Scope statements
Corrections
Subject
To revise ch.
DOC 310, relating to complaint procedures for inmates confined in state adult correctional facilities simultaneously and in conjunction with the Department of Health and Family Service's repeal and recreation of ch.
HFS 97 to largely reflect the application to and use by the Department of Health and Family Services of ch.
DOC 310 for complaints by inmates of the Wisconsin Resource Center.
Objective of the rule. The Department of Corrections proposes to amend ch.
DOC 310 to better reflect the involvement of the DHFS in the handling of complaints of inmates at the Wisconsin Resource Center. The Department of Health and Family Services is also proposing in a separate but simultaneous rule making effort to repeal and recreate ch.
HFS 97 to address the differences in the ch.
DOC 310 complaint procedures resulting from DHFS's involvement.
Pursuant to s.
46.056, Stats., the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) administers the Wisconsin Resource Center (WRC) as a correctional institution that provides psychological evaluations, specialized learning programs, training and supervision for inmates whose behavior presents a serious threat to themselves or others in state prisons and whose mental health needs can be met at WRC. The Wisconsin Resource Center is a hybrid facility. It is operated by DHFS, but serves persons under the authority of the Department of Corrections (DOC). Moreover, the correctional officers who provide security at WRC are employees of DOC.
Both DHFS and DOC have established procedures in administrative rules governing the submission and processing of inmate complaints. Inmate complaints regarding staff actions are handled by DOC under ch.
DOC 310 because, pursuant to s.
46.056 (2), Stats., the correctional officers providing security at WRC are employees of DOC. Complaints about WRC issues such as facility rules and conditions are within the purview of DHFS to administer, and DHFS established ch.
HFS 97 to address such complaints. DHFS, however, never intended its role to supercede the DOC review process under ch.
DOC 310.
Given the hybrid nature of WRC, DHFS collaborates with DOC in responding to WRC inmate complaints. The close working relationship required between the agencies is why DHFS has sought to parallel and largely replicate in ch.
HFS 97 the process DOC uses under ch.
DOC 310. To date, both agencies are satisfied with the process and the required working relationship. However, this dual agency involvement and administration is complicated when ch.
DOC 310 is changed, thereby requiring DHFS to modify ch.
HFS 97. DOC recently made minor corrections to ch.
DOC 310, which again have resulted in ch.
HFS 97 no longer being "in synch" with ch.
DOC 310. Moreover, maintenance of both sets of largely similar rules is needlessly confusing. Therefore, DHFS and DOC have jointly determined that the interests and input of DHFS can be best accommodated by repealing and recreating ch.
HFS 97 to address only those differences in the ch.
DOC 310 complaint procedures resulting from DHFS involvement, and slightly modifying ch.
DOC 310.
The Department of Corrections is committed to maintaining the good existing working relationship with DHFS. To that end, DHFS and DOC intend to establish a Memorandum of Understanding that will ensure that DHFS continues to be informed and involved regarding deciding complaints arising from inmates at WRC. The agencies intend to coordinate the concurrent promulgation of the requisite changes to administrative rules to improve the administration of the WRC inmate complaint process. DHFS will propose to repeal and recreate ch.
HFS 97 and
DOC will propose to make a minor change to ch.
DOC 310 to reflect DHFS' role in responding to inmate complaints that involve issues in which DHFS should have a role. Through these actions, the agencies will:
1. Simplify administration and minimize administrative costs.
2. Eliminate the need for coordination and duplication of effort to keep the rules synchronized.
3. Eliminate any question about the applicability of ch.
DOC 310 to WRC inmates, since the inmates continue to be a DOC responsibility.
4. Allow DOC to continue to be involved in decision-making regarding inmate complaints at WRC for the purposes of continuity.
5. Reduce the current confusion that s.
HFS 97.14 causes by bringing the DHFS Secretary into the decision-making process, but not linking that decision to that of the DOC Secretary.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
Less than 20 hours of Department staff time to develop and promulgate the rulemaking order.
Health and Family Services
Subject
To repeal and recreate ch.
HFS 97, relating to complaint procedures for inmates of the Wisconsin Resource Center simultaneously and in conjunction with the Department of Correction's modification of ch.
DOC 310 to reflect the application to and use by the Department of Health and Family Services of ch.
DOC 310 for complaints by inmates of the Wisconsin Resource Center.
Policy analysis
Pursuant to s.
46.056, Stats., the Department (DHFS) administers the Wisconsin Resource Center (WRC) as a correctional institution that provides psychological evaluations, specialized learning programs, training and supervision for inmates whose behavior presents a serious threat to themselves or others in state prisons and whose mental health needs can be met at WRC. The Wisconsin Resource Center is a hybrid facility insofar as it is operated by DHFS, but serves persons under the authority of the Department of Corrections (DOC). Moreover, the correctional officers providing security at WRC are employees of DOC.
Both DHFS and DOC have established procedures in administrative rules governing the submission and processing of inmate complaints. Inmate complaints regarding staff actions are handled by DOC under ch.
DOC 310 because, pursuant to s.
46.056 (2), Stats., the correctional officers providing security at WRC are employees of DOC. Complaints about WRC issues such as facility rules and conditions are within the purview of DHFS to administer, and DHFS established ch.
HFS 97 to address such complaints. DHFS, however, never intended its role to supercede the DOC review process under ch.
HFS 310.
Given the hybrid nature of WRC, DHFS collaborates with DOC in responding to WRC inmate complaints. The close working relationship required between the agencies is why DHFS has sought to parallel and largely replicate in ch.
