LES 1.03 (18m) “Tribal law enforcement officer” means a person who is employed by a tribe for the purpose of detecting and preventing crime and enforcing the tribe's laws or ordinances and who is authorized by the tribe to make arrests of Indian persons for violations of the tribe's laws or ordinances and who agrees to accept the duties of law enforcement officers under the laws of this state.

The majority of the rule changes will have no fiscal impact. However, certain changes will affect law enforcement agencies, tribal governments and a variety of political subdivisions in different ways. The identifiable sections and costs are outlined below.

Amending LES 1.02, there is no fiscal impact on political subdivisions of the state or state agencies. There will be an impact on Native American tribal governments amounting to an estimated $4,000 per law enforcement officer who is employed and trained to meet basic requirements of the Law Enforcement Standards Board. There will be an additional annual expense of $160 per officer to meet recertification training requirements of the LESB.

Amending LES 1.03 (19), there will be a negligible fiscal impact on inland lake protection and rehabilitation districts that choose to employ law enforcement officers who are already qualified to be certified by the LESB upon employment. Districts which employ officers who are required by the LESB to receive basic training will absorb an expense of approximately $4,000 per officer. There is no impact on state agencies or other local government units.

Amending LES 3.01 (1)(a) and (2) (a), the fiscal impact will be similar to the costs for repealing and recreating LES 5.01. (See below). NOTE: There is no increase in local expenses related to amending LES 3.01 (2)(a). The state absorbs the full annual cost to expand basic jail and secure detention training by employing approximately $50,000 GPR.

Repealing and recreating LES 5.01, there is negligible fiscal impact if local or state governments choose to employ law enforcement candidates who are qualified to be certified by the LESB upon employment. To implement statutory training expense reimbursement requirements for law enforcement, jail and secure detention officers, the Department of Justice nearly exactly compensated --- on a statewide basis --- a reduction in expense reimbursements for basic training with an increase in expense reimbursements for advanced training.

Local and state agencies who employ new law enforcement, jail and secure detention officers who require basic training to be certified by the LESB, will absorb an additional expense of about $6,500 per law enforcement officer and about $1,300 per jail or secure detention officer.

Statutes interpreted: ss. 455.045 and 455.08

SECTIONS 1 and 4. Applicants need to have an undergraduate degree in order to receive a graduate degree. Therefore, there is no need for the applicant to bear the expense or effort of submitting an undergraduate degree. The board proposes to repeal the requirement of submitting the undergraduate degree.

SECTION 2. The Psychology Examining Board does not have a policy for considering an inactive file abandoned and appropriate for disposal. Section Psy 2.015 is created to define applications as abandoned if the applicant does not respond to an application request for additional information within one year.

SECTION 3. The current rules relating to passing scores reference a specific numeric score. Rather than indicating a specific score, which could change, s. Psy 2.05 is repealed and recreated to indicate that to pass the examination, each applicant shall receive a score determined by the board to represent minimum competence to practice, and that the board shall make the determination of the passing score after consultation with subject matter experts who have reviewed a representative sample of the examination questions and available candidate performance statistics, and shall set the passing score for the examination at that point which represents minimum acceptable competence in the profession. The board accepts the recommendations of the Association of State and Provincial State Board for the passing score of the professional practice of psychology examination.

SECTION 1. Psy 2.01 (3) is amended to read:

Psy 2.01 (3) Official transcripts of graduate and undergraduate training, properly attested to by the degree granting institution and submitted by the institution directly to the board.

SECTION 2. Psy 2.015 is created to read:

Psy 2.015 APPLICATION ABANDONMENT. An applicant who files an application but who does not comply with a request for information related to the application within one year of the date of the application shall file a new application. An applicant who files an application but who does not fully complete the application within 3 years of the date of the application shall file a new application.

SECTION 3. Psy 2.05 is repealed and recreated to read:

Psy 2.05 (title) PASSING SCORES. (1) The passing scores set by the board represent the minimum competency required to protect public health and safety.

(2) The professional practice of psychology examination and the examination and the examination on the elements of practice essential to the public health, safety or welfare are scored separately. An applicant shall achieve a passing score on each of the required examinations to qualify for licensure.

(3) The board accepts the recommendations of the association of state and provincial examining boards for the passing score on the professional practice of psychology examination.

(4) To pass the examination on the elements of practice essential to the public health, safety or welfare, the applicant shall receive a score determined by the board to represent minimum competence to practice. The board shall make the determination of the passing score after consultation with subject matter experts who have reviewed a representative sample of the examination questions and available candidate performance statistics.

SECTION 4. Psy 3.01 (3) is amended to read:

Psy 3.01 (3) Official transcripts of graduate and undergraduate training, properly attested to by the degree granting institution and submitted by the institution directly to the board.

2. The projected anticipated state fiscal effect during the current biennium of the proposed rule is: $0.00.

3. The projected net annualized fiscal impact on state funds of the proposed rule is: $0.00.

The hearing sites are fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access any meeting, please call Jenny Lange, Consultant, Early Childhood: Exceptional Educational Needs Programs, at (608) 267-9172 or leave a message with the Teletypewriter (TTY) at (608) 267-2427 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Reasonable accommodation includes materials prepared in an alternative format, as provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Written comments on the proposed rules received by Ms. Slauson at the above address no later than September 16, 1996, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.

The proposed permanent rules also modify ch. PI 11 due to provisions included in Clearinghouse Rule 94-59. Effective May 1, 1995, Clearinghouse Rule 94-59 added the handicapping conditions of “autism”, “traumatic brain injury”, and “other health impairment” to the list of handicapping conditions criteria under s. PI 11.35. Also, the term “orthopedic impairment” was substituted for the term “physical handicapped.” When making these additions/modifications to the handicapping conditions eligibility criteria, the definition of handicapping condition under s. PI 11.02(23) was overlooked.

The proposed rules have been modified to correlate the definitions of handicapping conditions under s. PI 11.02(23) with the handicapping conditions eligibility criteria created under Clearinghouse Rule 94-59.