>> FUNDING FOR HERE AND NOW IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR
JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.
[CAPTION TEST]
>> THIS MONTH, YOU MAY HEAR LESS
LAWN MOWER SOUND AND MORE BUZZ
ABOUT NO MOW MAY.
WITH DECLINING BEE POPULATIONS
CONCERNING THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY, ONE WISCONSIN
BIOLOGIST TOOK ACTION IN HIS OWN
BACKYARD.
OUR NEXT GUEST BROUGHT NO MOW
MAY TO APPLETON THREE YEARS AGO.
AND THE IDEA HAS BLOOMED ACROSS
THE STATE AND THE COUNTRY.
ISRAEL DEL TORO JOINS US FROM AM
TOAPPLETON.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> IT'S A PLEASURE TO TALK TO
YOU.
>> THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS A
PBS WISCONSIN ORIGINAL
PRODUCTION.
>> WISCONSIN PRO-CHOICE
SUPPORTERS RESPOND TO A LEAKED
U.S. SUPREME COURT DRAFT OPINION
THAT OVERTURNS ROE V. WADE.
STATE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS CAN
HURT SOME PEOPLE MORE THAN THEY
HELP.
AND A GROWING MOVEMENT TO HELP
POLLINATORS.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
TONIGHT ON "HERE AND NOW," A
WISCONSIN BIOLOGIST POLL POLLINATES
THE IDEA OF NO MOW MAY.
AN ATTORNEY SAYS PEOPLE ARE
PAYING BIG FOR MISTAKES MADE
WHEN APPLYING FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
BENEFITS.
ZAC SCHULTZ EXPLAINS THE
POLITICAL CALCULATIONS OF
OVERTURNING ROE V. WADE, AND A
FORMER STATE SUPREME COURT
JUSTICE ON THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE
OF ABORTION LAW IN THE STATE.
IT'S "HERE AND NOW" FOR MAY 6.
>> FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR
JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.
>> THE LEAKED SUPREME COURT
DRAFT OPINION OVERTURNING ROE V.
WADE THIS WEEK CAUSED IMMEDIATE
REACTION NATIONWIDE AND AT HOME.
BECAUSE THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE
RULING, EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED
FORMALLY IN LATE JUNE, ARE THAT
ABORTION WILL NO LONGER BE LEGAL
IN MANY STATES, INCLUDING
WISCONSIN.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOW THE LEAKED
DRAFT SHAKES UP POLITICS IN
WISCONSIN JUST AHEAD OF
ELECTIONS WITH ZAC SCHULTZ AT
THE CAPITOL.
BUT FIRST, WE TURN TO MARQUETTE
UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL PROFESSOR
AND FORMER WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT JUSTICE, JANINE GESKE.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> MY PLEASURE.
THANK YOU.
>> SO AS TO THE HIGH COURT DRAFT
OPINION ON ROE V. WADE, I HEARD
YOU SAY YOU THINK STABILITY OF
THE LAW AND PRECEDENT ARE
IMPORTANT.
SHOULD THIS DRAFT BECOME THE
FINAL RULING, WHAT DO YOU THINK
ABOUT WHETHER IT UPSETS
PRECEDENT CAUSING INSTABILITY?
>> WELL, IT CERTAINLY UPSETS
PRECEDENT.
WE'VE HAD PRECEDENT FOR 50 YEARS
WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS, SLIGHT
MODIFICATIONS, WHICH IS A NORMAL
PROCESS.
I THINK IT REALLY DOES CAUSE
INSTABILITY.
IT TURNS EVERYTHING UPSIDE-DOWN.
WE'RE GOING FROM SUDDENLY SAYING
IT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF
WOMEN TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THIS
DECISION ABOUT THEIR OWN BODIES,
THAT IF THAT OPINION IS ADOPTED,
THAT THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO THAT PRIVACY AND THAT
THE STATES CAN MAKE THEIR
DECISIONS AS TO WHAT RIGHTS THEY
WANT TO GIVE WOMEN.
>> SO DOES THROWING EVERYTHING
UPSIDE-DOWN, IS THAT A BAD THING
THING?
>> WELL, I THINK IT IS.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE TIMES IT IS
NEEDED, YOU KNOW.
DISCRIMINATION IN SCHOOLS, BROWN
VERSUS BOARD OF ED AND THOSE
KINDS OF CASES, IT WAS CLEAR.
THIS HAS BEEN A TOUGH, TOUGH
ISSUE FOR THIS COUNTRY.
WE HAVE VERY DIVIDED POPULOUS
ISSUE.
BUT I THINK THAT SLIGHT
MODIFICATIONS IN MOVING WITH IT
IS SOMETHING PEOPLE CAN ADJUST
TO.
I THINK THERE IS -- THERE'S
ALREADY BEEN A REACTION, THERE
WILL BE A HUGE REACTION, FRANKLY
EITHER WAY IT GOES IN THE
SUMMER.
