The typical penalty bill we are concerned with here does not make or alter an appropriation; does not have as a purpose the raising of revenue; does not necessarily increase state or local fiscal liability; and, given the enforcement, prosecutional and sentencing discretion enjoyed by executive and judicial officials, has an impact which, at best, is difficult to anticipate.

  Having said all this, it is nevertheless still true that most penalty bills do have potential fiscal impacts upon state and local treasuries and that such impacts can be substantial. This can be seen in the costs associated with implementing existing penalty legislation. The budget for the Division of Corrections in the current biennium is $116 million, and the Governor's proposed budget for this agency for the next biennium is $145 million, one of the greatest percentage increases for a state agency in the budget bill currently before the Legislature. According to the Division of Corrections, the cost of caring for each individual sentenced to a state prison is presently about $9,000 per year, and, since there currently is no unused bed capacity in the system, for every 25 to 30 individuals added to the prison system, capital expenditures of approximately $452,000 are required for facilities. Add to this the costs of enforcement and adjudication and it becomes clear that the cumulative impact of penalty legislation is indeed substantial and significant.

  Current Capacity to Make Reliable Fiscal Estimates

143   Since 1957 when the fiscal estimate procedure was established, state agencies have significantly enhanced their ability to estimate fiscal impacts of all kinds. The acquisition of computer capabilities and numerous data banks are just two developments in state government which have greatly increased the sophistication of state agencies in providing information and in forecasting events and consequences. So, too, has the Legislature grown in sophistication in its approach to fiscal estimates. This year, with the adoption of the Legislature's joint rules, for the first time agencies have been instructed to specify in the narrative part of their estimates the assumptions utilized in computing costs and to provide a range of estimates when there is reasonable doubt about the impact of a proposed change in the law. These and other changes are resulting in the provision of meaningful and useful information to legislators, even when there is a great deal of uncertainty concerning the reliability of "bottom line" or net estimates, and even when no such net

  estimate is actually attempted. None of this is to say that predicting the fiscal impacts of many penalty bills will not continue to be frought with difficulty, due to the number and complexity of the variables generally involved. Rather, it is merely to say that we are now much better prepared to deal with the problems associated with such attempts and that important and relevant financial information can be provided even when reliable estimates are impossible. The fact that a reliable estimate cannot be provided for a bill, furthermore, is in itself important information for legislative decision-making.

  Decision

  Taken together, the language of the fiscal estimate requirement, its purpose, the significance of fiscal information in the legislative process, the significance of present-day fiscal effects stemming from penalty legislation, and our improved capability to anticipate such effects and deal with fiscal estimate information in a way which contributes to rationality in legislative decision-making, all point to the conclusion that Lieutenant Governor Schreiber's ruling should now be expanded to cover additional groups of penalty bills. The only element of this analysis pointing to a different conclusion is the ruling of Lieutenant Governor Nash. In the opinion of the chair, however, that precedent should be read with an understanding that with the passage of time often come changes in the settings and circumstances relied upon to arrive at and justify applications of general requirements to specific situations. It is the opinion of the chair in this case that a different answer today to the same question raised and ruled upon many years ago is justified by the changes in state government which have occurred since 1959. The only question remaining, then, is the extent to which the Schreiber ruling should be expanded.

  Given the generally acknowledged importance of fiscal information in the legislative process, it would seem far better to err on the side of asking agencies to prepare fiscal estimates for bills for which reliable estimates currently cannot be provided than it would to err on the side of not asking for such estimates when they actually could be provided. As already pointed out, even when agencies cannot make reliable net estimates, significant and meaningful information can be generated for the Legislature in the fiscal estimate process. Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that asking agencies for estimates they are presently incapable of supplying will stimulate them to acquire such capabilities in the future. To maximize the availability of fiscal information in the legislative process, then, a policy of liberally construing the fiscal estimate requirement to apply to all penalty bills would seem most appropriate.

