Milwaukee Biz Blog

At the start of the legislative session during January, 2011, Republicans made it very clear our top priority was turning around the state’s economy and making Wisconsin a good place for businesses to locate and expand. During the January special session, 10 job creation bills were approved by the legislature and signed into law by the governor.

The results from that special session are noticeable.  Wisconsin businesses have created 30,000 net jobs since the beginning of the year. The state jumped a nation-best 17 spots in a survey of business leaders about the best states to do business.

The job is not done. Too many Wisconsin residents are still unemployed, and the state’s economy is not as strong as it should be. Wisconsin’s job creation efforts have been blunted by uncertainty resulting from the failure of the federal government to truly tackle national debt and economic issues.

Republicans in Wisconsin state government continue to do all we can to turn the economy around and structurally reshape Wisconsin into a place conducive to doing business and growing jobs.  The latest effort is a second special session called Back To Work Wisconsin.  Bills in this special session continue the laser-like focus on jobs that Republicans have demonstrated since the beginning of the legislative session during January.

I am pleased to sponsor bills called by the Governor for the Back To Work Wisconsin special session.  As Chair of the Senate Transportation and Elections Committee, I am pleased to sponsor reforms to the state’s transportation regulatory environment and make Wisconsin a place manufacturing and agricultural business can better flourish.

Here are the five Back To Work Wisconsin special session bills I am sponsoring.

Senate Bill 195 is a bill that allows Wisconsin’s family farms and agriculture industry to take full advantage of advances in agriculture technology.  Current law includes an exemption from the state’s weight limits for vehicles transporting agricultural products. The exemption is from the beginning of September through the end of November. With advances in agricultural technology, farmers are able to harvest crops further into the year. To take full advantage of these developments, Senate Bill 195 extends the overweight exemption through December 31.

Senate Bill 189 eliminates the oversize permit issued by the Department of Transportation for transportation of poles, pipes, girders and similar materials.  This eliminates red tape for utilities, public service corporations and the Department of Transportation.  As it is, the Department of Transportation issues very few of these permits.

Senate Bill 190 is a common sense opportunity to eliminate a competitive disadvantage for Wisconsin shippers.  Currently, Wisconsin’s single-vehicle length limit is 40 feet.  Minnesota, Iowa, and Illinois all have less-restrictive single-vehicle limits than Wisconsin’s current standard.  Increasing the single-vehicle length limit to 45 feet, the same as Minnesota law, allows Wisconsin businesses equal advantage to compete.

Senate Bills 222 and 223 are true win-win bills that are good for Wisconsin businesses and roads.  Senate Bill 222 allows six-axle trucks to carry up to 90,000 pounds of freight in sealed containers for international delivery.  Limits under current law are 80,000 pounds and five axles.  Senate Bill 222 will allow Wisconsin businesses to compete more aggressively in the international market.  Similarly, Senate Bill 223 allows six-axle trucks to carry up to 90,000 pounds of agricultural products. 

Senate Bills 222 and 223 are the result of a recently completed Wisconsin Truck Size and Weight Study.  This study indicated six-axle trucks carrying up to 90,000 pounds deliver more goods faster while using less fuel and fewer trips.  In addition, the six-axle configuration distributes weight in a way that has less impact on road surfaces than five-axle, 80,000-pound trucks.

These bills along with other special session bills make up the Back To Work Wisconsin special session.

State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents Wisconsin's 28th Senate District.

During June 2011, Wisconsin became the forty-ninth state to affirm citizens' constitutional right to bear arms. Both houses of the state Legislature approved the bill with bipartisan majorities, and Governor Walker signed the bill into law July 8, 2011.

While the bill is signed and published, the law does not take effect until November 1, 2011. At that time, Wisconsin citizens at least 21 years of age may apply for a conceal carry permit.

Citizens wishing to carry a concealed weapon must satisfy a training requirement. Complying with the training requirement may include military, law enforcement, and security training that includes experience with firearms. Military veterans with honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions, or completion of military basic training satisfy the training requirement. In addition, Department of Natural Resources (DNR) hunter education classes, similar programs provided in other states and recognized by the DNR, and/or a current or expired license to carry a firearm in another state or country may satisfy the training requirement.

