Governor
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
April 21, 2004
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am vetoing Senate Bill 64. This bill repeals current law provisions that allow the Governor to request an extension for introducing the executive budget message and bill in January of the odd numbered years. It also removes such an option for the Building Commission in submitting its capital budget recommendations to the Joint Committee on Finance in April of the odd numbered year.
I am vetoing this bill because I object to the reduced amount of time that a Governor would have to ensure that increasingly complex budgets are balanced based on the best and most recent estimates of available revenues. The latest revenue estimates at the time of introduction of the Governor's budget, while not required by state statute, are routinely developed by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau in the last two weeks of January and are used as the basis for determining if a budget is in balance. To require that a budget be submitted within a few days of this information becoming available is unreasonable and sets the stage for unnecessary disagreement between the Governor and the Legislature.
While the limited focus of this bill leaves me no choice but a veto, I remain committed to improving the budget process. Together, the Legislature and I worked to complete the most recent budget on time and without a preponderance of nonfiscal policy items. I look forward to continued progress in improving the state's financial and budget management.
Sincerely,
Jim Doyle
Governor
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
April 21, 2004
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am vetoing Senate Bill 218. The bill makes numerous changes to the laws governing business corporations, limited partnerships, nonstock corporations and limited liability companies that include:
•
Permitting a board of directors to decrease the number of shares of a class or series of stock, to eliminate the class or series, or to increase the number of shares of the class or series;
•
Permitting a corporation's articles of incorporation or bylaws to specify the manner in which shareholder meetings will be conducted;
•
Eliminating restrictions on certain committee actions including the authorization of distributions, filling board of director or committee vacancies, and amending articles of incorporation without shareholder action;
•
Providing that a parent corporation may merge with or into one of its indirect wholly owned subsidiaries without approval of the shareholders under certain conditions;
•
Changing certain practices relating to mergers, share exchanges and business combinations including filing requirements relating to articles of merger or share exchange, the determination of valuation dates and stock acquisition dates, and specification of voting power of any person owning greater than 20 percent of a corporation's stock;
•
Generally permitting a board of directors to transfer any or all of its assets to one or more entities owned by the corporation;
•
Allowing the abbreviation of the words "limited partnership"; and
•
Deleting the requirement that, in the event of merger or conversion, title to real estate be transferred to the surviving entity by deed, which must be recorded in the appropriate office of the register of deeds.
I support improving the ability of boards of directors and their committees to act in today's rapidly changing economy. I also support streamlining and updating regulations governing shareholder notices, meetings, and articles of merger.
I am, however, vetoing this bill because it deletes the requirement to promptly record an instrument of conveyance with the appropriate register of deeds for certain mergers and conversions. This would make it more difficult for lien holders and other parties to identify actual owners of real estate. By deleting the recording requirement, the most recent information that is necessary for local-taxing authorities to calculate assessed values would be limited. This could create problems with the local assessment process and potentially distort the fair market value of real estate. It is important that lien holders, local assessors, and potential real estate purchasers have the tools that they need to determine real estate ownership and calculate assessment values.
Sincerely,
Jim Doyle
Governor
Office of the Governor
April 21, 2004
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am vetoing Senate Bill 253. This bill allows certain four-year institutions of the University of Wisconsin System to establish up to five independent charter schools across the state. Under current law, the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, the City of Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Area Technical College and the University of Wisconsin – Parkside may establish independent charter schools. All current independent charter schools must be located in the City of Milwaukee, except for the school established by UW-Parkside in Racine.
I am vetoing the bill because this expansion of the independent charter school program will dilute the program's goal of improving educational opportunities for students living in Milwaukee and Racine.
I am also vetoing the bill because it will drain state funds from existing public schools and increase property taxes. State payments to independent charter schools are funded by the reallocation of general school aids from the state's 426 school districts. The bill's expansion of the program reduces state resources for all existing public schools and diminishes the state's property tax relief efforts.
As I have indicated repeatedly to the Legislature, changes to the charter school program should be part of a broader effort to improve the education of all our children.
Sincerely,
Jim Doyle
Governor
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
April 21, 2004
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am vetoing Senate Bill 322. The bill changes the definition of a group health benefit plan in such a way that it will harm consumers. Under current law, a group health benefit plan is a plan that is sold to two or more employees of an employer or an individual policy sold to three or more employees of an employer. In both cases, numerous consumer protections apply. This bill would restrict this definition to only those health benefit plans that are funded or reimbursed in whole or in part by an employer on behalf of their employees.