144   In addition, the chair is informed by the Legislative Reference Bureau that requiring fiscal estimates on all penalty bills would simplify their responsibility of identifying bills for which fiscal estimates are required, while a policy of distinguishing between different types of penalty bills would only complicate it. Based on the 1973 ruling of Lieutenant Governor Schreiber, the Bureau has generally sought fiscal estimates for penalty bills with a direct cost impact on the State's correctional system. The distinction between penalty bills having and not having such an impact, however, is tenuous at best, and, in practice, the chair is told, has led to frequent discussions in the Bureau as to whether a specific bill requires or does not require a fiscal estimate. This uncertainty is undesirable, for the legislative process is served best when a procedure is applied uniformly to groups of bills which can be easily identified by different individuals with few disagreements.

  Accordingly, the chair now rules that the point of order raised by the Gentleman from the 56th Assembly District is well taken and that all penalty

  bills offered in the Assembly require fiscal estimates under Joint Rule 41 (1) and section 13.10 (2) of the Wisconsin Statutes.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Sensenbrenner raised the point of order that pursuant to joint rule 49 (2) the bill [Senate Bill 379, relating to allowing brewers, bottlers and wholesalers to make contributions to certain organizations] could not be considered for passage until a fiscal estimate was received.

  The chair [Lt.Gov. Schreiber] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Munts rose to the point of order that Senate Bill 255 [relating to mandatory coverage of chiropractic services in health, accident, sickness and casualty insurance policies, and providing a penalty] required a local fiscal note under Wisconsin Statutes 13.10.

  The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Jackamonis rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 125 [relating to limiting liability of landowners who allow their land to be used for certain outdoor recreational activities] required a fiscal note.

  The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order well taken. The chief clerk was directed to obtain a local fiscal note.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Risser raised the point of order that Senate Bill 227 [relating to Wisconsin state reformatory] required a fiscal note.

145   The chair ruled the point of order not well taken.

[Point of order:]

  Senate Bill 227 [relating to Wisconsin state reformatory].

  Senator Risser raised the point of order that Senate Bill 227 required a fiscal note. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  [Ruling of the chair:]

  On Wednesday, May 2, 1973, Senator Risser raised the point of order that Senate Bill 227 required a fiscal note. The chair took this point of order under advisement.

  Wisconsin Statutes section 13.10 (2) (a) states that: "any bill making an appropriation and any bill increasing or decreasing existing appropriations or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues shall, before any note is taken thereon by either house of the legislature if the bill is not referred to a standing committee, or before any public hearing is held before any standing committee or, if no public hearing is held, before any vote is taken by the committee, incorporate as a note a reliable estimate of the anticipated change in appropriation authority or state or general local government fiscal liability or revenues under the bill, including to the extent possible a projection of such changes in future biennia..." Senate Bill 227 requires that all males between the ages of 16 and 25, who are sentenced to prison terms for over one year, be placed first at the Wisconsin State Reformatory at Green Bay.

  Presently, both Waupun State Prison and the Green Bay Reformatory are used as reception centers in the correctional system. Should this bill pass, there will be an obvious increase in the number of offenders sent to Green Bay for reception purposes, an obvious need for additional staff, and possibly a need for additional space. An obvious decrease will be necessitated in the programs and staffing at Waupun State Prison. Because of the very apparent change in program activities and staffing patterns in the correction system, which may affect the state appropriation, the question of the requirement of a fiscal note to this bill was taken under advisement by the chair.

  In order to determine whether or not this bill falls under the categories specified under section 13.10, a request was made of the State Bureau of Planning and Budget to explain the possible fiscal effects of Senate Bill 227.

  The response for the information is attached hereto and made a part of this ruling.

  State of Wisconsin

  Department of Administration May 7, 1973

  The Honorable Martin Schreiber Lieutenant Governor State Capitol Madison, Wisconsin

  Dear Lieutenant Governor Schreiber:

