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.
I am vetoing these provisions in order to maintain the stricter fiscal controls provided under annual appropriations and to continue to adequately monitor appropriation expenditures. The effect of this veto is to retain current law.
E.
STATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
ADMINISTRATION
Vacant Positions in State Government
Section 9101 (26n)
This provision requires the secretary of the Department of Administration, within thirty days of the budget's effective date, to determine vacant positions of various funding sources in executive branch agencies as of July 1, 2001; determine the associated salary and fringe benefit costs; and lapse these amounts to the respective appropriation and fund balances. In addition, the authorized positions determined by the secretary are deleted.
My budget recommendations to the Legislature included GPR state operations base appropriations reductions of five percent for most state agencies. Since the budget was introduced, agency managers have been planning how to implement these cuts. Many are holding authorized positions vacant in anticipation of using them to help meet the funding reductions. While these five percent reductions involve GPR, agencies with other funding sources have been holding vacancies in program revenue and segregated funds so that employees may be reallocated in order to minimize layoffs. The cuts of vacant positions and associated funding proposed by the Legislature place an additional burden on agencies in that the dollars associated with many vacancies have already been accounted for in agency planning.
I understand that the estimated GPR savings of $7,900,000 annually related to this provision are needed to maintain the general fund balance. However, estimated savings from vacant positions in other funding sources that would lapse to those sources would be of no benefit to the general fund.
For these reasons, I am partially vetoing this provision to give the department secretary and state agencies needed flexibility to implement the several general fund reductions and lapses in the budget. Specifically, my partial veto deletes the thirty-day deadline for determining vacant positions; removes non-GPR funding sources from the lapse requirement; eliminates the requirement that individual appropriations be part of the secretary's determination and implementation of GPR lapses; and strikes the requirement that vacancies identified be deleted. I am also vetoing the limitation of this lapse provision to only the executive branch, since I believe all branches of state government should share responsibility for reducing costs in each fiscal year. The effect of this partial veto will give the secretary flexibility to apportion the required general purpose revenue lapse equitably among all agencies.
2.
Dues and Membership Lapses
Section 9101 (22k)
This provision requires the secretary of the Department of Administration to determine the amount spent by each state agency in fiscal year 2000-01 for membership dues for any state or national organization and to lapse twenty percent of those amounts from each affected agency appropriation.
S349
This language, as presented, provides no latitude regarding the appropriations or respective amount of required lapse that must be assessed. Because there are appropriations that exist solely for payment of a dues or membership fee which will require all of their budgeted resources in the 2001-03 biennium, I find the requirement to take twenty percent of each and every such appropriation to be overly restrictive. I am therefore partially vetoing the provision in a way that will permit the Department of Administration secretary to apportion the provision's overall required lapse on a more flexible basis across agencies and their appropriations. The fiscal effect of this veto will be neutral, since the total required amount will be lapsed.
3.
Audit of State-Owned Aircraft Usage
Sections 9132 (3y) and 9159 (3y)
These provisions request the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to direct the Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct a performance evaluation audit of aircraft usage by state agencies. If the bureau does not initiate this audit by December 1, 2001, the Department of Administration, Department of Transportation and Department of Natural Resources are directed to conduct a joint study to determine how reductions can be made in the costs associated with use of aircraft by state agencies.
I object to the required Legislative Audit Bureau study because I believe the three state agencies involved can perform this study adequately. I am, therefore, partially vetoing these provisions to remove the Legislative Audit Bureau study, but leave in place the requirement that the three agencies do the evaluation and report the results to the chief clerk of each house of the Legislature.
4.
University of Wisconsin System Fleet Merger
Section 9156 (3s)
This section transfers to the Department of Administration the assets and liabilities of the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin System relating to its fleet maintenance functions at the Madison campus, as determined by the secretary of the Department of Administration.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. An interagency committee is already studying how to optimize state fleet maintenance and is working toward this same goal. Combining the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Department of Administration fleet maintenance operations at this time would be premature until those study efforts have been completed.
5.
Procurement Conversion to Program Revenue
This provision creates a new biennial appropriation for support of central procurement operations.
I believe that a biennial appropriation does not provide enough flexibility to carry out the goals of the program. I am, therefore, partially vetoing this provision to give the Department of Administration greater flexibility in providing procurement services. The effect of this veto will be to change the biennial appropriation to continuing.
6.
Procurement Services Audit
Section 9132 (2ak)
This section requests the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to direct the Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct a performance evaluation audit of procurement services provided by the Department of Administration to state agencies.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The Legislature does not need nonstatutory authority to direct that a Legislative Audit Bureau study be conducted.
7.
Purchasing Card Rebates
Sections 227q and 9101 (19r)
This provision requires the Department of Administration to credit any rebates received by state agencies through the use of the purchasing card to the fund from which the purchase was incurred.
The budget includes the conversion of funding for the state procurement program from GPR to program revenue. Among the intended sources available to agencies to fund the charges for the central procurement bureau are internal savings realized through the use of innovations such as the purchasing card. Requiring agencies to lapse such savings contradicts the original concept of converting state procurement functions to program revenue. It also would act to discourage agencies from trying to use technology in their operations. For these reasons, I am vetoing the purchase card rebate requirement.
BUILDING PROGRAM
8.
Retainage on Public Works Contracts
Sections 321m, 2026m and 9359 (10b)
These provisions reduce the percentage of payments withheld on public works contracts from ten percent to five percent.
I am vetoing this provision because it is contrary to the industry standard of ten percent on such payments and reduces the state's ability to manage state building projects by decreasing the incentive of contractors to complete projects in a satisfactory manner. The effect of this veto will be to retain the ten percent standard, which is current law.
9.
Wisconsin History Center Reporting Requirement
Section 9107 (7x)
This provision requires that at least $75,000,000 in gift, grants or other receipts funding be secured before any bonds are sold for the Wisconsin History Center project. It also requires that the Building Commission notify the Joint Committee on Finance when this gift funding has been secured which is then subject to the fourteen-day passive approval authority of the Joint Committee on Finance before the Building Commission may authorize any public debt for the project.
I believe the Building Commission should remain the sole state government body responsible for oversight of building projects. I object to the requirement that this project be subject to the additional review and approval of another legislative committee. Therefore, I am vetoing this provision.
S350
10.
Facility Operating Cost Estimates
Sections 104m and 227m
These sections require the Department of Administration to provide the Building Commission with a statement of anticipated annual operating costs and other information for each building project proposed for enumeration. They also prohibit the Building Commission from recommending any project for enumeration in the authorized state building program unless the commission adopts and provides an estimate of the anticipated annual operating costs or the increased annual operating costs, plus the anticipated annual debt service costs of all projects in the first full year following their completion, and the revenue source for these costs.
I am vetoing these sections because the Building Commission already collects this information and includes these costs as part of its recommendations on the authorized state building program through the Department of Administration. The commission and the department are committed to addressing anticipated operating costs when considering building projects for approval.
11.
Distributed Generation Units
Section 319s