Absent complying with the above-mentioned training requirements, there are several options to obtain training. Completing courses offered by law enforcement or a state or national organization that licenses firearms instructors satisfy the training requirement. In addition courses taught by a state or nationally-certified instructor, and firearms safety and training courses offered to law enforcement officers or owners and employees of private detective and security firms satisfy the training requirement.

Citizens wishing to obtain a concealed carry permit must apply to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ is expected to have website applications available November 1, 2011. The cost to apply for the permit will not be more than $50, and the permit is effective for five years.

Citizens with conceal carry permits may carry concealed firearms with some limitations. Firearms are not allowed in police stations, prisons, courthouses, and are not allowed on school grounds. If alcohol beverages are not consumed, citizens with concealed carry permits may carry a handgun into a tavern. Private businesses and employers may ban firearms from their premises.

For more detail about Wisconsin's concealed carry law, the DOJ has a 56-page question and answer document available online at www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/concealedcarry/ccw_frequently_asked_questions.pdf.
 
Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents the 28th Senate District.

Poverty tightens its grip on America. The U.S. Census Bureau reports poverty increased to 14.3 percent during 2009 from 13.2 percent the previous year. The percentage of Americans living in poverty is the highest level since 1994.

The Census Bureau reports one in seven Americans or 43.6 million people lived in poverty during 2009, up from 39.8 million during 2008. The poverty threshold for a family of four during 2009 was set at $21,954 by the federal government.

So what are the solutions? Certainly, more jobs and more Americans staying in school and finishing their education come to mind.

How about strengthening families and the institution of marriage? Marriage is directly linked to poverty. A new study by the Heritage Foundation calls marriage America’s number one weapon against childhood poverty. Conventional wisdom is that two-parent families have less susceptibility to poverty than a single-parent family. The Heritage Foundation study that relied on data from the U.S. Government, U.S. Census Bureau, and National Center for Health Statistics provides proof.

According to the study, during the launch of the War on Poverty in 1964, a mere 6.3 percent of children in the U.S. were born out of wedlock. Fast forward to 2008 and four out of 10 births occurred outside of marriage. The study notes, “The War on Poverty led to the creation of more than three dozen welfare programs to aid poor persons. The government has spent $16.7 trillion on means-tested aid to the poor since 1963.”

Odds are clearly stacked against single-parent families with children that are nearly six times more likely to be poor than married couples. Factors working against single-mother families are lower education levels of the mothers and lower income due to the absence of fathers.

Married couples head about two-thirds of families with children in America. The other third are single-parent families. Nearly three-quarters of families with children in America that are not poor are headed by married couples. In comparison, a staggering 71 percent of all poor families with children are headed by single parents.

Racial boundaries don’t exist with poverty.  The Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, nonpartisan organization Child Trends reports that according to U.S. Census Bureau data, children in single -parent households in all race/ethnicity groups are far more likely to be poor than children living in households headed by married parents:

“For non-Hispanic white children, the poverty rate in 2007 was 32.3 percent for children in single mother households compared with 4.7 percent for children in married households.  Similarly for black children, the poverty rate was 50.2 percent compared with 11 percent.  For Hispanic children, the poverty rate was 51.4 percent compared with 19.3 percent. For Asian children, the poverty rate was 32 percent compared with 9.7 percent.”

Three out of four unwed births occur, not to teenagers, but to young adult women between the ages of 18 and 29 according to the Heritage Foundation.  The poverty rate for a single mother with only a high school diploma is 31.7 percent. However, the poverty rate for a married couple family headed by an individual with only a high school diploma is 5.6 percent.

An April 2009 report by the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin–Madison shows 41.8 percent of children in female-headed households (no husband present) in Wisconsin are living in poverty. The percentage for children in male-headed households (no wife present) is 19.3 percent.

Consider marriage’s economic power. Marriage drops the poverty rate in America by about 80 percent among families with the same education level. In Wisconsin, the Heritage Foundation study finds marriage drops the probability of child poverty even further, by an incredible 89 percent. Single-parent families with children in Wisconsin are nine times more likely to be poor than families with married parents. Again, low levels of education coupled with lower income due to the absence of fathers are the main factors.