146   This is in response to your inquiry about Senate Bill 227 and its possible fiscal effect. Our department has reviewed the bill and would estimate that it could very well increase costs in our correctional system in a number of ways: Since the Green Bay Reformatory is presently at almost full capacity, any large influx of inmates for reception purposes could require additional staff at the Reformatory. Presently, the adult, male admissions average between 90 and 100 per month, which would, depending on the length of stay at the Reformatory, cause an over- crowding of facilities and a possible need for new facilities to handle such a large influx of inmates. Presently, both the Waupun State Prison and the Green Bay Reformatory are used as reception centers in the correctional system. By requiring that all males between the ages of 16 and 25, who are sentenced to prison terms for over one year, the amount of transferring between institutions would increase, having a concomitant effect on costs within the correctional program. The Legislature is presently considering a new youthful offenders program for Wisconsin. As you know, a bill was passed in the 1971 session which was vetoed by the Governor, and since that time the Governor has prepared a new proposal creating a youthful offenders program, which is presently before both the State Assembly and the State Senate. Assuming the new youthful offenders program were in effect, this bill (SB 227) would be contradictory. By requiring all males between 16 and 25 sentenced to over one-year terms to the Green Bay Reformatory for reception purposes, an additional cost would be incurred by then transferring those males to a youthful offenders institution at some other location. These observations would indicate that Senate Bill 227 could have a substantial fiscal impact on the correctional program in Wisconsin. A detailed fiscal note might be useful in dealing with these questions on a more detailed level. Our department would be willing to cooperate in the preparation of a fiscal note for Senate Bill 227, if requested by the Legislature.

  Sincerely, RICHARD I. PETERSON
Chief, Budget and Program Planning Section

  Based on the report of the Bureau of Planning and Budget, it is the chair's position that Senate Bill 227 falls within the purview of Wisconsin Statutes section 13.10 and therefore, pursuant to law, requires a fiscal note.

  Respectfully submitted,
MARTIN J. SCHREIBER, Lieutenant Governor

[Point of order:]

  Senator Roshell moved that Senate Bill 138 [relating to removing limitations on awards for loss of society and companionship] be referred to joint committee on Finance.

  Senator Chilsen raised the point of order that Senate Bill 138 requires a fiscal estimate. The chair took the point of order under advisement.

  Ruling of the chair [Pres. Risser]:

  Earlier today the Senator from the 29th District, Senator Chilsen, raised the point of order that Senate Bill 138 required a fiscal estimate and that one had not been received.

  A reading of the original bill indicates that a fiscal note would not be required. Joint Rule 41 (2) reads "Fiscal estimates are required on original bills only and not on substitute amendments or amendments."

  It is the opinion of the Chair that the point of order is not well taken.

  Point of order:

  Representative Thompson rose to the point of order that senate substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 363 [relating to motor vehicles used by public or nonpublic schools for driver's education and creating a penalty] required a local fiscal estimate under section 13.10 (2) (a) of the Wisconsin Statutes because it became the bill when adopted by the senate and messaged to the assembly.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because section 13.10 (2) (a) of the Wisconsin Statutes and Joint Rule 41 (2) require fiscal estimates on original bills only and not on amendments or substitute amendments.

  Point of order:

  Representative Shabaz rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 248 [relating to a school board's obligation to provide transportation for pupils attending private school] was required to be referred to the Joint Committee on Finance under section 13.10 (1) of the Wisconsin Statutes.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because the bill did not provide for an appropriation.

  Point of order:

  Representative Flintrop rose to the point of order that Assembly Bill 248 required a local fiscal estimate under section 13.10 (2) (a) of the Wisconsin Statutes.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken because a local fiscal estimate had been prepared on the original bill and one was not required on the substitute amendment.

  Point of order:

  Representative Snyder rose to the point of order that assembly substitute amendment 1 to Assembly Bill 624 required a fiscal estimate.

  The speaker [Jackamonis] ruled the point of order not well taken since Joint Rule 41 (2) does not require fiscal estimates on substitute amendments.

[Point of order:]

  Senator Risser raised the point of order that the fiscal estimate was not accurate on Senate Bill 139 [relating to tax counseling at senior citizen centers].

  The chair [Sen. Kleczka] ruled the point of order not well taken pursuant to joint rule 49 which only requires the bill to have a fiscal note which it does.

  Point of order:

  Representative Azim rose to the point of order that the conference committee report [on Assembly Bill 725; relating to provisions of professional liability insurance policies for health care providers] required a fiscal note pursuant to Joint Rule 24 and Wisconsin Statutes 13.10.

  The speaker [Anderson] ruled the point of order not well taken.