criteria for promotion or graduation.
This bill imposes upon operators of Milwaukee charter schools the same
prohibitions against promotion that are imposed upon school boards. Finally, the bill
eliminates the authority of a pupil's parent or guardian to excuse the pupil from
taking the high school graduation examination.
Under current law, a school board, board of control of a cooperative educational
service agency (CESA) or a county children with disabilities education board is
eligible for special education aid if the state superintendent of public instruction is
satisfied that the special education program has been maintained according to law.
This aid is equal to a percentage of the amount expended on special education costs
in the preceding school year.
This bill eliminates the reimbursement rates for handicapped education costs
and school age parents program costs and directs that aidable costs be fully
reimbursed, subject to the availability of funds. The bill also provides that the
operator of a Milwaukee charter school described above is eligible for special
education aid, on a current school year basis, if the operator operates a special
education program and the state superintendent is satisfied that the operator has
complied with the federal Individuals With Disabilities In Education Act as though
the operator were a school board.
Under current law, a charter school may be established by, among other things,
petitioning the school board of the school district in which the charter school will be
located to enter into a contract with a person to establish and operate a charter
school. Within 30 days after receiving a charter school petition, the school board
must hold a public hearing on the petition. The MPS board must grant or deny a
petition to establish a charter school within 30 days after the public hearing. If the
MPS board denies the petition, the person seeking to establish a charter school may,
within 30 days of the denial, appeal the denial to the state superintendent of public
instruction, who must decide the appeal within 30 days after receiving it.
This bill requires all school boards to grant or deny a charter school petition
within 30 days after the public hearing and permits the person seeking to establish
a charter school to appeal a denial of a charter school petition to the state
superintendent.
Under current law, the Milwaukee charter schools described above are not
instrumentalities of MPS, and the MPS board may not employ any personnel for
these charter schools. If, however, the city of Milwaukee contracts with an individual
or group operating for profit to operate a charter school, the charter school is an
instrumentality of MPS and the MPS board must employ all personnel for the
charter school.
This bill provides that if the city of Milwaukee contracts with an individual or
group operating for profit to operate a charter school, the charter school is not an
instrumentality of MPS, and the MPS board may not employ any personnel for the
charter school.
Current law authorizes the MPS board to contract with any nonsectarian
private school located in the city to provide educational programs for pupils enrolled
in the school district. The MPS board may also close any school that it determines
is low in performance. If the MPS board closes a school or reopens a school that has
been closed, the superintendent of schools may reassign the school's staff without
regard to seniority in service. In addition, the MPS board is prohibited from
bargaining collectively with respect to: 1) the board's decision to contract with a
private nonsectarian school or private nonsectarian agency in the city to provide
educational programs to pupils, or the impact of any such decision on the wages,
hours or conditions of employment of the employes who perform those services; or 2)
the reassignment of employes who perform services for the board, with or without
regard to seniority, as the result of a decision of the board to close or reopen a school
or to contract with a person to operate a charter school or convert a school to a charter
school, or the impact of any such reassignment on the wages, hours or conditions of
employment of the employes who perform those services. This bill extends the above
provisions to cover all school boards.
This bill provides that, beginning in 2001, no public school may commence its
school term until September 1. The bill specifies that the prohibition does not
prevent a school board from holding athletic contests or practices before that date,
scheduling in-service days or work days before that date or holding school
year-round.
In the 1996-97 and 1998-99 school years, a school board having a school with
an enrollment that was at least 50% low-income in the previous school year was
permitted to enter into a five-year achievement guarantee contract with DPI on
behalf of one school in the school district (and up to ten schools in MPS) if, among
other things, in the previous school year that school had an enrollment that was at
least 30% low-income. Under these contracts the school district must reduce class
size and improve academic achievement in grades kindergarten to three in the school
or schools covered by the contract in exchange for receiving state aid.
This bill permits a school board to enter into a five-year achievement guarantee
contract beginning in the 2000-01 school year on behalf of one or more schools if,
among other things, in the previous school year a school in the school district had an
enrollment that was at least 50% low-income and each school on whose behalf the
school board contracts had an enrollment that was at least 62% low-income (80%
low-income for MPS).
Under current law, a school board may request DPI to waive school board or
school district requirements except those pertaining to, among other things, teacher
licensing. This bill permits a school board to request a waiver of the teacher licensing
requirement.
This bill prohibits the state superintendent of public instruction from renewing
a teaching license unless the person seeking renewal has received training in
educational technology.
Current law directs DPI to award a $2,000 grant in the 1999-2000 school year
to any person who is certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards (NBPTS) before July 1, 2000, and who satisfies several additional
conditions. In the 2000-01 school year, DPI must award a $2,500 grant to each
person who received a $2,000 grant, maintains his or certification by the NBPTS and
satisfies several additional conditions.
This bill eliminates all of the above dates. Under the bill, a person who becomes
certified by the NBPTS receives the initial $2,000 grant in the school year in which
he or she becomes certified. The bill also directs DPI to award the person a $2,500
grant in each of the succeeding nine years.
Under current law, referenda are required or authorized to be held by school
districts to incur debt or exceed state revenue limits, or to exceed the levy rate limit
for a school construction fund that is applicable only to MPS. Currently, these
referenda are required or authorized to be held at special elections when no offices
appear on the ballot.
This bill provides that such referenda must be held concurrently with the
spring election (held in each year) or the general election (held in each
even-numbered year), or on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in an
odd-numbered year.
