I am vetoing these sections because I object to the restrictions they place on the department's authority to recover payments from fraudulent and abusive Medical Assistance providers. These recoveries are returned to the Medical Assistance program and are used to pay for additional health care services. By limiting antifraud efforts, these provisions could increase the costs of the Medical Assistance program by several million dollars.
7. Medical Assistance Disease Management
Section 9123 (2v)
This section requires the Department of Health and Family Services to develop a request for proposal inviting vendors to submit disease management proposals for the Medical Assistance program by January 1, 2003. I object to requiring the department to complete the process by January 1, 2003, because it does not have a sufficient amount of time to develop a comprehensive request for proposal.
Therefore, I am partially vetoing this section to remove the January 1 deadline, and I am directing the secretary of the Department of Health and Family Services to comply with this provision by April 1, 2003.
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
8. Small Employer Exemption for Point-of-Service Plans
Sections 509c, 509cm and 509d
These sections delete the exemption for small employers, defined as having twenty-five or fewer employees, from having to offer a point-of-service plan. Under current law, employers with over twenty-five employees that offer a health maintenance organization (HMO) insurance plan or a preferred provider plan must offer a standard plan and a plan that has a point-of-service option. Small employers are currently exempt from that requirement.
I am vetoing these provisions because it will severely affect the ability of small employers to continue to offer insurance benefits. All employers are currently facing double-digit increases in health insurance costs and point-of-service plans will further increase these costs to employers and employees. I do not want to endorse a provision that would increase the likelihood that small employers will discontinue or reduce coverage for their employees.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
9. Expansion of Retroactive Cash Benefits for Wisconsin Works (W-2) Participants
Sections 119g, 119gd, 119gh, 119gi, 119gj, 119gk, 119r, 121k, 9358 and 9458
These provisions would change the rules surrounding retroactive cash benefits for W-2 clients. Under current law, a person may be eligible to receive retroactive cash benefits under the W-2 program if that person's benefit was improperly modified or canceled, or if the benefit was calculated incorrectly, as determined by the W-2 review process. These provisions would require a W-2 agency to provide retroactive cash benefits to persons whose applications were not acted upon with reasonable promptness and persons who were improperly denied a benefit in whole or in part, as determined by the W-2 review process.
I am vetoing these provisions because they could have significant policy ramifications for the operation of the W-2 program. As such, these policy changes should receive the full review of the legislative committee process and should be addressed through separate legislation.
10. Transfer of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Funds
Sections 64g and 9258 (14d)
This provision would transfer $10,000,000 in unappropriated Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds from the Department of Workforce Development to the Joint Committee on Finance's supplemental appropriation for public assistance programs, to be used for any purpose that is allowed under the TANF program. Under this provision, the department would be required to seek approval from the Joint Committee on Finance under the s.
13.10 process to access the funds.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. Under current law, the department may access any unappropriated TANF funds by seeking approval from the Joint Committee on Finance under the s.
16.54 process.
11. Inspection of Contractor Records
Sections 153d, 274c and 274cj
This provision requires all contractors and subcontractors on state or local public works projects subject to prevailing wage laws to allow the public access to inspect payroll records for those projects.
I am vetoing this provision because, under current law, the Department of Workforce Development is already required to inspect payroll records to determine compliance with prevailing wage laws at the request of any person. Following the investigation, those records are made public and may be examined by anyone. For state highway projects, the Department of Transportation is also authorized to inspect payroll records and can require the appropriate district attorney to investigate and prosecute violations as necessary.
A906
Requiring contractors to directly make these records available to the public would create an unnecessary and duplicative burden on private employers. If individuals wish to obtain these documents, they need only file a request with the appropriate department.
D. JUSTICE
CORRECTIONS
1. Interagency and Intraagency Programs Lapse
Section 9211 (2c)
This provision requires the Department of Corrections to lapse $2,267,800 PR from its interagency and intraagency programs appropriation in fiscal year 2001-02.
I am vetoing the requirement that the amount be lapsed from the interagency and intraagency programs appropriation because I object to the limits this provision places on the department's flexibility. This partial veto will provide the department with the flexibility to lapse the required amount from multiple appropriations within the department.
