D.
JUSTICE
CIRCUIT COURT
Family Court Counseling Fee
Sections 3832k and 9309 (4w)
These provisions increase the family court counseling service fee for custody and physical placement studies from $300 to $500. A court may order these studies when a custody or placement case has been contested.
I am vetoing these provisions because the fee increase is excessive, has not been justified and may inhibit involved parties from exploring their full range of legal options. The effect of this veto is to retain current law.
2.
Admitting Health Care Records into Evidence in a Trial or Proceeding
Sections 3872v and 9309 (7p)
This provision reduces the time period during which a party must either serve health care records or notify the other parties of the location where records can be inspected or photocopied from forty days to twenty days in order for the health records to be admitted into evidence at trial without testimony by the custodian of the records.
I am vetoing this provision because the change in the time period has not been justified and is unreasonable.
3.
Civil Action for Domestic Abuse or Sexual Assault
Section 3871x
This provision provides that any person, who suffers damage as the result of intentional conduct that constitutes sexual assault or as a result of domestic abuse, has a cause of action against the person who causes the damage.
I am vetoing this provision because the definition of who has a cause of action is very broad and due to its complexity this issue should be addressed in separate legislation. Further, language pertaining to domestic abuse restitution has been included in the budget to provide victims of domestic abuse broader legal avenues to address this problem.
CORRECTIONS
4.
Telemarketing and Data Entry
Sections 3325q and 9311 (7k)
These provisions specify that the Department of Corrections may not enter into a contract or other agreement if, in the performance of the agreement, a prisoner would perform data entry or telemarketing services and would have access to any personal identifying information of an individual who is not a prisoner. Personal identifying information is defined in s.
943.201 as a name, address, telephone number, driver's license number, social security number, employer or place of employment, employer identification number, mother's maiden name, or identifying number of a depository account.
I am vetoing these provisions to retain the current programs. These programs have many procedures in place to prohibit inmate access to social security numbers, financial data and information that could serve to identify a juvenile.
Inmates currently employed in the telemarketing program make calls to previous donors on behalf of charities that have contracted with the Department of Corrections. The inmates inquire as to whether the donor is interested in donating again. The response is forwarded to the charity, who follows up with the donor if interest in donating is expressed. Inmates identify themselves and receive no personal information during the call.
Inmates employed in the data entry program are able to enter data into a computer, but are not able to retrieve data. Careful screening is conducted to ensure inmates with a propensity for committing a financial crime involving personal identifying information would not be hired. Inmates are prohibited from having access to social security numbers, credit card numbers, other financial data and information that would identify a juvenile. Verifiers conduct random checks of entered data and can identify who entered data for any record, and inmates are searched each day to make sure no information is taken with them.
Elimination of these programs will reduce the department's ability to provide meaningful work experience to inmates and result in increased inmate idleness. Inmates are carefully screened prior to being selected for the programs and are closely monitored while they are employed. The personal privacy of the general public is not being compromised under current law. Inmates involved in these programs have access to no more information than is readily available in a telephone book.
5.
Residence of Sex Offenders on Parole or Extended Supervision
Sections 3329m, 3354g, 3354r, 3357m, 3385r, 3389m, 3389p, 3389q, 3389r, 3389s, 3389t, 3389u, 3389v, 3389w, 3389x and 3389y
These provisions require serious sex offenders to live in a residence approved by the Department of Corrections or the Parole Commission as a condition of extended supervision or parole. They also require the department and the Parole Commission to work cooperatively to minimize the residential population density of sex offenders who are on probation, parole, extended supervision or placed on supervised release as a sexually violent person.
S343
I am partially vetoing these provisions because they would limit the department's ability to provide effective offender treatment and community protection. I am vetoing all provisions that relate to the Department of Corrections' utilizing specific criteria when placing sex offenders because these provisions are already in administrative rule or are part of internal departmental procedures. I am vetoing the provision that would require agreement of the sex offender before the department could place the offender in an approved residence because it would limit the department's ability to provide treatment to the offender and compromise the department's ability to ensure community protection. I am vetoing the Parole Commission from the requirement to minimize the residential density of sex offenders because the Division of Community Corrections is responsible for coordinating the placement of offenders in the community.
