This provision provides $12,502,400 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $12,747,400 in fiscal year 2002-03 for the Department of Public Instruction's central office operations. Although there is no language in the bill that authorizes this level of funding, the restoration of the five percent base reduction proposed in my budget request was included in Conference Committee amendment to the bill.
By lining out the department's s.
20.255 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $723,000 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $723,000 in fiscal year 2002-03, I am vetoing section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.255 (1) (a)] to provide for a base budget reduction of four percent in each year of the biennium. The appropriation under s.
20.255 (1) (a) is also reduced by my veto of the Wisconsin Educational Opportunity Program study (see Department of Public Instruction, Item #14). There is no compelling reason to exclude the department's central office operations from any base budget reductions. A base budget reduction to the department's central operations will have no impact on the financial resources available to individual school districts. This veto retains the exemption from base reductions for the two residential schools operated by the department and requires a smaller reduction to the department's central operations than what is required of most other state agencies. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
19.
Museum Eligibility for Telecommunications Access Program Services
Section 1416 [as it relates to museums]
This provision would allow museums to participate in TEACH's telecommunications access program, which is funded by the universal service fund.
I am partially vetoing this provision because the cost of the expansion would lead to additional charges on consumers' monthly phone bills at a time when universal service fund charges to consumers are significant. In addition, the definition of museum is vague and overly broad. The effect of this veto will be to delete museum eligibility for TEACH's telecommunications access program.
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
20.
Nonresident Student Tuition and Base Reduction
Section 9156 (3pn) requires the board of regents to increase nonresident undergraduate tuition by 2.5 percent in each year of the 2001-03 biennium in addition to the regular tuition increases approved by the board.
I am partially vetoing this provision to increase the amount of the surcharge to five percent in each year. I believe the high quality of a University of Wisconsin education justifies increasing tuition for nonresident undergraduates. For example, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's nonresident undergraduate tuition is currently $6,000 less than the nonresident tuition charged at the University of Michigan. Even with a five percent annual surcharge, the difference would still be approximately $4,500.
The increased revenue obtained from the five percent surcharge will allow for additional reductions to the state's general purpose revenue spending, thereby helping to improve the state's overall fiscal condition. By lining out the University of Wisconsin System's s.
20.285 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $2,000,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $4,000,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03, I am vetoing the part of the bill that reflects my intent to use the additional revenue from increasing the nonresident undergraduate tuition to replace GPR. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
21.
Transfer of Credits Between the University of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Technical College System
Sections 1351x and 1370m
Section 1351x requires the University of Wisconsin System institutions to accept all general education credits transferred from both the Wisconsin Technical College System and from within the University of Wisconsin System, as well as credits included in cooperative agreements between the two systems. The provision also authorizes the Assembly and Senate Committees on Higher Education to block credits on a case-by-case basis, by a majority vote. Section 1370m requires the Wisconsin Technical College System to accept credits transferred between its campuses and from the University of Wisconsin System institutions.
I am vetoing sections 1351x and 1370m because I believe the University of Wisconsin System and Wisconsin Technical College System should continue to expand the number of transferable credits through the plan developed under the 1999-2001 biennial budget act. I fully support increasing the ease of movement between Wisconsin institutions of higher learning. As the economy becomes more knowledge-based, many workers with less than baccalaureate degrees are finding it necessary to pursue additional postsecondary education in order to advance in their careers. However, in order to maintain the academic quality of both systems, I believe it is more appropriate for the decisions to be made through existing negotiations between the two systems than by legislative mandate. I urge the University of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Technical College Systems to continue their dialogue toward establishing a credit transfer policy.
I am retaining the provision that requires regular reporting on progress in implementing the credit transfer plan. This should provide policymakers with up-to-date information on credit transfer arrangements.
22.
Sex Offender Notification
Sections 1351zd, 3352p, 3352w and 9311 (7c)
Section 3352p requires the Department of Corrections to immediately provide to the board of regents detailed information regarding registered sex offenders who are either employed by the University of Wisconsin or are students attending a University of Wisconsin institution. Section 1351zd requires the board of regents to provide the information received from the Department of Corrections regarding registered sex offenders to students attending the institutions at which the registered sex offenders are employed or attend and to the students' parents or guardians.
