JUSTICE
30. Consumer Protection Assessments
31. Criminal History Searches; Fingerprint Identification Appropriation
32. Department of Justice Required Lapses
OFFICE OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
33. Federal Homeland Security Funding
PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD
34. Base Budget Reductions
D. STATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
BUDGET MANAGEMENT AND COMPENSATION RESERVES
1. Discretionary Compensation Adjustment Reductions
ADMINISTRATION
2. Attorney Positions
3. State Agency Appropriation Lapses to the General Fund
4. Local Revenue Sharing Board
5. Interest Component in Risk Management General Fund Supplements
6. Public Benefits: Limitation on the Public Service Commission
7. Required Report on Gaming Expenditures
8. State Government Management Systems and Web Site
9. Computer Services Rate Setting by Rule
10. Transfer or Lapse of Information Technology Funds
11. Required Report on Space Occupancy
12. Tax Appeals Commissioner Hiring Freeze
13. Waste Facility Siting Board Transfer
BUILDING PROGRAM
14. Hmong Cultural Center
EMPLOYEE TRUST FUNDS
S289
15. Municipal Employer-Initiated Change in Health Care Plan Provider
16. Part-Time Employee Health Insurance
17. Pharmacy Purchasing Pool
18. Private Employer Health Care Program
OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
19. Appropriation Conversion
20. Appointment of the Director
21. Creation of Statutory Divisions
22. Lapse of Employee Development and Training Services Revenue
LEGISLATURE
23. Legislative Reference Bureau Assistance in Obtaining Federal Grants
PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTS
24. Joint Committee on Finance Emergency Supplemental Appropriation
SECRETARY OF STATE
25. Deputy Secretary of State
VETERANS AFFAIRS
26. Veterans Tuition and Fee Reimbursement Schedule
E. TAX AND FINANCE
REVENUE
1. Cigarette and Tobacco Excise Tax Refunds
2. Bad Debt Deductions Against Cigarette and Tobacco Products Taxes
3. Joint Committee on Finance Approval of Lottery Privatization
EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
A. EDUCATION, WORKFORCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
1. Four-Year-Old Kindergarten
Sections 2032e, 2032g, 2042v, 9141 (2q) and 9341 (3q)
These sections provide that a child in a four-year-old kindergarten program shall be counted as 0.25 of a pupil for both revenue limit and general school aids purposes, if the child is not considered to have a disability. Under current law, a child in a four-year-old kindergarten program is counted as either 0.5 or 0.6 of a pupil, depending on the program involved.
I am vetoing these sections because they diminish the resources available to school districts to provide four-year-old kindergarten programs. Over half of the school districts in the state currently offer or are planning to offer four-year-old kindergarten programs, which serve nearly 17,000 children statewide. Since these provisions reduce the weight given to these students in the overall membership count for state aid and spending purposes, school districts that provide four-year-old kindergarten will have reductions made to their allowable revenue limit and to their general school aid. Rather than pulling back on our commitment to four-year-old kindergarten, we must at least maintain our current efforts, even during this difficult state budget period.
Reduced funding for four-year-old kindergarten is contrary to both the needs of Wisconsin and research on early childhood education in general. Studies show that as preschoolers continue their education, they are more likely to have higher academic achievement, more likely to graduate from high school, and are less likely to be placed in special education and less likely to become involved with the criminal justice system. Further, while four-year-old kindergarten benefits all children, early education efforts are especially important in areas of the state with high concentrations of disadvantaged youth. Early education opportunities will enable these children to do better and make a positive contribution to Wisconsin's economy and society.
As a result of my veto, an estimated $38 million of revenue limit authority will be restored annually to the school districts that provide four-year-old kindergarten.
When the Legislature adopted these provisions, it also reduced estimated costs for the Milwaukee Choice and Milwaukee Charter programs because these programs count four-year-old pupils in the same manner as for regular public schools. Therefore, I am making the following reestimates:
Choice payments are increased by $1,764,600 GPR in fiscal year 2003-04 and by $1,782,900 GPR in fiscal year 2004-05.
