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.
B.
EDUCATION, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
1.
Foster Children and Foster Parent Bill of Rights
Sections 1051n, 1051o, 9108 (6f) and 9408 (5f)
These sections enumerate the rights of foster children and foster parents.
I am vetoing this provision because it constitutes a major change and should be subject to the full legislative process where the merits can be fully and openly debated. The safety and welfare of children in out-of-home care has been a priority of my administration. I am fully committed to protecting the rights of both foster children and foster parents. Despite the decline in state revenues and significant spending cuts in the vast majority of state programs, this budget protects child welfare and child care funding.
This same bill of rights initiative is currently under discussion by the Joint Legislative Council's Special Committee on Strengthening Wisconsin Families. The committee should be allowed to complete its work on this important legislation to ensure that it is fully reviewed and its consequences understood by the public before it is enacted into law. In addition, the Department of Children and Families, the State Foster Parent Association and county foster care agencies, to name just a few stakeholders in this matter, have had limited opportunity to review and react to this initiative. The development of a foster children and foster parent bill of rights should be done in such a way as to provide for the thorough review of these issues.
As part of this discussion, the issue of whether the bill of rights is more appropriately included in statute or administrative rule should also be addressed. Many of the rights enumerated in this provision are currently contained in the Wisconsin Administrative Code. While some modifications may be necessary, they should not be enacted without a more complete deliberation on the issues.
2.
Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare Audit
Section 9131 (2f)
This provision requires the Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct a performance and financial audit of the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare.
I am vetoing this provision because the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare was evaluated by the Legislative Audit Bureau in 2006 and the Department of Children and Families is still in the process of implementing the recommendations from that evaluation.
3.
Promulgation of Emergency Rules
Sections 9108 (2) (b) 1. and 2m., and 9108 (5) (a) 1. and 2m.
These provisions prohibit the Department of Children and Families from promulgating emergency rules for provider rate regulation and foster parent training.
I am vetoing sections 9108 (2) (b) 2m. and 9108 (5) (a) 2m. and partially vetoing sections 9108 (2) (b) 1. and 9108 (5) (a) 1. because I object to limiting the department's authority to promulgate emergency rules. Existing state law provides a procedure for promulgating emergency rules and there is no compelling reason why the department's authority to follow this procedure should be denied. This veto gives the department flexibility to implement programs on an appropriate timetable.
A310
4.
Graduated Foster Care Licensing
Sections 9108 (3) (b) 1. and 2m. and 9108 (3) (cm)
These provisions prohibit the Department of Children and Families from promulgating emergency rules relating to graduated foster care licensing and require the department to submit a detailed plan for the implementation of those rules to the Joint Committee on Finance for approval.
I am vetoing section 9108 (3) (b) 2m. and partially vetoing section 9108 (3) (b) 1. that prohibits the department from promulgating those emergency rules. Prohibiting the promulgation of emergency rules will needlessly delay implementation of graduated licensing, preventing the state from fully realizing cost savings and additional federal matching revenue.
I am also vetoing section 9108 (3) (cm) requiring the department to submit an implementation plan to the Joint Committee on Finance prior to those rules being implemented because it is unnecessary. The department can work with Senate and Assembly committees that do have oversight responsibilities for foster care programs to ensure that the rules are effectively implemented. The department should also consult with other interested parties on this matter before implementing the graduated foster care licensing system.
5.
Notice to Relatives
Sections 919p, 921h, 958p, 1086f, 1101c, 3290n, 3290p, 3292h, 3327p and 3339j
This provision requires juvenile courts to order counties or the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare to search for and provide notice to all adult relatives of a child who is ordered to be held in out-of-home care and to all other adult individuals requested by the child's parent to be considered as placement options for the child within 30 days after the temporary physical custody court hearing at which the child was ordered into out-of-home care.
I am vetoing this provision because several elements conflict with federal requirements or existing state law or raise confidentiality concerns. Statutory changes regarding notice to relatives will be needed to comply with recent federal law changes and separate legislation is being pursued to achieve compliance without raising additional problems with state law and confidentiality concerns.
First, federal law requires that notification to relatives be made within 30 days after a child is taken into custody. This provision would require notice within 30 days from the custody hearing date, which does not ensure compliance with the federal law. This provision also requires that the notification be given by a court order. Federal law does not require judicial involvement. Notification requirements may be better implemented as a statutory directive to child welfare agencies rather than through court orders, ensuring compliance, but not imposing an unnecessary burden on the courts.
Second, the provision defines "adult relative" as the child's grandparent, great-grandparent, aunt, uncle or sibling who has attained 18 years of age. This new definition is not consistent with definition of relative elsewhere in the Wisconsin Children's Code, which is much more inclusive.