I am vetoing this provision in its entirety. While I agree with the intent of this provision to protect the well-being of students at the University of Wisconsin, I am concerned that the provision as drafted may not accomplish its intended purpose. By limiting the information to registered sex offenders who are employed by or attend the University of Wisconsin, the provision does not provide students with information about other registered sex offenders who may live in the same community, but are not associated with the university. Should a registered sex offender be a threat to the safety of students, it is as likely to be someone not affiliated with the University of Wisconsin as it is a fellow student or employee.
S298
Current law authorizes law enforcement agencies to provide other organizations with the same information required under this provision if the law enforcement agencies determine that providing this information is necessary to protect the public. In the case of the University of Wisconsin, the information provided could include registered sex offenders not affiliated with the university. I request that the board of regents make use of the authority under current law to obtain information on registered sex offenders in those communities where the university has a presence.
In addition, I urge the Department of Corrections to consider adding the University of Wisconsin to the list of organizations to which the department can directly provide information on request under the s.
301.46 (4) (a) 14. If the department has legal concerns about its authority under this provision, I will support the introduction of legislation to include the board of regents on the statutory list. The effect of this veto will be to provide students with more comprehensive information on registered sex offenders than would be provided under this provision.
23.
Resident Tuition for Certain Undocumented Persons
Section 1360m
This section provides an exemption from nonresident tuition to citizens of other countries who are not citizens of the United States, if they graduate from a Wisconsin high school (or receive a Wisconsin graduation equivalency), reside in the state for three years following high school graduation and submit an affidavit of their intent to apply for permanent residency as soon as they are eligible.
I am vetoing this provision because under the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, aliens who are not lawfully present in the United States are not eligible for any postsecondary education benefit based on residency in a specific state unless all legal residents of the United States are eligible for the same benefit. Under this act, all nonresident students would be eligible for resident tuition if that benefit is provided to persons living in Wisconsin who are not citizens or permanent residents of the United States. I object to potentially obligating state taxpayers to subsidize the tuition of out-of-state students.
Similar legislation passed by the California Legislature was recently vetoed by Governor Gray Davis due to concerns about the requirements of federal law and the potential cost to the state. While I appreciate the academic accomplishments many noncitizens have made in Wisconsin high schools, until Congress changes the eligibility status of undocumented persons for this benefit, the focus of taxpayer subsidized postsecondary education needs to remain on students who are legal residents of the state.
24.
Provide Full Fringe Benefits to Certain Limited Term Appointments at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Section 9156 (3e)
This section requires the University of Wisconsin-Madison to provide paid vacation and sick leave benefits to limited term appointment employees (LTEs) who meet the requirements of participating employees as defined in section 40.02 (46).
While I support the pilot program to convert fifty long-term LTE positions to permanent status, included under another provision of this bill, I am vetoing the extension of benefits to other LTE employees who are not granted permanent status. Extending benefits to these employees raises issues with respect to the classified civil service system, to LTE positions in other state agencies, which are excluded by this provision, and to the cost of this expansion. This is an issue that should only be considered after a complete and objective analysis, including a review of the results of the fifty LTE conversion pilot program.
25.
Tribal Logo Development
Section 1351t
This provision creates a requirement that the Robert M. La Follette Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison develop a tribal logo that is representative of federally recognized American Indian tribes and bands in Wisconsin for use on official state notifications of grants funded all or in part by Indian gaming receipts.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. It is not appropriate to assign the task of developing a tribal logo to a school of public policy. In addition, the development of and use of a tribal logo for state notifications does not require a statutory mandate.
26.
Domestic Abuse Training Requirements
Section 1351za
This provision requires the University of Wisconsin System board of regents to increase the amount of domestic abuse training it provides to medical and nursing students.
I am vetoing this provision because the University of Wisconsin already provides domestic abuse training to medical and nursing students. The provision also does not define increased training or demonstrate that current training by the university is inadequate.
In addition, the provision was apparently added to the budget bill without the involvement of the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Wisconsin Women's Health Foundation or the Department of Health and Family Services. These organizations are currently involved in a two-and-one-half year project to review domestic violence standards and protocols. It is appropriate to wait until the project is completed before considering changes to existing training efforts.
S299
27.
