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.
I am partially vetoing section 3392d and vetoing section 3392s in its entirety to give the department the ability to discharge an offender who has served at least 50 percent of their period of probation. As the authority charged with probation supervision, the department is best able to determine when an offender can live in the community, with no supervision and without posing a substantial risk for committing another crime. Public safety will be the primary determination of when an offender can be discharged from probation.
Section 9111 (12g) requires the Department of Corrections, by December 31, 2009, to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance that explains how the department has implemented the expansions of the programs under ss.
302.045 and
302.05, Wisconsin Statutes.
I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate the date of the report. The specified date does not allow the department sufficient time to implement the expansions and produce a detailed report.
Section 2669h requires the Department of Corrections to establish community services to increase public safety, reduce the risk of offenders on community supervision, and reduce the recidivism rate of offenders on probation, parole and extended supervision for a felony conviction by 25 percent between fiscal years 2007-08 and 2010-11. The section also specifies the types of services the department must provide, establishes conditions these services must meet, requires a system for monitoring offenders to evaluate effectiveness of the services, and requires the department to provide specific types of training to probation, extended supervision and parole agents, and develop policies for agents regarding alternatives to revocation. Finally, the section requires an annual report detailing the scope of services provided, arrest and conviction data of offenders receiving services and progress toward the recidivism reduction goal.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the language that sets a goal of reducing recidivism by 25 percent between fiscal years 2007-08 and 2010-11 because this is an arbitrary figure that will be hard to measure in the short time prescribed in the language using accepted best practices for measuring recidivism rates. I am also vetoing the language that includes information on progress toward this goal as a required component of the annual report. The effect of this partial veto will be to require the department to reduce the recidivism rate by fiscal year 2010-11.
JUSTICE
8.
Creation of the Crime Alert Network
This provision permits the Department of Justice to develop and administer an integrated crime alert network, to provide information on criminal activity, crime prevention, and missing or endangered children or adults to state agencies, law enforcement officers and members of the private sector. Members of the private sector can join the system to receive information for a fee, with the amount determined by the department.
I am vetoing this provision because it is already the responsibility of law enforcement to disseminate pertinent information to government agencies and members of the public relating to criminal activity and public safety. While a goal of increased information sharing is laudable, agencies are struggling to maintain current programs and the revenue potential of the network is unknown and may not be sufficient to support the costs of this new initiative.
9.
Assistant District Attorney and Assistant State Public Defender Compensation
Sections 176 [as it relates to ss.
20.455 (3) (kb),
20.475 (1) (kb) and
20.550 (1) (kb)], 535s, 542m, 598m, 2252m, 2443m, 3400p, 3400s, 3400v, 9413 (1u), 9430 (2u) and 9438 (1u)
This provision creates an appropriation under the Department of Justice to receive fund transfers of up to $1,000,000 from other department appropriations and permits the department to allocate these transferred funds to newly created appropriations under the District Attorneys and State Public Defender to fund attorney compensation payments. Also, the provision requires the secretary of the Department of Administration, on behalf of District Attorneys and the State Public Defender, to report to the Attorney General the number of full-time equivalent assistant district attorney and assistant state public defender positions that are filled as of June 30th of each year beginning June 30, 2011. Each year the Attorney General may transfer to the District Attorneys and State Public Defender an amount up to $1,000,000 multiplied by the percentage the current full-time equivalent positions make up of the total current respective full-time equivalent counts in each agency.
A308
Under the provision, each assistant district attorney and assistant state public defender would receive compensation from the transferred funding equal to the percentage that his or her full-time equivalent position makes up of the total current position count for these positions. Further, specify that increased compensation received could not be considered during the course of collective bargaining negotiations by the Office of State Employment Relations.
I am vetoing this provision because it not only circumvents the collective bargaining process, under which most compensation increases are allocated, but also specifies these compensation payments cannot be considered during negotiations. I object to making one department shoulder the burden of providing salary increases to employees in other agencies. Due to the tight fiscal condition in the state, the department is already facing funding reductions and would need to allocate scarce resources away from their core responsibilities to fund these compensation payments. In addition to reductions documented in the budget, the department will also be subject to unallocated lapses during the 2009-11 biennium.
OFFICE OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
10.
American Indian Tribal Community Reintegration Program
This section authorizes $318,300 in PR-S funds in fiscal year 2010-11 for a newly created American Indian reintegration program in the Office of Justice Assistance. The program is intended to facilitate the reintegration of American Indians who have been incarcerated in a state prison into their American Indian tribal communities. Each participant will receive an individualized integration plan that provides customized services, while incorporating tribal practices and traditions.