The Heritage Foundation recommends the following to reduce child poverty:

• Reduce anti-marriage penalties in welfare programs.
• Establish public awareness campaigns about the value of marriage in low-income areas.
• Require welfare offices to offer information about how marriage reduces poverty.
• Teach about the benefits of marriage in middle and high schools that have a large portion of at-risk students.
• Require federally funded birth control clinics to offer information about the benefits of marriage.
• Require those clinics to provide voluntary referrals for life planning and marriage skills instruction to low-income clients that are interested.
• Make voluntary marriage education readily accessible in low-income areas.

Child Trends puts it more succinctly: “Support efforts to strengthen marriages and to decrease births to teens and unmarried women.”

I do agree wholeheartedly.

State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents Wisconsin's 28th Senate District.

The meeting room at the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department Training Academy was filled with law enforcement officials, many of them armed, attending a special summit. The main presenter opened with a Bible story.

Rebekah and Isaac had twin sons. Born first, Esau grew to be a hunter and was extremely hairy. The smooth-skinned Jacob was a soft spoken home-body. As Isaac grew old, he became blind. He asked Esau one day to catch some game for a special meal so that he might bestow upon his eldest son his blessing. As Esau hunted, Rebekah and Jacob joined forces to trick Isaac. Rebekah cooked a separate meal and helped disguise Jacob with hairy arms and Esau’s clothes. Jacob presented his blind father with the meal, and Isaac, feeling a hairy body and smelling Esau’s clothing mistakenly gave his blessing and his inheritance to his youngest son. Esau returns too late from his hunt to prevent the stolen blessing that Isaac, regrettably, refuses to revoke.

Special Agent Wayne Ivey of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement told those at the summit that the Old Testament account marks the first recorded case of identity theft. The Biblical anecdote demonstrates identity theft is not new; it has simply evolved into the fastest growing crime in the world. 

Listening to the startling information presented makes one realize that this crime is scarier than most imagine. The former police chief of Columbia, South Carolina, Dean Crisp called identity theft the “most under reported, least cared about” crime. Most police officers receiving a complaint about identity theft according to Crisp have a simple, nonchalant, lackadaisical response: “So.”

Even scarier are these discouraging words from Agent Wayne Ivey: “No one is immune. There is no silver bullet to stop identity theft.” As evidence, Ivey asks if anyone has been victimized. Several police officers raise their hands.

One out of 10 will be targets. Only one out of 700 identity thieves are actually apprehended, convicted, and go to jail. Law enforcement, unfortunately, are unable to keep up, are saddled with funding limits, and are admittedly focused on violent crime.

Despite the escalation and severity of identity theft, Ivey says law enforcement lacks a clear understanding of the crime and compassion for the victims. To police officers and prosecutors, identity theft just isn’t sexy.

Senior citizens are prey for identity thieves for many reasons according to Ivey. Susceptible seniors are intimidated by, and therefore refuse to use computers. Some are senile, too gullible, too trusting. They are affluent and have nest eggs, and because identity theft is a crime driven by greed, seniors are desirable targets. The thieves know all too well that when victimized, seniors are much less willing to pursue the case fearing involvement and possible retaliation. So their crimes go un-reported.

Who is to blame for identity theft? Plenty of folks.

• Financial institutions: Ivey says most will not target an identity thief as a “perp” unless there is more than $10,000 involved.
• Credit card companies: Are they losing money? Not on your life. The companies merely offset losses by passing on higher interest rates to other consumers.
• Lending organizations: Ivey contends they are unconcerned because the money they lose isn’t worth the money they’re gaining.
• Consumers: They are culpable, too, due to their lack of vigilance and falling for scams.

In Wisconsin, most identity theft is credit card-related followed by government document cases. That follows the national trend. The Federal Trade Commission reports nationally, credit card fraud is the top identity theft complaint followed by fraud related to government benefits, utilities, phones and loans. Identity theft is the No. 1 consumer complaint in the United States. Again, everyone is vulnerable.