HFS 97 the process DOC uses under ch.
DOC 310. To date, both agencies are satisfied with the process and the required working relationship. However, this dual agency involvement and administration is complicated when DOC 310 is changed, thereby requiring ch.
HFS 97 to be changed. DOC recently made minor corrections to ch.
DOC 310, which again have resulted in ch.
HFS 97 no longer being "in synch" with ch.
DOC 310. Moreover, maintenance of both sets of largely similar rules is needlessly confusing. Therefore, DHFS and DOC have jointly determined that the interests and input of DHFS can be best accommodated by repealing and recreating ch.
HFS 97 to address only those differences in the ch.
DOC 310 compliant procedures resulting from DHFS's involvement, and slightly modifying ch.
DOC 310.
The Department of Corrections is committed to maintaining the good existing working relationship with DHFS. To that end, DHFS and DOC intend to establish a Memorandum of Understanding that will ensure that DHFS continues to be informed and involved regarding deciding complaints arising from inmates at WRC. The agencies intend to coordinate the concurrent promulgation of the requisite changes to administrative rules to improve the administration of the WRC inmate complaint process. Through the repeal and recreation of ch.
HFS 97 and the minor modification of DOC 310, the agencies will:
1. Simplify administration and minimize administrative costs.
2. Eliminate the need for coordination and duplication of effort to keep the rules synchronized.
3. Eliminate any question about the applicability of ch.
DOC 310 to WRC inmates, since the inmates continue to be a DOC responsibility.
4. Allow DOC to continue to be involved in decision-making regarding inmate complaints at WRC for the purposes of continuity.
5. Reduce the current confusion that s.
HFS 97.14 causes by bringing the DHFS Secretary into the decision-making process, but not linking that decision to that of the DOC Secretary.
Statutory authority
Staff time required
Less than 20 hours of Department staff time to develop and promulgate the rulemaking order.
Health and Family Services
Subject
Ch.
HFS 158, relating to the fee for monitoring radiation emissions in the vicinity of nuclear power plants.
Policy analysis
Under section 254.41 of the Wisconsin statutes, the Department of Health and Family Services is responsible for monitoring radiation emissions around nuclear plants operating in or near Wisconsin. The Department assesses a fee to operating nuclear plants in Wisconsin that supports the Department's and local health agencies' collection of emissions and analysis activities. Chapter
HFS 158 specifies the Department's annual base fee, which is currently $47,500. Chapter
HFS 158 also allows the Department to raise the fee each year based on changes in the consumer price index. Consequently, the current fee is $55,940. The Department's monitoring costs over the past 13 years have risen at a rate exceeding that of the consumer price index. In addition, federal and other funding sources that also supported monitoring activities have either been eliminated or reduced. Consequently, the fee has become the primary funding source for monitoring activities. In response to these revenue losses, the Department reduced the scope of monitoring activities rather than raise the base fee in ch.
HFS 158. However, the Department cannot further reduce monitoring activities without compromising minimal national standards. Therefore, to continue to monitor activities at a minimum level consistent with national standards, the Department will propose increasing the base fee in ch.
HFS 158 to $95,000..
Statutory authority
Staff time required
Approximately 8 hours of Radiation Protection Section staff time to develop the rules in preparation for Department review. The Department does not intend to use an advisory group to assist with rule drafting.
Natural Resources
Subject
The program to pay for damage done by species listed as Endangered or Threatened in Wisconsin was established in the 1983-85 budget bill (ss.
20.370 (1) (fs) Wis Stats.). Funds for these payments come from the Endangered Resources Voluntary Payments Fund (i.e. the “Tax Check-off"). The 1999-01 budget bill added Endangered Resources (Wolf) License Plate funding and added that damage by Gray Wolves will be paid for by this fund even after wolves are delisted.
To date, the WI DNR has settled 179 damage claims totaling $ 352,056.62. The majority of these claims, 144, - (totaling $ 312,266.83) have been paid for damage done by gray wolves (See Attachment 1- Wolf Damage Summary).
The Endangered Resources Program has administered this program since 1985 without permanent rules because the program was very small, the species on the state's Endangered and Threatened list would change from year to year, and there was no controversy about the program. There is now a need for permanent rules because wolf damage has been made a permanent part of the payment program and there is significant public controversy about the wolf damage payment program.
Policy analysis
The Wisconsin wolf population has increased from just 25 animals in 1980 to 335 in 2003. From 1985 to 1998 wolf damage payments ranged from $200.00 to $ 12, 000.00 per year. Wolf damage payments from 1999 to 2004 have averaged $ 43,800 per year. We can anticipate that wolf damage claims will be reduced somewhat in the future now that the Department has the authority to destroy wolves that are causing depredations to livestock. However, 37% of all wolf damage payments are paid to reimburse dog owners for killed or damaged dogs. Most all of these dogs are hound dogs killed or injured by wolves while the dogs are pursuing legal game animals such as bear, bob cat and coyote. Now that wolves have been recovered in Wisconsin, some legislators, stakeholders, and contributors to the Endangered Resources fund are questioning the need to continue to pay for hound dogs. Contributors to the Endangered Resources fund have also questioned the current policy of paying for missing livestock.
The Wisconsin Wolf Stakeholders Group discussed the need for permanent Administrative rules to govern the Department's payment program at a meeting in Wausau on October 25, 2003. They concluded that the following list of topics need to be addressed by any proposed Administrative Rule:
•Livelihood versus recreation
•Compensation/consumption sports
•Seek financial partnerships to help with payments
•Sources of money used for payments
•What types of property are eligible for payments
