1 East Main Street
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
Dear Mr. Sanders:
Enclosed is the biennial report of the Medical College of Wisconsin, prepared according to the statutory requirement under section 13.106. This report covers the period ending July 31, 1999, and contains information in the following areas:
* Minority student recruitment policies and programs, and the number of minority students enrolled
* Number and percentages of Wisconsin residents enrolled
* Average faculty salaries compared to national averages
* Development of cooperative educational programs with other institutions throughout the state
* Placement of graduates of doctor of medicine and residency training programs
* Cost of undergraduate medical education for fiscal years 1995/97
Please feel free to contact me at (414) 456-8217 if you have any questions or would like additional information.
Sincerely,
Donna K. Gissen
Assistant Vice President, Planning and Government Affairs
Referred to committee on Colleges and Universities.
__________________
Agency Reports
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
March 29, 2000
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
We have completed an evaluation of the Special Needs Adoption program, as requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The Department of Health and Family Services arranges adoptions for children determined to have special needs because of disability, age, ethnicity, or other factors that may make placement difficult.
Since we last reviewed this program, the Department has increased the number of children placed for adoption from 273 in fiscal year 1993-94 to 415 in calendar year 1998. However, because of changes in federal law that are designed to reduce the amount of time children spend in foster care, caseloads of children awaiting placement are likely to increase in the future.
The Department has used available federal funding to hire project staff, contract with private agencies for placement services, and contract for aggressive promotional efforts to attract adoptive families. These efforts are positive and may eventually increase placements. Nevertheless, our audit identified a number of program inefficiencies that continue to hamper prompt, appropriate placement of children and equitable treatment of families. For example, the Department's processes for evaluating potential adoptive families have not been applied consistently. Consequently, some families have been rejected while others have been approved despite receiving lower or identical scores. In addition, information about available qualified families and children in need of placement is not shared systematically among the Department's five regions to help speed placements.
Our report includes a number of recommendations to the Department for improving program management and increasing the efficiency with which children can leave foster care and be placed with families that meet the Department's standards.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the Department of Health and Family Services. The Department's response is Appendix IV.
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor
On Wednesday, March 29 (page 879 of the Assembly Journal), Representative Black rose to the point of order that Assembly substitute amendment 2 to Assembly Bill 941 was not properly before the Assembly.
Speaker Pro Tempore Freese ruled the point of order not well taken.
The full text of Speaker Pro Tempore Freese's ruling follows:
"The rules clearly indicate that by adding an appropriation it does not expand the scope of the bill. This is a germane amendment. That's very clear from this Chair's perspective, under the rules.
The Chair is prepared to rule on the point of order. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from the 77th gave me the heads up on this particular point of order to be raised so that I could do a little bit of research in order to be able to act on this in a relatively timely fashion. In checking with the previous Rulings of the Chair there is no clear case on this issue at all. There is no item where we refer to changing an appropriation into a tax exemption or taking a tax exemption and changing it into something else. There just isn't a case that has ever come before the Assembly that deals with this issue, so this will be precedent ruling on this particular issue. I did consult with Peter Dykman in trying to better understand exactly where we go with this matter. His memo to me dealt with the fact that there is no clear answer to your question regarding germaneness of an amendment adding a tax exemption to a new bill.
The gentleman from the 77th pointed to Section
13.52(6), which clearly, if the bill is introduced with a tax exemption in it, it is required to go to the Joint survey committee on Tax Exemptions and there must be a report before we can take it up for consideration. Nowhere in the bill do I find a tax exemption; therefore it is not bound by Section
13.52(6).
The gentleman pointed to Assembly Rule
54(1) which related to a different subject that would require a substantial change of the relating clause making it a different subject. When I look at both the sub and the amendment, there really are five words that differ between the sub and the amendment. For the most part the relating clause is the same. The amendment deals with financial assistance for an air carrier that operates from a hub facility, creating an airport financing committee, granting rule making authority and making an appropriation. The sub deals with a property tax exemption for an air carrier that operates from a hub facility, creating an airport financing committee, granting rule making authority and making an appropriation. So the key words here are property tax exemption versus financial assistance. There is no fiscal estimate prepared for the sub, nor is one required to be prepared for the sub, but clearly there is a fiscal estimate for the bill which results in $1.5 million.