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to the large amount of new funding provided to the grant program at a time when agencies face deep cuts to existing programs. By lining out the department's appropriation under s.
20.505 (6) (kf) and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $268,300 PR-S in the second year of the biennium, I am maintaining sufficient funds to begin the program. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
NATURAL RESOURCES
11.
Tipping Fees for Owners of Construction Landfills
Sections 2649g, 2650g, 2651g, 2656h, 2656i, 2656j, 2656jm, 2656k, 2656L, 2656m, 2657b, 2657d, 2657f, 2657h, 2658g, 2658m and 9337 (3e)
This provision requires owners of construction landfills to pay solid waste tipping fees for waste materials generated from the construction, demolition or razing of buildings, effective with waste disposed of on or after January 1, 2010.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unfair to require owners of construction landfills to pay tipping fees to dispose of waste in them. While it is still important to encourage recycling, there may be unintended consequences of imposing these fees without a more detailed analysis of this issue. Vetoing this provision will help to keep costs down for construction companies as they contribute to the economic recovery in Wisconsin.
12.
Dam Fishway Requirements
Sections 706r and 706s
This provision deletes the current law requirement that the Department of Natural Resources may require a dam owner to have sufficient fishways only if the following conditions are met: (a) the department must have promulgated rules concerning rights held by the public in navigable waters that are dammed; and (b) a grant program (federal or state) must be in place to equip dams with fishways under which a grant is available to the dam owner.
I am vetoing this provision because it could be very costly to dam owners to install fishways in the absence of a grant program. Moreover, it would be inappropriate to impose this requirement before rules are promulgated detailing how fishways are to be constructed and maintained.
13.
Managed Forest Law Withdrawal of Tribal Land
Section 1872r
This section specifies that the Department of Natural Resources issue a withdrawal order, upon request of an Indian tribe, to remove tribal lands from a managed forest law order without paying a withdrawal tax or fee if an Indian tribe has provided the department with documentation which demonstrates the tribe's intent to transfer land currently under a managed forest law order to the United States to be held in trust, and the tribe and department have entered into a written intergovernmental agreement in which the tribe agrees to comply with the existing forestry management plan and other program requirements until the date the order would have otherwise expired.
I am partially vetoing this section because it may prevent a tribe from being able to place land in federal trust due to the potential encumbrances against the land. I am deleting language in order to establish a clear process wherein land will be removed from a managed forest law order when the tribe has a date for transfer to federal trust status, rather than documented intent to transfer the land. Also, I am deleting language in order to specify that the provision relates only to particular parcels of land owned in fee that would be removed from a managed forest law order, instead of all land owned by that tribe. In many instances a tribe may only want to remove some parcels and often land is owned by a tribal entity instead of directly by the tribe. In addition I am deleting certain statutory references contained in the section because they include statements that allow for the potential taking of the land through a tax deed if payments are not made. Even with this veto, the intent remains that the land will continue to be treated as managed forest land until the date on which the order would have expired.
A309
Through use of this partial veto I ensure that the intent of the provision prevails. The ability of a tribe to transfer land under a managed forest law order to federal trust status is maintained by removing potential encumbrances and preventing the assessment of property taxes instead of managed forest law payments.
14.
Nonresident Boat Sticker
Sections 271m, 706m and 9137 (3c)
This provision creates a nonresident boat sticker of $15 with revenues deposited to the boat account of the conservation fund, effective January 1, 2010. This provision also requires the Department of Natural Resources to promulgate rules establishing procedures for issuing the boat stickers and regulating the activities of license agents authorized to issue the stickers; further, the department has the authority to use the emergency rule process without the finding of an emergency.
I am vetoing this provision because it may serve as a deterrent to tourism. Few states currently require a nonresident boat sticker and any barrier to visitors entering the state is harmful, especially during a tight economy when several areas of the state are dependent on tourism to support their local economy.
STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
15.
State Standard for Indigent Legal Defense Counsel
Sections 598k, 2741e, 3392b, 3398r, 3398t, 3400g, 3400i, 3400k, 3400n, 9338 (1j) and 9438 (1j)
These provisions increase the State Public Defender indigency standard and model it after Wisconsin Works, which, when measuring gross income, is set at 115 percent of the federal poverty level. These provisions also create 49.3 FTE GPR positions effective June 30, 2011.
I am vetoing these provisions because of the additional cost and positions associated with implementing the higher standard. This veto returns the indigency standard to current law and deletes the positions associated with the increase. I remain committed to ensuring adequate representation of individuals with limited income. I will continue to review this policy issue in future budgets.
