Tobacco Documents Online

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMEN'P OF ADMINISTRATION CORRESPONDENCE/MEMORANDUM DATE: June 26, 1991 TO: P. Nicholas Hurtgen, Deputy Secretary FROM: Michael Grebe SUBJECT: Smoking policies in state-owned buildings Following a telephone discussion with Tom Krauskopf yesterday, I have been able to obtain the following information: I. Current smoking policies Smoking in state buildings is governed by state law. Wis. Stat. 101.123 is the applicable chapter and forbids smoking in many areas, including "[a]ny enclosed, indoor area of a state ... building." There are exceptions to this rule, providing for the designation of specified "smoking areas", and the allowance of smoking in private offices. The University of Wisconsin-Madison has enacted a rule which will limit smoking to a few designated areas on campus. Tenants of state-owned buildings are permitted to promulgate their own rules concerning smoking, as long as they are in compliance with state law. There are no plans at present to change this policy. Most state buildings are apparently smoke-free, with a designated area provided within the building for smoking. In the GEF 2 building, for instance, the only public smoking area is in the cafeteria. In the Lorraine Building, housing DOJ, plans have been made to build an enclosed smoking area on the mezzanine level, maintaining a smoke-free environment in the rest of the building. The Hillfarm Building, housing DOT, is an entirely smoke-free building. The DNR has apparently explored the possibility of providing a smoke-free environment within its space. II. Future Plans Policies are apparently set by the Secretary of the Department of Administration. No future plans concerning smoking in state buildings have been elaborated. There are provisions in the plans for the new DOA building currently under construction to include a designated smoking area, at a cost of $40,000, in spite of a recommendation that the building be entirely smoke-free. T10 21 2-1 964

III. Group challenges to policy There has been no substantial, organized protest of the policies, either in favor of leniency or strictness, although there are occasional requests to alter the policy in some fashion. DNR has apparently made a few such requests. When the DOT building became entirely smoke-free, for example, there were no substantial complaints. The union for Building and Grounds employees filed a grievance protesting certain smoking restrictions. All state-owned buildings have air quality committees, as part of the quality improvement program, whose purpose is to monitor the situation and solve conflicts. T10 21 2-1 96 5