These provisions permit private schools in an eligible school district under s. 118.60 (1) (am) or a first class city school district to accept pupils under the expanded parental choice program, and provide that these pupils would not count toward the limitations of 500 pupils in the 2013-14 school year and 1,000 pupils in the 2014-15 school year in the expanded program. I am partially vetoing section 1844e because I believe the caps included in this section should represent the total number of students allowed into a parental choice program expansion. Permitting private schools in some districts to accept pupils outside of the cap is beyond the scope of the expansion and may have unintended consequences. I am requesting that the Legislature evaluate the need for further legislation to accomplish the intent of the expansion.
I am also partially vetoing sections 1848d and 1848h to eliminate language that becomes inconsistent as a result of the partial veto of 1844e; if private schools are not eligible to accept pupils outside of the caps, no notifications under sections 1848d and 1848h are necessary.
7. Notification by the Department of Public Instruction of Accreditation Status
Sections 1857e and 1876dL
These provisions require the Department of Public Instruction to notify a private school participating in a parental choice program that the department has received and approved the school's accreditation status, which is required to be demonstrated annually under section 1856w of the bill.
I am partially vetoing these provisions because they require the department to approve accreditation status that is issued by certain third-party entities. The department is not in a position to issue such an approval.
8. Notification by the Department of Public Instruction of Acceptance Status of Parental Choice Program Applicants
Sections 1848d [as it relates to notification requirements contained in s. 118.60 (3) (ag) 7.] and 1848h [as it relates to notification requirements contained in s. 118.60 (3) (ar) 7.] These provisions specify that private schools participating in a parental choice program in the 2012-13 school year (through the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) or Racine Unified School District (RUSD) programs) may not be selected under the parental choice program expansion as one of 25 schools that is allocated 10 seats under the expansion if pupil applications exceed the statewide cap in either 2013-14 or 2014-15.
I am partially vetoing these provisions because they are inconsistent with the pupil participation limit of one percent for any school district other than MPS or RUSD. These provisions indicate that the Department of Public Instruction would be required to notify private schools participating in a parental choice program in the 2012-13 school year that they may accept all applications of pupils from other districts, when in fact the number of pupil applications may exceed one percent of the district's enrollment. This partial veto eliminates the requirement that the department notify private schools participating in a parental choice program in 2012-13 that all applications may be accepted.
9. Segregated Fee Freeze
Section 9148 (4n) (title) and (b)
This section requires the Board of Regents to ensure that the allocable portion of segregated fees charged to students enrolled in a University of Wisconsin System institution or college campus in academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15 not exceed the segregated fees charged to students in the 2012-13 academic year.
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to freezing the portion of segregated fee rates allocated by students to support student-led activities and services. I support vesting responsibility for the disposition of fees that support student activities with the students at each University of Wisconsin institution or college campus. As a result of this veto, the portion of segregated fees allocated by students may increase, if approved by students, in academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15 over the amount charged in the 2012-13 academic year.
10. Differential Tuition Freeze
Section 9148 (4n) (a) 2.
This section prevents the Board of Regents from increasing resident undergraduate tuition in academic years 2013-14 and 2014-15 over the amount charged in academic year 2012-13, with the exception of differential tuition approved by the Board of Regents before June 1, 2011.
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to allowing differential tuition to increase over the amount charged in academic year 2012-13. I support the goal of keeping higher education affordable for Wisconsin resident undergraduate students. As a result of this partial veto, differential tuitions must remain at or below the amounts charged in academic year 2012-13.
