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.
2. Performance Evaluation Office Elimination
Section 9201 (10d)
This provision eliminates the Performance Evaluation Office from the Department of Administration. It deletes 8.0 FTE PR positions along with associated salary, fringe benefits and supply funding.
I am vetoing this provision because I believe these resources should be available to the secretary and the Governor to evaluate program performance issues.
3. Program Evaluation and Management Audit
Section 9132 (1c)
This provision requests the Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct an audit of the Department of Administration to determine whether state government could function effectively without such a department.
I am vetoing this provision because the study requested is unnecessary. In addition, the Legislature's Joint Committee on Audit is fully capable of determining which reviews the bureau should undertake in the context of its total work load.
4. Contractual Services Contracts Cost Reviews
Sections 20sa, 20sb and 9301
This provision requires the Department of Administration to review each proposed contract for contractual services in excess of $150,000 or which the department estimates would require an expenditure in excess of $150,000, to determine whether the expenditures would be efficient and cost effective.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary and inefficient. The department has put in place an effective procurement management function which strikes a reasonable balance between central review and approval, and delegated procurement authority in state agencies. The oversight and controls are adequate.
5. Authority for Public Utilities to Retain Transitional Funding
Section 9142 (1v)
This provision permits public utilities to retain the fees they collect from commercial and industrial customers for public benefits conservation efforts. These funds would ordinarily flow to the public benefits energy conservation program in the Department of Administration and be used for energy conservation demonstration projects, renewal energy projects and related projects.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to the diversion of funds from the state program. This veto will ensure continuity in conservation, energy efficiency and economic development projects in the public benefits program.
6. Sale or Lease of Residual State Property
Sections 80m, 258puw, 9101 (9b) and 9107 (1b)
These provisions require the Department of Administration to compile by March 15, 2003, a list of surplus state properties and the fair market value of those properties that have the potential to be sold or leased by the state. The department is also required to submit the compiled list of properties to be sold or leased by October 1, 2003, to the Joint Committee on Finance for approval, subject to a 14-day passive review process. Upon Committee approval of the list, the state must proceed with the sale or lease of those properties. After all outstanding debt is paid on the properties, the net proceeds from the sale or lease of the properties would be deposited into the state's budget stabilization fund.
I am vetoing these provisions because they place unnecessary time constraints on the department that may prevent the state from realizing the full value of any state property sold. In addition, existing state policies on the sale of surplus state property are adequate.
7. Structural Balance
Section 25y
This provision requires that, beginning with fiscal year 2005-06, no bill may be adopted by the Legislature that would cause money designated as total expenditures in the statutory general fund condition statement to exceed the sum of money designated as taxes and as departmental revenues in that condition statement for that same fiscal year.
I am vetoing the part of this provision that requires a structural balance beginning in fiscal year 2005-06. This is a good business practice and should be immediately implemented. Therefore, with this partial veto I am making sure that the budget will have a structural balance beginning in fiscal year 2003-04 of the next biennium.
8. State Employee Cap
Sections 18e and 18r
This provision requires the secretary of the Department of Administration to abolish twenty percent of the full-time equivalent positions that became vacant in each agency during the preceding fiscal year. In addition, these provisions require that the funding associated with these abolished positions be permanently removed from the agency's base budget.
I applaud the Legislature's goal of aggressively reducing long-term government operations spending through this measure. However, implementation of the cap poses potentially serious issues. The provision does not differentiate between essential and nonessential positions, nor present a process for granting exemptions. Agencies' abilities to staff programs that maintain public health and safety or operate institutions could be limited with dangerous consequences.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the requirement to abolish positions because it may compromise critical programs and public safety. I strongly concur with the goal of reducing the size of government. My veto retains the requirement to report to the Department of Administration regarding the positions which have become vacant during the year, their funding sources and salary levels. This information will enable better central budget planning and decision making.
9. Equitable Statewide Reduction in Agency Services
Section 9159 (5z)
This provision requires executive branch agencies to ensure that any reduction in services funded by appropriations decreased as a result of this act be equitably apportioned between residents of rural and urban areas. This section also requires each agency to submit an expenditure estimate to the secretary of the Department of Administration for any expenditure to be made from an appropriation that is decreased by this act. Finally, it mandates that the secretary disapprove any estimate that does not equitably apportion service reductions between residents of rural and urban areas.
I am vetoing this provision because of the practical difficulties associated with determining the rural and urban elements of the affected programs. I agree that no part of the state should be disproportionately affected by budget reductions and agencies will attempt to take these factors into account, to the extent practicable, when implementing funding reductions.
10. Priority Order for Agency Layoffs
Section 9156 (1q)
This provision requires that no employee in the classified service in executive branch agencies, excluding the University of Wisconsin System, may be laid off until all unclassified employees are first laid off (excluding the agency head) if layoffs are required as a result of an appropriation reduction under this act.
I am vetoing this provision because it imposes unrealistic obstacles to the management of the executive branch. In order to succeed in solving the budget and fiscal challenges before state government, effective executive leadership continuity must be maintained.
