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
9.
Education Benefits for Veterans
Sections 745f, 747f, 754f, 756f and 770k
These provisions provide for supplemental payments to student veterans who are eligible for education benefits under the federal Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act.
I am partially vetoing these provisions because they may be interpreted as preventing timely supplemental payments to eligible student veterans insofar as they require payments to be made only in June of an academic year. The effect of my partial veto is to provide for additional administrative flexibility to minimize the impact of benefit changes on student veterans. I am also requesting the Higher Educational Aids Board to work closely with the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents, the Wisconsin Technical College System Board and district boards to ensure that eligibility determinations and supplemental payments are made in the most efficient, effective manner possible.
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
10.
Aid Adjustments Relating to Funding Reductions in General School Aids
Section 9139 (1j) (b)
This provision changes the general equalization aid calculation in fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11. This provision requires the Department of Public Instruction to compare the amount of equalization aid each district will actually receive in fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11 with the amount they would have received if base funding had not been reduced by $147 million, and make adjustments to certain school districts' school aid payments. Under these adjustments, districts that would have lost more than 10 percent of their aid as a result of the $147 million base funding reduction would have their aid increased to limit their reduction to approximately 10 percent. Districts that would have lost less than 0.9 percent of their aid compared to what they would have received with no base funding reduction, have property values per pupil above the statewide average and have fewer than 35 percent of pupils eligible for free or reduced price lunch would have their aid decreased to result in a reduction of 10 percent.
A312
I am partially vetoing this provision to redistribute the reduction to a larger number of school districts because I am opposed to singling out a few districts for an additional 10 percent cut in equalization aid. As a result of the unprecedented worldwide economic crisis, fiscal year 2009-10 may be the first time that state funding for schools will be reduced from the prior year. During this period, it is reasonable for the equalization aid formula to be temporarily modified to reduce the aid loss to any one school district. However, many of the limited number of school districts that would have their aid reduced by an additional 10 percent under this provision will have already experienced a 15 percent aid reduction from the prior year, resulting in a total aid loss of 25 percent. Partially vetoing this provision to redistribute the aid reduction to the vast majority of school districts is consistent with the current formula, and will help cushion the decreases to those districts most affected by the equalization aid reduction. To implement this provision, I am requesting that the State Superintendent pay the additional amount received by districts under s. 9139 (1j) (b) from the general equalization aid appropriation under s.
20.255 (2) (ac).
11.
Limit on Open Enrollment Payment
Section 9139 (2q)
This section limits the amount of state aid that districts located in whole or in part in Milwaukee County can receive from Milwaukee Public Schools under the Open Enrollment Program in the 2009-10 school year to the state aid amount received in the 2008-09 school year. Under current law, school districts that accept a pupil under open enrollment receive a per pupil payment in the form of a reallocation of state aid from the pupil's school district of residence.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the negative impact it could have on funding educational services in school districts located in Milwaukee County. School districts accepting pupils under the Open Enrollment Program in 2009-10 notified pupils in Milwaukee that they could attend their districts on June 5, as required by statute. Rescinding those acceptances could subject these districts to legal action. As a result, these districts must educate these additional pupils with no added funding. Furthermore, the districts accepting additional pupils were in full compliance with current state law, which does not limit the number of pupils a district can accept under open enrollment. Therefore, the amount of funding they receive from Milwaukee Public Schools in the 2009-10 school year should reflect the number of pupils they accept from Milwaukee Public Schools in the 2009-10 school year and not the amount of funding they received in the 2008-09 school year.
12.
Open Enrollment Hold Harmless Payments
Sections 176 [as it relates to s.
20.255 (2) (ch)], 242d, 2274t, 2309 and 9339 (7j)
This provision creates a new school aid appropriation starting in the 2009-10 school year for payments to school districts that have net pupil transfers out of the district under the Open Enrollment Program greater than 10 percent of their pupil membership. The payment would be equal to the net number of pupils in excess of 10 percent of the district's membership who transferred out of the district in the prior year multiplied by the per pupil transfer payment in the prior year. It is estimated that this provision would cost $772,000 annually. Any payments received by school districts under this provision would be subject to revenue limits.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. Pupils who transfer out of their resident school district under the Open Enrollment Program are included in their resident district's membership count for school aid purposes. A school district's equalization aid is then increased or decreased by a fixed dollar amount per pupil, as established in statute, multiplied by a district's net gain or loss of pupils under the program. However, the amount of funding per pupil authorized to school districts under revenue limits is higher than the per pupil transfer payment under open enrollment. Therefore, under the Open Enrollment Program, school districts receive a net revenue gain for pupils they no longer educate. As a result, it is not necessary to provide school districts with additional payments for pupils that transfer out of the district.
13.
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Payments to Schools Barred from the Program
Sections 244s, 2295g, 2295h and 9439 (3c)
These sections require the Department of Public Instruction to send payments to private schools barred by the department from participating in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Payments would be sent to schools in the form of checks made out to parents or guardians of pupils who were attending the schools at the time they were barred. The parents or guardians of those pupils would be required to endorse the checks. The total payment to each barred school would be based on instructional time provided by the school prior to removal from the program less any amount previously paid to the school by the department. Schools would first be required to use the additional payments to reimburse money owed to a state entity and then, if funds remain, reimburse teachers for any salaries that had not been paid when the school was removed from the program. This provision would apply to schools barred from the program, beginning three years prior to the budget bill's effective date.
