WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
19.
Milwaukee Area Workforce Investment Board
20.
Apprenticeship Program Accountability
21.
Listing Deductions from Wages
22.
Nursing Survey and Allocation to a Nursing Center
23.
Prevailing Wage
D.
HEALTH SERVICES AND INSURANCE
HEALTH SERVICES
1.
Milwaukee Health Services Grant
2.
Restriction on the Use of Vital Records Fee Revenue
3.
Family Care Expansion, Langlade County
4.
ICF-MR Preservation Study
5.
Marquette Dental School and Dental Services
6.
Oversight of Medicaid Savings Plan
7.
Medicaid Transportation Broker
8.
Delivery of Medicaid Dental Services in Southeast Wisconsin
9.
Quality of Care Improvement Implementation
10.
County Nursing Home Supplements
11.
Patient Health Care Records Access and Fees
12.
Milwaukee Income Maintenance Investigation
13.
Medicaid Physician Pilot Project
14.
Income Maintenance Allocation
15.
Coverage of Podiatry Services for BadgerCare Plus Childless Adults
INSURANCE
16.
Motor Vehicle Insurance
E.
STATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
1.
Office of State Employment Relations Charges
2.
Collective Bargaining Rights for University of Wisconsin System Faculty, Academic Staff and Research Assistants
F.
TAX, TRANSPORTATION AND BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
BUDGET MANAGEMENT
2.
Agency Mission Statements and Performance Measures
A305
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
3.
Police and Fire Protection Fee Sunset and Creation of 911 Grant Program
4.
Intervenor Financing for a Nonprofit Corporation
REVENUE
5.
Assessment of Leased Property
6.
Financial Record Matching Program
7.
Burnett County Temporary Sales Tax
8.
Withholding by Certain Contractors
TRANSPORTATION
9.
Regional Transit Authorities
10.
Transportation Enhancement Funding for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
11.
Commercial Development at Rest Areas and Waysides
12.
Use of Contractors for Installation and Maintenance of Equipment on
State Patrol Vehicles
__________________
VETO ITEMS
A.
AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND JUSTICE
CIRCUIT COURTS
1.
Increased Court Fees
Section 3232r
This section increases the fee collected by clerks of courts for judgments, writs, executions, liens, warrants, awards and certificates from $5 to $10.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the doubling of a fee charged to individuals accessing services through their county court system. The effect of this veto is a return to the current law fee of $5.
2.
Recompense
Sections 3272m, 3349g, 3349r, 3362m, 3364g, 3364m, 3364r and 3395t
This provision deletes current law related to recompense. In addition, this provision allows the court to order a forfeited cash deposit to be held for a period of time determined by the court and require the cash deposit to first be applied to any restitution ordered by the court, and when that is paid in full, the cash is applied to the payment of costs.
Recompense is an order which distributes an amount of forfeited cash bail to the victim of the crime for which the bond conditions were imposed. If the defendant is convicted, any cash deposited for bond must be first applied to the payment of restitution, further assisting the victim of the crime.
I am vetoing this provision because current law provides a process by which a victim can receive payment earlier in their involvement with the criminal justice system. Crime victims may lose property, time away from work and their sense of security after being victimized and any process which helps them recover these pieces of their lives is important to maintain.
CORRECTIONS
3.
Council on Offender Reentry
This provision specifies the duties of the newly-created Council on Offender Reentry and spells out the details to be included in the annual report that the council has to submit to the Governor, any relevant state agencies and the chief clerk of each house of the Legislature.
I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate the duty of the council to facilitate dialogue between a victim and an offender because this is not an appropriate function of the council. The language requiring the council to work to include victims in the reentry process remains. I am also vetoing the unnecessary details of the annual report. The language of the provision is too limiting and prescriptive. Instead, the council will be required to report on the progress of the council's work. This remaining language sufficiently covers the intent of the provision.
4.
Felmers Chaney Pre-Release Transition Facility
Section 2671m
This section requires the Department of Corrections to designate the Felmers Chaney Correctional Center in the city of Milwaukee as a pre-release transition facility for inmates within 5 to 12 months of release into the community. The section further details the programs to be provided at this facility.
I am vetoing this section to allow the Department of Corrections to maintain its authority and flexibility in managing resources and facilities. The Felmers Chaney Correctional Center already focuses on pre-release inmate preparation with emphasis on job preparedness.
5.
Conversion of Unit Supervisor Positions
Sections 2482m and 2666r
These sections provide that upon receiving notice from the Department of Corrections that a unit supervisor position in the Division of Adult Institutions has become vacant, the director of the Office of State Employment Relations shall reclassify the position under s.
230.09, Wisconsin Statutes, as a teacher position.
A306
I am vetoing these sections because I object to the limits they place on the department's ability to manage correctional institutions. Unit supervisors play a key role in running prisons by coordinating inmate security, health care, mental health, food service, maintenance and programming, and it is therefore essential to keep these positions in place to ensure the safety and well-being of employees and inmates in our correctional institutions.
6.
Date Explanation at Sentencing
This provision adds a requirement to state at the time the sentence is being imposed the estimated date upon which the person is eligible to be released to, or apply for release to extended supervision, or be discharged from extended supervision.
I am vetoing sections 3382 and 3383 and partially vetoing sections 9311 (4) and 9411 (2u) to eliminate the requirement that a court explain to the person being sentenced the date upon which the person may be eligible to be released to extended supervision under s.
