Wisconsin Legislature: vol74-185

74 Op. Att'y Gen. 185, 185 (1985)

Milwaukee County; Public Assistance;

A county may not require or request that a public assistance applicant or recipient provide a fingerprint for the purposes of identification as a precondition to receiving aid. OAG 33-85

August 16, 1985

74 Op. Att'y Gen. 185, 185 (1985)

George E. Rice

Acting Corporation Counsel

Milwaukee County

74 Op. Att'y Gen. 185, 185 (1985)

You ask my opinion on an adopted resolution of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors, as approved by the county executive, which attempts to detect and to prevent fraud in the administration of the general relief program. Specifically, you ask whether the county board can require general relief applicants to provide a fingerprint on a county I.D. card for identification purposes.

74 Op. Att'y Gen. 185, 185-186 (1985)

Eligible dependent persons are entitled to general relief in Wisconsin under one of two basic administrative arrangements. Section 49.02(1), Stats., provides that municipalities shall provide such relief while section 49.03 establishes two optional programs whereby counties may, at their election, assume some or all of the responsibility for the provision of general relief. Counties in which relief is administered by municipalities are said to be on the "unit" system, and counties electing to provide relief directly to recipients, pursuant to section 49.03, are said to be on the "county" system.

Brown County v. H&SS Department

, 103 Wis. 2d 37, 45-46, 307 N.W.2d 247 (1981).

74 Op. Att'y Gen. 185, 186 (1985)

With respect to a particular group of relief recipients denominated as "state dependents" under section 49.04(1), the state, rather than the local relief granting agencies, bears the ultimate cost of any assistance granted on a temporary basis as defined by section 49.01(7). The underlying purpose of section 49.04 was to relieve counties of the added burden of relief to transients from outside the state as a result of the migrations following World War II by providing state reimbursement for aid given to persons who had no legal settlement in Wisconsin and who had resided in the state for less than one year. However, it was intended that the counties or local units of government should remain primarily liable for the relief of persons whose need for relief could be fairly said to have arisen in the background of local conditions.

State ex rel. Milwaukee County v. Schmidt

, 50 Wis. 2d 303, 310-11, 184 N.W.2d 183 (1971).

74 Op. Att'y Gen. 185, 186 (1985)

The relationship between counties and the state and the extent of the authority which counties may legitimately exercise was summarized in

Dane County v. H&SS Dept.

, 79 Wis. 2d 323, 329-30, 255 N.W.2d 539 (1977):

74 Op. Att'y Gen. 185, 186-187 (1985)

This court recently reaffirmed the principle that counties are creatures of the Legislature and their powers must be exercised within the scope of authority ceded to them by the state,

State ex rel. Conway v. Elvod

, 70 Wis. 2d 448, 234 N.W.2d 354 (1975). The Legislature's authority to regulate the powers of a county are found in Art. IV, sec. 23, Wis. Const.

State v. Sylvester

, 26 Wis.2d 43, 132 N.W.2d 249, 253 (1965). In governmental matters, the county is simply the arm of the state; the state may direct its action as it deems best and the county cannot complain or refuse to obey.

McDougall v. Racine County

, 156 Wis. 663, 146 N.W. 794 (1914).

Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District v. Committee on Water Pollution

, 260 Wis. 229, 50 N.W.2d 424 (1951). The county exists in large measure to help handle the state's burden of political organization and civil administration.

State v. Mutter

, 23 Wis.2d 407, 127 N.W.2d 15, 18 (1964),

appeal dismissed

, 379 U.S. 201. But as a creature of the state, it is not permitted to "censor or supervise" the activities of its creator.

Marshfield v. Cameron

, 24 Wis.2d 56, 63, 127 N.W.2d 809 (1964).