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
Sections 1996m, 2854m, 4033g, 4033k, 4033n, 4034b, 4034c, 4034d, 4034f, 4034g, 4034h, 4034j, 4034m, 4034n, 4034p, 4034r, 4034t, 4034u, 4034v, 4034w and 4034y
These provisions authorize the Attorney General to investigate alleged civil rights violations, order and participate in inquests, request autopsies and medical examinations, and bring actions for injunction.
I am vetoing this provision because it is duplicative and unnecessary. District attorneys have this authority under current law. Wisconsin's district attorneys have provided commendable service to the residents of this state regarding the defense of individual and civil rights and granting the Attorney General the same authority would serve no useful purpose.
19.
Law Enforcement Training on Alzheimer's Disease Recognition
Section 2858p
This provision specifies that, of the 48 hours of biennial recertification training required for law enforcement officers, at least one hour of training be dedicated to recognizing the symptoms of Alzheimer's disease and other related dementia.
I am vetoing this provision because the Law Enforcement Standards Board should determine if this addition to the curriculum for officer recertification training is needed. The Law Enforcement Standards Board under the Department of Justice establishes minimum training standards and develops the training curriculum for Wisconsin's law enforcement officers. I encourage the board to review its curriculum on the recognition of Alzheimer's disease and other dementia as part of its ongoing curriculum development function.
20.
AFIS Workstation Grant Program
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.455 (2) (kh)], 770n, 770p, 855n, 855p, 9131 (2c) and 9431 (1c)
These provisions provide penalty assessment revenue in fiscal year 2001-02 to create a grant program in the Department of Justice to fund the purchase of automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS) workstations by local law enforcement agencies and to cover the initial costs of installing a BadgerNet line.
I am vetoing these provisions because projected revenues from the penalty assessment surcharge would not be sufficient to support any new programs. This action is also necessary to cover the lapse of $875,200 in penalty assessment revenues to the general fund in fiscal year 2001-02.
It should also be noted that I am providing $3,540,200 over the biennium from various state and federal funding sources to improve and upgrade the statewide AFIS system to better serve Wisconsin's law enforcement agencies.
OFFICE OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
21.
Federal Byrne Anti-Drug Enforcement Program
Sections 327n, 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (5) (jt)], 672L, 1375r, 2340q, 9101 (21j) and 9101 (22w)
These provisions earmark funding to provide one-time community justice center planning grants, to expand the pretrial intoxicated driver intervention grant program under the Department of Transportation and to fund a crime prevention resource center at the Fox Valley Technical College.
I am vetoing these earmarks because they subvert the existing grant application review and approval process for federal Byrne funding administered by the Office of Justice Assistance. This action ensures that use of these funds will conform to federal regulations and will restore the set-aside for the Governor's Law Enforcement and Crime Commission and discretionary special project funding for local law enforcement agencies to the greatest extent possible.
S347
22.
Penalty Assessment Surcharge Balance Transfers
Sections 9201 (6c), 9211 (2c) and 9240 (1c)
These provisions require the transfer of 85 percent of the unencumbered balances from certain appropriations on June 30, 2001, to the penalty assessment surcharge receipts appropriation under s.
20.505 (6) (j). Appropriation accounts affected by the transfer are the aid for alcohol and other drug abuse programs appropriation at the Department of Public Instruction, the victim services appropriation at the Department of Corrections and three appropriations at the Office of Justice Assistance used to match funding from the federal Byrne anti-drug program.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to increase the required balance transfer from 85 percent to 100 percent. This action is necessary to cover the lapse of $875,200 in penalty assessment revenues to the general fund in fiscal year 2001-02 and to ensure that enough funding is available for ongoing programs that are supported by revenues from the penalty assessment surcharge.
23.
Southern Oaks Girls School Mental Health Unit Funding
Section 9201 (5v)
This provision directs the Department of Administration secretary, to the extent permitted under federal regulations, to transfer $433,100 PR-S in fiscal year 2001-02 and $541,700 PR-S in fiscal year 2002-03 in federal Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant funds from the Office of Justice Assistance to the Department of Corrections to operate the mental health unit at the Southern Oaks Girls School.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary to earmark these funds through the budget process. The Office of Justice Assistance has funding available for this purpose and these funds have already been allocated for this purpose.
