115.31(2r)(a)(a) Except as provided under
par. (b), the department may not reinstate a license revoked under
sub. (2g) for 6 years following the date of the conviction, and may reinstate a license revoked under
sub. (2g) only if the licensee establishes by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is entitled to reinstatement.
Effective date note
NOTE: Par. (a) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(2r) (a) Except as provided under par. (b), the state superintendent may not reinstate a license revoked under sub. (2g) for 6 years following the date of the conviction, and may reinstate a license revoked under sub. (2g) only if the licensee establishes by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is entitled to reinstatement.
115.31(2r)(b)
(b) The department shall reinstate a license revoked under
sub. (2g), prior to the expiration of the 6-year period following the conviction, if he or she receives from the court in which the conviction occurred a certificate stating that the conviction has been reversed, set aside or vacated.
Effective date note
NOTE: Par. (b) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(b) The state superintendent shall reinstate a license revoked under sub. (2g), prior to the expiration of the 6-year period following the conviction, if he or she receives from the court in which the conviction occurred a certificate stating that the conviction has been reversed, set aside or vacated.
115.31(3)
(3) An administrator shall do all of the following:
115.31(3)(a)
(a) Report to the department the name of any person employed by the educational agency and licensed by the department if any of the following occurs:
Effective date note
NOTE: Par. (a) (intro.) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(a) Report to the state superintendent the name of any person employed by the educational agency and licensed by the state superintendent if any of the following occurs:
115.31(3)(a)1.
1. The person is charged with a crime under
ch. 948, including a crime specified under
s. 948.015, a felony with a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 5 years or a crime in which the victim was a child.
115.31(3)(a)3.
3. The person is dismissed, or his or her contract is not renewed, by the employer based in whole or in part on evidence that the person engaged in immoral conduct.
115.31(3)(a)4.
4. The person resigns and the administrator has a reasonable suspicion that the resignation relates to the person having engaged in immoral conduct.
115.31(3)(b)
(b) Report to the department the name of any person employed by the educational agency who is not licensed by the department if the person is convicted of a crime described under
par. (a) 1. or of 4th degree sexual assault under
s. 940.225 (3m).
Effective date note
NOTE: Par. (b) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(b) Report to the state superintendent the name of any person employed by the educational agency who is not licensed by the state superintendent if the person is convicted of a crime described under par. (a) 1. or of 4th degree sexual assault under s. 940.225 (3m).
115.31(3)(c)
(c) Send a copy of any report that is made to the department under
par. (a) or
(b) to the person who is the subject of the report.
Effective date note
NOTE: Par. (c) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(c) Send a copy of any report that is made to the state superintendent under par. (a) or (b) to the person who is the subject of the report.
115.31(4)
(4) If an administrator requests a person who is employed by an educational agency and licensed by the department to resign, and the administrator has a reasonable suspicion that the person engaged in immoral conduct, the administrator shall inform the person of the duty to report to the department under
sub. (3) (a) 4.
Effective date note
NOTE: Sub. (4) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(4) If an administrator requests a person who is employed by an educational agency and licensed by the state superintendent to resign, and the administrator has a reasonable suspicion that the person engaged in immoral conduct, the administrator shall inform the person of the duty to report to the state superintendent under sub. (3) (a) 4.
115.31(5)(a)(a) A report under
sub. (3) shall be made within 15 days after the administrator becomes aware of the charge, conviction, dismissal, nonrenewal or resignation.
115.31(5)(b)
(b) Any administrator who in good faith reports or fails to report information under
sub. (3), and any other person who reports information under
sub. (3) to the department, is immune from civil liability for such acts or omissions.
Effective date note
NOTE: Par. (b) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(b) Any administrator who in good faith reports or fails to report information under sub. (3), and any other person who reports information under sub. (3) to the state superintendent, is immune from civil liability for such acts or omissions.
115.31(6)(a)(a) Upon receiving a report under
sub. (3) (a) 2. or
(b) indicating that a person was convicted of a crime, the department shall verify the conviction.
Effective date note
NOTE: Par. (a) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(6) (a) Upon receiving a report under sub. (3) (a) 2. or (b) indicating that a person was convicted of a crime, the state superintendent shall verify the conviction.
115.31(6)(b)
(b) Upon receiving a report under
sub. (3) relating to a person licensed by the department, the department shall investigate to determine whether to initiate revocation proceedings. During the investigation, the department shall keep confidential all information pertaining to the investigation except the fact that an investigation is being conducted and the date of the revocation hearing.
