The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original
production. predictable is really a
court that looks like a legislature.
>> Despite criticism, courtrooms continue to be a
check and balance on partisan disputes of power
and resolve remains strong, as a Janesville worker
strike drags on. [MUSIC]
I'm Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on "Here& Now",
health workers in Janesville reached two
months on the picket line heading into Labor Day.
Alzheimer's and dementia research funding continues
for now, but the work is still at risk. Recent
rulings from the Wisconsin Supreme Court shuffled the
power balance in state government, and a sudden
spike in overdoses in La Crosse. It's "Here& Now"
for August 29th. [MUSIC]
>> Funding for "Here& Now" is provided by the Focus
Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.
>> Leading up to this Labor Day picket lines in
Janesville. That's where more than 130 health care
workers are on strike. In a contract dispute with
Mercyhealth. The workers are members of UAW local 95.
Local 95. President Judy McRoberts joins us now. And
thanks very much for being here, Judy.
>> So this strike started July 2nd and is now coming
into month three. Why are your members on strike?
>> Well, one of their main concerns is safety. And the
security of of their building and themselves and
the patients. The. We have an urgent care in this
building, and it's open until the evening. And
we've had people out in the parking lot panhandling and
asking for rides and so on. And it's scary for the
women who are leaving this, this facility at night.
We've also had some one of our nurses come in for an
urgent care shift and went to the break room. And
here's somebody was sitting had was staying in the
break room. And so that we there was no security in
the building. And that's not only unsafe for
employees, that's unsafe for our patients. We've
asked for at least security cameras or security cameras,
security officers to be in the building to in the
morning and at least in the evening to make sure the
building is secure and people can get out safely.
>> Why is it proving so hard to settle with
Mercyhealth over, over that issue?
>> I have no idea. But one thing I do want to point
out is the first day that we had our pickets set up,
our peaceful picketing picket line was that have
had no problems whatsoever. They've had security out
there for their people coming in the building and
worrying about their building being vandalized,
which is pretty sad. >> Are there issues around
pay and benefits as well, or is it most specifically
about safety? >> They did it for for a
wage increase. But the the wage increase that they
asked for is barely cost. The cost of everything
that's gone up in our country. Everybody sees
that. But also they raised their their premiums for
their mercy care health insurance, which is their
their insurance, Mercy's insurance. And they raised
the rates and with with the, with with the wage increase
it barely covers. We're not asking for anything that's
unreasonable. We're just asking for a fair agreement.
And the last agreement, the last negotiations we had,
they actually offered us less than they they offered
in the in the initial negotiations, which is a
slap in the face. >> The issues that you're
pressing, common concerns among health care workers
generally. >> I believe so. They've
had several issues at the hospitals that people have
been unruly. I mean, what what happens if you're in
an urgent care at night and somebody becomes unruly? I
mean, you have nobody there. You know, most of those
people are not equipped to fight off someone who's
it's a common thing that security should be, should
be, should be in medical facilities everywhere.
>> What about for your striking members? How are
they faring? As as the weeks go on?
>> They are they are they're concerned, but
they're not willing to give up the fight. We're 95%
union facility. And like I said, we're just looking
for a fair agreement. We're not asking for anything.
Unbelievable. I mean, we we're talking about a CEO
in a nonprofit that is making $13 million a year
and has 12 vice presidents that are making $450,000 a
year, plus their perks. That's that's that's
horrible. When you don't want to pay these people a
decent living rate where living wage.
