Madison, Wisconsin
Appearances at the Hearing:
Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Administrative Rules, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708. Written comments must be received by April 25, 2001 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Analysis prepared by the Department of Regulation and Licensing
Statutes authorizing promulgation: ss. 15.08 (5) (b), 137.06 and 227.11 (2), Stats.
Statute interpreted: s. 443.17, Stats.
The current rules of the Examining Board of Architects, Landscape Architects, Professional Engineers, Designers and Land Surveyors require all registration seals or stamps affixed to drawings and specifications to be filed as public documents to be original seals or stamps. This proposed rule-making order will authorize registrants to use electronic signatures, to include use of registration seals or stamps, when submitting drawings and specifications as public documents, as permitted by the government unit receiving the drawings and specifications. This proposed change will enhance the options consistent with available technology and need a more efficient means to submit original documents required as public records. This proposed rule will create s. A-E 2.02 (7) to include reference to affixing a seal or stamp to specifications as well as drawings to be filed as original documents. The rule also clarifies which authority a registrant must follow when using electronic signatures.
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. A-E 2.02 (7) is repealed and recreated to read:
A-E 2.02 (7) (a) All seals or stamps affixed to drawings and specifications to be filed as public documents shall be original. No stickers or electronically scanned images shall be allowed.
(b) All seals and stamps on drawings and specifications to be filed as public documents shall be signed and dated by the registered professional as follows:
1. In a permanent ink contrasting with the seal and the background; or,
2. Utilizing an electronic signature meeting the requirements of s. 137.06, Stats., if permitted by the governmental unit that is to receive the drawings and specifications.
(c) If other standards for signatures or seals are prescribed by statute, the statutes shall govern.
Fiscal Estimate
1. The anticipated fiscal effect on the fiscal liability and revenues of any local unit of government of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
2. The projected anticipated state fiscal effect during the current biennium of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
3. The projected net annualized fiscal impact on state funds of the proposed rule is: $0.00.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
These proposed rules will be reviewed by the department through its Small Business Review Advisory Committee to determine whether there will be an economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, as defined in s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Copies of Rule and Contact Person
Copies of this proposed rule are available without cost upon request to: Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Administrative Rules, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 171, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708 (608) 266-0495.
Notice of Hearings
Corrections
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 227.11 (2) (a), 302.07, 302.08, 302.11 (2) and 302.04, Stats., the department of corrections proposes the following rule relating to classification, assessment and evaluation and program review.
Hearing information:
Date & Time Location
April 17, 2001 Room 041
Tuesday State Office Building, GEF III
11:00 A.M. 125 S. Webster
Madison, Wisconsin
April 18, 2001 Room 120
Wednesday State Office Building
10:00 a.m. 141 N.W. Barstow Street
Waukesha, Wisconsin
April 19, 2001 Room 136
Thursday State Office Building
11:00 A.M. 1681 2nd Avenue South
Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin
The public hearing sites are accessible to people with disabilities.
Proposed Order of the Department of Corrections Repealing and Recreating rules
The Wisconsin department of corrections proposes an order to repeal ss. DOC 302.01-302.20, and create ss. DOC 302.01-302.205, relating to classification, assessment and evaluation, and program review.
Analysis by the Department of Corrections
Statutory authority: ss. 301.02, 301.03 (2), 302.07 and 227.11 (2), Stats.
Statutes interpreted: ss. 301.046, 301.048, 302.045, 302.055, 302.07, 302.08, 302.15, 302.18, 302.27, 303.065 and 303.068, Stats.
After more than 20 years of experience with the rules related to classification, assessment and evaluation, and program review, the Department of Corrections proposes to update the rules.
Need for Revision
The need for these changes cannot be overstated. The current rule was written and enacted at a time when the classification unit was a part of the adult institution system and at a time when the entire adult institution population represented fewer than 4,500 inmates. That system included all maximum, medium and minimum security facilities. Personnel staffing committees and reviewing recommendations came from within the system and did not permit independent review or decision making. Often, conflicting program and custody decisions were settled by the same staff member affected by the outcome.
Chapter DOC 302 governs inmate classification, assessment and evaluation, and program review at state correctional institutions. As technology, science, population and government evolve over time, practices must adapt to those changes. We ultimately grow wiser and more efficient based on new knowledge and procedures. What was thought routine, necessary or even effective correctional practice in 1980 may not be accurate today.
For example, our prison population has grown from 1,930 in 1976 to more than 20,600 currently. This enormous increase in prisoners, along with their increased level of sophistication, has placed a greater burden on correctional staff. In many ways, Wardens and staff no longer enjoy the luxury of time that once afforded them the ability to maneuver bureaucratic requirements. The situations encountered and decisions that are made are infinitely different from those of 20 years ago when the current rule was promulgated.