Effective date note
NOTE: Par. (b) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(b) Upon receiving a report under sub. (3) relating to a person licensed by the state superintendent, the state superintendent shall investigate to determine whether to initiate revocation proceedings. During the investigation, the department shall keep confidential all information pertaining to the investigation except the fact that an investigation is being conducted and the date of the revocation hearing.
115.31(6)(c)
(c) Notwithstanding
s. 16.61 (4), the department shall destroy all information pertaining to an investigation or a revocation proceeding, other than the fact that a person was convicted of a crime described under
sub. (3) (a) 1., 3 years from the date on which the investigation is terminated or a final decision denying revocation of the person's license is issued, whichever is later.
115.31(7)
(7) Any person who intentionally fails to report as required under this section may be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 6 months or both.
115.31(8)
(8) The department shall promulgate rules to implement and administer this section.
Effective date note
NOTE: Sub. (8) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(8) The state superintendent shall promulgate rules to implement and administer this section.
115.33
115.33
Inspection of school buildings. 115.33(1)(b)
(b) "Proposed use" means a function that the school board has indicated by resolution that it intends to pursue within the current school year or the next 2 succeeding school years.
115.33(2)(a)(a) The department may request the department of commerce to inspect a public school if any of the following occurs:
115.33 Note
NOTE: Par. (a) (intro.) is shown as amended by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 s. 9145 (1) was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Par (a) (intro.), as not affected by
1995 Wis. Act 27 s.
9145 (1), reads as follows:
Effective date text
(a) The state superintendent may request the department of commerce to inspect a public school if any of the following occurs:
115.33(2)(a)1.
1. Any elector in the school district complains in writing to the department that the school is inadequate or is otherwise unfit for school purposes.
Effective date note
NOTE: Subd. 1. is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
1. Any elector in the school district complains in writing to the state superintendent that the school is inadequate or is otherwise unfit for school purposes.
115.33(2)(a)2.
2. The school board of the school district in which the school is located requests the department to do so. The school board may also request an opinion as to whether the school is adequate for a proposed use.
Effective date note
NOTE: Subd. 2. is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
2. The school board of the school district in which the school is located requests the state superintendent to do so. The school board may also request an opinion as to whether the school is adequate for a proposed use.
115.33(2)(a)3.
3. The department determines there is significant evidence that the school is not in compliance.
Effective date note
NOTE: Subd. 3. is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
3. The state superintendent determines there is significant evidence that the school is not in compliance.
115.33(2)(b)
(b) The department of commerce shall inspect the school within 30 days after receiving a request from the department under
par. (a).
115.33 Note
NOTE: Par. (b) is shown as amended by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 s. 9145 (1) was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Par (b), as not affected by
1995 Wis. Act 27 s.
9145 (1), reads as follows:
Effective date text
(b) The department of commerce shall inspect the school within 30 days after receiving a request from the state superintendent under par. (a).
115.33(3)(a)(a) If the department determines that a school is not in compliance, and the department of commerce, based on its inspection of the school, concurs in the determination, the department may order the school board to repair, improve, remodel or close the school by a stated date. An order issued under this paragraph constitutes a preliminary finding of noncompliance with the standard under
s. 121.02 (1) (i).
115.33 Note
NOTE: Par. (a) is shown as amended by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 s. 9145 (1) was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Par (a), as not affected by
1995 Wis. Act 27 s.
9145 (1), reads as follows:
Effective date text
(a) If the state superintendent determines that a school is not in compliance, and the department of commerce, based on its inspection of the school, concurs in the determination, the state superintendent may order the school board to repair, improve, remodel or close the school by a stated date. An order issued under this paragraph constitutes a preliminary finding of noncompliance with the standard under s. 121.02 (1) (i).
115.33(3)(b)1.1. If the department determines that a school is not in compliance and is not worth repairing, and the department of commerce, based on its inspection of the school, concurs in the determination, the department may order the school board to develop a plan that describes how the school board will achieve compliance with the standard under
s. 121.02 (1) (i). The plan shall specify the time within which compliance with the standard under
s. 121.02 (1) (i) shall be achieved. The department shall hold a public hearing on the plan in the school district and may, as a result of the hearing, recommend changes to the plan. The department may withhold up to 25% of the school district's state aid if the school district fails to achieve compliance with the standard under
s. 121.02 (1) (i) within the period specified in the plan.