AND I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE
THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SUCH --
IF THAT OPINION IS RIGHT, SUCH
AN UPHEAVAL, WHAT'S BEEN THE LAW
FOR 50 YEARS.
>> THE U.S. SUPREME COURT WOULD
THROW THE ISSUE NOW OF ABORTION
BACK TO THE STATES.
WISCONSIN FOR ITS PART HAS HAD
AN 1849 LAW ON THE BOOKS THAT
READS, "ANY PERSON OTHER THAN
THE MOTHER WHO INTENTIONALLY
DESTROYS THE LIFE OF AN UNBORN
CHILD IS GUILTY OF A CLASS H
FELONY."
SO IT PROHIBITS WISCONSIN
DOCTORS FROM PERFORMING
ABORTIONS EXCEPT TO SAVE THE
LIFE OF THE MOTHER AND ALLOWS
FOR UP TO SIX YEARS IN PRISON
AND $10,000 IN FINES.
UNDER YOUR READING OF THAT
173-YEAR-OLD LAW, WOULD IT MEAN
THAT THE MOTHER COULD INDUCE,
SAY, A MEDICAL OR MEDICATION
ABORTION WITHOUT PENALTY?
>> UNDER THAT LAW, IT APPEARS
THAT.
BUT I DO BELIEVE THERE'S A 1950
LAW THAT ALSO MADE IT CRIMINAL
FOR A WOMAN TO SELF-PROCURE AN
ABORTION, AND SO -- AND I
SUSPECT THAT OUR LEGISLATURE IS
PROBABLY GOING TO GO IN THAT
DIRECTION AND CLARIFY THAT.
BUT OTHER THAN THE OLDER LAW
CLEARLY THERE'S SOMEBODY GIVING
OR DELIVERING AN ABORTION, IT
WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO IS HAVING
THE ABORTION PERFORMED ON HER.
>> NOT WITHSTANDING SOME OF
THOSE MODIFICATIONS, CAN COURTS
REALLY DEPEND ON A 19TH CENTURY
LAW THAT JUST LANDS BACK ON THE
BOOKS?
>> WELL, IT'S CHALLENGING, AND I
SEE OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL IS
RAISING THAT ISSUE OF WHETHER OR
NOT THAT LAW BECOMES ALMOST
EXTINCT, BUT YOU KNOW, I THINK
THAT'S A TOUGH ARGUMENT.
IT'S ON THE BOOKS, THE
LEGISLATURE HAS DECIDED FOR
WHATEVER REASON NOT TO REMOVE IT
ALL THOSE YEARS, AND SO I THINK
IT DOES BECOME THE LAW UNLESS
IT'S MODIFIED AGAIN BY THE
LEGISLATURE.
AND SO WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
I KNOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS
SAID HE'S NOT GOING TO ENFORCE
IT, BUT WE HAVE 72 COUNTIES WITH
PROSECUTORS WHO WOULD CERTAINLY
BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
>> SO AS TO THAT, WOULD THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS IN THE
72 COUNTIES BE ABLE TO DECIDE
WHETHER TO ENFORCE OR NOT?
>> WELL, THAT'S AN INTERESTING
QUESTION.
I BELIEVE THEY COULD.
PROSECUTORS HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT
OF DISCRETION OF WHEN TO ISSUE
CHARGES AND NOT ISSUE CHARGES.
IT'S PRETTY RARE, THOUGH, THAT A
PROSECUTOR SAYS I'M NEVER GOING
TO ENFORCE A LAW UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND I'M SURE THERE WOULD BE AN
ATTEMPT BY THOSE WHO BELIEVE
THAT IT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED TO
BRING IN WHAT WE CALL A MANDAMUS
OR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION
IN A COURT TO FORCE A PROSECUTOR
OR TO APPOINT A SPECIAL
PROSECUTOR.
BUT PROSECUTORS HAVE A LOT OF
DISCRETION, SO I JUST SEE
THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF
LITIGATION, WHICH GETS BACK TO
OUR INSTABILITY IN THE LAW.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE ALL
SORTS OF NEW CASES AND THE
LEGISLATORS WHO HAVE NOT DEALT
WITH THIS ISSUE FOR A VERY LONG
TIME, SUDDENLY ARE GOING TO BE
VERY INVOLVED IN THIS ISSUE, AND
AN ISSUE THAT PEOPLE CARE VERY
MUCH ABOUT.
>> VERY MUCH HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT
THE LEAK OF THIS DRAFT SUPREME
COURT OPINION ON ROE V. WADE
WITH SOME SAYING IT'S NOT THE
LEAK AT ISSUE, IT'S THE MEAT OF
THE RULING.
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION OF THE LEAK
LEAK?
>> IT'S VERY SERIOUS.
IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE
COURT IS WORKING AND TRYING TO
DRAFT AND COME TO A CONCLUSION
ON A FINAL DECISION, REMAIN
CONFIDENTIAL.