>> Judy McRoberts President of local 95. Thanks very
much for joining us. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> When asked for comment, Mercyhealth provided their
original statement released in late June from Vice
President Jeni Hallatt saying, quote, throughout
our negotiations with the union, we have always
treated our 137 partners at Mercyhealth East in a fair
and equitable manner, consistent with our other
8000 plus employee partners. Unfortunately, the union
has rejected our offer as the fall semester is poised
to begin. Wisconsin's major research university,
UW-Madison, is grappling with the potential of tens
of millions of dollars of cuts to federal funding,
most of it cuts to National Institutes of Health
research funding. But the cuts span other disciplines,
like money from the Department of Energy, the
National Science Foundation and the Department of
Defense. What does this mean for the state's
flagship university? We check in with the senior
associate dean for basic research, biotechnology and
graduate studies at the UW School of Medicine and
Public Health. John Audia. Thanks very much for being
here. >> So, all told, what is
the hit to federal research funding at UW-Madison as it
stands now? enormous delays in a lot of
funds that we were expecting to arrive on
campus nationwide. That amounts to about $5 billion
in shortfall in NIH funding to go to research
institutions. We've been fortunate in some senses,
in that many of our grants have come through. However,
many more are sitting, waiting where there's an
expectation for months. I personally even went
through a period of time where I waited on a grant
to be awarded for four months beyond the time that
I expected it to start. This has enormous impacts
on our ability to fund our research, to fund our
people. And luckily though, UW-Madison has stood up
bridging programs, which have been phenomenal. So
our chancellor, Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin, has just
reached out and really enabled us to continue to
thrive, even in an era where there's a lot of
uncertainty. uncertainty being felt most
acutely? larger research programs
when there's interruptions in funding to our large
grants. This really affects a lot of individuals. And
unfortunately, there has been directives from the
National Institutes of Health to remove certain
language from the work that we're doing. Some of the
directions that we've been taking historically in
really very important areas. Those types of disruptions
lead to really enormous challenges in ensuring that
our people are able to stay employed. We have put a
people first mentality. We want to ensure that the
folks that are currently working at the university
are able to continue to do so and pursue their lines
of research. that people often focus on
when they talk about research at UW-Madison is
Alzheimer's and dementia research. How much federal
funding is does that research get and is that at
risk? >> So right now we bring in
over $100 million a year in research funding from
National Institutes of Health and other federal
sources in support of our work directed against
Alzheimer's disease, as well as related dementias.
Currently, the grants that we have in that area, the
largest ones led by Doctor Sterling Johnson, for
example, a grant called clarity, which is hoping to
identify biomarkers for dementia. This grant was
funded on time, fully funded. Our Alzheimer's
Disease Research Center, its core grant was funded
late but fully funded. Many other institutions across
the nation have not seeing their funds come in when
they are expecting them. We've been fortunate to
this point. However. coming out of NIH that puts
some of this or other research at risk?
>> So there's layers now of additional review that very
little. It's quite opaque to be honest. We don't
actually know who is actually reviewing the
grants. After the point. The scientific review
process is done. Those additional layers of review
that are being led by the administration, whether
it's within the HHS, Health and Human Services or at
NIH specifically, we really don't understand why they
exist, what value, what purpose they serve. But
what they do do is cause delays in those grants
being funded, and the money being able to be dispersed
to the institution. >> Is some of it. They're
looking at research that goes to disadvantaged
populations. >> Absolutely. And as I
think many of us know, our disadvantaged populations
are often the most impacted by various types of disease.
Alzheimer's disease is no different. We see that
Alzheimer's rates are much higher in groups that are
suffering from economic disadvantage, from
And when we have to remove language related to those
areas, it actually goes against what the science is
telling us by studying what's happening in those
populations around the state of Wisconsin, our
rural populations, our urban populations. That is
absolutely critical for us to be able to meet the
needs of everyone across the entire globe, across
the entire United States. >> Are cuts to indirect
costs for research operations happening.
>> So far? They haven't started. There is sort of
this idea that this is coming in the future, and
there's huge concern. We've seen, for example,
messaging from the National Science Foundation, from
the Department of Defense that are requiring us to
put in place smaller amounts of indirect costs,
which funds the institution, the actual fabric of the
university that allows this research to be done. Not
yet. We're really worried about where things could go
in the future, however. >> So if some of this
research this year was delayed but eventually
dispersed, what about next year?
that delta of about $5 billion that hasn't made it
out of NIH. Come the end of the NIH fiscal year, which
is the end of September, if those funds aren't
likely to be reverted back to Treasury. So those are
dollars that become they were appropriated by
Congress but not actually fulfilled.
>> All right. We leave it there. Thanks very much.
>> Thank you for hosting me today.
>> In state election news, conservative Wisconsin
Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley announced
today she will not seek reelection in 2026, saying
her work to rebuild the conservative movement is
not as a minority member of the court. Conservatives
have lost the last two state Supreme Court
elections by double digit margins. Giving the court a
Liberal majority until at least 2028. In other news,
on September 1st, new commercial building codes
will go into effect, nearly two years after a
legislative committee blocked a rule that would
have brought Wisconsin building codes into
compliance with international standards.
The rule update was at the center of a Wisconsin
Supreme Court case that did more than just change
building codes. Here and now, senior political
reporter Zach Schultz explains how this case is
part of a series of court decisions that have
dramatically shifted the balance of power at the
Capitol. >> Any discussion? Hearing?
None. Clerk will call the roll.
>> The Joint Committee for the Review of
Administrative Rules is probably not well known by
most people outside the Capitol.
>> I've been on the committee the entire time
I've been on the legislature.
Adam Neylon, it's one of the most important
been the place where Republicans can stop what
they view as executive overreach by the
administration of Governor Tony Evers.
because the real world impact of administrative
rules, people don't necessarily understand that
rules have the same impact as law.
