Section 9101 (12d)
This provision requires the Department of Administration, no later than September 1, 2004, to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance regarding supplies and services expenditures incurred relating to the expanded responsibilities of the Office of Indian Gaming.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. This information is available at any time.
8. State Government Management Systems and Web Site
Sections 215m, 230d, 230h, 230p, 230t, 9101 (4k), 9101 (14p) and 9401 (2k)
These provisions direct the Department of Administration secretary to solicit sealed proposals for developing several statewide Web-based information systems and to submit reports on these to legislative standing committees by July 1, 2004; require state agencies to submit to the department, for its approval, expenditure estimates for the costs of all printed publications that are not required by state constitution or law; and subject the development and maintenance of geographic information systems to approval by the Land Information Board. A related provision authorizes the department to implement an enterprisewide reporting, data warehousing and data analysis system.
I object to this requirement because its cumbersome nature will actually make state government less efficient. The requirements to pursue enterprise level Internet-based systems are well meaning and consistent with the department's goals in implementing state government technology. However, the complexity of the task and the magnitude of effort necessary to comply with the provisions within the arbitrary timeframe allotted are beyond the capacity available to the department and state agencies to accomplish in a manner that produces a less costly and more efficient system.
The requirement to individually review and approve agencies' printed publications not required by law is also inefficient, and I object to it. Finally, I object to the Land Information Board approval requirements as nonfiscal policy included in the budget. I am, therefore, vetoing all of these provisions. I am not vetoing a related provision concerning an enterprisewide reporting, data warehousing and data analysis system. This provision will enable the department to develop a more cost-effective information system.
9. Computer Services Rate Setting by Rule
Section 778 [as it relates to promulgation of service rate methodology by rule]
S321
This provision requires the Department of Administration to follow the administrative rule procedure to set and promulgate methodologies and fees for computer services to agencies. I object to this requirement because it is burdensome and inefficient. I am, therefore, partially vetoing this provision to preserve the current methodology.
10. Transfer or Lapse of Information Technology Funds
Section 9160 (2x)
This provision requires the Department of Administration secretary to transfer or lapse to the general fund $20,000,000 in each fiscal year of the 2003-05 biennium from appropriations, other than sum sufficient, in executive branch agencies. The amounts must be taken from budget allocations for information technology projects that would have begun in the fiscal biennium.
I object to this provision because it is both unfair and unworkable. Information technology projects in agencies are a principal means by which expected efficiencies in state government will be realized to help agencies carry on under significant state operations reductions. Agencies that are investing significant base resources in projects to improve efficiency of service delivery would be penalized the most.
I am partially vetoing this provision to accomplish the following: (a) broaden the application to all state agencies and all appropriations; (b) make the lapses or transfers an aggregate $40,000,000 biennial obligation, rather than $20,000,000 each fiscal year; and (c) delete all association with information technology projects. The effect of my partial veto will enable the Department of Administration secretary to allocate the required lapses or transfers on a more equitable basis across all sectors of state government operations. In making this apportionment the secretary will, to the full extent possible, take into account economies that have been realized or can be realized through information technology improvements.
11. Required Report on Space Occupancy
Sections 9101 (11q) and 9130 (1q)
These provisions create a requirement that the Department of Administration review the
occupancy of all state-owned and leased space, develop a plan for greater centralization
of the offices into state-owned office buildings and submit the plan to the co-chairs of the
Joint Committee on Finance by January 1, 2004. This report must be submitted prior to
the release of funds budgeted in the committee's supplemental appropriation under
I am vetoing these provisions because they are unnecessary. The Department of
Administration and state agency personnel already are reviewing all space-related
aspects of agency budgets. This planning process is dynamic and ongoing. A required
point-in-time report of this nature is unneeded. The effect of this partial veto will be to
leave the funding level unchanged, but remove the reporting requirement.
12. Tax Appeals Commissioner Hiring Freeze
Section 9145 (1f)
This provision prohibits the Governor from appointing a tax appeals commissioner until after June 30, 2005.
I am vetoing this position freeze because it is an unnecessary infringement on the authority of the executive branch to administer this program.
13. Waste Facility Siting Board Transfer
Sections 92x, 286 [as it relates to s.
20.370 (2) (ei)], 402p, 587p, 2475g and 9101 (8c)
This provision transfers the oversight and appropriation of the Waste Facility Siting Board from the Department of Administration to the Department of Natural Resources and restores the executive director position, with funding. My budget recommendation was to delete staff and associated funding for the board, leaving $32,300 PR annually to meet the incidental costs of board members.
I object to the restoration of the director position because I do not believe the work load justifies it. I also object to the board's transfer to the Department of Natural Resources, because the board is better situated under the Department of Administration where it can continue to serve as a neutral arbiter of waste facility siting decisions.
I am vetoing the transfer of the board's appropriation from the Department of Administration to the Department of Natural Resources. The effect of the veto is to delete the funding and executive director position for the board and to retain the board under the Department of Administration. While it would have been my preference to retain some amount of funding for board member expenses, this was not possible. I request the Department of Administration secretary to examine funding options from existing resources for these costs.