State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents Wisconsin's 28th Senate District.

Waukesha County voters will answer an advisory referendum Nov. 2, 2010, about raids from the state transportation fund. Approved unanimously by the Waukesha Board, the advisory referendum will read, “Should the Wisconsin Constitution be amended to prohibit any further transfers or lapses from the segregated transportation fund?"

Ultimately, a better referendum would be in the form of a statewide constitutional amendment. To get there, the proposed amendment must pass two consecutive sessions of the legislature and then be approved by voters statewide. Meanwhile, I support the Waukesha County ballot measure and encourage other counties to place similar questions before voters this November. Eight other counties, including Adams, Grant, St. Croix, Lincoln, Pepin, Marathon, Jackson, and Vilas, have also scheduled votes on the question this November. As a Waukesha County resident, I will be voting yes on the advisory referendum.

Amending the state constitution to halt transportation fund raids has the support of the Transportation Development Association, the Wisconsin Transportation Builders Association and the Wisconsin County Highways Association. Not surprisingly, WHBL Radio in Sheboygan reports Governor Jim Doyle opposes this strategy. The governor has become the king of raiding the transportation fund.

During three consecutive biennial state budgets, Gov. Jim Doyle raided the state’s transportation fund. Here is the history, provided by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) in an informational paper published during January 2009:

“The 2003-05 budget act used a combination of direct appropriations from the transportation fund for general fund programs (shared revenue and K-12 education aids) and a transfer of revenues from the transportation fund to the general fund, for a total of $675.0 million.”

First raid = $675 million.
Back to the LFB:
“The 2005-07 biennial budget act made a transfer of $427.0 million from the transportation fund to the general fund, but did not make any direct appropriations from the transportation fund to general fund programs.”

Second raid = $427 million.
Again, from the LFB:
“The 2007-09 budget act (Act 20) and the 2008-09 budget adjustment act (Act 226) together resulted in a transfer of $155 million from the transportation fund to the general fund.“

Third raid = $155 million.
The six-year total of transfers and appropriations from the transportation fund = $1.257 billion.

The LFB reports the use of replacement bonds offset the transfers ($865.5 million), however the debt service paid from the transportation fund during the 2003-05 biennium ($43.9 million) adds to the loss.

The LFB concludes, “Therefore, the total loss to the transportation fund over the six years equals $435.4 million.”
That’s $435.4 million unavailable for the use it was intended: road projects statewide.

Doyle makes it quite clear he continues to support raiding the transportation fund for non-transportation purposes. WHBL radio reports, “Doyle says the result of a ban could mean deep cuts for education in the state. He says ending budget transfers from the Transportation Department will tie future governors and legislatures and they’ll find themselves asking why they’re cutting schools ‘when transportation is going up 10-12-percent’?”

There are flaws in Doyle’s position. Using the transportation fund to bail out the state’s dubious budget process amounts to accounting mischief that needs to stop. Cutting schools? The state has historically increased school funding. Why must Governor Doyle play the either-or game, rationalizing raids from the transportation fund as a necessary trade-off to support education?

Taxpayers need to be confident that tax dollars targeted to transportation are, indeed, spent on transportation. Transportation funding should not be shuffled to prop up a special interest, thus putting planned transportation projects in jeopardy. The ongoing I-94 work from Milwaukee to the WI-Illinois state line and the rebuilding of the Zoo Interchange set to begin during 2016 are critical projects that must have a reliable funding source, secure from future budget tricks.

"Should the Wisconsin Constitution be amended to prohibit any further transfers or lapses from the segregated transportation fund?" Yes, Yes, Yes. Raids from all other funds, and there have been a lot the last few years, should be prohibited!

State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents Wisconsin's 28th Senate District.

The Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance reports the average tax paid in Wisconsin during 2007, the latest year data is available, was $2,127. Wouldn’t you like to know where your tax dollars go and how they are spent?

Accessing such information should be simple; however it’s not.