11. Performance Funding Formula
Section 646 [as it relates to each fiscal year after fiscal year 2016-17]
This section specifies that the percentage of state aid distributed by the Technical College System Board under the performance funding formula created under s. 38.28 (2) (be) would be 10 percent of total state aid in fiscal year 2014-15, 20 percent of total state aid in fiscal year 2015-16 and 30 percent of total state aid in fiscal year 2016-17 and every year thereafter. I am partially vetoing this section because I object to an arbitrary cap on the percentage of state aid distributed through the performance funding formula. I support a gradual transition from the equalization formula to a formula based on each technical college district's performance on key state priorities by increasing the percentage of state aid distributed through the performance funding formula by 10 percent each year and decreasing the percentage of state aid distributed through the general aid formula by the same amount. As a result of this veto, the portion of state funding distributed through the performance funding formula would revert to zero in fiscal year 2017-18. I intend to address the continued transition to a performance funding formula for fiscal year 2017-18 and beyond in my next biennial budget proposal.
D. Reforming Government
12. Conversion of Farmland Preservation Credit to Grant
Sections 200 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (4) (cm)], 202u, 1277g, 1434t, 1437e, 1440cm, 1587p, 1587pb, 1587pc, 1587pd, 1587q, 1587r, 1587s, 1587t, 1587u, 1587v, 1587w and 9137 (2L) These provisions convert the per acre farmland preservation credit program (generally the form of the credit available for agreements entered into after July 1, 2009) from a tax credit to a grant program administered by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection beginning with tax years starting on or after January 1, 2014, and authorize the Department of Administration to transfer position authority from the Department of Revenue to the department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection for the purpose of administering the program.
I am vetoing sections 202u, 1277g, 1434t, 1437e, 1440cm, 1587p, 1587pb, 1587pc, 1587pd, 1587q, 1587r, 1587s, 1587t, 1587u, 1587v and 1587w because I object to the possible confusion and duplicative effort the conversion of the credit will have for claimants. Because the grant program would be separated from the tax form on which farmland preservation claimants have typically claimed farmland preservation credits, these provisions will require separate, and likely duplicative, documentation by claimants. Additionally, the conversion of the credit into a grant program will increase costs borne by state agencies by adding to their administrative responsibilities related to the program. I support efforts to simplify the tax code, but those efforts cannot be made at the expense of greater burdens on beneficiaries of state programs or at the expense of programmatic efficiency. However, I believe that this issue should be reviewed in the future to determine whether a conversion of the program would be in the best interests of claimants and taxpayers at large (including modifications to the "old" version of the credit for earlier farmland preservation agreements that would remain on the tax forms
under the bill).
In addition, I am partially vetoing section 200 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (4) (cm)] to remove the appropriation created under the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection for the purpose of paying farmland preservation grants. The effect of this partial veto, in conjunction with other veto actions, is to retain the farmland preservation credit program as a tax credit. As a result of these actions, the estimated $20,900,000 GPR that would have been expended through the appropriation under s. 20.115 (4) (cm) in fiscal year 2014-15 will instead be expended under the sum sufficient appropriation under s. 20.835 (2) (do). Consequently, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to reestimate expenditures under s. 20.835 (2) (do) upward by this amount for fiscal year 2014-15 and to not allot the funds under the vetoed appropriation under s. 20.115 (4) (cm) for fiscal year 2014-15. This shift will have no impact on farmland preservation credit claimants. Finally, I am vetoing section 9137 (2L) to remove the authority of the Department of Administration to transfer position authority from the Department of Revenue to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection for the purpose of administering the grant program. Because the program will remain a tax credit program, this authority is unnecessary.
13. Grain Inspection Funding Transfer
Section 9102 (1e)
This provision requires the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to develop a plan to transfer, by December 31, 2013, an amount sufficient to eliminate the accumulated deficit in the department's grain inspection and certification program as of June 30, 2013. The department is required to submit the plan to the Joint Committee on Finance under a 14-day passive review no later than November 15, 2013.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the date by which the department must develop the plan as well as the provision that the Joint Committee on Finance review the plan under 14-day passive review because I object to the inflexibility and timing included in the language. Setting such strict deadlines will not allow the department to evaluate the impact of new inspection fees and the expansion of inspections and their impact on collections, which may result in unnecessary transfers from other account balances. Instead, I am directing the department to submit the plan to the Committee for information only and to make the transfer as soon as practicable based on the projected revenues in the program in fiscal year 2013-14.