>> Administrative rules are proposed by state agencies.
So when the DNR wants to update the standards on how
to clean up a hazardous waste spill, or the
Department of Safety and Professional Services wants
building codes, they have to go through a series of
steps, including scope statements and public
hearings, and eventually the proposed rule will end
up in front of the Joint Committee for the Review of
Administrative Rules. >> On behalf of the
Department, I respectfully request that this committee
extend the expiration date for emergency rule 2502 by
60 days. >> The committee can
request changes, but one of the laws passed during the
lame duck session at the end of Governor Scott
Walker's term gave JCR the ability to indefinitely
block rules. Both new rules and old rules that have
already been in effect for years. In 2023, the
committee blocked an update to the building codes.
>> When they proposed the building code, it went what
we believe far above and beyond legislative intent.
>> The committee also blocked a proposed rule
that would have banned gay conversion therapy.
>> We're not here specifically to discuss the
merits of any conversion therapy or any other type
of therapy. >> Governor Evers filed a
lawsuit claiming Jkr's ability to indefinitely
veto and unconstitutional. >> This case is as
consequential for the operation of government is.
Maybe I've seen in my time on the court.
>> At oral arguments, conservative Justice Brian
Hagedorn seemed to acknowledge the decades old
arrangement may not be legal, but so many laws
have been passed giving state agencies the power to
make new rules. With the understanding the
to make sure they didn't go too far.
Constitution says, but hey, this is how we've been
operating for a long time, and the legislature has
passed a lot of laws accepting the framework
that's been given. >> Maybe it's not what the
Constitution says was the key phrase from Hagedorn.
In a split decision, the Liberal majority struck
down Jkr's ability to object and suspend rules.
>> Sanity will reign. That's what I think. We've
been dealing with this for all the time I've been in
office, and that is this committee, mainly the
leadership. We're able to stop everything dead in
their tracks and then it things just don't happen.
>> Governor Tony Evers celebrated the decision.
While Republicans like Neylon fear what rules may
be coming now that they can't object.
>> What we're seeing now is how much this has expanded
executive authority and how The ability to sidestep the
legislature and potentially have agency heads create a
super legislature where they're able to implement
rules with no oversight from the legislature.
>> This isn't the only case in the last term where the
Wisconsin Supreme Court has eliminated legislative
oversight. In Evers v Marklein 1, the court ruled
6 to 1. The Joint Finance Committee couldn't hold up
purchases by the Noles. Nelson Stewardship Fund in
Kohl versus legislature, the court ruled seven zero.
The attorney general didn't need JFC approval to settle
civil lawsuits. >> Both at the national
level and particularly at Wisconsin. There is a
redefining and shifting of what people thought was the
balance of power and what the court is saying is now
the balance of power. >> Former Wisconsin Supreme
Court Justice Jeanine Gajewski says as the
partizan divides grow, the court is being asked to
look at the constitutionality of old
agreements on how government works.
there's a justification for it, not just the
gentleman's agreement or party's agreement. There
has to be a constitutional legal justification, or if
not, we're going to redefine it.
>> I think there's been a travesty of justice,
honestly, because there has been absolute weakening of
legislative oversight. >> Neylon may not like it,
but Democrats say the case was only filed because of
what they call the excessive abuse of
authority to shut down rules ranging from the DNR,
setting safe levels for PFAS contamination,
election rules on absentee ballots or the conversion
therapy ban. >> But I don't think the
headline should be about conversion therapy. I think
the headline should be we lost legislative oversight
because that's what really happened.
>> Gajewski says she was happy so many of the cases
cut across the partisan labels on the bench, with
conservatives joining with liberals, at least in part
an all these cases. >> I think that's healthy.
I really was glad to see that because I think a
court that is totally predictable is really a
court that looks like a legislature.
>> The decisions by the court are already having an
impact. Governor Evers cited the stewardship
decision when he recently approved raises for state
employees passed in the last budget without sending
them to the Joint Committee on Employee Relations, as
is required by law. Republicans refused to fund
the stewardship Fund in the last budget and are working
on a new bill to give them some level of oversight.
Neylon says they were already drafting
legislation in a more narrow fashion, to reduce
the need for agencies to draft rules.
>> You're already seeing bills be much more
prescriptive and not granting rulemaking
authority explicitly through legislation.
>> Well, I think that's what happens on decisions
that particularly upend what people have been doing.
And I think that what happens is that the the
branches get more creative. >> Neylon says his next
bill will attempt to restore some oversight for
Jcra in a way both sides can agree on.