Wisconsin has historically enjoyed a strong reputation for open government. In one important information category, transparency in government spending, Wisconsin fails miserably according to U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups. Since Wisconsin is one of 14 states that fails to have a transparency web site, the U.S. PIRG April 2010 report grades Wisconsin an F in providing online access to government spending data.

Unlike Wisconsin, other states have caught transparency web site fever. Thirty-two states currently require an online database with government expenditure data accessible to the public. Wisconsin lags behind other states that, in turn, lag behind private sector technology.

Take Google, for example. Type in the words government health care in the search engine and 218,000,000 results pop up in 0.38 seconds. Want to know where that package you ordered online is and when it will be at your front door? The answers are moments and clicks away. The public sector is fully capable of producing similar information.

Transparency web sites offer critical benefits. Online databases can pinpoint corruption, boost citizen confidence in government, and encourage fiscal responsibility.

U.S. PIRG reports the federal transparency web site cost less that $1 million to launch. Missouri’s web site was created by executive order as opposed to legislative action at less than $1 million using already-existing staff and funding. Updated daily, Missouri’s web site offers information about $20 billion in annual spending. California’s site cost $21,000.

Citizen involvement in government increases. Missouri’s web site that earned a “B” from U.S. PIRG had more than 13 million hits in its first 18 months of operation.

Substantial savings can be made. In just two years, Texas’ web site saved $4.8 million, thanks to greater government efficiency.

Design is critical. Transparency web sites must be developed properly for maximum quality and benefit. U.S. PIRG recommends all state government information be on one site, the information be comprehensive, some states only provide a two or three word description for some expenditures, and data should be searchable with a single query and through common-sense categories.

Wisconsin needs to get involved in the Google-government trend, a movement that has tremendous benefits for taxpayers. A one-stop Internet clearinghouse would throw a laser beam on government spending, the increased focus having great potential for significant savings. Creating a system that’s easy to use and understand eliminates taxpayer frustration and reduces the perception of abuse.

It stands to reason that this concept could also be applied to school districts, counties, cities, and other units of local government. Imagine being able to go to one simple website to find out how your government is spending your money. Wisconsinites bear one of the heaviest tax burdens in the country and deserve to know where each dollar is going.

I introduced legislation to create a Wisconsin transparency web site during the 2007-08 legislative session. Senate Bill 543 was referred to the state Senate Ethics Reform and Government Operations Committee chaired by state Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison). Risser refused to schedule Senate Bill 543 for a public hearing and the bill failed to get through the legislative process.  During the 2011-12 legislative session that convenes January 2011, I intend to reintroduce legislation that will create a user-friendly searchable website showing state expenditures. The bill will authorize frequent updates, informing the public quickly about tax money spending. A quick and easy Internet clearinghouse would throw a laser beam on government spending, the increased focus having great potential for significant savings.

The concept is doable, affordable, and should be bipartisan in popularity. Consider this: During 2008, legislation to improve federal transparency on the Internet was co-sponsored by then presidential rivals John McCain and Barack Obama.

Who can argue with Thomas Jefferson, quoted from 1802 in the U.S. PIRG report: “We might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any mind in the Union should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.” 

State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents Wisconsin's 28th Senate District.

There is no question high court elections in Wisconsin are the subject of intensifying attention. Like other elections, the candidates or special interest groups are slugging it out on negative 30-second TV and radio ads.

The Wisconsin State Journal has editorialized about the current judicial election system, calling it a “mess of big money influence, disgraceful TV ads, conflicts of interest, demands for recusals, disciplinary investigations of electoral winners and increasing public distrust of Wisconsin's judiciary.”

Pressure is building to strip the voting power of the general public in Supreme Court elections and convert to a system of appointed justices. A state Assemblyman is working on a proposed constitutional amendment that would have the governor nominate a circuit court or appellate judge in Wisconsin with at least eight years of experience to fill a vacancy on the state Supreme Court. Three-fifths of the state Senate, 20 of 33 members, would have to confirm the nominee. At the end of the justice’s 10-year term, voters in a statewide retention election would decide whether the justice remains on the bench.

I find little merit in this so-called merit system for justices.

