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.
11. Memberships and Dues Lapses
Section 9101 (6e)
This provision requires state agencies to lapse an additional twenty percent of expenditures incurred in fiscal year 2000-01 for dues and memberships in GPR appropriations.
I am partially vetoing this provision to broaden the application of each agency's required lapse so that the agencies may choose which GPR appropriations from which to lapse the funds. This flexibility is desirable and is similar to that provided by my veto of a
2001 Wisconsin Act 16 provision.
12. Prohibiting Certain Cost Allocations and Fee or Assessment Increases
Section 9159 (5c)
This provision prohibits any state agency from increasing fees or assessments, where the agency has the authority to do so, or allocating costs within the agency or between agencies, from program revenue appropriations that were subject to lapses or reductions unless prior approval has been obtained under 14-day passive review by the Joint Committee on Finance.
I am vetoing this provision because it infringes on executive branch authority and is unnecessary. The Joint Committee on Finance already has broad authority to review program revenue appropriations.
BUILDING COMMISSION
13. Distributed Generation Units
Section 20v
A910
This section requires the Department of Administration to investigate the potential to incorporate and use distributed generation units in any state building project that is expected to cost $5,000,000 or more. The department is required to consider the cost effectiveness of these units, their potential for statewide power generation capacity and their potential for cost savings to the state. The department is also required to report its findings, together with its recommendations and the reasons for its recommendations, to the Building Commission prior to the commission's consideration of a project.
I am vetoing this section because the department already reviews the full range of power generation options in all state building projects.
ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT AND TECHNOLOGY FOR EDUCATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT IN WISCONSIN BOARD (TEACH)
14. Dissolution of the Department of Electronic Government and its Merger into the Department of Administration and the Transfer of TEACH to the Department of Public Instruction
Sections 7n, 9m, 9n, 10m, 10p, 11n, 13m, 13p, 13q, 14b, 14g, 14h, 14i, 17s, 20n, 20p, 20pm, 20q, 20r, 20sc, 20sd, 20se, 20t, 20tf, 20tm, 20tn, 20ts, 20u, 20uc, 20uL, 23c, 23d, 23f, 23m, 23n, 23no, 26 [as it relates to s.
20.505 (1) (is),
(it),
(kg),
(kL) and
(kr)], 30e, 32mm, 32mn, 32mr, 32ms, 32mt, 32mu, 32mv, 32mw, 32mwm, 32mx, 32n, 32nd, 32nm, 32np, 32ns, 32nt, 32nu, 32num, 32nv, 32nw, 32nx, 32ny, 32nz, 32oj, 32om, 44b, 44bd, 44bL, 44bp, 44c, 44ce, 50m, 52h, 52i, 52j, 52k, 52L, 52Lb, 52Lc, 52Ld, 52Ldb, 64L, 68m, 68n, 69g, 69m, 72fb, 72fbm, 72fc, 72fd, 72fe, 72ff, 72fg, 72fh, 72fi, 72fj, 72fk, 72fL, 72fm, 72fn, 72fo, 72fp, 72fq, 72fr, 72frm, 72fs, 72ft, 72fu, 72fv, 72fw, 72fx, 72fy, 72fz, 72fza, 72fzb, 72fzc, 72fzd, 72fze, 72fzf, 72fzg, 72fzh, 72fzi, 72fzj, 72fzk, 72fzL, 72fzm, 72fzn, 84m, 93g, 93m, 100L, 100ng, 100nh, 100nhm, 100nj, 100nk, 100nL, 100nm, 100nn, 100no, 100nom, 100np, 100npn, 100nq, 100nqm, 100nr, 100nrm, 100ns, 100nsg, 100nsm, 100nt, 100ntm, 100nu, 100num, 100nv, 100nvm, 100nw, 100nwm, 100nwt, 100nx, 100ny, 100nym, 100nz, 100nzm, 100oa, 100ob, 100oc, 100od, 100oe, 100of, 100og, 100oh, 100oi, 100oj, 100ok, 100oL, 100om, 100on, 100op, 100oq, 100or, 100os, 100ot, 100ou, 100ov, 100ovm, 100ow, 100ox, 100oy, 258y, 279m, 280m, 284d, 287d, 346c, 346m, 346r, 346rh, 346rm, 346rs, 346rt, 353m, 362m, 362p, 369p, 512m, 9140 (3q), 9159 (5t), 9201 (7q), 9240 (1r), 9259 (1) (a) [as it relates to s.