AND YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS
THINKING ABOUT THIS DRAFT, IT
COULD BE ANYTHING FROM THE CHIEF
JUSTICE SAYING TO JUSTICE ALITO,
YOU BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE
TOTALLY REMOVED.
WRITE THAT DECISION AND LET THE
REST OF US REACT TO IT.
AND THEN WE'LL WRITE AND SEE
WHETHER WE MODIFY IT OR WE -- IT
SOUNDED LIKE DURING QUESTIONING,
THAT JUSTICE ROBERTS MIGHT BE
INTERESTED IN JUST UPHOLDING THE
MISSISSIPPI LAW.
SO YOU KNOW, A FIRST DRAFT
RARELY STAYS THE SAME TO THE
FINAL DRAFT, AND THE FACT THAT
IT'S BEEN LEAKED, NOW PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO THINK THAT THE PUBLIC
REACTION IS GOING TO INFLUENCE
THE DECISION, BECAUSE
EVERYBODY'S HAD A CHANCE TO SEE
IT.
AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE.
>> WE'LL SEE WHAT THE FINAL
OPINION LOOKS LIKE.
JANINE GESKE, THANK YOU VERY
MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
MY PLEASURE.
>> WISCONSIN POLITICAL LEADERS
QUICKLY SHARED THEIR IMPRESSIONS
OF WHAT THIS NEWS MEANS FOR
WISCONSIN.
GOVERNOR TONY EVERS ALONG WITH
16 OTHER GOVERNORS PENNED A
LETTER TO THE LEADERS OF
CONGRESS CALLING ON THE U.S.
SENATE TO TAKE UP THE WOMEN'S
HEALTH PROTECTION ACT, WHICH
COULD CODIFY THE RIGHT TO
ABORTION INTO FEDERAL LAW.
OVER TWITTER, DEMOCRATIC SENATOR
TAMMY BALDWIN SAID, "IF SCOTUS
IS GOING TO LEGISLATE FROM THE
BENCH AND TURN BACK THE THE CLOCK
THEN THE SENATE NEEDS TO PASS MY
WOMEN'S PROTECTION ACT AND IF WE
NEED TO ELIMINATE THE FILIBUSTER
TO GET IT DONE, WE SHOULD DO
THAT TOO."
REPUBLICAN JUROR JJ ONLY SENATOR -- THIS IS
YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF HOW THE
RADICAL LEFT INTENDS TO
FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM AMERICA,
HE SAID.
NATIONAL POLLING SHOWS 70% OF
AMERICANS THINK ABORTION SHOULD
BE BETWEEN A WOMAN AND HER
DOCTOR.
WITH 58% SAYING ABORTION SHOULD
BE LEGAL IN ALL OR MOST CASES.
IN WISCONSIN, PUBLIC OPINION
SURVEYS SHOW ABOUT 60% OF
RESPONDENTS THINK ABORTION
SHOULD BE LEGAL IN ALL OR MOST
CASES.
IF THOSE ARE THE MAJORITY
OPINIONS ON THE MATTER, WHERE
DOES THAT LEAVE PRO-LIFE
POLITICIANS JUST AHEAD OF THE
MIDTERM ELECTIONS, WHICH INCLUDE
RACES FOR GOVERNOR, U.S. SENATE
AND ATTORNEY GENERAL?
WE TAKE THIS QUESTION AND OTHERS
TO SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER ZAC
SCHULTZ, WHO JOINS US FROM THE
CAPITOL.
THANKS FOR DOING SO, ZAC.
>> THANKS, FRED.
>> SO WITH POLLING SHOWING THIS
MAJORITY SUPPORT OF ROE V. WADE,
HOW DOES THAT TRANSLATE TO WHAT
VOTERS DO AT THE POLLS?
>> WELL, VERY TO REMEMBER, THAT
POLLING HAS BEEN PRETTY STATIC
FOR AT LEAST A DECADE OR LONGER
THAT WE'VE BEEN TAKING THESE
POLLS.
OPINIONS HAVEN'T CHANGED VERY
MUCH.
BUT THE VOTING TRENDS DON'T
MATCH UP.
AND THIS ISN'T THE ONLY ISSUE
WHERE WHAT PEOPLE APPROVE OF
POLLING-WISE DOESN'T TRANSLATE
TO HOW THEY WILL ACTUALLY CAST A
BALLOT IN THE ELECTION BOX.
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE ON
EITHER SIDE, LEFT OR RIGHT, WHO
ARE VERY FIRMLY ONE ISSUE VOTER.
THEY VOTE ON ABORTION ONLY.
AND THEN A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE
MIDDLE WHO MAY SAY THEY FEEL ONE
WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT THAT'S NOT
THE REASON THAT THEY CAST A
BALLOT FOR A MEMBER OF ONE PARTY
OR ANOTHER.
AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER
THIS WILL ACTUALLY CHANGE THAT.
