Progressive Thinking

Sen. Kathleen Vinehout writes about one of the sticking points in state budget negotiations, the Transportation budget. She shares information about consequences of borrowing, consequences of delaying road rehab and ways to find savings. She calls for a comprehensive audit of the DOT to help inform lawmakers and the public on ways to wisely invest transportation dollars.

MADISON - “Senate leader on budget deal: ‘I don’t know where we are at’” was the headline of a recent Associated Press story on the budget deal. The story went on to report there’s “no agreement yet on how to pay for transportation projects…”

While the Senate leader gathered up votes, I gathered up a few studies to understand if all this borrowing was necessary.

Here’s what I found:

Transportation spending is about $6 billion - 8.5% of our total state budget. About 40% of that comes from the federal government.

Last April, the budget committee received good news that low fuel costs meant residents were driving more and gas tax money is up – by about $13 million over 3 years.

But that’s nowhere near the amount necessary to cover the problems the governor created for legislators when he decided to borrow $1.3 billion for transportation spending.

Debt costs are expected to chew up almost a quarter of all transportation funds by the end of the coming budget. Large increases in borrowing is causing concern. To lower debt, legislators must reduce spending or increase revenue. The governor’s own Secretary of Transportation suggested many ways to increase revenue in his nearly 600-page budget.

But if my Republican colleagues don’t want to take action that might look like a fee increase, what else can be done?

Many in the Capitol are talking about cutting spending. The nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) asked DOT officials what this might mean. One possible consequence of cutting road rehab money is an increase in road roughness – as measured by a federal standard.

In 2001, 9% of Wisconsin roads scored in poor condition for roughness and the DOT now estimates 17% of roads scored poor. With a $500 million cut to the transportation budget residents will see an increase to 32% of roads in poor pavement roughness over the next ten years. Maybe this is not what citizens want.

Another option is to be more efficient with our transportation dollars. I suggest we audit the DOT to find ways to improve efficiencies. The last truly comprehensive audit of DOT was done by the Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) was in 1997. In that review, auditors raised questions about the effectiveness of outsourcing engineering to private firms.

Quality measures showed that DOT staff engineers had higher quality project design than outsourced engineers. Studies I reviewed showed use of these outsourced-engineers dramatically increased over the past two decades.

For example, spending on private construction engineers was only 8% of all construction-engineering costs in fiscal year 1987-88. Ten years later this spending jumped to a third of all dollars spent on construction engineers. By fiscal year 2009-10, three quarters of all dollars spent on construction engineers was spent on private firms.

Data I analyzed from a 2009 limited-scope review by LAB showed a 68% cost increase per project over 5 years for projects that involved private engineering consultants.

Further, a 2009 report to the State Engineering Association found use of outside consultants didn’t save the state money; in some cases private engineering firms cost up to 19% more than in-house state engineers. This study also recommended a comprehensive review of the role of consultants in state projects.

Increased use of internal staff instead of outside consultants is just one example of how to save money. The DOT Secretary and the Governor did request and receive 180 new engineering positions in the last budget. Unfortunately, I’ve heard from DOT staff that pay and benefits at private engineering firms are significantly better than DOT making it hard for the state to keep good staff.

Another concern is a program that allows contractors ‘flexibility’ in use of construction materials if they ‘warrantee’ the construction. A 2011 LAB report showed that DOT staff did not make inspections of over half of warrantee projects during the warrantee period; over a third of projects inspected didn’t meet DOT performance standards and in 6 projects that didn’t meet DOT performance standards, regional offices could not document that contractors performed required repair work.

These are just a few findings over the past few decades.

Any transportation ‘fix’ will be short-term until Wisconsin can get spending under control. To do that, legislators and the public need detailed management information – the kind that can only be obtained through an audit by the nonpartisan LAB.

Sen. Kathleen Vinehout writes about action by the Legislature’s majority party to eliminate the non-partisan Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) annual financial audit of the UW System. The action is a recipe for corruption and is akin to eliminating the watchdog over the taxpayers’ money.

MADISON - “Suspend current law…requiring the Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct an annual financial audit of the UW System. Instead, require the UW System to contract with an independent accounting firm,” read the motion introduced by Senator Harsdorf and Representative Schraa.

Recent action by a majority of the state’s budget writing committee not only kicked the nonpartisan Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) out of the UW System but also approved a process to get rid of state purchasing laws at the UW and waive the state’s bidding process for some UW building projects.

