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
Sections 2394p [as it relates to the report to the Legislature and the promulgation of rules] and 9104 (2k)
These provisions require the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the Department of Commerce, by June 30, 2002, to report to the Legislature the results of their review of the scientific evidence concerning the likelihood that wood treated with arsenic is harmful to the environment or to human health. If the departments determine that there is substantial likelihood of such harm, the departments must jointly promulgate rules restricting the use of arsenic treated wood. Violations of these rules will be subject to a forfeiture of not more than $500. In addition, the departments must submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance recommending ways to keep arsenic treated wood from being used in picnic tables, park benches and playground equipment.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to remove the requirements that the departments submit a report to the Legislature and Joint Committee on Finance and promulgate rules. I object to the additional reporting burdens on the departments and to the specific requirements regarding forfeiture amounts and the departments' regulation of arsenic treated wood. Since the departments have not yet studied the issue, it is premature to specify details of future regulation of arsenic treated wood. If the departments find evidence of potential harm, I expect that they will work together and with other affected departments and groups to address the issue.
3.
K-12 Integrated Pest Management
Sections 395 [as it relates to ss.
20.115 (7) (rm) and
20.285 (1) (s)], 426p, 582k, 1357k and 2395t [as it relates to school integrated pest management plans, written notice and reporting requirements, prohibitions, and the department reporting requirement]
These provisions require school boards to propose and implement plans for using integrated pest management practices for pest control on school grounds. School boards would be required to provide 72-hour written notice to employees and students who may be present in the application area and to the parents of those students. School boards would be required to maintain detailed records on their pesticide use and to make those records available to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and interested persons. School districts would be prohibited from using pesticides unless nonchemical methods of pest control have failed; for routine use; or for aesthetic or cosmetic purposes. School districts would also be prohibited from using pesticide fumigation. The department would be provided 2.0 FTE SEG positions and associated funding from the agrichemical management fund. Finally, the University of Wisconsin-Extension would be provided funding from the agrichemical management fund to give assistance to school districts.
I am partially vetoing these provisions because they will impose an excessive financial and administrative burden on school boards and districts for recordkeeping and reporting. I am concerned that these additional burdens will reduce the success of the K-12 integrated pest management training program that is currently administered by the department. Fifty-four percent of Wisconsin school districts representing approximately 72 percent of students have participated in the program to date. To further improve this program, my vetoes retain the requirements that schools post a notice of pesticide application during and for 72 hours following application and that all pesticide application in schools be performed by licensed applicators.
4.
Pet Regulation and Inspection Positions
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.115 (2) (j)], 2881b [as it relates to penalties], 2881d, 2881e [as it relates to license taxes], 2881k and 2881L
These provisions relate to the regulation of pet dealers, pet breeders, animal shelters and kennels. Section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.115 (2) (j)] provides $135,500 PR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $271,100 PR in fiscal year 2002-03 for 7.0 FTE PR positions for licensing and inspection. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in a Joint Committee on Finance amendment to the bill. Section 2881b establishes penalties for operation without a license and other violations. Sections 2881d, 2881e, 2881k and 2881L change dog license fees.
S302
I am vetoing sections 2881d, 2881k and 2881L and partially vetoing sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.115 (2) (j)], 2881b and 2881e because the prescribed penalties and taxes are burdensome to pet owners and businesses.
By lining out the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection's s.
20.115 (2) (j) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $135,500 PR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $271,100 PR in fiscal year 2002-03, I am vetoing the creation of 7.0 FTE PR positions because they are not needed at this time. The inspection and licensing provisions have a delayed effective date. The inspection program will be developed over the next two years and the number of staff needed will not be known until the program is fully established. If necessary, the department may submit a request for additional staff in the next biennial budget. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the 7.0 FTE PR positions.
5.
Johne's Disease Testing
Section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.115 (2) (c)] provides an additional $400,000 GPR annually to subsidize the testing of cattle for paratuberculosis (or Johne's disease).
I object to this increase because it is excessive given the state's fiscal condition. However, I recognize the importance of this critical testing program to animal agriculture and am retaining an increase of $150,000 GPR in each year over the current funding level of $100,000 GPR annually (a 150 percent increase in funding). By lining out the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection's s.
20.115 (2) (c) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $250,000 GPR in each year, I am vetoing the part of the bill that funds part of this provision. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
6.