20.505 (1) (ka) and
(ke)], 9259 (9r), 9440 (3q) and 9459 (3q)
These provisions make two significant reorganizations: they dissolve the newly created Department of Electronic Government and transfer its responsibilities to the Department of Administration and they transfer all TEACH programs, duties and staff to the Department of Public Instruction, with the exception of the executive director position, which would be eliminated.
I am partially vetoing the Department of Electronic Government provisions because they are contrary to cost-effective and efficient management of technical government services. My administration's vision for government reform is guided by three principles: government should be citizen-centered, results-oriented and market-based. Effective implementation of E-government is important in making government, in general, more responsive and cost effective.
Success depends on agencies working as a team across traditional boundaries to better serve the people, focusing on citizens rather than individual agency needs. I have charged the Department of Electronic Government and its secretary to actively engage all executive branch agencies in cross-agency teamwork, using E-government to create better ways to serve citizens. I want citizens to be able to go on-line to access state government services, instead of standing in-line.
I am vetoing all provisions deleting the Department of Electronic Government with the exception of section 9259 (1) (a) and section 9259 (9r). I am partially vetoing section 9259 (1) (a) as it affects program revenue lapses from two Department of Administration appropriations to ensure that the lapse of $1,250,000 to the general fund occurs. Although this lapse is associated with a reduction to the Department of Electronic Government, the lapse will occur from a Department of Administration appropriation as a result of this partial veto. I am also partially vetoing section 9259 (9r) in order to ensure that the scheduled program revenue lapse of $5,286,800 occurs in the Department of Electronic Government appropriation as was intended. I am requesting the secretary of the Department of Electronic Government to reduce spending by an additional $512,300 PR-S in fiscal year 2002-03 to replace the savings that would have occurred if the department had been eliminated.
I am also vetoing the provisions which transfer TEACH to the Department of Public Instruction because I believe that an independent educational technology program best serves the state's educational technology needs. By maintaining the TEACH program in its current form and at its present size, the state will be able to respond to local educational technology needs in a more seamless and flexible manner. Furthermore, I believe the independent TEACH board is the most appropriate location for these activities since TEACH administers programs that benefit not only elementary and secondary schools, but also private colleges and universities, technical colleges and secured correctional facilities.
The effect of this veto will be to restore the Department of Electronic Government and TEACH as independent agencies, and to restore the positions proposed for elimination. The fiscal effect of the veto is to increase GPR funding by $102,500 and to decrease the GPR lapse by $125,000 in fiscal year 2002-03.
LEGISLATURE
15. Legislative Audit Bureau – Large Program Performance Study
Section 11m
A911
This provision directs the Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct every five years a management and performance evaluation audit of each large program in state government, including an appraisal of practices, operating procedures and organizational structures. In addition, the bureau must also conduct, at least every five years, an evaluation of supervisor to staff ratios in larger state agencies. Finally, the bureau must establish a toll-free telephone number to receive reports of fraud and waste in state government.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. The Legislature's Joint Audit Committee is fully capable of determining which reviews the bureau should undertake in the context of its total work load.
REGULATION AND LICENSING
16. Regulation of Boxing
Sections 464bb, 464bd, 464bf, 464bh, 464bj, 464bL, 464bn, 464bp, 464br, 464bt, 464bv, 464bx, 464bz, 464cb, 464cd, 464cf, 464ch, 464cj, 464cL, 464cn, 464cp, 464cr, 464ct and 464cv
This provision incorporates the requirements of 2001 Assembly Bill 163 relating to the deregulation of amateur boxing contests and the continued regulation of professional boxing contests. This would exempt amateur boxing contests from regulation by the Department of Regulation and Licensing and delete the $10 annual fee charged to an amateur boxing club sponsoring such events. The department would retain its current law authority to regulate professional boxing contests.
I believe there is merit in the substance of the provisions. However, this policy should be addressed through separate legislation, not a budget bill. I am, therefore, vetoing this provision.
F. TAX, FINANCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
1. Disciplinary Procedures for Certain Local Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters
Sections 150g and 9359 (7v)
This provision relates to disciplinary procedures for certain local law enforcement officers and firefighters. While it gives precedence to an appeal process covered by a collective bargaining agreement in a disciplinary action, it also gives the public safety officer the option to appeal to circuit court instead. This provision does not apply to the city of Milwaukee.
I am vetoing this provision because this type of policy issue is best addressed as separate legislation using the legislative committee process in both houses to examine the merits of such changes to disciplinary procedures.
INVESTMENT BOARD
2. Venture Capital Investment
Section 79s