BUILDING PROGRAM
14. Hmong Cultural Center
Sections 26m, 285ag [as it relates to the Hmong Cultural Center], 286 [as it relates to s.
20.867 (3) (bn)], 680, 687p, 690q, 9106 (1) (hm) and 9106 (7k)
S322
These provisions enumerate a Hmong Cultural Center in the city of Milwaukee, located at the corner of National Avenue and 16th Street, and provide $3,000,000 in general fund supported borrowing.
The Building Commission in June of 2001 developed requirements regarding the use of state Building Commission bonding authority for local units of government and private institutions. These requirements set specific guidelines on the use of state borrowing for local government and private projects. The guidelines specify that: (1) the project be in the public interest; (2) it have a statewide basis justifying the benefit of the project; (3) local or other financing alternatives be considered first; (4) it must be submitted and reviewed following the same procedures used for agency requests for funding through the capital budget; (5) the requestor must provide evidence that the purpose and use of the project allows for the use of tax-exempt bonding; (6) the requestor and the Department of Administration consider appropriate language to protect the state's interest in the project if the property is not used for the purposes originally approved by the Building Commission; (7) the commission can modify its original approval provided the proposed change is in the public interest and provided the change is approved by the state's bond counsel; and (8) the requestor agrees to provide a 50 percent or greater match for the project before initial review by the commission and the commission may require appropriate guarantees for this match. Projects that meet the requirements then go through the process of being approved and enumerated by the Building Commission. I am vetoing these provisions because this project does not meet these requirements. I also object to the last minute introduction of these provisions in a late-night budget amendment.
While I am vetoing these provisions, I remain committed to assisting the Hmong community work through the Building Commission processes rather than last minute budget amendments.
EMPLOYEE TRUST FUNDS
15. Municipal Employer-Initiated Change in Health Care Plan Provider
Sections 1966, 1985m, 1985n, 2642m, 9317 (2) and 9317 (3q)
These provisions modify the Municipal Employment Relations Act relating to selection of group health insurance benefits provided by municipal employers. Specifically, a local government employer is authorized to unilaterally change its employee health care coverage plan to the public employer group health insurance plan offered by the Department of Employee Trust Funds or to a plan that is substantially similar to that plan. Moreover, such changes are declared to be nonviolations of collective bargaining agreements and municipal employers are prohibited from bargaining collectively with respect to the employer's selection of a health care coverage plan if the plan selected is the department plan or one substantially similar to it.
I am vetoing these provisions in their entirety because I object to this unilateral change. While I believe that the department's local government health insurance plan has much to offer municipal employers, I do not believe that forcing this plan onto employees is the correct approach. A healthy collective bargaining process that produces agreement on employee health insurance as part of an overall settlement is a far better path to take to achieve the cost savings that all parties seek in health care coverage.
16. Part-Time Employee Health Insurance
Sections 1009 [as it relates to part-time employee health insurance], 1991m and 9301 (1f)
These provisions modify the cost sharing formula for employees working between 50 percent and 75 percent of a full-time equivalent position to require these employees, like those now working less than 50 percent, to pay one-half of health insurance premiums. The provisions also make health insurance premium cost-sharing between the employer and this expanded group of part-time employees a prohibited subject of future collective bargaining and unalterable in future compensation plans for nonrepresented employees.
I object to the significant burden these additional costs would place on part-time employees, more than 80 percent of whom are women, many of whom are working at lower wage scales and in critical job classifications already facing serious shortfalls, such as the health care professions. The effect of the formula change would be to force many out of their jobs.
I also object to making the employee contributions to health insurance costs a prohibited subject of collective bargaining. Wages, benefits and working conditions have long been the core subjects of collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. Employee contributions toward health insurance premiums fall squarely within these core subjects. There is no need for the Legislature to abrogate the rights of part-time employees to negotiate this significant change to their benefits. I agree that the costs of state employee health insurance need to be controlled, and that part of the solution is asking state employees to contribute a fair share of the costs. However, I strongly believe that the amount of those contributions should be negotiated at the bargaining table, through a dialogue with the employee unions. This principle should apply to part-time employees (however defined) as firmly as it applies to full-time employees.
S323
I am partially vetoing these provisions to allow part-time employees' share of health insurance premiums to be the subject of collective bargaining and the compensation plans. I am also vetoing, as unnecessary, the language that excludes the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority from the provision affecting the employer's contribution toward health insurance for part-time employees.
Although my veto leaves in place the revised threshold of 1,566 hours annually for employees to receive benefits of a full-time equivalent position, the effect of this partial veto will be that the proportion of health insurance costs paid by each employee group will be determined through the collective bargaining process and by the compensation plans for nonrepresented state employees, the University of Wisconsin System, and nonrepresented University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics Authority employees. The statutory formula will remain in place only as a fallback if the bargaining process or compensation plan process fails to obtain agreement on the employee and employer contributions to health insurance premiums.