Drainage District Funding
These provisions require the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to create and maintain a secure Internet site where drainage districts may post engineering projects in order to obtain bids electronically for engineering services. The department must promulgate rules setting fees to cover the costs of the Internet site. Revenues from the fees would be deposited in and expended from a new appropriation.
I am vetoing these provisions to remove the requirement for the department to create and maintain the Internet site and charge fees and to eliminate the associated appropriation. I object to this provision because it increases costs to property owners located in drainage districts and restricts the department's ability to work with drainage districts to best address their needs.
7.
Tobacco Minimum Markup Violations
Section 2430L [as it relates to cigarette wholesalers]
This provision allows an association of cigarette wholesalers to bring an action on behalf of a person injured or threatened with injury by a violation of the tobacco minimum markup law. The minimum markup law prohibits tobacco or motor fuel sellers from selling their products below cost.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the ability of cigarette wholesalers to bring an action on behalf of the person injured or threatened with injury. With passage of this bill, individual businesses that are injured or threatened with injury may bring an action under the minimum markup law and extending that right to uninjured third party wholesaler associations is unnecessary.
8.
Food Advisory Council
Sections 168e and 2403e
These provisions establish a food advisory council within the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection composed of representatives of the department, industry and academia. The council is required to meet quarterly and to advise the department concerning issues related to providing a safe and wholesome food supply in Wisconsin.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary and duplicative. The department can and does meet regularly with industry and academic representatives regarding food safety in Wisconsin.
9.
Producer Security Effective Date
Section 9404 (1) [as it relates to s.
221.0320 (2) (a) (intro.)] establishes an effective date of January 1, 2002, for the provision affecting grain warehouse keepers.
I am partially vetoing section 9404 (1) [as it relates to s.
221.0320 (2) (a) (intro.)] because it establishes the wrong effective date. The correct date of September 1, 2002, is established in section 9404 (4).
10.
Producer Security Payment Schedule
These provisions establish the schedule by which milk contractors, including qualified producer agents, must submit payments to producers. The provisions are part of the comprehensive overhaul of producer security regulation and the new producer security fund.
S303
I am partially vetoing section 2813 [as it relates to s.
126.48 (1),
(2) and
(4)] because these provisions establish the wrong monthly payment schedule for qualified producer agents. By this veto, qualified producer agents will be subject to the same payment schedule as other milk contractors.
COMMERCE
11.
Minority Business Certification Program
Sections 321j, 1111j, 1346t, 1372i, 1406w, 2001r, 2002m, 2003t, 2003vp, 2003vq, 2003wm, 2003wq, 2026k, 2307h, 2307i, 2307j, 2307ji, 2744m, 2760m, 3020h, 3020i, 3020j, 3020k, 3035x, 3037p, 3037q, 3037r, 3095j, 3097e, 3098v, 3141d [as it relates to the awarding of HIV prevention grants to organizations operated by minority group members], 3619sd, 3619sg, 3619sj, 3619sm, 3619sp and 3710j
These provisions extend the Department of Commerce's minority business certification process to make department certification the standard for other units of state and local government, including the State of Wisconsin Investment Board, Department of Transportation, counties, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, public libraries and school boards.
I am vetoing sections 321j, 1111j, 1346t, 1372i, 1406w, 2001r, 2002m, 2003t, 2003vp, 2003vq, 2003wm, 2003wq, 2026k, 2307h, 2307i, 2307j, 2307ji, 2744m, 2760m, 3020h, 3020i, 3020j, 3020k, 3035x, 3037p, 3037q, 3037r, 3095j, 3097e, 3098v, 3619sd, 3619sg, 3619sj, 3619sm, 3619sp and 3710j and partially vetoing section 3141d [as it relates to the awarding of HIV prevention grants to organizations operated by minority group members] to maintain the current minority business certification system.
While I recognize that a uniform statewide minority business certification process would be beneficial, I object to including these provisions in this budget because they leave significant issues unresolved including potential conflicts between federal and state requirements that may result from the expanded scope of the certification program. I am requesting the Departments of Commerce and Administration to perform a thorough review of the process of minority business certification and to propose a uniform certification process in the next biennial budget. The plan should consider all affected groups including businesses; minority organizations; and federal, state and local governments.
12.
