13.
Earmarks
Sections 199, 215d, 816m, 1924c, 9110 (10q), 9110 (12h) and 9125
These sections earmark specific projects or grants.
Sections 199 and 9110 (10q) require the Department of Commerce to award to the WiSys Technology Foundation, Inc., an annual grant of not less than $50,000 GPR, for providing intellectual property management services to the University of Wisconsin-Extension and all University of Wisconsin institutions and colleges other than the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. I am vetoing these sections because they are unnecessary. I am requesting the department to work with the WiSys Technology Foundation, Inc., to identify ways the department can provide assistance.
Section 816m requires the Department of Tourism, in each biennium, to expend not less than $200,000 PR-S to conduct or contract for marketing activities related to exhibits or activities on behalf of the Milwaukee Public Museum. I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The Department of Tourism already has sufficient flexibility to work with the museum on level of support.
Section 1924c requires the Department of Transportation to designate and mark the route of United States Highway 8 between United States Highway 53 and the village of Turtle Lake in Barron County as the "Donald J. Schneider Highway." I am vetoing this section because it is inconsistent with the way highways are named in this state. I have the utmost respect for Donald J. Schneider and the service he provided as chief clerk of the Wisconsin State Senate. He retired from state government in 2003, after a long and distinguished career serving the state of Wisconsin and he continues to exemplify public service at its best.
Sections 215d and 9110 (12h) require the Department of Commerce to provide a grant, not to exceed $50,000, from the brownfields grant appropriation to the town of Beloit to pay 50 percent of the costs of constructing a children's playground in Preservation Park. I am vetoing these sections because they are unnecessary and may conflict with other provisions in the brownfields grant program.
A317
Section 9125 requires the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA) to provide a $25,000 grant in fiscal year 2009-10 and in fiscal year 2010-11 to the Household Abuse Victims Emergency Network in Merrill for renovation of a domestic abuse shelter serving Langlade, Lincoln, Taylor, Vilas and Oneida counties. I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. WHEDA can provide such assistance under current law and can work with this organization to identify the best ways to further their mission.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
14.
Constituent Services Position
This section increases the Office of the Lieutenant Governor's general program operations appropriation to reflect the increase of 1.0 FTE GPR position to provide constituent services and external relations support to the Lieutenant Governor.
I understand and appreciate the work of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor and respect the dedication Lieutenant Governor Lawton has shown to our great state. However, given the fiscal situation the state now faces, I am lining out the s.
20.540 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $36,000 GPR in fiscal year 2009-10 and $52,800 GPR in fiscal year 2010-11. The remaining amount will ensure that the office's current 3.0 FTE positions are funded. By lining out the additional funding, I am vetoing the 1.0 FTE GPR position added by the Legislature because creating this position is not a priority in a time when agencies are faced with deep budget cuts. 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.
MILITARY AFFAIRS
15.
State Matching Funds for Disaster Aid
Section 9136 (1x)
This provision requires the Department of Military Affairs to submit to the Joint Committee on Finance prior to expending any funds in excess of $1,347,000 annually from its GPR sum sufficient disaster aid appropriation a report detailing the amount of required additional funding necessary to match federal disaster aid, when the required match will be needed and whether any potential funding source in lieu of GPR may be utilized to provide the required match.
I am vetoing this provision because the reporting and additional authorization could seriously delay the flow of disaster aid to Wisconsin families and businesses impacted by federally declared disasters. While I understand the need for tighter fiscal controls during difficult economic times, I object when that control seriously impedes Wisconsin citizens and businesses from moving forward after a serious natural disaster.
REGULATION AND LICENSING
16.
Regulation of Chiropractors
Sections 2995iem [as it relates to student loan default], 2995if, 2995inm, 2995iom [as it relates to sexual misconduct], 2995ip, 2995ipm and 2995ir
This provision makes several changes to the regulation of chiropractors in Wisconsin related to the successful completion of an examination prior to licensure, student loan repayment requirements, the duty to refer clients, certification for chiropractic technicians and chiropractic radiological technicians, sexual misconduct by a licensed chiropractor, and continuing education required by the Chiropractic Examining Board.