State PUBLIC DEFENDER
24.
Base Budget Reductions and Reporting Requirements
These provisions provide funding for the State Public Defender's office and require the State Public Defender to submit a quarterly report and a s.
13.10 request if a funding shortfall occurs in any of its appropriations.
In my budget I recommended a five percent GPR state operations base budget cut for most state agencies and branches of government and I intended for all agencies and branches to absorb these reductions in their budgets. However, the Legislature partially restored the five percent cut to the State Public Defender's budget and added 59.3 FTE GPR positions. Funding was shifted from the private bar appropriation to the trial representation appropriation to fund these positions. The effect of the Legislature's changes results in base budget reductions of only 0.528 percent in fiscal year 2001-02 and 4.4 percent in fiscal year 2002-03.
I object to some of the modifications made to the five percent reduction and the creation of the 59.3 FTE GPR positions. I am vetoing this provision because additional savings are needed and a contribution by all state agencies is essential to this effort. By lining out the State Public Defender's s.
20.550 (1) (c) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $2,894,800 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $373,100 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03, I am vetoing section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.550 (1) (c)] to provide a base budget cut of five percent in each year of the biennium and I am deleting the funding for the additional 59.3 FTE GPR positions. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the additional 59.3 FTE GPR positions. I am also vetoing section 9139 (2q) to remove the report requirement because it is no longer applicable due to the reduction in funding. All agencies should have the same ability to make emergency requests under s.
13.10. Singling out the State Public Defender for a special report and s.
13.10 request authority is unnecessary and inequitable to other agencies faced with similar reductions.
Since 1997, the caseload for the State Public Defender has remained stable. However, during this same time period, the number of cases assigned to State Public Defender staff as a percentage of total cases has been reduced by 6.7 percent while the number of cases assigned to the private bar has increased by 6.7 percent. By returning to the 1997 assigned caseload ratios, the State Public Defender should be able to implement the base budget reductions without any reductions in positions. According to the State Public Defender, it is more efficient for State Public Defender staff to prosecute a case than the private bar. Therefore, I am requesting the State Public Defender to implement this reduction through improved efficiencies rather than personnel reductions.
SUPREME COURT
25.
Court Interpreter Program
These sections provide $97,800 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $100,800 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 and 1.0 FTE two-year project interpreter coordinator position.
S348
I am vetoing section 9147 in its entirety because the cost is excessive. All branches of government need to prioritize and seek efficiencies in the use of taxpayer funding. By lining out the Supreme Court's s.
20.680 (2) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $97,800 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $100,800 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03, I am vetoing the portion of the bill that funds the two-year project interpreter coordinator position. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the additional 1.0 FTE position. My vetoes retain the $456,200 GPR increase in the state reimbursement rate to counties for court interpreters.
26.
Prison Impact Assessment
These provisions require the Legislative Fiscal Bureau to provide prison impact assessments for any bill or, upon request, any bill draft that creates a felony or modifies the period of imprisonment for a felony. Funding and positions are also provided to support this requirement.
I am vetoing these provisions because the cost is excessive and other fiscal impact requirements included in the budget will provide estimates of the cost of criminal legislation. By lining out the Legislature's s.
20.765 (3) (d) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $101,500 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $113,300 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03, I am vetoing the requirements and the additional positions. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the additional 2.25 FTE GPR positions.
27.
Court Commissioner Education
Section 3780q
This provision requires court commissioners to participate in programs of continuing education and requires that the court commissioners be charged a fee by the Supreme Court for the costs of the continuing education classes.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the requirement that court commissioners be charged the fee. This veto will maintain the current billing status, with the fee being assessed to the county where the court commissioner is employed.
28.
Appropriation Modifications
These provisions convert the general program appropriation for the director of state courts from an annual to biennial appropriation.