The estimated lapse from general school aids related to Choice payments is increased by $794,100 in fiscal year 2003-04 and $802,300 in fiscal year 2004-05.
Charter payments are increased by $564,000 GPR in fiscal year 2003-04 and by $568,900 GPR in fiscal year 2004-05.
The lapse from general school aids related to Charter payments is increased by the same amount as the Charter payment estimates are increased.
S290
When the Legislature adopted these provisions, it also reduced the estimated cost of certain tax credits and the cost of computer aid payments. The impact of this veto on these programs is addressed under my veto message regarding revenue limits. (See Public Instruction, Item #3.)
2. Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE)
Sections 286 [as it relates to s.
20.255 (2) (bb)], 351b, 1998m, 1998n, 1998no, 1999c, 1999n, 2009m, 2021m, 2021n, 2021no, 2021nr and 9441 (1z)
These provisions allow school districts currently participating in the SAGE program to opt out of reducing class sizes in grades two or three, or both. School districts choosing this option would have state aid reduced by the amount that would have been received for continuing participation in grades two and three. Any SAGE funding that remains unexpended due to these provisions will be used to increase special education funding, beginning in fiscal year 2004-05.
I am vetoing these provisions because the original intent of the program was to reduce class sizes in grades kindergarten through three. Allowing school districts to opt out of the program in grades two or three would significantly reduce the benefit of this program on students' future academic achievement. Research continues to show the benefits of smaller class sizes, especially in the early elementary school grades and for economically disadvantaged students.
Further, I object to any plan that would pit economically disadvantaged students who benefit from smaller class sizes in the early grades against children with disabilities. These provisions tie SAGE funding to special education. Both special education and SAGE are critical educational programs that deserve adequate funding. Both programs should be promoted, not weakened, and should not be at odds with each other. To that end, my budget not only maintains the current SAGE program, but also increases special education aid by $5,875,700 GPR.
3. School Revenue Limits
Sections 2043d, 2043h, 2043s, 2043u, 2043w and 2043y
These sections reduce the allowable increase in school district revenue per pupil under the school revenue limits to $120 for the 2003-04 school year and to $100 for the 2004-05 school year and every year thereafter. Under current law, the allowable increase in school district revenue per pupil under the revenue limits is estimated to be $236 in 2003-04 and $241 in 2004-05.
I am vetoing these sections because they will greatly reduce educational resources in our state and will limit the responsibilities and accountability of our locally elected school boards. For nearly ten years, the state has subjected school districts to the most stringent revenue controls imposed on any unit of government in order to slow the growth of property taxes. While I believe that it is fiscally prudent to keep current law, revenue limits in place at this time, the provisions passed by the Legislature would reduce school spending to levels below inflation and would force districts to make deep cuts in the classroom.
These provisions would also forever cap per-pupil increases at $100 per year. Based on inflation estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office, school districts would be forced to reduce their spending per pupil by ten percent over the next decade alone, as measured in current dollar terms, if these sections are not vetoed. School districts are already struggling under current law revenue caps to provide our children the quality education they deserve while keeping pace with increasing costs, particularly for employee health care. Denying our schools access to the revenue they are allowed under current caps will seriously impair the ability of our school districts to ensure that every child in Wisconsin receives a high-quality education and that Wisconsin's future workforce is properly trained. As a result of my veto, current law revenue limits will be retained.
This action should in no way be interpreted as encouraging school districts to spend up to the maximum allowed under the current revenue limits. It does, however, recognize that locally elected government officials, rather than state officials, are charged with the responsibility of managing their local units of government and are ultimately the ones who should be held accountable for the cost and quality of local services, including education. It is essential that school boards be able to work with administrators, principals, parents and local citizens to determine appropriate educational opportunities and spending levels for their local school district. Local school officials know their school districts best, including what their schools need and how much their local citizens are willing to spend to educate their children. These officials should be entrusted with the jobs that they were elected to perform, including budgeting and determining appropriate levies, and be held accountable by the local citizens they represent if they overstep their bounds.