115.33 Note
NOTE: Subd. 1. is shown as amended by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 s. 9145 (1) was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Subd. 1., as not affected by
1995 Wis. Act 27 s.
9145 (1), reads as follows:
Effective date text
1. If the state superintendent determines that a school is not in compliance and is not worth repairing, and the department of commerce, based on its inspection of the school, concurs in the determination, the state superintendent may order the school board to develop a plan that describes how the school board will achieve compliance with the standard under s. 121.02 (1) (i). The plan shall specify the time within which compliance with the standard under s. 121.02 (1) (i) shall be achieved. The state superintendent shall hold a public hearing on the plan in the school district and may, as a result of the hearing, recommend changes to the plan. The state superintendent may withhold up to 25% of the school district's state aid if the school district fails to achieve compliance with the standard under s. 121.02 (1) (i) within the period specified in the plan.
115.33 Annotation
See note to 50.50, citing 65 Atty. Gen. 54.
115.34
115.34
School lunch program. 115.34(1)
(1) The department may contract for the operation and maintenance of school lunch programs and for the distribution, transportation, warehousing, processing and insuring of food products provided by the federal government. The form and specifications of such contracts shall be determined by the department. Amounts remaining unpaid for 60 days or more after they become payable under the terms of such contracts shall be deemed past due and shall be certified to the department of administration on October 1 of each year and included in the next apportionment of state special charges to local units of government as special charges against the school districts and municipalities charged therewith.
115.34(2)
(2) The department shall make payments to school districts and to private schools for school lunches served to children in the prior year as determined by the department from the appropriation under
s. 20.255 (2) (cn). Payments to school districts and to private schools shall equal the state's matching obligation under
42 USC 1751 et seq. Payments in the current year shall be determined by prorating the state's matching obligation based on the number of school lunches served to children in the prior year. In this subsection, "private school" means any school defined in
s. 115.001 (3r) which complies with the requirements of
42 USC 2000d.
Effective date note
NOTE: Sub. (2) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(2) The department shall make payments to school districts and to private schools for school lunches served to children in the prior year as determined by the state superintendent from the appropriation under s. 20.255 (2) (cn). Payments to school districts and to private schools shall equal the state's matching obligation under 42 USC 1751 et seq. Payments in the current year shall be determined by prorating the state's matching obligation based on the number of school lunches served to children in the prior year. In this subsection, "private school" means any school defined in s. 115.001 (3r) which complies with the requirements of 42 USC 2000d.
115.34 Annotation
United States and Wisconsin Constitutions do not prohibit state from disbursing state matching funds under National School Lunch Act to private as well as public schools. 69 Atty. Gen. 109.
115.341
115.341
School breakfast program. 115.341(1)
(1) A school board or governing body of a private school may apply to the department for a grant to assist in establishing a school breakfast program. Beginning in the 1994-95 school year, the department shall award grants from the appropriation under
s. 20.255 (2) (cm). The department may award a grant of up to $10,000 to a school board or governing body of a private school under this section only if all of the following apply:
Effective date note
NOTE: Sub. (1) (intro.) is shown as amended eff. 1-1-96 by
1995 Wis. Act 27. The treatment by Act 27 was held unconstitutional and declared void by the Supreme Court in Thompson v. Craney, case no.
95-2168-OA. Prior to Act 27 it read:
Effective date text
(1) A school board or governing body of a private school may apply to the state superintendent for a grant to assist in establishing a school breakfast program. Beginning in the 1994-95 school year, the state superintendent shall award grants from the appropriation under s. 20.255 (2) (cm). The state superintendent may award a grant of up to $10,000 to a school board or governing body of a private school under this section only if all of the following apply:
115.341(1)(a)
(a) The school board or governing body agrees to operate a school breakfast program for at least 3 school years.
115.341(1)(b)
(b) The funds will be used for programs in schools in which at least 20% of the pupils enrolled are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches under
42 USC 1758 (b).
115.341(1)(c)
(c) The school board or governing body has adopted a plan to maximize the participation in the program of pupils who are eligible for free or reduced-price lunches under
42 USC 1758 (b).
115.341(2)
(2) Notwithstanding
sub. (1) (intro.), a school board or governing body of a private school that received a grant under this section to establish a school breakfast program may apply in successive school years for a grant under this section to expand the program to additional schools.
115.341(3)
(3) A grant awarded under this section may be used only for nonrecurring costs, including site improvement, the purchase of equipment, the costs of training necessary to establish a school breakfast program and the costs of publicizing new programs. A grant may not be used for recurring costs, including food, supplies and support for permanent positions, or to reimburse for services or equipment that has already been contracted for or purchased.
