K. Agency contact person
L. Place where comments were to be submitted and deadline for submission
Written comments on the proposed rule were accepted and received consideration if they were received by Bill Pollard c/o Glen Mercier II by December 23, 2016. Written comments were to be addressed to: Glen Mercier II, at 3099 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 7925, Madison, WI, 53707-7925 or by e-mail: DOCDLAdministrativeRulesCommittee@wisconsin.gov SUBMISSION OF RULE TO THE PRISON INDUSTRIES BOARD. The department submitted the rule proposal to the Prison Industries Board for approval as required under s. 303.015 (1) (c), Stats. The Board approved the rule proposal on December 3, 2014. FISCAL ESTIMATE. See Attached.
ANY STATEMENT, SUGGESTED CHANGES, OR OTHER MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO THE AGENCY BY THE SBRRB.
N/A.
A COPY OF ANY ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE AGENCY.
See Attached.
A COPY OF ANY REVISED ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS PREPARED BY THE AGENCY.
N/A
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STAFF CLEARINGHOUSE REPORT:
See Attached.
STATEMENT OF THE BASIS AND PURPOSE OF THE RULE INCLUDING HOW THE RULE ADVANCES RELEVANT STATUTORY GOALS OR PURPOSES:
1. The department is seeking revision of ch. DOC 313 to reflect changes in law and correctional practice and to clarify provisions relating to prison industries. The last full review of the chapter occurred April 1, 1994. Since then there have been many changes in procedures and practices.
2. More details and a listing of significant changes can be found in the Plain Language Analysis Section of this document.
A SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS TO THE PROPOSED RULE AND THE AGENCY’S RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS, AND AN EXPLANATION OF ANY MODIFICATION MADE IN THE PROPOSED RULE AS A RESULT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS OR TESTIMONY RECEIVED AT A PUBLIC HEARING:
A. Summary of comments and the department’s response to those comments:
1. Concern expressed about compensation, claiming that compensation defeats goal of the rule.
Response: Rejected. The purpose of the rule is work experience rather than compensation. Also, that the compensation in the new proposed rule reflects that of what other inmates receive when not assigned work
2. Concern expressed about performance evaluations, requesting intervals to be defined further for such evaluations.
Response: Rejected. Department determined division policy or institution procedure will cover this issue and/or handbooks because it could vary department-wide.
3. Concern expressed about correctional farms and overtime.
Response: Rejected. The Department believes that compensation is properly addressed within the rule.
4. Concern expressed about understanding the rule and public hearing process.
Response: Rejected. The Department believes the rule is clear and that the
comment did not provide specific feedback related to the particular rule.
5. Concern expressed about paid leave and/or personal leave days.
Response: Rejected. The Department drafted the rule to be consistent with
other inmate pay and compensation. Moreover, the purpose of the rule is to
provide work experience.
B. Explanation of modifications made to the proposed rule in response to public comments received:
No modifications are made in response to public comments.
LIST OF PERSONS WHO APPREARED OR REGISTERED FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED RULE AT A PUBLIC HEARING.
A. Two public hearings were held on the rule:
Public Hearing Location 1 Public Hearing Location 2
December 5, 2016 December 12, 2016
10:15 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. 10:15 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.
1001 Maple Bluff Road, Conf Room 1 819 North 6th Street, Room 40
Stevens Point, WI 54482 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53203
List of persons who appeared or registered for or against the proposed rule at the public hearings:
In person:
No appearances on December 5, 2016, in Stevens Point.
Unknown Attendee, Public hearing held on December 12, 2016, in Madison.
Persons who submitted written comments:
Culen, Donna
Faber, Jason
EXPLANATION OF ANY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE RULE SUMMARY OR THE FISCAL ESTIMATE:
There were no changes to the rule summary or fiscal estimate.
RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CLEARINGHOUSE REPORT:
