John G. Gard
Speaker
__________________
Chief Clerk Reports
The Chief Clerk records:
Assembly Bill 611
Presented to the Governor on Friday, November 21.
Assembly Bill 98
Presented to the Governor on Monday, November 24.
Assembly Bill 126
Assembly Bill 259
Assembly Bill 260
Assembly Bill 261
Assembly Bill 472
Assembly Bill 503
Presented to the Governor on Tuesday, November 25.
Assembly Bill 48
Assembly Bill 130
Assembly Bill 228
Assembly Bill 251
Assembly Bill 328
Presented to the Governor on Monday, December 1.
Patrick E. Fuller
Assembly Chief Clerk
__________________
Executive Communications
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
Madison
November 25, 2003
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
The following bills, originating in the Assembly, have been approved, signed and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State:
Bill Number Act Number Date Approved
Assembly Bill 61184November 21, 2003
Assembly Bill 9885November 25, 2003
Respectfully submitted,
James Doyle
Governor
__________________
Communications
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Secretary of State
Madison
To Whom It May Concern:
Acts, Joint Resolutions and Resolutions deposited in this office have been numbered and published as follows:
Bill Number Act Number Publication Date
Assembly Bill 14179December 5, 2003
Assembly Bill 23280December 5, 2003
Assembly Bill 25281December 5, 2003
Assembly Bill 6282December 5, 2003
Assembly Bill 61184December 8, 2003
A558
Assembly Bill 9885December 10, 2003
Sincerely,
Douglas La Follette
Secretary of State
__________________
Governor's Veto Message
November 26, 2003
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 126 in its entirety. This bill directs the Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct a longitudinal study of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
While I share the desire to evaluate the Choice program in a meaningful way, I am vetoing this bill because it fails to require all Choice schools and students to participate in the study. Without such a requirement, the Legislative Audit Bureau will be unable to create truly representative samples of students participating in the program. A sample bias will be created as successful Choice schools continue to participate in the study, while unsuccessful and failing Choice schools withdraw from participation. Such a flaw is contrary to basic research methods, will likely skew results, and will hinder the usefulness of the study.
Further, the sample bias created under this bill may, in fact, create a false sense of accountability for Choice schools. While there are many exemplary schools with demonstrable results participating in the Choice program, there are other schools that are truly unaccountable to the parents and taxpayers who support them. To achieve true academic accountability, all Choice schools and students would need to participate throughout the length of the study.
Finally, I am concerned that long-term funding of Legislative Audit Bureau positions from private sources, particularly if those funds are provided by organizations that formally support or oppose the Choice program, creates a conflict of interest. Not only will this potentially compromise the study's objectivity, it could negatively impact the deeply held respect that the Bureau has earned over many years.
In conclusion, while I support the Legislature's efforts to work toward a meaningful evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, this bill falls short of that goal. I encourage the Legislature to continue to work toward true accountability on behalf of the children and parents who utilize the voucher program, and the taxpayers who subsidize it.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Doyle
Governor
__________________
November 26, 2003
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 259 in its entirety. This bill allows a student to continue in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program regardless of family income. It also deletes the cap on the number of students who may participate in the program and eliminates the prior year attendance requirements.
I am vetoing this bill because it significantly expands the program beyond its original intent, it has significant financial implications to both Milwaukee Public Schools and the state, and it could jeopardize the quality of the program. By removing the cap on family income, the program would no longer be targeted solely at low-income Milwaukee families. For example, a family whose income may be temporarily below the 175 percent of poverty threshold while one or both parents attend medical school would be forever eligible to have taxpayer paid tuition even if its income increases to several times the state average.
Completely repealing the Choice program enrollment cap, which is currently set at 15 percent of Milwaukee Public Schools enrollment, has both long-term cost and quality implications. Every additional 1,000 students who would attend choice schools due to a repeal of the cap would cost Milwaukee taxpayers an additional $2.7 million and state taxpayers another $3.3 million. In addition, the problems with the quality of education in a few Choice schools, due in part to the Legislature's reluctance to enact any meaningful measures to hold these largely taxpayer supported schools accountable for the quality of the services they provide, will no doubt be exacerbated if enrollment limits were completely removed.
Lastly, repealing the prior year attendance requirements would begin to shift the program away from its intent to provide an alternative to Milwaukee Public Schools and more towards creating a system of taxpayer supported sectarian and nonsectarian private schools. In times of limited state resources and the importance of strong public schools to the economic future of the state, the focus of state resources should be on strengthening public schools throughout the state. While private school choice has provided an alternative to address the unique circumstances and problems facing education in Milwaukee, it should remain the exception rather than the rule.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Doyle
Governor
__________________
November 26, 2003
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 260 in its entirety. This bill allows any private school located in Milwaukee County to participate in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Current law limits schools participating in the program to those located in the City of Milwaukee.
A559
I am vetoing this bill because it clearly expands the Choice Program well beyond its original parameters. When the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program was created, the intent was to establish a program within the City of Milwaukee for City of Milwaukee students. By allowing schools located outside the city to participate, even if enrollment remains limited to Milwaukee residents, the program would begin to lose its focus of providing viable educational alternatives for Milwaukee school children within the City of Milwaukee.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Doyle
Governor
__________________
November 26, 2003
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
I am vetoing Assembly Bill 261 in its entirety. This bill allows any student in the state to attend a charter school created under section 118.40 (2)(r), Wisconsin Statutes (the Milwaukee charter school program). The bill also includes language providing the board of school directors for Milwaukee public schools the same authority as other school boards to transport kids to non-public schools and expands that authority for all school districts to include charter schools.
I am vetoing this bill because I object to the expansion of enrollment in the Milwaukee charter school program to include pupils residing outside of the Milwaukee Public Schools District. The original and still valid intent of this program was to allow the City of Milwaukee, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and the Milwaukee Area Technical College to create charter schools in order to provide educational options for students residing in the Milwaukee Public Schools attendance area. Expanding this program to include students who do not reside in the City of Milwaukee does not serve the interests of Milwaukee students and may, in fact, create incentives for these charter schools to focus their efforts on attracting non-Milwaukee residents, rather than improving educational programs for Milwaukee children.
Furthermore, since the Milwaukee charter school program is funded by reallocating general school aids from the state's 426 school districts, a greatly expanded charter school program will reduce state resources available to all public school districts at the expense of increased property taxes.
Finally, modifications to charter school law should not be considered in isolation, but as a part of a comprehensive reform effort that benefits all of Milwaukee's school children.
Respectfully submitted,