While addressing the needs of the Department, including internal restructuring and reorganization, this rule change also retains and strengthens inmate involvement in the classification processes including the assignment of custody, program and placement. In general, the processes are streamlined, require fewer mandatory reviews, and provide options for dealing with emergencies and situations when the offender is not accessible.
Background
This rule provides the Department a process for determining custody classification, program or treatment assignment, and transfer decisions concerning inmates. The Department uses classification to regulate the level of supervision and movement of inmates within and outside of an institution.
Assessment and Evaluation provides the Department a process for conducting the initial assessment on risk, criminal and social background, sentence structure, academic and vocational requirements; conducting certain kinds of evaluations; determining custody classification; assessing the motivation of an inmate; and formulating an individualized plan to coordinate custody classification and recommended programs for an inmate on arrival to the Department.
Program Review provides the Department an ongoing process for review of the custody, program and treatment assignments and placement.
Definitions
This rule makes only the following definition change: “Security Classification" is changed to “Custody Classification."
This rule also changes “minimum security-community residential confinement (CRC)" to “community" custody.
Custody Classification
Unlike the current rule, this rule clearly establishes that custody classification is defined by an inmate's level of risk. This rule specifically provides that custody classification function is to regulate the supervision and movement of inmates among institutions and between institutions and community programs and is defined by the risk associate with any of the following:
Assaultive or predatory behavior;
Escape, walk-away, or absconding;
Misconduct;
Disruption to the orderly processes of an institution;
Participation and progress in program or treatment;
Adjustment and history under community supervision; and
Pending legal processes.
The higher the risk, the higher the inmate's overall custody level. Custody level is evaluated using a minimum of 14 different factors that summarize an offender's history as best possible. This includes the use of an objective risk rating system. This rule also adds community concerns relating to an offender's risk as one of the factors considered when determining custody classification. This rule also allows parole commission actions and stated expectations such as the likelihood of release during review period to be considered as factors in assigning a custody classification
This rule establishes that program consideration is a right that offenders have if certain prerequisites are met and space is available. The rule clarifies that no offender can be forced into programming and that program refusal may have an impact on custody classification.
This rule condenses the current six custody classifications into five by combining “maximum security close" and “maximum security-general" to create “maximum."
For each custody level, this rule requires certain levels of monitoring relating to conduct, behavior and activities and removes restrictions in the current rule regarding inmate supervision, movement and programs. This change helps to more clearly separate institutional issues from classification issues. It is the institution's responsibility to determine housing, supervision and movement methods and policies. Classification is responsible for designating the level of custody.
Specifically, this rule provides that community custody requires limited monitoring of conduct, behavior and activities and removes restrictions regarding residence, placement, purpose, allowing more flexibility within the custody classification. Provides that community custody is used for the following inmates who are in the community without Department of Corrections escort:
Work or study release;
Off-grounds projects under supervision of non-correctional staff;
Driving institution vehicles;
Leave for qualified inmates;
Community residential confinement;
Intensive sanctions; and
Other programs which the department may establish.
This rule also guarantees that an inmate's custody classification shall be no greater than the institution's designated security classification except for pending transfers, declared emergencies or disturbances.
This rule removes the 10 year old chart of institutions and their designated classifications because this information is continually changing due to new or altered institutions within the system.
This rule applies a consistent procedure for custody classification at the conclusion of A & E and deletes language distinguishing procedures at Waupun, Green Bay and Taycheedah.
Life Sentences
This rule simplifies the process for determining minimum custody eligibility for inmates serving life sentences. Offenders with life sentences are no longer designated as one of four life categories. The current rule divides life sentence inmates into four categories based on various factors surrounding the nature of the crime, the inmate and the victim. This process is tedious, difficult, and uncertain at best. This new rule will simplify that process and treat all inmates according to the same standards for determining eligibility for minimum custody. Inmates serving a life sentence who have reached the parole eligibility date will now be treated with the same procedures used for all other inmates.
This rule provides that an inmate serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole is not eligible for minimum or community custody classification.
Assessment and Evaluation
Requires that the A & E process be done as “expeditiously as possible" and removes the arbitrary timeframe of 6 weeks after arrival. Obtaining certain information, such as sentencing transcripts and Pre-Sentence Investigation reports, often takes longer than six weeks. Without this change, inmates that do not have these necessary documents would have to be staffed and transferred. When these documents become available, the PRCs would need to conduct an early recall to consider the information. It is more efficient to permit the A & E process to complete the review even though it may take longer than the currently prescribed six week time period.
This rule extends the time period to no more than 12 months for A&E review. This will reduce the number of frivolous reviews and enable staff to set recall dates to correspond to significant changes in offender plans.