I am vetoing this provision because it lacks both a system to ensure that the additional payments to parents eventually reach teachers who are not fully compensated and a location to send the checks if the private school no longer exists. I am sympathetic to teachers who are not fully compensated for their teaching time when a school is removed from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program for failing to meet the limited accountability measures that currently exist. Under the stronger accountability provisions included in this budget, the overall quality of choice school management should improve significantly and the need to remove schools from the program should diminish.
A313
C.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION
1.
Reimbursement for Legal Notices in Newspapers
Sections 3405ay and 3405b
This section specifies that any newspaper in a county of more than 500,000 individuals may be compensated for printing of legal notices. The newspaper must have a circulation of at least 40,000 copies in the region and would exempt the newspaper from current law requirements relating to its circulation and subscribers.
I am vetoing this provision because it should be subject to the full legislative process where the merits of the provision can be fully and openly debated.
2.
Access to State and Federal Surplus Property Sales
Section 104n, 104p and 680n
This provision requires the Department of Administration or any agency allowed to purchase property by the department to grant any entity or group that is entitled to participate in federal surplus property sales or auctions or is entitled to special purchasing rights or preference in sales the same purchasing rights and preferences that are available to all agencies.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. The surplus property program is open to all entities and groups that wish to participate.
3.
Use of Private Contractor Positions
Sections 76L, 82L, 104L, 2157r, 9139 (7u) [as it relates to the definition of federal economic stimulus funds] and 9157 (2L)
This budget makes several modifications to the executive branch use of private contractor positions. While I concur that state agencies should be reviewing and limiting, where appropriate, the use of private contractor positions, I am vetoing these provisions because the use of private contractor positions should be reviewed across all state agencies, not just the executive branch and because these provisions are administratively burdensome.
Budget Submission Requirements: Requires agencies and the Department of Administration to identify information related to contract positions including the number and funding, both base and requested, for such positions, and the number of state positions required to perform work being completed by contracted positions as part of the Governor's biennial budget submission.
Hiring Requirements: Directs that during a hiring freeze or mandatory furlough, executive branch agencies cannot hire private contractor positions or consultants in that fiscal year, unless the use of those positions is required or authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Reduction Requirements: Requires all state executive branch agencies to review service contract practices for private personnel and report the findings on how they would achieve savings of 1 percent for the 2009-11 biennium. Authorize the Joint Committee on Finance to reduce appropriations by up to 1 percent based on identified savings.
Electrical Consultant Private Contractors: Requires the Department of Commerce to perform a more robust cost-benefit analysis if using private contractors instead of hiring FTE electrical consultants. If the cost-benefit analysis shows that it is more cost effective to hire a state position, the department is required to hire a state employee.
I do, however, believe that these provisions are well intentioned. As such, I request that state agencies review the use and hiring of private contractor positions during these difficult economic times. To meet the deep across-the-board reductions, agencies will be reviewing all business practices, including the hiring and use of private contractor positions. To reduce state agency appropriation authority by a further 1 percent based on the reduction of private contractor positions during a time when agencies have to manage significant funding reductions could lead to unacceptable gaps in service or delays in meeting critical business needs. Additionally, the cost-benefit analysis process required under current law will continue to ensure that all contracts entered into by agencies are done so only after a thoughtful analysis of need.
To ensure that contractor positions are not replacing state workers who have been laid off or furloughed, and that the use of a private contractor position is appropriate, I am creating a centralized review process with aid from the newly formed Division of Legal Services, the state Bureau of Procurement and the Office of State Employment Relations. While I object to the limiting and burdensome requirements of these provisions, I welcome and look forward to working with all state agencies to manage the use of private contractor positions to achieve additional savings while maintaining the high service standards Wisconsin citizens expect from state government.
COMMERCE
4.
Grant to Pleasant Prairie Technology Incubator Center
Section 9110 (17q)
This provision requires the Department of Commerce to provide a one-time grant to the Pleasant Prairie Technology Incubator Center of $700,000. It also requires the center to obtain $700,000 in matching funds from sources other than the state.
As I am concerned about allocating large amounts from the Wisconsin Development Fund, I am partially vetoing this provision to strike a digit to reduce the amount of the grant and the matching funds from $700,000 to $70,000. I am also requesting that the Department of Commerce work with the Pleasant Prairie Technology Incubator Center to help identify additional resources.
A314
5.
Area Development Manager
Section 9110 (18f)
This section requires the Department of Commerce to fill a currently vacant area development manager position which serves 16 counties in the Northwest section of the state.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the Legislature requiring an agency to fill an existing vacant position. I do support the work that the department does in this area and request the Department of Commerce secretary to fill the position when a qualified candidate has been identified.
6.
Innovation and Research Grants
This provision provides funding for small business innovation research stage businesses and preparation costs as well as a 1.0 FTE GPR position to establish a regulatory ombudsman to administer the grants.
I am lining out the s.
20.143 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $75,000 GPR annually. By lining out the additional funding, I am vetoing the 1.0 FTE GPR position added by the Legislature because this is not a priority program for new funding. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the additional 1.0 FTE GPR position.
7.
Film Production Tax Credits Program Changes
Sections 176 [as it relates to ss.
20.835 (2) (bL) and
(bm)], 621m, 1579x, 1580yj, 1580yk, 1659y, 1660h, 1660i, 1725w, 1726yh, 1726yj and 3070m
These provisions replace the current film production services tax credit with a new refundable tax credit. The provisions provide $1,500,000 in each year of the biennium, define an "accredited production" with cost thresholds, create an application fee, require reporting, and set percentages, eligible expenditures and various caps for the new credit.