The gentleman from the 77th also pointed to Assembly Rule
54(3)(f) dealing with expanding the scope of the bill. The sub relates to a property tax exemption and the amendment to financial assistance.
And finally, the gentleman from the 77th referred to a March 1986 ruling relating to a point of order dealing with a tax exemption bill for non-profits and then adding for-profit performing arts studios to the definition. I believe that clearly in this regard a specific group of people is defined and the point of order noted that the amendment expanded the definition to a much larger group of people. The March 1986 ruling is really not comparable from the standpoint that we're dealing with an air carrier that operates from a hub facility creating an airport finance committee and granting rule making authority. The criteria in this matter is the same in both the sub and the amendment. The March 1986 ruling dealt with two different categories and I believe we aren't comparing apples to apples.
The gentleman went on in his point of order to talk about the issue of same subject of air carriers operating from a hub facility, creating an airport financing committee and granting rule making authority. On that, it is the actual assistance being changed to a property tax exemption which I see as just a particularized detail. He compared to Assembly Rule
54(4)(b), an amendment which accomplishes the same purpose in a different manner.
I'm glad that the gentleman allowed me the opportunity to do a little bit of research beforehand. Unfortunately the research is not crystal clear. I would point out that there was a point of order raised regarding 1991 Assembly Bill 485. I had an opportunity to have Assembly Bill 485 messaged to me as well as the amendment that brought forth the point of order. The ruling was made by Speaker Pro Tempore David Clarenbach on a point of order dealing with Assembly Bill 485 offered by Representative Kunicki and Representative Prosser. The bill included language on tax exemptions, providing a property tax exemption, sales tax exemption, issuing bonds, economic development authority, and a whole series of items. An amendment offered by Representative Wineke would have added a new component dealing with the lease of sky boxes or private luxury boxes by professional sports teams, an item not touched upon in the original bill. The Speaker Pro Tempore at that point in time ruled that the point of order was not well taken. And that ruling, in and of itself, doesn't give us a clear direction on the matter raised by the gentleman from the 77th either. It does show that there are enough examples on both sides of the matter, but no clear controlling legal authority.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order raised by the gentleman from the 77th is not well taken. It is indeed an amendment that accomplishes the same purpose in a different manner. It's providing thereabouts $1.5 million in assistance to an air carrier that operates from a hub facility in Wisconsin. So I would make the ruling that the point of order is not well taken.
A922
When a member raises a point of order, they will use a variety of criteria in the point of order and I may not necessarily agree with all the criteria. You will have, from time to time, sections of the statutes that are clearly different as in the example I gave of 1991 Assembly Bill 485. The components that were being added dealt with the lease of sky boxes or private luxury boxes -- a whole series of different statutes. Now you might have a bill that deals specifically with personal care and it deals with all of those relating issues and then an amendment that would add abortion but does not include a personal care component which goes into a whole different set of statutes. That would be a substantial expansion of the scope of the bill because it doesn't conform with the same statutes, or even the same subject matter. But there will be times-it is this Chair's opinion-and there's ample precedent that has been established, that by simply changing and going into a different section of statutes does not preclude an amendment from being germane. It's just a different area of the statutes. It will be unclear and it will really be based on the actual amendment in the bill that will be before us as to whether it will be germane or not germane based on the subject matter of the statutes. We are able now with new technology to determine whether or not the statutes relate or not with just a click of the computer mouse."
__________________
Representative M. Lehman moved that the Assembly stand adjourned until 10:00 A.M. on Thursday, April 13.
The question was: Shall the Assembly stand adjourned?
Motion carried.
The Assembly stood adjourned.
12:26 P.M.