REMEMBER, ANYONE UNDER THE AGE
OF 70, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN
THEIR LIFETIMES THAT THEY'RE
VOTING ON ABORTION IN THE BALLOT
IN WISCONSIN.
BEFORE THIS, ROE V. WADE WAS
ALWAYS A CONSTITUTIONAL
REQUIREMENT THAT MEANT NO MATTER
THEIR FEELING, NO MATTER WHO
THEY VOTED FOR, THE RIGHT TO
ACCESS ABORTION RIGHTS WERE NOT
GOING TO CHANGE IN WISCONSIN BUT
THAT MAY LIKELY NOT BE THE CASE
THIS FALL.
>> DOES THIS COMPLICATE THINGS
FOR CANDIDATES LIKE REBECCA
KLEEFISCH OR OTHER REPUBLICANS
WHO ARE STAUNCHLY ANTIABORTION,
THIS KIND OF PUBLIC SENTIMENT
ABOUT IT?
>> WELL, IT'S A QUESTION FOR
THEM OF WHETHER THOSE VOTERS
WILL CHANGE THEIR MINDS AND
ACTUALLY VOTE ON ABORTION.
IF
THEY BELIEVE THAT ABORTION
ACCESS SHOULD BE LEGALIZED.
THAT SHOULD BE A RISK WHICH IS
WHY YOU'RE SEEING A LOT OF
REPUBLICANS NOT SAYING VERY MUCH
ON THIS ISSUE RIGHT NOW.
ON THE FLIP SIDE, DEMOCRATS ARE
TRYING TO MAKE IT A BIGGER ISSUE
TO SEE IF SOME OF THOSE VOTERS
MAY CHANGE MAYOR MINDS.
BUT -- CHANGE THEIRMINDS.
I THINK LIKELY AN ELECTORAL
IMPACT COULD BE CHALLENGING THE
BASE.
YOU SEE TURNOUT GO DOWN QUITE A
BIT AND OFTEN IT'S WHICHEVER
PARTY LOSES MORE VOTERS FROM THE
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IS LIKELY
TO LOSE OVERALL IF YOU CAN
RETAIN THOSE VOTERS.
IF YOU HAVE MORE VOTER
ENTHUSIASM, YOU CAN HAVE SEE
HIGHER TURNOUT TO HELP THEIR
CANDIDATE.
>> MEANWHILE -- ELIMINATE THE
FILIBUSTER TO DO IT, HOW LIKELY
IS THAT?
>> IT'S NOT LIKELY AT ALL.
I MEAN, DEMOCRATS HAVE TALKED
ABOUT ELIMINATING THE FILIBUSTER
THROUGHOUT THIS SESSION BUT THEY
DON'T HAVE THE VOTES TO DO IT,
THEY DIDN'T BEFORE, THEY DON'T
NOW.
THIS IS JUST TO PUT EVERYONE ON
THE RECORD GOING INTO THE FALL.
DEMOCRATS HOPE TO TRY AND PIN
THIS ON SOME OF THESE KEY
BATTLEGROUND ISSUES OF GETTING
SOMEONE LIKE SENATOR RON JOHNSON
ON THE RECORD.
HE'S ALREADY ON THE RECORD, WE
KNOW WHERE HE STANDS, BUT THEY
WANT TO PUT ONE MORE VOTE ON THE
RECORD.
>> MEANWHILE THE GOP IS SO VERY
ANGRY ABOUT THE LEAK.
IS THAT A TELL THAT THEY'D
RATHER SPEAK TO THAT THAN THE
DRAFT OPINION ITSELF?
>> WELL, IT'S TRADITIONAL IN
POLITICS THAT IF YOU DON'T WANT
TO TALK ABOUT THE THING BECAUSE
YOU DON'T THINK IT HELPS YOU,
THEN YOU TALK ABOUT PROCESS.
THAT HAPPENS HISTORICALLY
WHENEVER THERE'S A CONTROVERSY
IS IT'S EITHER PROCESS OR IT'S
THE ISSUE THAT PEOPLE ARE
CONCERNED ABOUT.
SO IT'S PROCESSED RIGHT NOW FOR
REPUBLICANS, IF THEY SEE A SHEFT SHIFT
WHERE THEY THINKS IT HELPS THEM,
THEN THEY'LL TALK ABOUT IT.
IF DEMOCRATS FOCUS STRICTLY ON
ABORTION LEADING INTO THE FALL
LEK SHOULD BEES BUT IT DOESN'T
SHIFT SOME OF THOSE REPUBLICANS
OR INDEPENDENTS WHO SUPPORT
ABORTION BUT VOTE ON OTHER
ISSUES THEN THEY LOSE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO GET THOSE VOTERS.
>> DOWN TO THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF
IT, IT IS TRUE THAT THERE'S
NOTHING TONY EVERS COULD DO
ABOUT ROE V. WADE BEING
OVERTURNED BECAUSE HE CAN'T VETO
A STATUTE LIKE WISCONSIN'S THAT
CRIMINALIZES ABORTION AND HAS
BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR MORE THAN
170 YEARS, HE CAN'T VETO AN
EXISTING STATUTE?