Our country was founded as a Republic and the main foundation was and should continue to be representative government. The people elect their government. People have a basic, fundamental right to be participatory in their government in our great country. I am not thrilled about any notion of taking away that right.

Passionate citizen participation in government is the driving force that keeps our country strong and free. As government continues its troubling pattern of delegating more and more decisions to government because it is thought that the government will make better choices than the general voting public, we slip further away from the people’s government, and that has serious ramifications for the future.

The people, especially generations to follow become less aware of the actions of government. People become more and more reliant upon government to make decisions for them that they had made for themselves in the past. People's government awareness, decision-making, critical thinking, and voting responsibilities literally disappear.

The success of our government is the result of many bloody fights on many battlefields. I have a tremendous amount of respect and reverence for those that fought those bloody battles. The importance of the bloody battles in preserving our great country, still the best country in the world, far outweighs the importance of the petty bickering battles we read about in the media over Wisconsin Supreme Court elections.

Government should run plentiful honest elections, and do whatever is necessary to assure the public that their elections are clean and fair. Clean and fair elections mean the old adage of one man, one vote. Clean and fair elections do not mean stifling free speech. Clean and fair elections do not mean this game of government creating rules it believes control the fairness.

The more people are involved in their government, the better decision making the people will get from the government. That can not happen with people's voting privileges stripped away.

Assuredly the controversy surrounding the Wisconsin Supreme Court is causing people to sit up and pay attention. Would it be better that the high court be one big happy family we hear nothing about? Would it be better that the justices are all of one stripe and are mired in groupthink?

The controversy forces the justices to toil with difficult thought and present the public with their judicial philosophy, and the media then has something to stir up into controversy.
I say let the people vote. Do not eliminate that right. Let the noisy elections and public vetting be thorough and plentiful!

State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents Wisconsin's 28th Senate District.

I oppose the nanny state.

During May 2006, I wrote the following about a bill the governor signed into law that I voted against that forces parents to put their children under the age of eight in booster seats when they ride in motor vehicles.

"With a stroke of his pen, the Governor expanded the nanny state in Wisconsin by creating an enforcement and logistic nightmare. Under previous Wisconsin law, parents could decide whether their children between the ages of four and eight should be placed in booster seats or seat belts. That was plain old common sense. Under the new law there are several changes. How are police supposed to enforce this? Will every officer and squad car now be equipped with a scale and a tape measure to determine whether Mom and Dad or Grandpa and Grandma are breaking the law? How are parents expected to know or remember the requirements? Will they have to keep a copy of the law in their glove compartment or tucked under the visor? What are large families to do? Baby seats and booster seats are rather bulky. Imagine trying to squeeze two, three, or four of them into one of the new smaller size cars or vans."

I added the following in an August 2007 column:
"The many separate requirements by weight and height for each age category are confusing. Burdens are placed upon large families and carpoolers. Booster seats can be expensive and so can the fines for law violators."

As New York Yankee Hall of Famer Yogi Berra once said, "It's déjà vu all over again."

The state Senate has approved Senate Bill 162 (SB 162) that would require children 10 years and younger on boats to wear flotation devices. The bill originally proposed covering children 12 and under. However, an amendment approved by the state Senate lowered the age requirement to 10 and under.

SB 162 stipulates that "a person may not operate a recreational boat that is less than 26 feet in length unless, during the time the boat is under way, every person on the boat who is 10 years old or younger is wearing a personal flotation device (PFD) or is in a cabin space or below the deck."

What does "under way" mean? According to SB 162, "A recreational boat is under way if it is not aground, is not anchored or moored, and is not made fast to a structure or to the shore." In other words, just about any time a youngster is on a boat, a life preserver must be worn.

There is more.

The state Senate approved Senate Amendment 1 to the bill that the Wisconsin Legislative Council writes, "provides a specific penalty for a violation of this PFD requirement by the operator of the specified recreational boat. Any person violating this mandatory PFD provision must be issued a warning notice instead of a violation for the first offense. Any person subsequently violating the mandatory PFD provision must forfeit not more than $50 for the second offense and must forfeit not more $100 upon conviction of a third or subsequent offense."