Sections 2995iem and 2995if direct the Chiropractic Examining Board to not grant a license to an applicant unless that applicant has provided a form that certifies they have not defaulted on any loans used to finance their education. I am vetoing section 2995if and partially vetoing section 2995iem as it relates to student loan default because loan repayment history has no bearing on one's ability to perform chiropractic service and is an overly onerous regulatory provision.
Further, I am vetoing sections 2995inm, 2995ip, 2995ipm and 2995ir and partially vetoing section 2995iom as it relates to penalties for sexual misconduct by a licensed chiropractor. I fully support penalizing sexual misconduct crimes to the fullest extent of the law, however I object to these sections because the Department of Regulation and Licensing already maintains a thorough and strict enforcement process with severe penalties for violating terms of licensure, including sexual misconduct. Further, the definitions covered by the provision are considered crimes under current law. By making the proposed changes, it may hamper the department's ability to aggressively enforce such crimes by establishing a prescribed approach to revocation. The department's administrative law judges should enforce penalties based on the crime at hand and not on a predetermined methodology.
While I support appropriate regulatory control over licensed professions and as such, the effect of this veto is to remove two provisions from a larger, more comprehensive regulatory change to the Chiropractic Examining Board. Intact are examination requirements, the duty to refer a client to a physician when the client's condition cannot be treated by chiropractic means, the newly created certification for chiropractic technicians and chiropractic radiological technicians and finally, continuing education requirements for professions licensed under the Chiropractic Examining Board.
17.
Regulation and Licensing Credential Fees
A318
Sections
2478c, 2994a, 2994b, 2994c, 2994d, 2994e, 2994f, 2994g, 2994h, 2994i, 2994j, 2994k, 2994L, 2994m, 2994mg, 2994mh, 2994mi, 2994mj, 2994mk, 2994mn, 2994mnag [as it relates to the fee], 2994mnar [as it relates to the fee], 2994mnb, 2994mnf, 2994mnk [as it relates to the fees], 2994mnp, 2994mns [as it relates to the fee], 2994mnw, 2994mp [as it relates to the fees], 2994mr [as it relates to the fee], 2994mu [as it relates to the fees], 2994mx, 2994ng [as it relates to the fee], 2994nr, 2994o, 2994p, 2995ca, 2995cb, 2995cc, 2995cd, 2995ce, 2995cf, 2995cg, 2995ch, 2995ci, 2995cj, 2995ck, 2995cL, 2995cm, 2995cn, 2995co, 2995cp, 2995cq, 2995cr, 2995cs, 2995ct, 2995cu, 2995cv, 2995cw, 2995cx, 2995cz, 2995d, 2995dg, 2995dr, 2995e, 2995eg, 2995er, 2995f, 2995fg, 2995fr, 2995g, 2995gg, 2995gr, 2995h, 2995hg, 2995hr, 2995i, 2995iam, 2995ih, 2995j, 2995jg, 2995jr, 2995k, 2995kg, 2995kr, 2995L, 2995Lg, 2995Lr, 2995m, 2995mg, 2995mr, 2995n, 2995ng, 2995nr, 2995o, 2995og, 2995or, 2995p, 2995pg, 2995pr, 2995q, 2995qg, 2995qr, 2995r, 2995rg, 2995rr, 2995s, 2995sg, 2995sr, 2995t, 2995tg, 2995tr, 2996f, 2996fm, 2996fn, 2996fo, 2996fp, 2996fq, 2996g, 2996h, 2996i, 2996j, 2996k, 9142 (2u) and 9442 (1q)
This provision requires all initial and renewal fees paid by credential holders licensed by the Department of Regulation and Licensing to be set by statute and that all fees are based on time keeping data collected by the department.
I am vetoing this provision because the current law process already meets the spirit of the provision. Current law requires that initial and renewal fees set by the department are based on time keeping data and are submitted to the Joint Committee on Finance under 14-day passive review. I object to this provision because setting the fees in statute limits the department's ability to react in a timely manner to changes in the industries it regulates.
TOURISM
18.
Grants to Municipalities and Organizations for Regional Tourist Information Centers
Section 817m
This provision defines the applicants, grant eligibility requirements, application and written agreement requirements, and limitations that the Department of Tourism and applicants must adhere to in administering the grants to regional tourist information centers.
I am partially vetoing the application and written agreement requirements, and the limitations of this provision because I object to overburdening municipalities and organizations applying for these funds. This partial veto streamlines the grant process, while ensuring proper oversight of the grant funds.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
19.