The motion effectively throws Wisconsin taxpayer controls out the window for a significant portion of the state budget. The UW System 2-year budget is over $11 billion – about a 7th of the entire state budget.

To justify suspending the LAB’s annual UW audit, the Harsdorf/Schraa motion required UW officials to contract with a private accounting firm.

This action kicked out the watchdog and replaced it with a goldfish.

Private accounting firms count things. They can tell us money was spent and the books were balanced. But their reports won’t tell us about how the money was spent and whether or not the spending was in students’ and taxpayers’ best interest.

Since its creation in 1966, financial audits are a primary responsibility of the Legislative Audit Bureau. In the past two years, the LAB completed 26 financial audits – including the audit opinion of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of state operations.

In a recent letter to the Co-Chairs of the Legislative Audit Committee, State Auditor Joe Chrisman explained: “In conducting financial audits, LAB follows professional auditing standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as well as generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States.”

The LAB financial auditors adhere to the same standards as private firms. They are required to be independent and sharpen their skills and knowledge through continuing education. Every three years the National State Auditors Association subjects the LAB to peer review. State law prohibits any meddling or outside influence with audit investigations and protects whistleblowers with strong confidentiality rules.

The LAB has extensive experience auditing the over $6 billion annual UW System budget.

Over the last 8 years or so the LAB reported on the following: how the UW allocates state tax money and tuition to campuses; the process followed to assess the financial reporting of entities like the UW Foundation and the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF); overpayments for retirement contributions and health insurance (some of the health insurance contributions were for employees no longer with the UW); audit differences including financial reporting errors by the UW System; changes in financial activities of the UW including an increase in unrestricted net assets; and internal controls.

The UW does not hire the LAB. Auditors answer to the State Auditor who answers to the Legislature, who answers to the people. No private firm involved.

The LAB answers questions my colleagues, taxpayers and I most often ask: What’s going on? How is it working? Can we do things better?

Kick out the LAB? Doing away with state procurement policies on contracting and hiring private firms? Doing away with some bidding rules? Contracting with a private auditing firm who knows nothing about the complex accounting and operations of the UW?

When I reviewed the Harsdorf/Schraa motion, I was left with a serious question: Why?

Recently Representatives Craig (R-Waukesha) and Jarchow (R-Balsam Lake) drafted a bill to entirely eliminate the Legislative Audit Bureau and the Legislative Audit Committee. They want to create an Inspector General for each state agency over 100 employees. They transfer all legislative oversight of the executive branch and the fraud, waste and abuse hotline to two partisan leaders. Their bill imbeds auditors in the agencies making them ripe for corruption by executive staff and partisan leaders.

The breadth of the Representatives’ ignorance of LAB activities and processes is staggering. Their bill shows a complete unfamiliarity with the skills of auditors, the efficiencies in government LAB staff helped created and the fraud, waste and abuse auditors discovered and further prevented through their oversight. All I can ask is why would legislators want do away with the LAB?

Last week, the Joint Finance Committee took action to strip away teacher standards, leaving education leaders and state citizens up in arms and more concerned then ever about the future of education in Wisconsin. Senator Vinehout writes about the importance of highly qualified teachers and calls on the public to contact legislators about this issue.

MADISON - “I’m counting on you,” Tracy from Mondovi wrote me.

“The architects of the Joint Finance Committee’s education budget package wrongly assumes that anyone can teach by allowing those with minimal qualifications and little more than a high school diploma to educate our children. Their action will degrade the quality of teaching in Wisconsin and represents a race to the bottom.”

Tracy was one of many constituents who recently contacted me about a big change in the state’s teaching standards.

In late night budget action, after freezing the school revenue limit and allowing no increase in aid, the Republican majority voted to strip away teaching standards.

As State Superintendent Tony Evers described in his statement, the changes “would require the Department of Public Instruction to license anyone with a bachelor’s degree in any subject to teach English, social studies, mathematics, and science.” Private schools or public schools would decide “that the individual is proficient and has relevant experience in each subject they teach.”

In addition, the state would be required to issue a teaching permit for “individuals who have not earned a bachelor’s degree, or potentially a high school diploma, to teach in any subject area, excluding the core subjects of mathematics, English, science, and social studies. The only requirement would be that the public school or district or private voucher school determines that the individual is proficient and has relevant experience in the subject they intend to teach.”

At the heart of this proposal is a complete disregard for the profession of teaching.

Proponents of this proposal assume that because you know something, you can also teach it. Any parent who has tried to assist a child with their math homework knows there is a big difference between knowing and teaching a subject.