Study of Postsecondary Education Commission
Section 9101 (21jm)
This section requires the Department of Administration to conduct a study of the feasibility of creating a Postsecondary Education Commission to provide a comprehensive and coordinated framework for all postsecondary education and training and report the study results to the Legislature by January 1, 2003.
I am vetoing this provision because the Legislature does not need a statutory mandate to study this issue. The Legislature has the authority to direct the Joint Legislative Council, Legislative Fiscal Bureau or the Legislative Audit Bureau to undertake such a study.
28.
Aquaculture Demonstration Facility
Section 1349v
This provision prohibits any person from releasing sturgeon raised in an aquaculture demonstration facility into any natural body of water in the state.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary and may inhibit research. Under existing law, the rearing of lake sturgeon in an aquaculture facility is limited to the Department of Natural Resources. In addition, current law prohibits any person from releasing fish into the waters of the state without a permit from the department and also explicitly prohibits the release of any species of lake sturgeon. I believe these existing provisions adequately protect the state's natural fish stock.
The original intent of the Joint Committee on Finance was to limit the prohibition to commercially-bred sturgeon. However, as drafted, the provision applies to all sturgeon. Given the broad wording of the initiative, concerns have been raised that it could have a chilling effect on the ability of researchers in their efforts to improve the quality and productivity of fish farming in the state. The effect of this veto will be to maintain current law. I would consider legislation that was more narrowly drafted.
WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
29.
Funding for Assistive Technology Grants
These sections create a new annual appropriation and provide $300,000 GPR in the 2001-03 biennium to expand the availability of assistive technology to technical college students and graduates.
While I believe that individuals with disabilities are part of the solution to Wisconsin's skilled labor shortage, I am vetoing these provisions in their entirety because of the fiscal constraints facing the state. In addition, the budget includes a $2,000,000 GPR increase for vocational rehabilitation services in the Department of Workforce Development. This program was recently praised by federal officials as a national leader in providing vocational rehabilitation services. The additional funding should greatly improve access to assistive technology for those citizens who need it and help more individuals with disabilities enter the state's work force.
30.
Funding for Grants for Additional Course Sections
Section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.292 (1) (er)] provides $750,000 GPR annually to increase funding in the Grants for Additional Course Sections appropriation. This program awards grants to help technical college districts add course sections in areas of high demand. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in the Conference Committee amendment to the budget bill.
I am vetoing this provision to reduce the size of the increase to $250,000 annually because I object to providing a 34 percent increase to a program that is just completing its first year of operation. I am sympathetic to the frustrations of students who are on waiting lists to take courses that are in high demand. My veto will still provide an 11.4 percent increase in this grant program. This will enable technical colleges to further increase course sections to meet student and employer demands but in a more fiscally prudent way. By lining out the Wisconsin Technical College System's s.
20.292 (1) (er) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $500,000 GPR provided for this purpose in each year, I am partially vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
31.
Funding for Additional Incentive Grants
Section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.292 (1) (dc)] provides $750,000 GPR annually for Incentive Grants. Section 1374m requires the Wisconsin Technical College System Board to award this amount to technical college districts that are at or near the 1.5 mill property tax levy limit.
I am vetoing section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.292 (1) (dc)] because I object to increasing GPR spending to support new eligibility categories for Incentive Grants at a time when the state faces significant fiscal constraints. I support expanding the eligible uses of Incentive Grants to include addressing limited fiscal capacity, but this must be done through the efficient and effective management of existing resources. By lining out the Wisconsin Technical College System's s.
20.292 (1) (dc) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $750,000 GPR provided for this purpose in each year, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
S300
I am partially vetoing Section 1374m so that the board retains the authority to award Incentive Grants for this purpose, but without the need to promulgate rules. This will provide the state board with additional flexibility in allocating Incentive Grants within the eligible categories.
32.
Modify the Composition of the Committee that Appoints the Milwaukee Area Technical College District Board
Section 1369m
Section 1369m modifies the composition of the committee that appoints the Milwaukee Area Technical College district board. This section would require the four appointment committee members selected by the Milwaukee Board of School Directors to be members of the Milwaukee Board of School Directors.