>> NO, HE HAS NO POWER IN THIS
AREA.
HE HAS SOME EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY
FOR HOW SOME STATE AGENCIES
MIGHT INTERACT BUT REALLY, HE'S
OUT OF THIS QUESTION WHEN IT
COMES TO LAWS RIGHT NOW.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DOES HAVE
AN IMPACT AND WE'VE ALREADY SEEN
DEMOCRAT JOSH KAUL SAY THAT HE
DOESN'T PLAN ON USING ANY DOJ
RESOURCES TO PROSECUTE ANYONE
OVER THESE LAWS IN THE FUTURE
AND REPUBLICANS HAVE SAID THAT
THEY LIKELY WOULD AT LEAST
ENTERTAIN THOSE THOUGHTS, SO
IT'S MORE LIKELY TO PLAY OUT ON
THAT RACE THAN WITH THE
GOVERNOR.
>> HOW IMPORTANT DOES ALL OF
THIS MAKE THE NEXT WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT RACE IN WISCONSIN
FOR BOTH SIDES?
>> WELL, IT WAS ALREADY A
PIVOTAL RACE, IT WAS ALREADY
GOING TO BE THE HIGHEST SPENDING
SUPREME COURT RACE IN STATE
HISTORY.
JUST BECAUSE WE KNOW RIGHT NOW
IT'S 4-3 CONSERVATIVE POWER WITH
JUSTICE RYAN HAGEDORN SWINGING
MUCH TO THE CHAGRIN OF THE
CONSERVATIVES BUT THIS IS FOR
PAT ROGGENSACK'S SEAT, SHE'S
EXPECTED TO RETIRE AND THAT SEAT
WILL DETERMINE THE BALANCE OF
THE COURT.
SO ON THIS ISSUE AND SO MANY
MORE ISSUES, IT WAS ALREADY
GOING TO BE A HUGE THING.
SO IT WILL BE A LOT OF ATTENTION
PLACED ON THAT AND SO MANY OTHER
ISSUES FOR THAT RACE NEXT APRIL,
NOT THIS FALL.
>> RIGHT, SO THE REASON IT WOULD
BE IMPORTANT BEFORE THIS COURT
IS BECAUSE IT IS LIKELY THAT NOT
WITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE
GOVERNOR, SHOULD HE WIN THE
ELECTION, HE COULDN'T VETO IT,
BUT THEN IT'S LIKELY TO GO TO
THE LEGISLATURE POTENTIALLY TO
TIGHTEN UP THE LANGUAGE IN OUR
EXISTING STATUTE OR FACE
LAWSUITS OTHERWISE.
>> IF GOVERNOR EVERS IS THE
GOVERNOR, THEN ABSOLUTE LEA WE
COULD SEE CONSTITUTIONAL
CHALLENGES FOR THIS OLD LAW AND
IF REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR IS IN
PLACE, THEN WE'LL SEE
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES IN
THERE SO THIS WILL STILL LIKELY
END UP IN THE COURTS AS
EVERYTHING ELSE DOES HERE IN
WISCONSIN.
>> THAT'S RIGHT.
ZAC SCHULTZ, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, FRED.
>> THE LATEST WEEKLY JOBLESS
CLAIMS IN WISCONSIN SHOW JUST
UNDER 4,001ST TIME FILERS AND A
LITTLE OVER 21,000 CONTINUING
CLAIMS ACCORDING TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS A FAR CRY FROM DURING
THE DEPTHS OF THE PANDEMIC, WHEN
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
SOUGHT UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
WITH LONG WAIT TIMES OF WEEKS
AND MONTHS FOR PAYMENT.
THE EVERS ADMINISTRATION IS
TRYING TO FIX WHAT IT CALLS AN
ANTIQUATED UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE COMPUTER SYSTEM, BUT
ACCORDING TO OUR NEXT GUEST, THE
PROCESS IS STILL A MESS, LEAVING
THOUSANDS OF FILERS FACING
WARRANTS FOR OVERPAYMENTS.
VICTOR FORBERGER, LABOR AND
EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEY, JOINS US
FROM MADISON.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE
WARRANTS IN A MINUTE, BUT DWD
SAYS ON ITS WEBSITE THAT THE
AVERAGE AMOUNT OF TIME CLAIMANTS
WAIT TO GET PAID IS ABOUT 50
DAYS.
BUT THEN THEY SAY THAT'S A
CUMULATIVE NUMBER SINCE MARCH OF
2020.
WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL WAIT TIMES
LIKE RIGHT NOW?
>> IT'S HARD TO TELL.