302.113 (2) (b), Wisconsin Statutes, the date upon which the person may apply for release to extended supervision under s.
304.06, Wisconsin Statutes, and the date upon which the person may be eligible for discharge under s.
973.01 (4m), Wisconsin Statutes. The nature of the sentencing provisions cited in these sections does not allow for an accurate prediction of the release date and therefore it would not be possible to estimate a date with reasonable certainty.
7.
Sentencing Changes
Sections 2669h [as it relates to ss.
301.068 (1) and
(6)], 2699m [as it relates to s.
302.042 (3)], 2722 [as it relates to s.
302.113 (2) (b) 1d.], 2724h, 2726, 2726h, 2726p, 2728, 2739 [as it relates to s.
302.113 (9h) (em)], 2751 [as it relates to ss.
304.06 (1) (bg) 1. ad. and
2. ad.], 3376p, 3377 [as it relates to s.
973.01 (3d) (c)], 3392d, 3392s, 9111 (12g), 9311 (4q) [as it relates to ss.
302.113 (9) (am) 2. and
3m.] and 9411 (2u) [as it relates to ss.
302.113 (9) (am) 2.,
973.01 (2) (d) intro. and 973.09 (5) intro.]
Sections 2722, 2751 and 3377 exclude individuals sentenced for offenses committed on or after the effective date of the bill from being eligible for positive adjustment time.
I am partially vetoing these sections to render individuals sentenced for offenses committed on or after the effective date of the bill eligible for positive adjustment time. Excluding these individuals based on when the offense was committed would create an inequality issue and would take away the incentive for good behavior in prison.
Section 2739 requires passive review by the sentencing court when a person becomes eligible to have their bifurcated sentence modified by the Department of Corrections.
I am vetoing this section because a review by the court would be duplicative of the review already conducted by the department before releasing the offender. The department has the ability to modify a bifurcated sentence for an offender convicted of a misdemeanor or nonviolent Class F to I felony, which requires the department to consider if the offender could live in the community without posing a risk to public safety. Only nonviolent offenders convicted of the lowest classifications of offenses who are within 12 months of release are eligible. Also, when an offender is released, their extended supervision sentence is lengthened accordingly to ensure their overall sentence is not reduced. The department will only release those offenders it deems safest to live in the community, and as these offenders will be released within 12 months, the possibility of a modification creates an incentive for the inmate to behave while incarcerated.
Section 2699m specifies that the Department of Corrections may modify an inmate's risk reduction program plan if programming or treatment specified in a plan is unavailable to the inmate because of the inmate's security classification, the department discontinues the programming or treatment, or there is a waiting list for the programming or treatment.
I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate the specification of details related to modifying program plans because it unnecessarily limits the department's ability to modify an inmate's plan. This partial veto preserves the intent of the provision to direct the department to develop a program plan for the inmate that is designed to reduce the risk of reoffending and allows for flexibility to modify the plan as needed.
Section 3376p limits the length of a term of extended supervision for all offenses other than Class B and C felonies and certain sex offenses to a maximum length of 75 percent of the confinement portion of a bifurcated sentence. For the exempted offenses, the term of extended supervision would be governed by current law. Section 9411 (2u) implements a delayed effective date for section 3376p of October 1, 2009, or on the 90th day after publication of the bill, whichever is later.
I am vetoing this provision due to the possible unintended consequence of creating a cap on extended supervision sentences. Appropriate sentences depend on several factors related to a specific offender and often a one-size-fits-all approach cannot take into account a violent past or other aggravating factors contained in a case. I am maintaining language for shortening extended supervision sentences, through the ability of the Department of Corrections to discharge a person from supervision after two years. This release creates an incentive for an offender to comply with the rules of their supervision and earn discharge through rehabilitation, which better protects public safety.
Sections 2724h, 2726, 2726h, 2728 and 9311 (4q) implement a maximum term of reconfinement in prison of six months for an offender revoked from extended supervision, with a possible extension by the Department of Corrections of 90 days. Exclusions from this maximum term of reconfinement include sex offenders and those who the department determines would pose a substantial risk to public safety if reconfined for only six months. Section 2726p requires the department to promulgate rules defining "substantial risk to public safety." Section 9411 (2u) implements a delayed effective date for these sections of October 1, 2009, or on the 90th day after publication of the bill, whichever is later.
A307
I am partially vetoing this provision because I object to the one-size-fits-all approach. Placing an arbitrary maximum term of reconfinement on offenders who are revoked from their extended supervision and then allowing the department to deviate from the maximum when they determine a person poses a substantial risk is problematic from a due process point of view and could result in multiple petitions filed against the reviewing authority. I am deleting the section requiring the department to promulgate rules, as this is no longer necessary under this partial veto. I am maintaining the language which requires the reviewing authority and not the sentencing court to determine the period of reconfinement. I am also maintaining the language related to multiple approaches for reducing revocations and recidivism of offenders in the community because it is important to maintain flexibility in establishing reconfinement times for offenders who do not follow the terms of their supervision and then must face the consequences.
Sections 3392d and 3392s allow the Department of Corrections to petition the sentencing court to discharge a person from probation who has served less than 50 percent of their probation term. The court may approve and discharge the person if they have complied with the conditions of their probation and paid ordered costs, fees and restitution.