When the Legislature adopted these provisions, it also reduced the estimated cost of certain tax credits and the cost of computer aid payments. Therefore, as a result of this veto, the restoration of the pupil count for four-year-old kindergarten (see Department of Public Instruction, Item #1) and the restoration of current law levy rate limits on technical colleges (see Shared Revenue and Tax Relief, Item #15), I am reestimating the cost of several tax relief programs as follows:
Property tax rent credit claims are estimated to decrease GPR revenues by an additional $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2003-04 and by an additional $6,200,000 in fiscal year 2004-05.
S291
Homestead credit costs are estimated to increase by $1,000,000 GPR in fiscal year 2003-04 and by $1,900,000 GPR in fiscal year 2004-05.
Farmland preservation credit costs are estimated to increase by $500,000 GPR in fiscal year 2003-04 and by $700,000 GPR in fiscal year 2004-05.
Exempt computer aid payments to local governments are estimated to increase by $1,700,000 GPR in fiscal year 2003-04 and by $3,300,000 GPR in fiscal year 2004-05.
4. Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Eligibility
Sections 2022d, 2022h, 2022p, 2022t and 9341 (4m)
These provisions modify the eligibility requirements for both students and schools in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP). Specifically, these provisions delete the cap on the number of pupils that may participate in the program, delete the prior year attendance requirements for pupils entering the program, allow students to continue in the program even if family income rises above the program's income criteria and allows schools located throughout Milwaukee County to participate. Under current law, participation is capped at 15 percent of Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) membership; pupils may no longer participate in the program if family income exceeds 175 percent of the federal poverty level; and students must have been enrolled in MPS, the choice program or grades kindergarten through three in a private school in the city of Milwaukee or have not been enrolled in school in the prior school year to join the program. Also under current law, only schools located in the city of Milwaukee may participate.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to this expansion of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, and I believe that policy changes of this significance should be addressed through separate legislation, where a full and open debate can occur. First, while the cap on MPCP participation may become binding at some point, enrollment in Choice schools remains below the cap and is anticipated to remain below the cap throughout the biennium. As such, a larger discussion on this issue can occur before enrollment approaches the cap. Second, the program was created to provide educational options to low-income children and families in the city of Milwaukee. An expansion of the program to include private schools throughout Milwaukee County is well beyond the scope of this original intent. Finally, it makes little sense to completely eliminate income tests for families once they have a child in the program. It is worth noting that, in other income-based programs for low-income families, such as BadgerCare (health care) and Wisconsin Shares (child care), the state does not eliminate the income ceiling for enrolled families whose economic circumstances improve. The original, and still valid, intent for the Choice Program was to give options to low-income families living in the city of Milwaukee that they could not otherwise afford, not to provide a lifetime guarantee to a free private school education regardless of future income.
5. Charter Schools
Sections 2020g, 2020k and 2042k
These sections include several provisions pertaining to the Milwaukee Charter Schools Program and transportation of pupils to charter schools. These sections allow pupils residing outside of the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) System's boundaries to attend a Milwaukee charter school. They also delete the prior year enrollment requirements for participation in the Milwaukee Charter Schools Program. In addition, these sections allow school districts, including MPS, to transport pupils to and from a charter school. Under current law, to participate in the Milwaukee Charter Schools Program, a pupil in the previous school year must have been enrolled in MPS, attended a Milwaukee Choice school, been enrolled in a nonchoice private school in Milwaukee in grades kindergarten through three, not have been enrolled in school, or have been enrolled in a school in the Milwaukee or Racine Charter School Programs.
I am vetoing these sections because I am concerned about the expansion of the scope of charter schools at this time, and because policy changes of this significance should be addressed through separate legislation where a full and open debate can occur. I am also vetoing these sections because the Milwaukee Charter Schools Program should continue to be focused on providing additional educational opportunities for city of Milwaukee children. Opening up the program to students living outside of MPS's boundaries may diminish the ability of Milwaukee students to participate in the program.
6. Racine Charter School Program