The Office of State Employment Relations will negotiate in good faith with the state employee unions to arrive at a mutually acceptable allocation of the costs of health insurance between the employer and employees. The director of the office will propose a cost-sharing arrangement for full-time and part-time employees that will be fair to all employees and that will help rein in the spiraling costs of employee health insurance.
My veto leaves in place the mechanism created in Senate Bill 44 for lapsing funds from agency budgets to offset the estimated costs of the health insurance formula change. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to recover from agency budgets the respective amounts that would have been lapsed under the terms of these provisions before partial veto.
17. Pharmacy Purchasing Pool
Section 1026r
This provision requires the Group Insurance Board to establish a pharmacy benefits purchasing pool beginning on January 1, 2005. I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the restriction that this prescription drug purchasing pool, which can lower drug costs for individuals by hundreds of dollars per year, be made available only to employers. I object to restricting individuals from the lower costs of a pharmacy purchasing pool. While the provision extends the definition of employer to "a person doing business or operating an organization" and then further includes "a self-employed individual," the language still denies thousands of Wisconsinites, including the unemployed and employed persons whose employers choose not to participate, from joining the pool and benefiting from its capacity to lower drug costs. In many cases, these individuals face high prescription drug costs. There is no reason for excluding them. My partial veto allows every Wisconsin resident to join this cost-saving pool.
I am also vetoing the restriction imposed by the bill that requires that the Group Insurance Board submit its conditions for allowing eligible parties to join the pool, i.e., its implementation plan, to the Joint Committee on Finance for a 14-day passive review prior to taking effect. I believe that the Group Insurance Board's implementation plan should be allowed to take effect as soon as the board is ready to proceed.
Finally, I am vetoing the requirement that the board begin implementation of a purchasing pool on January 1, 2005. I object that the board has to wait this long to begin offering savings on a voluntary basis to organizations and individuals if it is possible to do so before this date. I encourage the Group Insurance Board to develop and expand this program as soon as is feasible.
18. Private Employer Health Care Program
Sections 9130 (1c) and 9133 (4c)
These provisions require the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the Assembly to create a task force to study the private employer health care coverage program and provide funding reserved for the Department of Employee Trust Funds in the supplemental appropriation under s.
20.865 (4) (a). The task force is to present recommended statutory language changes no later than January 4, 2004.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to delete the task force and to strike out the requirement that the reserved funding may be used only to fund requests presented by the department. I object to limiting the debate on private employer health care to the Legislature and limiting access to the funding to one agency. The $105,500 GPR in fiscal year 2003-04 and $210,900 GPR in fiscal year 2004-05 are left in place, reserved for funding the operating costs of implementing private employer health care coverage.
Solutions to small employer health care coverage problems remain a challenge that will only be resolved by a full partnership between the Governor and the Legislature, with the involvement of employers and insurance providers. A legislatively-appointed task force given six months to complete the task is not the medium for this cooperative effort. I removed the restriction on release of the funds, consistent with a Department of Employee Trust Funds' request, because I view it as too restrictive.
OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
19. Appropriation Conversion
S324
These provisions change the appropriation for funds received from other state agencies from a continuing to an annual appropriation. The primary use of this appropriation is for the development, implementation and maintenance of the statewide on-line human resources recruitment and testing system.
I object to the reduced flexibility this change would impose. I am partially vetoing these provisions to maintain this appropriation as a continuing appropriation.
20. Appointment of the Director
Section 97d [as it relates to the appointment of the director]
This provision creates a requirement that the Governor's nominee for the position of director of the Office of State Employment Relations be confirmed by the Senate.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the requirement that this appointment be subject to Senate confirmation. This would cause unnecessary delay in formalizing the appointment of the state's chief human resources officer.
21. Creation of Statutory Divisions
These provisions create three statutory divisions in the Office of State Employment Relations: a Division of Merit Recruitment and Selection, a Division of Compensation and Labor Relations, and a Division of Affirmative Action.
I am vetoing the provisions that create the Division of Compensation and Labor Relations and the Division of Affirmative Action as statutory divisions. I acknowledge and support the important work conducted in these areas, but I do not want to unnecessarily restrict the organizational flexibility of the office. The effect of this partial veto will be to maintain the Division of Merit Recruitment and Selection as a statutory division while leaving the office discretion regarding the organization of the remaining two divisions.
22. Lapse of Employee Development and Training Services Revenue
Section 9218 (2d)
This provision requires the Office of State Employment Relations to lapse $175,000 from the employee development and training services program revenue appropriation to the general fund.
I am partially vetoing this provision because the funding supports the agency's successful Labor Management Cooperation project which coordinates training, workshops and forums focused on improved labor-management relations. The lapse would also create an unnecessary burden on the Office of State Employment Relations by reducing the resources available for these statewide employee training and development initiatives. The effect of this partial veto will be to maintain the current cash balance associated with this appropriation.
LEGISLATURE
23. Legislative Reference Bureau Assistance in Obtaining Federal Grants
Section 40m
This section assigns an employee of the Legislative Reference Bureau to work with state agencies and the federal government in an attempt to increase the amount of federal funds received by the state.