Teaching shapes young minds for future learning. A great teacher has an impact on a youngster that lasts a lifetime. A poor teacher can have the same effect. The fifty-something who says “I can’t do math” might have been told as a youngster “you can’t do math.”

Learning comes differently to each of us. Part of the process of teaching is finding the unique learning style of each child and tailoring the lesson to allow each child to succeed. Knowing the content is the beginning, not the end of teacher education.

It’s been a long time since I took college classes to be educated as a teacher. But the lessons I learned follow me into every town hall meeting.

I thank the professors in the School of Education for the lessons they instilled in my intensive two-year teacher-training program. What I do in a public setting is effective because I consciously put in practice what I learned long ago.

Teachers know it is not just what you know but how you act that makes the difference for students mastering new knowledge or entirely turning off to a subject.

As Mr. Ryan, from Prescott, wrote to me, “Education preparation includes not only the history and psychology of education over time, it also includes opportunities for aspiring professionals to learn best practices, current theory, apply and collect data to develop proven methods, and much more. Moreover, it includes the most important aspect...live, in-person, human interaction and collaboration, …with all the attention placed on accountability, why in the world would legislation be put forth that moves the state of Wisconsin to the back of the line in terms of teacher training and preparation?”

Why indeed? Do we want Wisconsin to lead the nation in a lack of standards for teachers? International research tells us high standards for teachers and intensive teacher education result in the best outcome for students.

We need a widespread public outcry to stop what’s happening in this budget.

As Tracy told me, “I’m counting on you.” But to stop the race to the lowest standards and below national average funding for local schools, I need Republican legislator’s votes. They need to recognize, as the Pepin Superintendent wrote, “No one who votes for this budget can claim to support public schools.”

Everyone in Wisconsin has a stake in providing the best education possible for the generations to come. Now is the time to get involved. Your grandchild’s future depends on your action.

Recent action taken by majority party members on the Joint Finance Committee on funding for public education provided limited additional revenue to public schools while opening the door for expansion of private vouchers. It will take dollars away from public schools.

ALMA, WI - “Our number one priority gotta to be make (sic) sure that we make K-12 schools, public education in the state, a priority to make sure they’re held whole,” said Governor Walker on April 23rd, as quoted by Wisconsin Radio Network.

I agree, Governor! Let’s make public schools “whole.”

In a recent late night session, the state’s budget writing committee took up public school funding. Many advocates expected a turnaround in the governor’s proposed funding for local schools. Instead folks got a big surprise: lots of changes asked for by private school lobbyists. Not so for public schools.

In a press release, State Superintendent Tony Evers described the actions this way:

• For the first time ever, there is no increase in state imposed revenue limits over the next two school years, while voucher and independent charter school payments are increased in each year.
• State general equalization aid to public schools is cut in the first year to pay for voucher expansion and increased independent charter school payments. This leaves public schools with less state general aid than in 2010.
• Continues the freeze on state special education aid for what will be the eighth consecutive year, covering roughly a quarter of district special education costs while creating a new voucher program that drains funds from public schools.
• Essentially eliminates teacher licensing standards by allowing public and private schools to hire anyone to teach, even those without a bachelor’s degree, planting Wisconsin at the bottom nationally, below states with the lowest student achievement levels.

Republicans on the Joint Finance committee opened wide the spigot of state money flowing to private schools. Created in late night actions was a new statewide special education “voucher” program with $12,000 per student leaving the local school district; permission for the multiplication of some privately-operated independent charter schools and statewide expansion of private vouchers for all students with a cap of 1% of the local district’s enrollment in the first year and moving to unlimited expansion after several years. Money for this statewide subsidy would come from the local public schools.

In addition, to keep competitive sports programs, public schools would be required to accept private and home-schooled children into their sports programs and extracurricular activities and not charge these students any more than a public school student would be charged for sports or extracurricular activities. This rule would essentially ask public school parents to underwrite the cost of these private school children coming back into the public schools to partake of after-school activities – as the school would receive no additional fees from the state for these students.

Republican Finance Committee members also voted to create a new private school take-over of Milwaukee public schools. This system would leave no public school alternative in many Milwaukee neighborhoods. Many residents are concerned this action violates the state’s constitution to require an equal and public education for all children.

Left far behind was the governor’s promise to make sure public schools are “held whole.”

Ironically the day before, the governor spoke to a pro-private school group in New Orleans - the American Federation for Children - according to a Wisconsin State Journal report.