BECAUSE IT'S WHAT I'M SEEING
WITH VARIOUS CLAIMANTS, THEY WIN
DECISIONS OR THEY GET INITIAL
DETERMINATIONS, AND THEN THEY
WAIT AND THEY CALL UP AND I TELL
THEM TO CALL UP AND THEY'RE JUST
TOLD, IT HAS TO GO TO MANUAL
PROCESSING OR IT HAS TO BE
PROCESSED.
SO THE DATA YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS
FOR THESE CASES TO BE
ADJUDICATED AND THEN A DECISION
TO BISH OOO YOUD. ISSUED.
THAT JUST MEANS A DECISION IS
ISSUED.
THERE ARE WAITS THEN FOR
APPEALS, FOR HEARINGS, AND RIGHT
NOW, BECAUSE MANY, MANY CASES
WERE LOST AT THE HEARING STAGE
AND THEN APPEALED TO THE LABOR
INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION, THEY
HAVE A 6 TO 12 MONTH DELAY RIGHT
NOW.
SO --
>> SO IT'S A LOT OF HURRY UP AND
WAIT TYPE STUFF WHEN YOU GET TO
THAT LEVEL OF IT.
BUT GOING BACK TO KIND OF JUST
THE NORMAL PROCESS AT THE HEIGHT
OF PANDEMIC JOB LOSSES, THE
SYSTEM OBVIOUSLY DID NOT HOLD UP
UNDER THE CRUSH OF CLAIMS.
HAVE THERE BEEN IMPROVEMENTS IN
THE SYSTEM AND THE PROCESS,
ESPECIALLY AS UNEMPLOYMENT IS
NOW SO LOW?
>> NOT THAT I'VE SEEN.
THERE'S STILL HUGE DELAYS AND
PROBLEMS BECAUSE IT'S STILL AN
INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT AND
COMPLICATED PROCESS.
PEOPLE ARE NOT ABLE TO FOLLOW IT
BECAUSE IT'S ASKING THEM TO HAVE
A FAMILIARITY WITH UNEMPLOYMENT
LAW AS IF THEY WERE AN ATTORNEY
OR AN EXPERIENCED CLAIM FILER
THAT'S BEEN DOING THIS FOR 20
YEARS.
AND THEY'RE NOT.
AND SO THEY'RE CONFUSED AND THEY
CAN'T GET STRAIGHT ANSWERS, AND
THEY'RE MAKING MISTAKES THEN.
>> SO WHAT YOU SAY YOU'RE
DEALING WITH AS AN ATTORNEY
WORKING ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS
GETTING JOBLESS BENEFITS IS THAT
THE STATE IS CRACKING DOWN ON
CLAIMANTS FOR OVERPAYMENTS,
WHICH YOU SAY ARE OFTEN
UNINTENDED MISTAKES MADE ON THAT
APPLICATION.
HOW BIG IS THIS CRACKDOWN?
>> IT IS TREMENDOUS RIGHT NOW.
BECAUSE IT'S SO EASY TO MAKE A
CLAIM FILING MISTAKE.
AND THEN THERE ARE VARIOUS
THINGS THE DEPARTMENT DOES THAT
JUST -- IT'S NOT FOLLOWING ITS
OWN LAW, AND SO PEOPLE ARE BEING
PENALIZED.
AND THE AMOUNTS ARE HUGE,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE DEPARTMENT,
BECAUSE -- WELL, BECAUSE THE
DEPARTMENT PRESUMES A CLAIM
FILING MISTAKE IS INTENTIONAL,
IT THEN PRESUMES IT'S
FRAUDULENT.
AND SO THE PENALTIES THAT WERE
ENACTED BACK IN 2013 AND 2014
MAKE THESE KINDS OF MISTAKES
ENORMOUS.
AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS AN
INCENTIVE, BECAUSE THEY POCKET
25% OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
PENALTY.
SO IF YOU OWE $10,000, $2,500 OF
THAT IS GOING INTO THE PROGRAM
INTEGRITY FUND.
>> HOW EASY IS TO MAKE MISTAKES
ON THE APPLICATION FOR
UNEMPLOYMENT?
>> IT'S -- I MEAN, THERE ARE
COMPOUND QUESTIONS, SO A
QUESTION THAT'S REALLY TRICKING
PEOPLE UP RIGHT NOW IS, IF YOU
ARE WERE APPLYING FOR.
PUA
BENEFITS, YOU'RE SELF EMPLOYED.
THE QUESTION WAS, ARE YOU SELF
EMPLOYED OR -- NO, THE QUESTION
IS, ARE YOU RECEIVING WORKING
AND COVERED EMPLOYMENT OR ARE
YOU SELF EMPLOYED?
PEOPLE LOOK AT THE SECOND PART
OF THAT QUESTION AND THEY'D
ANSWER, QUELL, NO, I DIDN'T HAVE
ANY SELF EMPLOYMENT WORK THAT
WEEK.
SO THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN WORKING
AT 7-11 THAT WEEK FOR 10 HOURS.