Joint Committee on Finance Zone Approval Process
Sections 3708m [as it relates to the Joint Committee on Finance] and 3713 [as it relates to the Joint Committee on Finance]
These sections establish a technology zone program and an agricultural development zone program. The Department of Commerce is authorized to designate these zones with the approval of the Joint Committee on Finance.
I am partially vetoing these sections to remove the Joint Committee on Finance approval requirement because it would infringe on executive branch authority to manage programs and would cause unnecessary delays in the designation of the zones.
13.
PECFA Interest Cost Reimbursement
Sections 2470p, 2470r and 9310 (1x)
These provisions repeal the two-tier reimbursement structure for PECFA claims and replace it with a maximum interest reimbursement of prime rate minus one percent on all loans.
I am vetoing these provisions to return to the current law two-tier rate schedule because I object to state taxpayers having to absorb significant interest cost subsidies to PECFA claimants. The two-tier schedule reimburses interest costs at the prime rate minus one percent for applicants with gross revenues of less than or equal to $25,000,000 in the previous tax year, and at four percent for applicants with gross revenues of greater than $25,000,000 in the previous tax year. With limited PECFA funds available to reimburse claims each year, it is appropriate for the state to focus its limited resources on assisting owners and operators of petroleum storage tanks with fewer financial resources in order to ensure loans can be obtained to conduct environmental remediation. Since large companies are often able to self-finance PECFA cleanup costs, maintaining a lower interest reimbursement rate for these companies will help the fund remain solvent.
14.
PECFA Rules for Arbitration and Mediation Recommendations
Sections 9110 (2x) and 9110 (2y)
These provisions direct the Department of Commerce to submit administrative rules for its arbitration process to the Legislative Council staff by May 1, 2002, and to submit recommendations for a process to mediate disputes over PECFA decisions to the Joint Committee on Finance by March 1, 2002.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to this infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs and because they are unnecessary. Current law already instructs the department to promulgate rules for arbitration. Additionally, if the department determines that mediation is a cost-effective and efficient way to handle disputes, it can study the possibility and suggest solutions.
15.
Brownfields Grant Program
Section 3631m
This section requires the Department of Commerce to semiannually consider brownfields grant applications and awards.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the Legislature excessively managing agency programs. The department is best able to assess whether or not it is plausible and/or advisable to award brownfields grants on a semiannual basis.
16.
Gaming Economic Development Earmarks
S304
Sections 451 [as it relates to the earmarks for the Lincoln Park Center, the Keyes Peak Recreation Center and the Great Lakes Forestry Museum] and 9110 (1), 9110 (10fk) and 9110 (10p)
These sections earmark or require funding from the Department of Commerce's gaming economic development and diversification program to the M7 Development Corporation for construction of the Lincoln Park Center, to the Keyes Peak Recreation Center for a construction project and to the Great Lakes Forestry Museum to develop a facility for educating the public about the history of forestry in the state.
I am vetoing sections 9110 (1), 9110 (10fk) and 9110 (10p) and partially vetoing section 451 [as it relates to the earmarks for the Lincoln Park Center, the Keyes Peak Recreation Center and the Great Lakes Forestry Museum] because they are inconsistent with the primary focus of the gaming economic development and diversification program, compromise the award selection process and limit the Department of Commerce in its efforts to create and retain jobs in Wisconsin. Local communities, organizations, businesses and individuals associated with the identified programs can continue to compete for funding through the wide array of economic development assistance offered by the department.
While funding for the Lincoln Park Center was included in my budget, I object to removing the requirement that the M7 Development Corporation obtain matching financing from the city of Milwaukee.
17.
Wisconsin Development Fund Earmarks
Sections 438m [as it relates to the grant to the Clearwater Lake Distilling Company and the allocation to the Menominee Tribe] and 9110 (10eg)
These provisions earmark or require funding from the Wisconsin development fund for an economic development project for the Menominee Tribe and for a grant to the Clearwater Lake Distilling Company for a project that uses potato waste in vodka distillation.
I am partially vetoing section 438m and vetoing section 9110 (10eg) because they are inconsistent with the primary focus of the Wisconsin development fund, compromise the award selection process and limit the Department of Commerce in its efforts to create and retain jobs in Wisconsin. Local communities, organizations, businesses and individuals associated with the identified programs can continue to compete for funding through the wide array of economic development assistance offered by the department.
18.
Minority Business Finance Program Earmark