SB 162 expands current law that simply requires each boat have on it a personal flotation device for each person riding in or on the boat.

Follow along to see if you have heard this song before. The government intervenes, assuming the role of big brother. New rules and regulations are established. Violators are subject to fines.

Do you see a pattern? It’s called booster seats for boats or, the nanny state strikes again.
Everyone supports child safety. However, the state once again takes on the role of thinking for people and the role of decision maker. The state should stay on the sidelines, in this case the shoreline, and allow parents to think for themselves and make common sense decisions about their children’s safety.

State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents Wisconsin's 28th Senate District.

Did you know the state of Wisconsin issues over 18,000 cards to certain state employees to make purchases?

The Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) has completed a review of the state’s program allowing state employees to use purchasing cards for state business purposes. The audit findings are mixed. There was not evidence of rampant fraud; however compliance with requirements could be improved.

A total of 3,071 purchasing card transactions recorded during 2008 was reviewed by the LAB. The purchases were selected based on the potential risk of abuse or fraud.  Under the state’s program, executive branch agencies and University of Wisconsin institutions used the purchasing cards.

Here are key audit findings.

The average purchase amount during 2008 was $233 per transaction. Some purchases, however, were greater than $25,000. Purchases made with state cards constituted only four percent of supply and service expenditures during 2008.

The Department of Administration (DOA) does not set limits on the amount of cards an employee may possess. Forty (40) cardholders had 10 or more cards during 2008. Each card is limited to a maximum balance for its two-week billing cycle and a maximum amount for a single transaction.

The average credit limit was $9,382 at state agencies and $14, 576 at UW institutions. The LAB determined that spending limits in many cases were higher than necessary, creating a potential financial risk to the state.

Over 1,100 cards issued during 2008 were unused.

Most cardholder transactions, 76.2 percent, followed strict documentation requirements. However, they could be improved to include a specific state business purpose for purchases.

The LAB found that, “Instances of inappropriate purchases were rare.” Here were exceptions the LAB identified:

• $52,463 in excessive or unnecessary purchases, including purchases that have a state business purpose but appear to be luxury items or to include avoidable costs such as late fees
• $9,181 in inappropriate purchases, including purchases made for personal use or that are otherwise unallowable
• $5,580 in third-party error or fraud, including erroneous or fraudulent charges made by vendors or unauthorized users
• $4,378 in unknown purchases, including instances in which there was not sufficient documentation for the LAB to determine what was purchased or whether it was appropriate, typically because of a lack of a receipt
• $2,897 in purchases that represented misapplication of a purchasing card, including purchases that had a state business purpose but were not allowed to be made using a purchasing card.   
• Eighteen (18) transactions totaling $52,463 in excessive and unnecessary purchases included, according to the LAB, “five business-class airfare tickets for State of Wisconsin Investment Board employees to travel to meetings in Europe, which totaled $48,226. Documentation maintained with two of the airfare transactions showed that the cost of two coach-class tickets would have been $12,600 less than the cost of two business class tickets.”

Excessive or unnecessary purchases at eight other agencies were identified, including:

• A $695 fox fur stole purchased by a UW-Milwaukee cardholder for a theater production.
• Two attaché cases purchased by a Department of Transportation cardholder for $230 each
  Four computer bags purchased by a UW-Milwaukee cardholder from a luxury luggage merchant for $195 each. 
• The LAB found 59 inappropriate purchases totaling $9,181 including one cardholder who accounted for 4 transactions totaling $1,142, including: 
• A $223 purchase from the UW-Madison Athletic department for tickets to a theatrical production.
• A $714 purchase from a vacation Web site for a trip to Las Vegas.
• A $56 purchase of a watch and purse.
• A $149 purchase for video game console repairs.

The LAB is recommending that the DOA work with UW institutions and state agencies that supply state purchasing cards to lower spending limits whenever possible, close unused accounts, require cardholders to explicitly document the state business purpose for purchases, reinforce prohibitions against the use of cards for certain travel expenses, and ensure employees given use of cards receive appropriate training.

As a member of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, I commend the LAB for another outstanding, comprehensive review for the benefit of the state of Wisconsin and its taxpayers.