Under this bill, many employees would be removed from small employer health insurance protections if employers currently do not, or in the future would not, reimburse or fund a portion of the employees' health plan. In either situation, these employees would no longer be covered by the protections currently available to small insurance plan participants, regardless of whether the employer made a contribution or reimbursement to the employee for costs associated with the insurance. These protections include:
•
Continuation and conversion rights, which permit persons who leave the group to access group health insurance for up to 18 months. While the individual may be asked to pay the premiums for a continuation policy, coverage under these policies is generally less expensive and offer better benefits than individual coverage. Once the conversion period is ended, the individual must then be offered a conversion policy, which is individual coverage.
•
Portability, which permits an individual with prior group coverage to move to their next group, or in some cases, to the state high-risk pool without serving a new pre-existing condition waiting period. Persons who do not exercise their portability rights within 63 days of losing group coverage lose this right.
•
Guarantee issue for small group coverage, meaning that the insurer must accept all members of a group without excluding pre-existing health conditions. In the individual market, each policy is underwritten and insurers are permitted to refuse coverage to those individuals who do not meet the insurer's underwriting standards or exclude coverage for pre-existing health conditions.
•
Mandated benefits required for group plans, for example, benefits for mental health and AODA treatment, are not required for individual policies.
•
Limits on the rates that can be charged to employers with small group health insurance policies that do not apply in the individual market.
When employees are removed from group coverage they would then be forced to look at individual plans, including the state HIRSP program, for their insurance needs. Individual plans are often less affordable than group coverage and many would be unable to afford these individual plans. The result would be an increase in the number of uninsured individuals in the state.
While the bill was originally developed as a way to decrease costs and improve access, it probably would have the opposite effect and result in higher costs and fewer insured individuals and families. Because I want to ensure that access to coverage is as broad as possible and that the consumer protections of small group insurance laws are available to as many people as possible, I am vetoing this bill.
Sincerely,
Jim Doyle
Governor
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
April 21, 2004
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am vetoing
Senate Bill 351. The bill allows all counties, except Milwaukee and Menominee, to decrease the number of county board supervisors between federal decennial censuses, either by a board-initiated redistricting plan or by petition and referendum. Under current law, counties may change the number of county board members only once every ten years when a redistricting plan is adopted to conform to the federal decennial census. An exception to this rule was adopted under
2003 Wisconsin Act 32, whereby Milwaukee County may reduce its number of county supervisors once prior to November 15, 2010.
Senate Bill 351 prudently limits the downsizing of a county board through successful petition and referendum to once per decade. There is no limit, however, on the number of times a county board itself may adopt a redistricting plan that reduces the number of supervisors or the number of times a referendum question to downsize may appear on the ballot. The open-ended nature of these provisions may create circumstances where the cost, time and effort spent on redistricting far outweigh any savings or benefits obtained. Also, unlike the one-time authority granted to Milwaukee County, this bill provides ongoing authority into the future.
While I object to this bill because of its open-ended and ongoing authority, a more tailored bill could be developed which would accomplish the goals behind this piece of legislation.
Sincerely,
Jim Doyle
Governor
Office of the Governor
April 21, 2004
The Honorable, The Senate:
I am vetoing Senate Bill 484. This bill requires any contract under Medical Assistance for prepaid health benefits be made on an actuarially sound basis consistent with federal law. The bill specifies that this requirement is applicable to contracts issued or renewed on the effective date of the bill. I object to this bill because it is unnecessary and duplicative.
Prepaid health benefits, often provided by health maintenance organizations (HMOs), are a critical component of the effort to ensure high quality health care for Medical Assistance and BadgerCare recipients. HMOs, through prepaid health benefit plans, provide service to Medical Assistance recipients at a discount compared to service purchased on a fee-for-service basis. Current federal law requires the state to propose rates to the HMOs that are actuarially sound. This is a condition the state must meet to qualify for federal Medicaid funding. It is unlikely that the state would ever enter into contracts with prepaid health plans if those contracts did not qualify for federal Medicaid funds. Furthermore, the provisions could create confusion in the future regarding contract negotiations between the state and prepaid health plan providers if federal laws were to change, but corresponding changes to state law were not enacted.
Sincerely,
Jim Doyle
Governor
__________________
The Chief Clerk makes the following entries under the above date.
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Secretary of State
To the Honorable, the Senate:
Sincerely,
Douglas La follette
Secretary of State
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Secretary of State
To the Honorable, the Senate:
Sincerely,
Douglas La follette
Secretary of State
State of Wisconsin
Department of Revenue
April 26, 2004