14. Weights and Measures Program Contracting
Section 1593v
This provision allows for a municipality that is required to establish a weights and measures program to contract with a private weights and measures service provider to enforce the program requirements. A municipality may recover the contract costs by assessing fees on program participants.
While I am supportive of private enterprise and am interested in further examination of this idea, I am vetoing this provision because it lacks sufficient detail about how it would be implemented and what the standards and requirements would be for private entities that would provide this service. Provision of these services must be effective and fair to all parties involved.
15. Tank and Petroleum Testing Plan Review
Section 9138 (3) (b)
This provision relates to the transfer from the Department of Safety and Professional Services to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection all incumbent employees determined to relate to the storage, use and handling of flammable or combustible liquids or federally regulated hazardous substances. The provision also requires that two of the positions transferred must be employees whose duties include reviewing plans and petitions for variances relating to the storage, handling and use of flammable or combustible liquids or federally regulated hazardous substances.
I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate the requirement that two of the transferred employees would be responsible for the tank plan review and petition for variance function. I object to this provision because it does not provide the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection the flexibility to staff the program as it determines to be most efficient and effective.
16. Self-Insurance for Health Care Liability Coverage
Sections 2267f and 2267g
These sections provide a definition of affiliated health care providers for the purpose of permitting controlling legal entities to provide self-insured health care liability coverage to health care providers employed by or affiliated with the controlling legal entity under a single plan.
I am vetoing these sections to remove the definition of affiliated health care providers because this language is overly broad and does not achieve the intent of the motion to limit the use of the definition to health care providers for the purposes of Chapter 655. I am directing the Commissioner of Insurance to provide a definition of affiliated health care providers by administrative rule to better achieve the intent of the motion and eliminate the ambiguity regarding the affiliated health care providers who are affected by this provision. 17. Termination and Dissolution of the Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan and Authority
Section 9122 (1L) (b) 7. a. and 8. a.
This section requires the Board of Directors of the Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan Authority to develop a proposal for the dispensation of the plan's cash assets after all financial obligations of the plan and authority are satisfied, and requires the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance to follow the proposal in dispensing of the assets. To the extent feasible and practical, the proposal shall return remaining assets to the sources from which they were derived or, if not feasible and practical, use the remaining assets in support of activities providing an indirect benefit to the insurers, providers and covered persons. Following the transfer of administrative responsibility for the dissolution of the plan, the Commissioner of Insurance shall take any action necessary to wind up the affairs of the plan and shall provide the final financial statements of the plan to the Legislative Audit Bureau.
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to the inflexibility of the requirement that the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance follow the proposal developed by the board for the dispensation of assets. Although I agree with the Legislature's intent to return remaining assets to the sources from which they were derived, the Commissioner of Insurance requires the flexibility to ensure that the plan for the dispensation of the assets is implemented in a manner that it is reasonable and compliant with the office's statutory and fiduciary duties; all applicable legal, administrative and regulatory requirements; and executive branch policy.
18. Tobacco Use Surcharge for State Employee Health Insurance
Sections 715, 731 and 9112 (2)
These sections require the Group Insurance Board to implement a tobacco use surcharge program for state employees and annuitants.
I am vetoing this entire provision because new federal guidance regarding wellness programs and tobacco use surcharges would make the program too onerous to administer and will likely only increase costs without achieving the goal of encouraging tobacco users to quit.
The tobacco use surcharge program was proposed before recent federal guidance was issued that limits how these types of programs can be designed and implemented. For example, in addition to waiving the surcharge for medical reasons, a reasonable alternative to paying the surcharge, such as participation in a tobacco cessation program, must be offered. Individuals do not necessarily have to stop using tobacco.
Given these and other federal restrictions, the state is unable to design the program in a way that will achieve the desired outcome of fewer people using tobacco products and still be cost-effective to administer.