The effect of this veto will be to require the Department of Corrections to minimize the density of sex offender residential populations while leaving the department with the flexibility needed to make appropriate placements.
6.
Inmate Rehabilitation and Aftercare
Section 3333j
This provision would allow the Department of Corrections to permit one or more community-based organizations to operate an inmate rehabilitation program in any departmental facility. As part of this provision, organizations seeking to operate such a facility would need to submit a detailed proposal, the department would be required to establish policies providing organizations with reasonable access to inmates, the department would be required to evaluate the program and contractors would be allowed to terminate an inmate's participation in the program.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove limitations on the department's ability to restrict an inmate's participation and to remove the ability of the contractor to terminate an inmate from the program without the involvement of the department because it limits the department's flexibility and undermines the department's authority. The current language provides a nonprofit community-based organization with broad authority to suspend or terminate an inmate's participation in a rehabilitation program, but the department would only be allowed to restrict an inmate's participation if necessary for the security of the facility or the safety of the inmates or the public. The Department of Corrections is charged with supervising the custody and discipline of all inmates in state correctional facilities. As the official caretaker, the department needs to maintain order and control in correctional facilities. By removing the restrictions, the department and the contractor can jointly determine whether an inmate's participation in a rehabilitation program should be restricted.
The effect of this veto will be to permit community-based organizations to operate inmate rehabilitation programs in departmental facilities but not allow a contractor to unilaterally terminate an inmate's participation in the program.
7.
Inmate Health Care Reports and Procedures
Sections 3329p, 3329q, 3329r, 3329s, 3329t, 3329u, 9111 (3c), 9111 (3cb), 9111 (3cc) and 9111 (3cd)
These provisions require the Department of Corrections to do all of the following:
•
Submit reports to the Joint Committee on Finance by January 4, 2002, regarding the following: a review of all professional medical services contracts to determine whether costs can be controlled, plans to provide continuing education for health care staff, additional training in the delivery of controlled medications for correctional officers and the collection of monies from reimbursement available in health care services contracts.
•
Submit a report to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee and the Joint Committee on Finance by the first day of the second month after the effective date of the bill on the progress toward meeting the standards selected as the basis for health care delivery to inmates.
•
Prepare written contracts for all health care vendors for delivery of basic health services at correctional institutions and submit any contract, agreement or extension over $500,000 to the Joint Committee on Finance for prior approval.
•
Evaluate the effectiveness of efforts to allocate mental health resources to inmates in an equitable and efficient manner, to evaluate the outcome of random medical chart reviews conducted by a physician to ensure proper medical procedures are followed, and to evaluate efforts to negotiate Medical Assistance rates for eligible inmates.
I am vetoing these provisions because the reporting requirements and deadlines impose a burdensome work load without additional resources at a time when agency budgets are limited. The Department of Corrections is actively working to implement these provisions as recommended by the Legislative Audit Bureau.
8.
Inmate Death in Custody Reporting Act Requirements
Section 3330g
S344
This provision requires the Department of Corrections to comply with guidelines established by the U.S. Attorney General under
42 USC 13704 (2) in reporting, on a quarterly basis, information regarding the death of any person in the custody of the department, including inmates incarcerated in facilities located outside this state, and to provide this information to the Wisconsin Attorney General at the same time that it is submitted to the U.S. Attorney General.
I am vetoing this provision because the Department of Corrections is currently compliant with inmate death in custody reporting requirements under federal law to maintain eligibility for federal grant funding.
9.
Inmate Tracking System and Integrated Corrections System Requirements
Sections 3329e, 3330c, 3330d, 3330e and 3330f
These provisions require the Department of Corrections to create and maintain an inmate tracking system that includes the inmate's criminal history, medical and mental health history, alcohol and other drug abuse history, victimization history, violence history, education and vocational history, religion, marital status, and status of all of his or her children. They also require the department to collect and maintain information that determines the number of inmates that return to prison due to a probation or parole revocation and whether the revocation is due to the inmate committing a new crime or violating a condition or rule of probation or parole.