Milwaukee Area Workforce Investment Board
Sections 176 and 516v create a new GPR appropriation, and section 9156 (2q) requires the Department of Workforce Development to provide a grant of $2,000,000 during the 2009-11 biennium from that new appropriation to the Milwaukee Area Workforce Investment Board, provided that the city of Milwaukee also provides a grant of $1,500,000 to the board.
The intent of this provision as adopted by the State Assembly, was to provide $1,500,000 all funds from the state, matched by $1,500,000 from the city of Milwaukee. To return to the intent of the amendment, I am lining out the new appropriation and writing in a smaller amount, deleting $1,500,000 GPR over the biennium and am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. I am also partially vetoing the language under section 9156 (2q) to remove the amount of the grant required by the Department of Workforce Development and to reduce the amount of the grant required by the city of Milwaukee to equal $500,000, the same amount to be provided by the department. Furthermore, I am requesting that the Department of Workforce Development secretary identify federal recovery funds available to assist the board and allocate appropriate federal resources to the board. Finally, I am partially vetoing section 516v to correct a drafting error. The cross reference to section 9156 (2w) is incorrect and should instead refer to section 9156 (2q), as (2w) does not exist.
20.
Apprenticeship Program Accountability
This section requires employers to submit monthly electronic reports on the daily number of employees in trades that are apprenticeable, the daily number of apprentices employed on the project, including characteristics and number of hours worked, to the Department of Workforce Development. The department is required to post on its Internet site a running summary of those reports. The department is also required to grant an employer a grace period for submitting reports and if the employer exceeds the grace period, the employer must forfeit $1,000 for each day by which the period is exceeded. The department is further required to distribute to all state agencies a list of all persons who have exceeded the grace period in the preceding three years, precluding the state agency from awarding any contract to persons on the list. The section requires any person submitting a bid on a project subject to this section to identify any business interest during the preceding three years that had been found to have violated the report filing requirements.
A319
I am partially vetoing the section as it relates to apprenticeship report and debarment requirements because they are too burdensome. This partial veto eliminates potential barriers to the employment of apprentices. The employment of apprentices on state public works projects is important and exceptions to this requirement should only be made for good cause. As such, I am maintaining the provision requiring that if the department grants an exception or modification to any requirement in any contract for the performance of work on a project relating to the employment and training of apprentices, the department must post that information on its Internet site, together with a detailed explanation of why the exception or modification was granted.
21.
Listing Deductions from Wages
Section 2186f
This provision provides the Department of Workforce Development with the capacity to order an employer that fails to clearly list deductions from wages, to pay the employee, as liquidated damages, not less than $50 or more than $500 for each violation.
I am vetoing this provision because current law provides sufficient protections regarding the listing of deductions from wages.
22.
Nursing Survey and Allocation to a Nursing Center
Section 2207t
This provision requires the Department of Workforce Development to develop and submit to the Department of Regulation and Licensing, a nursing survey to collect supply and demand side data related to the nursing profession. To fund the survey, the Department of Regulation and Licensing is required to assess a $4 surcharge on all nursing credential fees and to transfer to the Department of Workforce Development all surcharge revenues, less the administrative expenses of the Department of Regulation and Licensing.
Further, the provision requires the Department of Workforce Development to expend 12 percent of the revenues received by the department on administering the survey and to grant 88 percent of the revenues to a statewide nursing center to develop strategies to ensure that there is an adequate nursing workforce. The department must submit the survey to the Department of Regulation and Licensing by October 1 of each odd-numbered year.
I am partially vetoing this provision to delete the date by which the survey must be submitted to the Department of Regulation and Licensing. The effect of this veto is to align the survey submission deadline with the licensing timelines at the Department of Regulation and Licensing.
23.
Prevailing Wage
Sections 1478v [as it relates to the prevailing wage law], 1479p, 1479r, 1479t, 1480c, 1480e, 1484f, 1484h, 1487, 2187f, 2187h, 2187j, 2188e, 2188g, 2188h, 2192f, 9156 (1d), 9356 (5f) and 9456 (1x)
Sections 1478v and 2188e expand the definitions of state agency and local governmental unit, respectively, to include a (state or local) public body and corporate created by constitution, statute, ordinance (in the case of a local government unit), rule or order. I am partially vetoing this provision to remove references to state or local public body and corporate created by constitution, statute, ordinance (in the case of local government unit), rule or order because this language is overly broad. The definitions of state agency and local government unit under current law are sufficient for purposes of the modifications to the prevailing wage law included in the bill. My veto retains the inclusion of regional transit authorities under the definition of local government unit.