>> YOU'RE MAKING IT SOUND AS
THOUGH THIS IS BY DESIGN ON THE
PART OF THIS STATE AGENCY.
DO YOU THINK IT'S BY DESIGN OR
IT'S A BUG OF WHAT THE EVERS
ADMINISTRATION CALLS AN
ANTIQUATED SYSTEM?
>> WELL, THIS DOESN'T REALLY
HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE
COMPUTER SYSTEM.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE QUESTIONS
THAT ARE BEING ASKED.
AND SO HOW YOU ASK THOSE
QUESTIONS AND HOW YOU FRAME
THOSE QUESTIONS, THAT'S -- AS
YOUR REPORTER, SO YOU NEED TO
WRITE STORIES IN CLEAR ENGLISH,
SPEAKING CLEAR ENGLISH SO PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S WHAT CLAIM FILING SHOULD
BE.
THE MODEL CLAIM FILING LANGUAGE
IS SUPPOSED TO BE AT A 6TH GRADE
LEVEL.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE CLAIM
FILING QUESTION, IT'S VERY
OBVIOUS, IT'S FULL OF LEGALISMS,
AND ABSTRACT CONCEPTS.
SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR
PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND HOW AM I
SUPPOSED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT AM I
SUPPOSED TO REPORT?
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO REPORT YOUR
VACATION PAY.
WHAT IF YOU'RE PAID PTO?
WHAT IF YOU'RE PAID FLEX TIME?
WHERE DO YOU PUT THAT?
AND IF THE EMPLOYER PUTS IT IN A
DIFFERENT CATEGORY, WELL, THEN
NOW YOU'VE MISREPORTED YOUR
WAGES.
>> AND SO THE SOLUTION HERE IN
YOUR MIND, ONE OF THEM, WOULD BE
TO REWRITE THESE QUESTIONS IN
PLAIN LANGUAGE?
>> YOU'VE GOT TO SIMPLIFY AND
MAKE THIS AS EASY AS POSSIBLE,
AND THERE ARE BASIC CONCEPTS WE
ALL KNOW, LIKE YOU START WITH
THE GENERAL AND THEN YOU GET
SPECIFIC BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BE
FAMILIAR WITH GENERAL IDEAS
BEFORE YOU START ASKING THEM
SPECIFIC.
THE CLAIM FILING PROCESS STARTS
WITH THE SPECIFIC.
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ASKED
SPECIFICALLY, DID YOU GET
HOLIDAY PAY?
THEY'RE NOT ASKING YOU, CAN YOU
GET ANY WAGES AT ALL THIS PAST
WEEK?
THAT'S HOW THE QUESTION IS BEING
ASKED.
>> IT DOES SOUND COMPLICATED AND
THERE'S MORE TO TALK ABOUT WITH
THIS BUT FOR NOW, WE LEAVE IT
HERE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THIS MONTH, YOU MAY HEAR LESS
LAWNMOWER SOUND AND MORE BUZZ
ABOUT "NO MOW MAY."
WITH DECLINING BEE POPULATIONS
CONCERNING THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY, ONE WISCONSIN
BIOLOGIST TOOK ACTION IN HIS OWN
BACKYARD.
OUR NEXT GUEST BROUGHT NO MOW
MAY TO APPLETON THREE YEARS AGO,
AND THE IDEA HAS BLOOMED ACROSS
THE STATE AND THE COUNTRY.
ISRAEL DEL TORO JOINS US FROM
APPLETON.
THANKS VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
IT'S A PLEASURE TO TALK TO YOU.
>> SO HOW DID THIS IDEA TAKE
HOLD IN APPLETON AND CONTINUE TO
POLLINATE ELSEWHERE?
>> YEAH, DEFINITELY IT GENERATED
A LOT OF BUZZ.
SORRY ABOUT ALL THE BEE PUNS.
BUT YEAH, I CAN'T HELP IT
ANYMORE.
BUT IT GENERATED A LOT OF BUZZ
IN TOWN.
THERE'S PEOPLE WHO LOVE IT,
PEOPLE THAT HATE IT, BUT IT'S
REALLY OVERALL A GREAT TOOL FOR
COMMUNICATING AND EDUCATING OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT POLLINATOR
AWARENESS AND MAKING SURE THAT
OUR POLLINATORS ARE BEING
PROTECTED.
AS YOU MAY HAVE HEARD,
POLLINATORS ARE IN DECLINE
GLOBALLY, SO THIS IS A WAY TO
GET THAT CONVERSATION STARTED
JUST HERE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> WHY IS MAY THE MONTH TO HOLD
BACK ON BRINGING OUT THE
LAWNMOWER?
>> YEAH, WHY NOT NO MOW MAY --
OR WHY NOT NO KNOW JUNE?
THE IDEA IS PRETTY SIMPLE.
WE LIVE IN THE MIDWESTERN U.S.,
AND WHAT THAT ALLOWS US TO DO IS
THAT MAY IS A TIME PERIOD WHERE
THINGS ARE JUST STARTING TO WAKE
UP OUT OF HIBERNATION.