These provisions require the department to publish adult and juvenile statistical information on its Internet Web site. The required adult information includes total population, population in each institution, commitments to and releases from the adult correctional system, average sentence length, offenses, race, gender, educational level, marital status, parental status, religion, and county of commitment. The required juvenile information includes total population, population in each institution, average population, admissions to and releases from the juvenile correctional system, offenses, race, gender, average age, and county of commitment.
These provisions also require the department to create and maintain an Intranet site with the medical histories of all inmates sentenced to Wisconsin state prisons. It requires the site to be completed no later than June 30, 2003, and to include prescriptions, laboratory reports and x-rays ordered for each inmate.
I am vetoing these provisions because the requirements impose an undue burden and timing requirement on the development of the integrated corrections system (ICS). The department is just beginning the development of ICS and needs to maintain the flexibility to determine how it will be designed and the order in which elements will be added. The Department of Corrections currently has several computer systems, making it difficult to pull information together to create reports of the type required by these provisions. The ICS will be one complete system that encompasses the existing systems and adds new elements that will allow the department to synthesize information from all aspects of corrections. If the department does not have the flexibility to design elements of the system, the result will be a system that is not fully integrated, making it difficult to present information in a useful manner and increasing the costs of ICS. The department will be able to provide information as phases of ICS are completed.
10.
Gender-Specific Treatment Programs and AODA Services
Sections 3327q, 3329x, 9111 (6e) and 9111 (7d)
These provisions require the Department of Corrections to offer the same level of alcohol and other drug abuse treatment (AODA) to male and female inmates and to work with the Department of Health and Family Services to develop a gender-specific treatment program for addressing individual treatment needs of female inmates. The departments are required to submit a report with a program plan regarding the gender-specific treatment program to the Legislature by July 1, 2002. The Department of Corrections is required to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance no later than six months after the effective date of the subsection comparing the alcohol and other drug abuse evaluation and treatment services provided to women to those provided to men.
I am vetoing these provisions because the Department of Corrections is currently exploring gender-specific treatment programs and comparing the level of alcohol and other drug abuse services for male and female inmates as part of an internal work group on female offender needs. In addition, the reporting requirements and deadlines imposed by these provisions would create a burdensome work load without additional resources at a time when agency budgets are limited.
11.
Performance Evaluations for Substance Abuse Intervention and Treatment Grants
Sections 1483j and 3327r
These provisions require the Department of Corrections and the Department of Health and Family Services to evaluate and develop performance standards for substance abuse intervention and treatment services.
I am vetoing these provisions because both departments currently evaluate as many substance abuse programs as possible within available resources, including a requirement to evaluate at least twenty percent of programs that receive Community Block Grant funding. The departments are also working to conduct effective evaluations of more programs. In addition, these requirements impose a burdensome work load without additional resources at a time when agency budgets are limited.
12.
Community Reintegration Facility
Section 9111 (3g)
S345
This provision requires the Department of Corrections to prepare a feasibility study of the creation of a transitional placement facility for parolees. The department is required to submit the study and a funding proposal to the Joint Committee on Finance.
I am vetoing this provision because it imposes additional work load and reporting requirements on the Department of Corrections at a time when agency budgets are limited. The department will continue to look at the creation of a transitional placement facility as a possibility for the future.
13.
Reduce Funding for the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center
Section 1491
This provision directs the Department of Corrections to transfer $1,379,300 GPR in each of fiscal years 2001-02 and 2002-03 and $2,694,400 PR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $2,947,200 PR in fiscal year 2002-03 to the Department of Health and Family Services to pay for services provided for juveniles placed at the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center.
I am vetoing in part the provision that transfers PR funding to the Department of Health and Family Services because new population estimates indicate a declining juvenile population. These new estimates do not support the current funding levels or current population levels at the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center. The veto will strike out the new fiscal years and amounts, thereby restoring the current language that directs the transfer of $2,489,300 in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $2,489,900 in fiscal year 2000-01.
In accordance with s.
46.057 (2) it is my intent with this veto for the Department of Health and Family Services to charge the Department of Corrections not more than the actual cost of providing services for juveniles placed at the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center. The Department of Corrections will compensate the Department of Health and Family Services as specified in s.
20.410 (3) (hm). Based on current population projections this cost is estimated to be $1,817,200 PR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $2,070,000 PR in fiscal year 2002-03.
14.