I am vetoing section 1369m because this provision contradicts an existing statutory requirement, which is retained in the budget bill, that Milwaukee Board of School Directors appointments to the committee reflect the distribution of women and minorities within Milwaukee. Since the composition of the elected Milwaukee Board of School Directors does not necessarily always reflect the distribution of women and minorities, requiring the Milwaukee Board of School Directors' four appointments to be board members makes it difficult to meet this goal. The effect of this veto will be to retain the authority of the Milwaukee Board of School Directors to make appointments that do, to the extent possible, reflect the distribution of women and minorities in Milwaukee.
33.
Domestic Abuse Training Requirements
Section 1370n
This provision requires the technical college district boards to increase the amount of domestic abuse training they provide to nursing students.
I am vetoing this provision because Wisconsin's technical colleges already provide domestic abuse training to nursing students. The provision also does not define increased training or demonstrate that current training by technical colleges is inadequate.
In addition, the provision was apparently added to the budget bill without the involvement of the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the Wisconsin Women's Health Foundation or the Department of Health and Family Services. These organizations are currently involved in a two-and-one-half year project to review domestic violence standards and protocols. It is appropriate to wait until the project is completed before considering changes to existing training efforts.
B.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMERCIAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
Telephone Solicitation Regulation
Sections 2429d, 2437b, 2439b, 2443b, 2444b [as it relates to the manner of the recipient's request and to contributions, donations, grants or pledges], 2446b, 2446f [as it relates to penalty amounts] and 2819b [as it relates to contributions, donations, grants or pledges]
These provisions relate to new regulations creating a "no-call" database maintained by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. Section 2429d establishes a supplemental forfeiture not to exceed $10,000 for violations of the telephone solicitation regulations involving calls to the elderly or disabled.
Sections 2437b and 2439b define the terms "affiliate" and "nonprofit organization," respectively. Section 2443b prohibits nonprofit organizations or their employees or contractors from making telephone solicitations to residential customers who have provided a no-call request to the nonprofit by telephone, mail or facsimile. Section 2444b [as it relates to the manner of the recipient's request] allows calls in response to the recipient's express written request.
Section 2446b creates a private cause of action for violations of the telephone solicitation provisions. Section 2446f [as it relates to penalty amounts] establishes penalties of not less than $100 nor more than $500 for each general violation and not less than $1,000 nor more than $10,000 for each violation of the no-call provisions.
Section 2819b [as it relates to contributions, donations, grants or pledges] defines telephone solicitation to include calls made to solicit contributions, donations, grants or pledges.
I am vetoing sections 2439b and 2443b and partially vetoing sections 2444b [as it relates to contributions, donations, grants or pledges] and 2819b [as it relates to contributions, donations, grants or pledges] because I object to the regulation of requests for contributions by nonprofit organizations and charities.
I am vetoing section 2429d and partially vetoing section 2446f [as it relates to penalty amounts] to provide for penalties of $100 per violation because the penalties included in the bill are excessive. Each call in violation of the law is a separate offense, so with my veto, frequent violators face large total forfeitures while businesses that make occasional mistakes will not face penalties that could threaten their ability to remain in business. Furthermore, the elderly and disabled supplemental forfeiture already applies to a variety of fraudulent and deceptive practices targeted at these individuals. It is not necessary to impose a penalty that would apply to possibly mistaken telephone calls.
I am vetoing section 2437b because the definition is vague, leaves loopholes to the telephone solicitation restrictions and fails to allow legitimate calls by certain businesses. I am requesting the department to define the term "affiliate" in administrative rule in consultation with the Legislature, consumer groups and businesses.
S301
I am vetoing section 2446b because it is unnecessary. The bill allows the department to investigate violations and bring actions to prohibit further violations or collect forfeitures. Since individual monetary damages from telephone solicitation are generally low, the allowance of a private cause of action could encourage frivolous litigation.
I am partially vetoing section 2444b [as it relates to the manner of the recipient's request] because requiring a potential customer to make an "express written" request for a call would prevent businesses from responding to voicemail, email or facsimile messages by potential customers.
My vetoes retain the creation of a no-call database and the ability of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to investigate and assess penalties for violations. It is important that individuals be able to control the types of telephone calls they receive, but this must be balanced against the right of organizations and businesses to contact potential contributors and customers. My vetoes create this balance by providing individuals the opportunity to be listed in the no-call database while allowing nonprofit organizations and businesses to continue to operate and determine which method of contacting individuals is most cost-effective.
2.
Arsenic in Wood