Sections 1479p, 1479r, 1480c, 1480e, 1487, 2187f, 2187h, 2188g, 2188h, 9156 (1d) and 9456 (1x) add the improvement of any project of public works as it pertains to prevailing wage law. I am vetoing sections 1479p, 1479r, 1480e, 2187f and 2187h and partially vetoing sections 1480c, 1480e, 1487, 2188g, 2188h, 9156 (1d) and 9456 (1x), as they relate to improvements, because these provisions are redundant and unnecessary due to other provisions in the bill and in current law.
Sections 1479t and 2187j add a definition of project of public works. I am vetoing these sections because the definition is unnecessary. Projects as they pertain to public works and the prevailing wage law are already defined in administrative rule.
Section
1480e deletes the reference to local governments making contracts by "direct negotiation." I am vetoing this section, as it relates to direct negotiations, and maintaining current law because negotiation of public works projects should be direct and transparent.
Sections 1484f, 1484h, 1487, 2192f and 9356 (5f) modify remedies under prevailing wage laws for municipal and state projects of public works and for publicly funded private construction projects. Specifically, the provisions for actions commenced after the end of any pay period specified by the Department of Workforce Development for the payment of liquidated damages, if the court finds that a contractor, subcontractor, or contractor's or subcontractor's agent failed to pay the prevailing wage or has paid less than 1.5 times the hourly basic rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of the prevailing wage hours of labor, the court must order the contractor, subcontractor, or contractor's or subcontractor's agent to pay the affected employee the amount of his or her unpaid wages or unpaid overtime compensation and an additional amount equal to 200 percent of the amount of those unpaid wages or that unpaid overtime compensation as liquidated damages. I am vetoing section 1484h and partially vetoing sections 1484f, 1487, 2192f and 9356 (5f) [as they relate to the remedy of liquidated damages] to remove the provisions that would require a court to order liquidated damages of 200 percent of unpaid wages and overtime because this amount is excessive. Provisions in the bill and in current law provide sufficient penalties for failure to comply with prevailing wage laws.
A320Section 1487 [as it relates to s.
66.0904 (1) (i) 1. and
3.] excludes from the definition of publicly funded private construction project owner-occupied residential property that is supported by certain grants and residential property that contains no retail, office or commercial components, if the project is intended to increase the supply of affordable housing in a community. I am partially vetoing this section [as it relates to s.
66.0904 (1) (i) 1. and
3.] to expand the exemption for residential property supported by certain grants so that it need not be owner-occupied and that residential property intended to increase the supply of affordable housing in a community may contain retail, office or commercial components. I object to the narrow definition of the exemption and with this veto attempt to slightly expand it in support of affordable housing developments. This change is not intended to create a broad exemption to the new provisions in the prevailing wage law, but only to provide certain types of projects with critical public policy goals with greater flexibility.
Section 1487 [as it relates to s.
66.0904 (3) (a) 2. and
(b)] provides that certain laborers, workers, mechanics and truck drivers that are employed in the manufacturing of materials on the site of a publicly funded private construction project or to transport materials are covered under publicly funded private construction projects subject to prevailing wage. I am partially vetoing this section [as it relates to s.
66.0904 (3) (a) 2. and
(b)] to exclude these workers from these provisions. These are important issues and I recognize the concerns surrounding the application of prevailing wage to publicly funded private construction projects. The issue of whether certain workers should be covered under prevailing wage law requires more review. I therefore suggest that the Legislature pursue appropriate remedial legislation after further study. I am also requesting the secretary of the Department of Workforce Development ensure that this provision is appropriately implemented.
Section 1487 [as it relates to s.
66.0904 (6)] provides exemptions for publicly funded private construction projects if a local ordinance or other local governmental provision results in standards as high or higher than those established under this section. I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the phrase "resulting in standards" to ensure that the intent of the provision is clear. Local ordinances that in totality are as high or higher than standards set in the prevailing wage law shall apply. I am requesting the secretary of the Department of Workforce Development ensure that this provision is properly implemented.