>> I think there needs to be some sort of bipartisan
agreement, some sort of working together to make
sure that we put checks and balances back into our
system. >> Reporting from Madison.
I'm Zach Schultz for "Here& Now".
>> In western Wisconsin, a spike in drug overdoses led
the city of La Crosse to issue a safety alert in
recent days. What's going on? When overdoses were
trending down, we asked Doctor Chris Eberlein,
emergency medicine Health System. And, doctor,
thanks for being here. >> Yeah. You're welcome.
Thanks for having me. >> So what are the overdose
numbers that led to this safety alert?
>> So it's more of a trend. So we've been watching
overdose numbers really closely ever since.
Probably early pandemic time, but only in the last
several years have we really coordinated with EMS,
both first responders, including fire transport
agencies, some other members of the county,
Vivek health, some others that respond to overdoses,
and starting to pool data and sharing what we're
seeing in the community. So we had noticed, and
thankfully so last year we had great numbers. You know,
we're still way too high, but it was like a 60%
improvement year over year and overdose deaths and
responses. So really a great trend. And we're
seeing that at the beginning of this year as
well. And we would still go on about 1 to 2 overdose
calls a week is what kind of the trend was.
Throughout most of year we get small spikes and we and
we meet once a week and we discuss the data and we
were just watching it. We had a few that were like 3
or 4 in a week, but didn't really meet our threshold
to make any sort of announcement or, or change
our response. And then over this course of the last
couple of weeks, in late July, we were getting over
over ten responses in a week. And so, you know,
you're talking you know, that's a five fold increase
from what we were used to. And so that really made us
take pause. And then it happened again in the next
week as well. So so this is why we we figured we'd
better get some word out, figure out what we could do
as a community to see if there's anything we're
missing, and hopefully prevent some people from
having a bad outcome. >> Because you've said that
you get concerned when overdose cases begin to
increase in quick succession like that.
>> Yes. >> And that's just a marker
for something going on. >> Yeah. And usually it is
a change in supply change in use pattern. And so
we're really looking at trying to figure out what
that is. We did figure out what this one was. And it
was actually a change in the supply of not opiates.
Actually what we are seeing is that fentanyl was
intermixed with other stimulants, primarily
cocaine and methamphetamine. So these users had no idea
that they were at risk of an opioid overdose.
>> So do these synthetic opioids combined with other
drugs like those of which you speak, render Narcan
less effective? >> They would not. Narcan
would still be very effective for these, and
still a critical component in in our response.
>> And so is it known where these drugs are coming from?
Or is this just kind of the beginning of an
investigation to understand the scope of this?
>> Yeah. And unfortunately, we usually at our level
don't don't ever get that information of where these
are coming from. You know, that's more of a law
enforcement historically. You know, being in La
Crosse, we're between two major metropolitan areas as
far as Chicago and Minneapolis. And so they
come from one of those two areas, usually, at least
that's what I've been told by law enforcement.
>> So what is your message to people, drug users who
might who might be using these substances? And then
suddenly there's fentanyl mixed in. What is your
message? >> So there's a few things
to be aware of. One, any illegal drug could have
fentanyl in it. You know, it's something that is
relatively cheap to produce. Gets here in large
with other drugs. So I would assume that any drug
that you use could have fentanyl in it. Use
fentanyl test strips to test for fentanyl in the
drugs. Those are legal and widely available and then
never use alone. Always have someone there that
could call 911 and preferably give Narcan as
well as call 911, but you have to have Narcan
available, test your drugs and have a sober bystander
nearby that could enact help if you need it.
>> How hard is it for you to see this spike and treat
people experiencing it, or to lose someone to it?
>> I mean, it's always difficult. You know, this
is something we've been dealing with for years now.
You know, the country has lost hundreds of thousands
of people to the opioid epidemic. I think it's
touched just about every family at some point over
these last, you know, 15 years or so since it
started, no community has gone without impact. And so
when you see the spikes like this, you really want
to try and get, because sometimes I feel that we
can get a little bit complacent, especially when
things are going well. And that was one of my concerns
with this. You know, the the overdoses have gone
down. I just want to make sure, as you know, our
whole team wanted to make sure that everyone was
aware that it is still dangerous. And ideally, you
know, we could get them to stop and get help. But this
is the first step. You have to be alive to be able to
do that. And this is the step to do so well.
>> Doctor Chris Eberlein, thanks very much.
>> Very welcome. >> For more on this and
other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our
website at PBS Wisconsin. Org and then click on the
news tab. That's our program for tonight I'm
Frederica Freyberg. Have a good weekend.
[MUSIC] .
>> Funding for "Here& Now" is provided by the Focus
Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.