Third, the provision requires that a parent be requested to provide names of three adult relatives who could become placement options for a child. If the parent does not provide this information at the hearing, the county agency or the Department of Children and Families must make a reasonable effort to provide each parent with the opportunity to supply this information. Without any requirement to review the parent's choices, a parent could name three adult relatives who may or may not be appropriate caregivers and who should not be given private information about a child's case.
Fourth, the provision requires that agencies notify both relatives and nonrelatives identified by the parents of the court order for an out-of-home placement. Again, this raises confidentiality issues. Under current law, if a placement is being made, certain child protective services information can only be released to a placement or relative with a foster care license.
The Department of Children and Families is currently working on draft legislation that will address all issues of compliance with the federal Fostering Connections to Success Act of 2008. I am confident that the department will seek input from all stakeholders to ensure that this legislation effectively addresses the role of relatives in the foster care system.
6.
Subsidized Private Sector Employment
Section 1173c
This provision creates a subsidized private sector employment program for Wisconsin Works (W-2) participants to work in a private sector employment position for up to 20 hours per week for a maximum of six months. Participants are paid minimum wage by the employer plus receive an additional monthly grant of up to $25 paid by the Department of Children and Families. The employer is wholly or partially reimbursed for compensation costs by the department. The department can only implement this program if certain conditions are met, including that the total compensation received by the participant is no less than what would be received in a community service job and that the total cost to the department is no greater than it would be for a community service job.
I am partially vetoing this provision to delete the $25 monthly grant. I see no need to provide an additional grant to participants in subsidized private sector employment who already receive compensation in the form of the higher of state or federal minimum wage plus eligibility for the state and federal earned income tax credit. The additional cost of the grant would be better applied to creating additional subsidized employment opportunities. I am also partially vetoing the provision to delete the 20 hour maximum per week of subsidized employment to provide the department with additional flexibility to address unique individual situations. The 20 hour maximum was included under the assumption that all employers would be fully reimbursed for their compensation costs under the program. Deleting this maximum allows the department to explore other compensation options or address unique circumstances.
A311
Subsidized private sector employment will provide Wisconsin Works (W-2) participants with an opportunity to gain work experience in projects that closely resemble real private sector employment. Furthermore, the program is structured to guarantee that the cost to the state for each participant will not exceed the cost under the existing community service jobs program.
7.
Child Care Authorizations
Section 1214a
This provision establishes a methodology for authorizing the number of hours per week for which an eligible child can receive subsidized child care under the Wisconsin Shares program. Under this provision, a family using less than 60 percent of its authorized hours of subsidized care for each of three successive two-week periods shall have its authorization reduced to 90 percent of the maximum weekly hours used during that six-week child care period. The reduced authorization would take effect following a six week grace period.
To fully achieve the intent of the Joint Committee on Finance budget agreement, I am partially vetoing section 1214a to base the authorization on using fewer than 60 percent of the authorized hours averaged over the entire six week period rather than for each of three successive two-week periods. As currently drafted, a family could use none of its authorized hours for two of the three two-week periods and 60 percent for the third two-week period and still maintain its full authorization. This formula provides little incentive for families to request only the number of authorized hours that they need. While it is important that the reimbursement system recognize that families can have legitimate reasons for their children missing a day of child care and that child care providers cannot easily fill a slot when a child is absent, requiring that the average utilization be at or above 60 percent of authorized hours averaged over six weeks provides ample flexibility for both families and providers to accommodate the absences.
I am partially vetoing section 1214a to delete the requirement that the grace period be for six weeks. I agree that there needs to be a grace period before authorized hours are reduced so that families and providers can adjust to the reduction, but it does not need to be six weeks. While my partial veto will leave the length of the grace period undefined in statute, I am requesting the Department of Children and Families secretary to provide for a two-week grace period. This should provide enough time for families and providers to accommodate the change.
8.
Child Care Program Integrity
Sections 1138f and 1214f
This provision expands the existing child care program integrity unit. The program integrity unit ensures that child care program business practices are fiscally responsible and legal. The expansion includes authorizing the Department of Children and Families to deny payments to providers if they are convicted of felonies or misdemeanors related to business practices or intentionally and egregiously violate any provision or rule related to the Wisconsin Shares Child Care subsidy program.
I am partially vetoing sections 1138f and 1214f to delete the phrase "intentionally and egregiously." The department needs the authority to ensure that child care providers follow the rules of the Wisconsin Shares program. Requiring the violations to be intentional and egregious significantly limits the department's ability to address continuing issues with providers who violate program rules to receive reimbursement for services that they do not provide. This veto will strengthen the department's ability to enforce compliance with Wisconsin Shares rules.
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL AIDS BOARD