State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents Wisconsin's 28th District.

Early voting is a trend that has caught on all across the country. Governing Magazine goes so far as to say, "The traditional precinct election, where everyone shows up on the appointed day, is in the process of decline."

Wisconsin election officials want your input about our state expanding early voting opportunities. The Wisconsin Government Accountability Board (GAB) is asking for opinions from local election officials and the general public during a series of summer listening sessions about the possible implementation of early voting measures for the 2010 elections.

Currently in Wisconsin, as in many other states, voters can cast ballots early with relative ease by using absentee ballots. A voter simply needs to request an absentee ballot. No reason or explanation is necessary.

A report produced by the GAB during March 2009 suggested three possible options for modifying Wisconsin's absentee ballot process:
1) Regional Districts comprised of counties and/or municipalities would conduct early voting at designated locations.  The GAB believes this option would offer uniform access for early voters. However, it would profoundly change Wisconsin's system of municipality-controlled elections.
2) Municipalities would have the option of adopting early voting. The GAB says this would offer maximum flexibility for municipalities, however would reduce statewide uniformity. Under this option, traditional forms of absentee voting would continue.
3) Absentee balloting would be streamlined. No absentee application would be required. Instead of placing the ballot in an envelope, the ballot would be placed in a secure carrier, to be fed into a voting machine and tabulated on Election Day.

The GAB studied other states with early voting procedures to determine what works best and has suggested these practices be considered in Wisconsin:

Beginning early voting about 20 days before an election and ending at least three days before Election Day giving officials time to prepare for Election Day.

Setting minimum hours at permanent early vote locations that can be extended at the discretion of election officials, with some Saturday hours being required and Sunday hours being optional.

Staffing early voting locations just like the polls on Election Day, having Electronic poll lists to prevent duplicate voting, and using Direct Recording Equipment systems that eliminate the need for paper ballots.

The GAB says, "True early voting allows the elector to complete and cast a ballot immediately by placing it in a tabulation machine. Early voting would significantly reduce the need for absentee applications and envelopes. Objectives of early voting, according to the GAB include increasing voter satisfaction by reducing lines, maintaining the integrity of the vote-counting process, relieving the workload of local elections officials, and controlling costs."

A report by the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project is cited by the GAB that advocates early voting in-person versus absentee voting in-person or by mail. The GAB says the Caltech/MIT report raised worries about absentee and mail-in voting including the potential for voters being coerced because privacy could be compromised, for example, by family or staff at a nursing home. There are also concerns about mail security and voter fraud. The possibility of uncounted, unmarked, or spoiled absentee ballots was also mentioned in the report.

There are negative aspects to early voting. Some studies, according to the GAB, also suggest in-person early voting increases turnout only slightly, if at all. Florida experienced numerous technical problems with its optical scan machines used during 2004. Early vote centers in the Sunshine State have experienced long lines and emergency extension of voting hours.

We can't forget the cost. The GAB says, “Early voting will cost more. It is very difficult to generalize how much it costs, because different states pay poll workers different amounts, have different hours, and a different number of locations. One study found that 'early voting required considerably more staffing than traditional precinct voting'. States and localities with outmoded voting machines may have to purchase new ones capable of processing dozens or hundreds of different ballot styles. Studies confirm that early in-person voting and liberalized absentee balloting do not clearly result in cost saving.”

GAB listening sessions about early voting include July 22, 2009, at the Kenosha County Center, Hearing Room, Kenosha, with a Clerks meeting from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. followed by the public meeting from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., and July 23, 2009 at West Allis City Hall, Common Council Meeting Room, West Allis, with a Clerks meeting from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. followed by the public meeting from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Comments from the public may also be submitted to the GAB by e-mailing the following address: gab@wi.gov. An early voting process that has been recommended for the spring 2010 election could be considered during the current legislative session. So your opinion is critical.

An early voting system has the potential of catching on and becoming popular. However, if such a system were to be implemented, every precaution must be taken to prevent fraud. As for me, one of the best changes we could and should make to our election process is to require a photo ID to vote.

State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin) represents Wisconsin's 28th District.