State of Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection
Madison
May 25, 2000
To the Honorable, the Assembly:
Enclosed is a copy of the Bottled Drinking Water report published by the Division of Food Safety, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
This booklet contains results of lab tests from bottled water samples taken during Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000. This report is mandated by Wisconsin Statutes, Chapter 97.34 (2) (e).
Please let me know if you need additional copies, (608) 224-4721 or (608) 224-4710 fax.
Sincerely,
Laura Berkner Murphy
Food Labeling Specialist
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Fiscal Bureau
Department of Administration
Madison
June 9, 2000
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
Attached is a copy of a consultant's report regarding reengineering of the State of Wisconsin's budget system. This study was conducted by the consulting firm of Arthur Andersen LLP, under the joint direction of the Department of Administration and the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
In September, 1998, the Joint Committee on Finance released funding for a study related to the redesign of the state budget system and approved the parameters for the study. The goals of the study were to: (a) verify the core data and information needs of executive and legislative branch participants in budget development and implementation; (b) document how or if these needs are being addressed by agency and statewide procedures and systems; (c) assess the advantages and limitations of the current budget system; and (d) outline small- and large-scale modifications ("reengineering") to the current budget system, including the costs of these changes, that could deliver specified benefits.
In preparing the report, Arthur Andersen documented the existing budget process by conducting workshops with state agencies, the State Budget Office and the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, identifying advantages and limitations of the current system as a result of the workshops and evaluating the data it gathered in comparison to three other states and its proprietary database. The final report identifies two broad areas for improvement: (1) the budget information system; and (2) certain budget processes. The report identifies potential modifications for the State to consider including the development of an information systems plan related to the budget, possible alternative budget systems the State may wish to further investigate, areas of improved communications in the budget process and other specific information systems and budget process changes. An executive summary of the report is provided on pages 3 to 15, with the specific recommendations outlined on pages 10 to 14 of that summary.
The State Budget Office has already begun steps to implement some of the shorter-term recommendations (such as improving the budget file maintenance process and improving communications with state agencies). Further, the State Budget Office and the Legislative Fiscal Bureau will have further discussions regarding the feasibility of, and possible timetable for, implementation of other recommendations included in the report.
We would like to thank Arthur Andersen for their work in conducting the study and preparing the report. If you have questions about the report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
Robert Wm. Lang, Director
Legislative Fiscal Bureau
Richard G. Chandler
State Budget Director
Department of Administration
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
June 12, 2000
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
As required by s.
13.94(1)(em), Wis. Stats., we have completed our annual financial audit of the Wisconsin Lottery, which is administered by the Department of Revenue. We have issued an unqualified opinion on the Wisconsin Lottery's fiscal year (FY) 1998-99 and FY 1997-98 financial statements.
A974
Total lottery sales increased from $418.6 million in FY 1997-98 to nearly $428.2 million in FY 1998-99. This increase, which is the first since FY 1994-95, is due largely to several large on-line jackpots. For example, in July 1998, the Powerball jackpot reached a record amount of $295.7 million. Sales of instant ticket lottery games, however, continued a four-year decline from $252.9 million in FY 1997-98 to $230.8 million in FY 1998-99.
During our audit, we identified a concern related to payment of liquidated damages. In June 1997, GTECH Corporation implemented a new computer system to support the Lottery's instant ticket and on-line games. Between June 1997 and April 1999, GTECH Corporation experienced significant complications with the system and the Lottery assessed liquidated damages totaling $2.53 million. GTECH has already paid the Lottery $235,200 in the form of sales credits on its monthly invoices. Recently, the Lottery and GTECH have agreed to a tentative settlement of $750,000, including $500,000 in cash, to resolve the outstanding balance due. The remaining $250,000 will be received in the form of goods and services, which GTECH may contract with any vendor to provide. To ensure sufficient legislative and budgetary oversight of the tentative $750,000 settlement, we recommend that the Lottery report to the Legislature on its plans for these funds.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the Department of Revenue. The Department's response is the appendix.
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
Madison
June 20, 2000
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
We have completed a review of the use of hearing officers in Wisconsin state government, as requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. We estimate that in fiscal year (FY) 1998-99, the State spent an estimated $17.3 million and employed 206.1 full-time equivalent employes-including 103.3 hearing officers-to conduct hearings and resolve contested cases related to employment, social services, corrections, discrimination, consumer protection, transportation, and licensing. Approximately 24,900 hearings were held. Two agencies-the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) and the Department of Administration's (DOA's) Division of Hearings and Appeals-account for more than 80 percent of hearing-related staff and expenditures.
Agency efforts to establish and measure performance of hearing officers have been uneven. We identified a total of 97 performance standards, most of which were established by state agencies to manage timeliness and productivity. However, only 53 of these standards were actually used to assess agency performance in holding hearings. Assessing the overall quality of hearing officer decisions is difficult. Nevertheless, one indicator of quality-the rate at which decisions are reversed on appeal-shows that most hearing officer decisions are upheld.
If the Legislature wishes to increase efficiency and reduce costs by further consolidating hearing functions, some changes to the organization of hearing officer responsibilities could be considered. However, because most hearings are already conducted by either DWD or DOA's Division of Hearings and Appeals, any cost savings that could be derived from further consolidation are likely to be limited.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by the many state agencies contacted during the course of this review. Responses from DOA and DWD are appendices IV and V.
Respectfully submitted,
Janice Mueller
State Auditor
__________________
Southeast Wisconsin
Professional Baseball Park District
Milwaukee
June 21, 2000
To the Honorable, the Legislature:
Enclosed please find the Miller Park Monthly Progress Report for the month of May 2000 for your review and consideration. As the enclosed report indicates, Miller Park continues to develop with the District Board's objectives of building the premier baseball facility in the country; scheduled for play on Opening Day 2001; within budget; and with meaningful community participation.
As always, please feel free to contact me if you should have any questions or comments regarding the enclosed report.
Very truly yours,
Michael R. Duckett, P.E., R.l.s.
Executive Director