Juvenile Justice Study
Section 9111 (6c)
This provision creates a committee to study the costs to the state of assuming responsibility for the operation of the juvenile justice system from the counties by January 1, 2004. The provision requires the committee to report its findings, conclusions and recommendations to the Legislature by May 1, 2003, and to include in its report legislation for the assumption by the state of all or part of the operating costs of the juvenile justice system and the elimination of youth aids payments.
I am vetoing this provision because the timeframe for assuming that responsibility is unrealistic and the Blue-Ribbon Commission on State-Local Partnerships for the 21st Century has already addressed much of what the committee would be required to study.
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
15.
Vehicle Fines and Forfeitures for Additional Prosecutor Positions
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.475 (1) (g)], 781m, 1996f, 1996h, 1996j and 9113 (1q)
These provisions create a new annual appropriation and authorize $1,135,000 PR in the 2001-03 biennium from vehicle-related fines, penalties and forfeitures under Chapters
341 to
347,
349 and
351 to fund an additional 14.55 FTE PR assistant district attorney positions beginning January 1, 2002, in Ashland, Brown, Chippewa, Columbia, Dane, Jefferson, Kenosha, Juneau, La Crosse, Manitowoc, Marathon, Outagamie, Rock, Sauk and Winnebago counties and to increase the Pepin County elected district attorney by 0.20 FTE PR position.
I am vetoing these provisions because the identified funding source is contrary to the state's commitment to pay for prosecutor positions, limits revenues for county judicial operations and requires all counties to forego revenue increases to aid a few counties. Since 1990, the state has been committed to funding the salary and fringe benefit costs of prosecutors and the funding source identified by the Joint Committee on Finance reneges on this commitment. The proposed shift in financing would set a bad precedent by requiring the counties to bear the responsibility of paying for prosecutor positions. Also, these provisions unfairly freeze the amount that counties may retain from fines and forfeitures at the level collected in state fiscal year 2000-01. Finally, requiring all counties to provide funding for prosecutor positions while only a few would receive the positions would be inequitable.
I recognize and support the need for additional prosecutorial resources. By vetoing this provision, it is my intent that the need for additional prosecutor positions be addressed in a s.
13.10 meeting, which will give the Joint Committee on Finance the opportunity to consider a more appropriate funding source for prosecutor positions.
16.
Assistant District Attorney Positions for Restorative Justice Programs
Section 4031p
This section authorizes 2.0 FTE PR-S project assistant district attorney positions annually to establish restorative justice programs. Funding comes from the federal Edward Byrne Memorial Law Enforcement Assistance Program and penalty assessment match funds administered by the Office of Justice Assistance. Under this section, Milwaukee County and a county to be determined by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Department of Corrections, will each receive 1.0 FTE assistant district attorney position to serve as a restorative justice coordinator.
S346
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the discretion of the Attorney General to select the second county to receive an assistant district attorney position for restorative justice efforts. Because one of the central themes of restorative justice is exploring alternatives to incarceration, the Department of Corrections is better equipped to make the determination of which county should implement such a program.
Justice
17.
Post-Conviction and Post-Commitment DNA Testing
These provisions relate to GPR funding to cover the costs of post-conviction and post-commitment DNA tests and the ability of the courts to order the State Crime Lab to accept biological evidence for preservation.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to eliminate the GPR appropriation at the Department of Corrections that would have been used to cover the costs of post-conviction and post-commitment DNA testing if a defendant is determined indigent because of the severe funding constraints facing the general fund.
It is my intent to grant the courts authority to order the Department of Justice to cover such costs with program revenue from the crime laboratories and drug law enforcement assessments authorized under s.
165.755 and DNA surcharges authorized under s.
973.046. Accordingly, the Department of Justice may submit a request under s.
16.515 near the end of each fiscal year to use the appropriation under s.
20.455 (2) (kd), drug law enforcement, crime laboratories and genetic evidence activities.
I am also partially vetoing these provisions to eliminate the ability of the crime lab to prohibit the courts from ordering a transfer of evidence for the purpose of preservation. I am vetoing this provision because it undermines the court's discretion regarding the preservation of biological evidence and its ability to designate who shall preserve such evidence.
18.
Attorney General Authority in Civil Rights Actions and Inquests