Had the governor been here, I would have told him that to make schools “whole” means returning the money cut from public schools.

The cumulative cut to public schools since 2011 – the first Governor Walker budget – is nearly $1.7 billion. These cuts happened at a time when Wisconsin collected and spent a cumulative increase in revenue of nearly $13.8 billion.

These staggering cuts – at a time when the state was spending much more – drained the savings of school districts, delayed maintenance, caused pay cuts and freezes to staff and left children with fewer resources.

As state school aid dropped and districts used up all available budget cutting measures, many districts were forced to go to referendum. The Wisconsin Taxpayer recently reported 78% of referenda passed in April of 2015 – a significantly higher rate than prior years. Property taxpayers, committed to their local schools, are picking up more of the burden.

Local public schools are at a breaking point. These new private school proposals will hasten their demise. Governor, it’s time to stand by your promise and make our public schools “whole”.

Sen. Kathleen Vinehout writes about the recently released audit of the Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Program, used by many in Wisconsin for rides to medical appointments.

MADISON - Last April I wrote about many complaints I received concerning rides to medical appointments for folks in BadgerCare and other Medicaid programs.

People complained drivers didn’t show up, rides were late, drivers didn’t arrive for the return trip home and – at least in one case – the heater did not work in a van taking an elderly woman for her dialysis appointment.

Often patients were told no drivers were available. But local transportation companies told me they were not getting enough business. Local drivers thought the St. Louis-based contractor, Medical Transportation Management, Inc. (MTM) favored a few large companies over small local ones. MTM is the statewide Non-Emergency Medical Transportation ‘broker’ the state hired to arrange rides for eligible patients.

Complaints about poor service helped my colleagues and I convince other legislators to approve a full investigation of the program.

Over 300 people called the Legislative Audit Bureau’s (LAB) hotline to share their complaints. These calls and over 50 interviews conducted by LAB staff were used to analyze problems with the Non-Emergency Medical Transportation Program. In addition, a survey was sent to 5,000 patients and their families. Also 311 transportation providers completed an internet-based survey.

The results of the year-long investigation are now in.

The new LAB report shows evidence of late rides, drivers’ failure to pick up people for their return ride home and the tendency of MTM to choose a few large transportation companies over smaller, local companies.

Despite problems, of the 773 riders who responded to the questionnaire, almost 87% were satisfied or very satisfied with their overall experience.

During the audit study period (August 2013 through June 2014), MTM provided 2.3 million trips and, by its own standard, estimated 99.6% of these trips were complaint free.

The LAB reviewed 12,748 complaints filed with MTM. Two-thirds of the time the company did not provide patients timely updates on their investigation of complaints.

The most common substantiated complaint was that the patient had to reschedule a trip because the driver never arrived. Second most common was the driver was late.

Analysis by auditors showed problems, particularly in rural areas, with no vehicles available to transport patients.

A majority of transportation providers surveyed reported they were dissatisfied with MTM’s trip scheduling, poor trip volume and poor compensation.

Drivers complained they were given a request for a ride after the time and date of the appointment. Since drivers were penalized for late rides, this led to time and energy spent by the provider to correct MTM’s mistake.

The audit also provided unexpected insight into a significant cost of drug abuse – in this case transporting recovering patients to treatment for addiction. Trips to drug treatment programs accounted for almost a quarter of the cost of services paid to providers during the audit period. In addition, 91 of the top 100 high cost patients had at least one drug addiction treatment visit.

Auditors mentioned that the lack of drug treatment services in rural areas contributed to high costs. In one case an individual made 540 trips between Ashland County and Eau Claire for treatment. In another case, an individual traveled 321 times between Polk County and Eau Claire. Recently enacted legislation to create new treatment programs in underserved and rural areas should help bring down future transportation costs.

Auditors found there was clearly a difference in patient satisfaction levels measured through an independent survey and the complaint rate of patients directly to MTM. These findings suggest a future independent survey could provide a more accurate perspective in determining actual patient satisfaction.

Nearly all complaints I heard leading up to this audit were verified by auditors. At the same time, most patients were satisfied with the ride service they received.

Some state programs might be pleased with such high satisfaction. But given the seriousness of the patients’ conditions – needing renal dialysis for example – it makes sense that we should hold MTM to a very high standard.

As Representative Peter Barca testified at the hearing that began this audit process, “When people are in the most sensitive period of their life, we must ensure they receive services and are treated with respect and dignity.”