Section 1487 [as it relates to s.
66.0904 (9) (b) 1.] provides that any contractor, subcontractor, or contractor's or subcontractor's agent may be fined not more than $200 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months or both for violations under this section. I am partially vetoing this section [as it relates to s.
66.0904 (9) (b) 1.] to remove the imprisonment provision as it is unduly harsh and unnecessary given other penalty provisions under current law and the bill.
I remain supportive of ensuring fair wages in projects that receive direct public monies. Many of the prevailing wage provisions in this bill make great strides toward that goal. However, some of the provisions were unclear or did not strike a balance between fair wages and prudent application of the prevailing wage law. My vetoes attempt to maintain some of that balance.
I fully expect that remedial legislation may be needed to clarify the prevailing wage law and urge the Legislature to take up this matter over the next few months.
D.
HEALTH SERVICES AND INSURANCE
HEALTH SERVICES
1.
Milwaukee Health Services Grant
This section provides a one-time grant of $600,000 to Milwaukee Health Services for dental services and equipment at a clinic with an address in ZIP code 53218.
By lining out the appropriation under s.
20.435 (1) (dj) and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $400,000 in fiscal year 2009-10, I am vetoing part of the additional GPR that was added by the Legislature and am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. Although I strongly support increasing access to dental services, current economic and fiscal conditions limit the amount of funding that can be provided in this budget.
2.
Restriction on the Use of Vital Records Fee Revenue
Sections 327 and 327d
These sections restrict the use of vital records fee revenue to specified allocations and activities related to the vital records automation project, including master lease payments.
I am partially vetoing these sections because I object to this limitation on the Department of Health Service's ability to determine the appropriate use of revenues and prioritize expenditures within current law restrictions. The department's priority is to use vital records revenues to fund the automation project and vital records preservation activities; however, in instances of public health or other emergencies, the department must have the flexibility to use excess, unanticipated revenues for emergency responses.
3.
Family Care Expansion, Langlade County
Section 9122 (4q)
This provision requires the Department of Health Services to begin offering aging and disability resource center services in May 2010 and managed care organization benefits in July 2010 in Langlade County, through the expansion of the Family Care program.
A321
I am vetoing this provision to remove the specified deadlines because the provision does not ensure that certification standards are adequately met prior to implementation of Family Care. Family Care managed care organizations must meet standard programmatic and fiscal certification requirements which are designed to ensure high-quality and appropriate care to members. If no organization meets the criteria, Family Care expansion cannot begin on the specified date. It is my intent that the Department of Health Services begin offering aging and disability resource services in May 2010 and Family Care managed care organization benefits in July 2010 in Langlade County; however, this veto allows for necessary flexibility if the department determines that no organization meets the programmatic and fiscal requirements to become a Family Care managed care organization.
4.
ICF-MR Preservation Study
Section 9122 (7i)
This provision requires the Department of Health Services to appoint a committee to study the need for and preservation of remaining intermediate care facilities for the mentally retarded (ICF-MR) in the state and submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance by December 1, 2009.
I am partially vetoing this provision because the identified study is too narrowly focused since ICF-MRs represent only one care setting among the many available to individuals with developmental disabilities, the creation of a task force is not the most efficient method of studying the long-term care system and the reporting deadline is too aggressive. I support the goal of studying the future system of long-term care supports and services for individuals with developmental disabilities and therefore, I am retaining the language requiring the department to study and report to the Joint Committee on Finance. I am directing the department to report the results of a comprehensive assessment of the future needs of people with developmental disabilities for long-term care system services, including best practices adopted by other states.
5.
Marquette Dental School and Dental Services
This section restores funding for dental services grants made by the Department of Health Services to Marquette University School of Dentistry to provide dental care in areas of the state and to populations that are currently underserved. In addition, these grants support a fluoride and school-based dental sealant program, including funding to technical college district boards to provide oral health services.
By lining out the appropriation under s.
20.435 (1) (de) and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $171,800 in fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11, I am vetoing the additional GPR that was added by the Legislature and am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. Although I strongly support the provision of dental services in underserved areas, current economic and fiscal conditions require that all agencies must absorb reductions in their budgets.
6.
Oversight of Medicaid Savings Plan
Section 9122 (11q)