The effect of this veto will be to require the department to lapse $2,267,800 to the general fund in fiscal year 2001-02.
2. Visitors Bus
Sections 26 [as it relates to s.
20.410 (1) (gv)], 37m, 377b, 377c and 377d
These provisions create a new annual program revenue appropriation and provide $60,000 PR in fiscal year 2002-03 for inmate visitor transportation. The Department of Corrections would be allowed to charge a reasonable fee or utilize funding from gifts, grants and donations to pay the cost of transporting persons visiting inmates in state prisons.
I am vetoing these provisions because administration of the program would be difficult under the proposed funding structure. Collection of a fee would be difficult and it is unlikely enough revenue could be generated from fees and donations to sustain the program. As a result of this veto, the department will not operate a visitors bus.
3. Inmate Secure Work Program
Sections 421, 428 and 9411
This provision repeals the inmate secure work program operated by the Department of Corrections.
I am vetoing this provision to allow the department the flexibility to continue to operate an inmate secure work program. The funding and positions associated with the program are being eliminated, but the department will have the ability to operate the program with existing resources. Elimination of the program will reduce the department's ability to provide meaningful work experience to inmates and result in increased inmate idleness. Elimination of the program will also reduce the department's ability to perform community services such as cleanup efforts following natural disasters, painting public buildings and brush trimming throughout the state.
4. Declining Probation and Parole Fees
Sections 431g and 431k
This provision permits the Department of Corrections to adopt administrative rules to establish a declining supervision fee on a case-by-case basis based on an offender's supervision level.
I am partially vetoing this provision because I object to the limits placed on the department's ability to establish offender supervision fees. The department needs flexibility to establish appropriate fee schedules.
5. Supermax Conversion Study
Section 9111 (4q)
This provision directs the Department of Corrections and the Department of Administration to conduct a study for inclusion in the 2003-05 capital budget for the conversion of the Supermax Correctional Institution from a supermaximum security institution to an institution with a combination of supermaximum and maximum security beds.
I am vetoing this provision because the requirements impose an undue burden and timing requirement at a time when agency budgets are limited.
6. Out-of-State Prison Bed Contracting
Sections 377db, 377dc and 377df
This provision requires the Department of Corrections, when contracting for out-of-state contract beds, to give preference to an entity that meets the following qualifications: house prisoners in facilities near Wisconsin; provide alcohol and other drug abuse treatment, education, job preparation, other elements of treatment, and comprehensive assessment of offenders to establish effective courses of treatment and rehabilitation; offer a facility that is staffed by trained certified professionals; and is managed and supervised by a team of licensed professionals (including educators, certified counselors, vocational specialists and medical professionals). The preference requirement would apply if the entity offers a daily rate that is comparable to the lowest good faith rate offered by other entities offering facilities for out-of-state placement of offenders.
I am vetoing this provision because the requirements impose a burdensome work load without additional resources at a time when agency budgets are limited. The department currently requires potential vendors to provide alcohol and other drug abuse treatment, education, job opportunities and other treatment options to offenders. The department also requires facilities that house Wisconsin inmates to be staffed with trained professionals, including educators and medical professionals.
7. Reduction of Salary and Fringe Benefits Appropriation
Section 9213
This provision reduces the District Attorneys' salary and fringe benefits appropriation by $541,700 GPR.
I am vetoing this funding reduction because it would permanently reduce the state's efforts to combat crime.
The state and counties share the cost of funding the district attorney offices. The state only funds the salary and fringe benefits and the counties fund all remaining support functions and positions. This base reduction would involve eliminating approximately ten attorneys or leaving attorney positions unfilled.
Given the state's fiscal needs, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $541,700 from the appropriation under s.
20.475 (1) (d) into unallotted reserve to lapse to the general fund in fiscal year 2002-03. It is my intention that this reduction be a one-time lapse and not a permanent base reduction. Savings from vacant positions will be sufficient to meet this lapse without limiting the ability of local district attorneys to meet prosecutorial needs.
STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
8. Private Bar Funding
Section 9239 (1z)
This provision provides $10,721,200 GPR funding for the private bar appropriation in fiscal year 2002-03.
All state agencies were required to take reductions and have been asked to do more with less funding. Therefore, a contribution by all state agencies is essential in the effort to deal with the state's current fiscal shortfall. While I support the representation of indigent residents in the state of Wisconsin, I feel this increase to the Public Defender Board's budget to be excessive and that the board has to be part of the state's efforts to reduce spending. The board needs to contribute to the state's efforts to restrain costs.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to exempting the board from the spending cuts. By lining out the amount provided in section 9239 (1z) and writing in a smaller amount, I am reducing the appropriation under s.
20.550 (1) (d) by $1,033,000 in fiscal year 2002-03. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
This amount was identified by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau in the 1999-2001 biennial budget as the increase to the private bar for exempting ten supervisors from the statutory caseload requirements. The reinstatement of supervisory caseloads, along with other measures, will allow the board to absorb this reduction.
9 Hiring Freeze Exemption
Section 9139
This provision exempts the Public Defender Board from the state imposed hiring freeze during the 2001-03 biennium for positions providing trial and appellate representation.
The statewide hiring freeze applies to all executive branch agencies and is an important component in the state's attempt to address the current fiscal shortfall.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. An exemption process currently exists to allow agencies to fill needed positions. I request that the Department of Administration work with the board on filling critical vacancies.
TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING
10 Sentencing Commission Funding
This provision provides funding for Sentencing Commission staff.
I am vetoing this provision to eliminate the funding provided for four Sentencing Commission support staff because we need to control spending in all areas of state government. I object to the increased funding level as excessive, given the state's fiscal situation, and therefore I am reducing the funding to a level that is reasonable based on what we can afford in these difficult economic times. By lining out the amount provided in section 26 and writing in a smaller amount, I am reducing the appropriation under s.
20.505 (4) (dr) by $144,800 in fiscal year 2002-03. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
11. Standard of Review on Appeal
This provision allows the appellate court to reverse a sentencing decision on appeal if it determines the sentencing court erroneously exercised its discretion in making the decision or there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the decision.
I am partially vetoing this provision because it would give the appellate court broader authority over trial court decisions. Appellate courts currently refrain from interference with trial court discretion in imposing sentences. The trial court had the opportunity to observe the witnesses, victims and the defendant, placing the trial court in the best position to pronounce an appropriate sentence. Such a dramatic shift in the standard of review should be undertaken only after thorough review by authorities in appellate law and practice.
12. Sentence Calculation
These provisions require offenders to serve extended supervision prior to parole when multiple sentences are imposed to run consecutive to each other.
A908
I am partially vetoing these provisions because they needlessly complicate existing procedures and place an administrative burden on the Department of Corrections that could lead to increased errors in sentence calculation and offender litigation. Consecutive sentences are currently served in the order they are handed down from the court, which means parole is generally served before extended supervision. These provisions require that when sentences are to be served consecutively, sentences with extended supervision are served first. If an offender has a sentence with a parole provision and receives a consecutive sentence with an extended supervision provision, the extended supervision must be served first, requiring the shifting of the dates for serving the first sentence. The dates for serving all other sentences will need to be adjusted, resulting in an increased potential for errors and litigation if an offender is held longer than the sentence that was imposed.
E. STATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
ADMINISTRATION
1. Printed Publications
Section 9101 (8z)
This provision requires the secretary of the Department of Administration to identify all printed publications made and distributed by executive branch agencies and prohibits the printing of any publication unless deemed essential as determined by the secretary or required by the Wisconsin Constitution or law. Agencies must submit expenditure estimates for the printing of publications to the secretary during the 2001-03 biennium.
I am vetoing the provision because it creates an unnecessary administrative burden on the department and agencies at a time when state operations and staffing levels are being reduced. Agencies are charged by Wisconsin Statute with administering their programs appropriately within the budgetary means provided and are best able to make decisions about using resources provided to meet program needs in a timely way.
