In a memo released Tuesday, Joint Finance Committee co-chairs state Sen. Mark Miller, D-Monona, and state Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison identified 45 nonfiscal items they plan to pull from the 2009-'11 state budget, but did not remove the statewide smoking ban or domestic-partner benefits from the budget.
The recommendations follow a list of policy items within the budget released by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. Items removed will be introduced as separate bills.
""The co-chairs of the committee believe there are fiscal ramifications with both of those items,"" said John Anderson, spokesperson for Miller.
According to Chris Daniels, LGBTQ issues director of the United Council of UW Students, domestic-partner benefits have been included in a number of previous budgets, but have yet to remain through the final vote.
Daniels believes the lack of domestic-partner benefits in the state is driving faculty and staff away from the UW System and toward better offers, often reluctantly.
""That's why this is really exciting that the Joint Finance Committee has kept this and has said this is really a priority,"" Daniels said.
With the implementation of domestic-partner benefits, health care could go up as little as 0.5 percent, Daniels said.
State Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, a staunch supporter of the statewide smoking ban, is equally pleased the smoking regulations are remaining within the budget.
""It would save millions of dollars if we kept it in,"" Risser said. ""It will reduce the state's health-care costs and taxpayers' costs.""
JFC member state Rep. Robin Vos, R-Racine, said he thinks the list of items the JFC removed was too short and the smoking ban and domestic-partner benefits have no fiscal impact. He said the list compiled by the LFB was much longer.
""The co-chairs agreed to take out most of the things that were not controversial that were policy items,"" Vos said. ""Anything that they thought might have a problem passing, they left in.""
He added that leaving nonfiscal items in the budget can lead to the enactment of bad policies because ""bad ideas don't get the scrutiny in the light of day that they would as a separate bill.""