SO JUST NOW, YOU START SEEING
BEES BUZZING AROUND.
AND SO RIGHT NOW AS BEES ARE
COMING OUT OF HIBERNATION, IT'S
A CRITICAL PERIOD TO PROVIDE
FORAGING RESOURCES THEY MIGHT
NOT HAVE.
BY THE TIME JUNE ROLLS AROUND,
THERE'S A WHOLE SUITE OF PLANTS
AVAILABLE TO THEM TO CHOOSE
FROM, BUT THAT'S WHY THOSE EARLY
BLOOMING SPECIES LIKE DANDELIONS
AND CLOVERS ARE REALLY IMPORTANT
TO BOOST OUR POLLINATOR
POPULATION NUMBERS HERE IN
WISCONSIN.
>> WE DID ASSIGN OUR
VIDEOGRAPHER TO FIND ZOMBIES BUT SOME BEES
BUT HE DID NOT.
HAVE YOU SEEN RESULTS FROM NO
MOW MAY YET?
>> ABSOLUTELY.
THE FIRST STUDY WAS IN 2020.
IN THE CITY OF APPLETON, WHAT WE
FOUND WAS THAT BECAUSE OF THE
PRACTICES OF NO MOW MAY OR
REDUCING OUR KNOWING MOWING INTENSITY WE
INCREASED POLLINATOR ABUNDANCE
FIVE TIMES, THE NUMBER OF
SPECIES IS THREE TIMES HIGHER IN
AREAS THAT ARE NON-MOWED
RELATIVE TO AREAS THAT ARE
MOWED.
SO IT'S REALLY PROMISING TO SEE
THESE INCREASES.
WE SAW THE SAME TREND LAST YEAR
WHEN WE EXPANDED TO OTHER CITIES
ACROSS THE STATE AND WE HOPE TO
DO THAT IN OUR NECK OF THE WOODS
FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.
>> MEANWHILE PLACES LIKE MENASHA
AND LITTLE CHUTE HAVE BANNED,
SAYING IT WON'T SOLVE THE
POLLINATOR PROBLEM, OTHERS
SAYING THERE'S ZERO TOLERANCE
FOR PEOPLE WHO DO NOT MOW THEIR
LAWN.
WHAT IS YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
>> THEY'RE OUR NEIGHBORS AND WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STAY
FRIENDLY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS,
JUST LIKE I MIGHT STAY FRIENDLY
WITH MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE
STREET WHO MAY WANT TO MOW THEIR
LAWN.
SO LITTLE CHUTE AND MENASHA WANT
TO CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT THEIR
PRACTICES, THAT'S FINE BUT WE
ENCOURAGE THEM TO START THINKING
ABOUT OTHER WAYS THAT THEY CAN
BENEFICIALLY IMPACT OUR
POLLINATOR POPULATION, REDUCING
OUR DEPENDENCY ON CHEMICAL USE
AND FERTILIZER USE LIKE
HERBICIDES AND PESTICIDES.
ALL OF THOSE ARE GREAT THINGS
THAT ARE GOING TO GO A LONG WAY
IN PROTECTING OUR POLLINATORS.
NO MOW MAY IS JUST ONE TINY
LITTLE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE.
>> AND IT'S CATCHY.
BUT WHY ARE BEES AND POLLINATORS
SO IMPORTANT TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ECOSYSTEM?
>> BEES AND POLLINATORS ARE
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAJOR
ECOSYSTEM SERVICE: POLLINATION
OF OUR CROPS.
SO IN THE U.S., POLLINATION BY
INSECTS IS VALUED AS A
MULTIBILLION DOLLAR A YEAR
INDUSTRY.
ONE IN EVERY THREE FOODS THAT WE
EAT, FOR EXAMPLE, IS DEPENDENT
ON INSECT POLLINATION.
IN WISCONSIN, WE ARE MAJOR
PRODUCERS OF CRANBERRIES AND WE
DEPEND -- ENTIRE COMMUNITIES
DEPEND ON ECONOMIES AROUND
THINGS LIKE DOOR COUNTY CHERRIES
OR APPLE ORCHARDS.
ALL OF THOSE ARE DEPENDENT ON
INSECT POLLINATION SO IF WE CARE
ABOUT THE FOOD WE EAT WE SHOULD
BE THINKING ABOUT THE
POLLINATORS THAT DO THAT WORK
FOR US.
>> AND WE DO.
ISRAEL DEL TORO, THANKS VERY
MUCH FOR JOIN UTION.
>> THANK YOUUS.>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER
ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN, VISIT
OUR WEBSITE AT PBSWISCONSIN.ORG
AND THEN CLICK ON THE NEWS TAB.
THAT'S OUR PROGRAM FOR TONIGHT.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND.
FUNDING FOR "HERE AND NOW" IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR
JOURNALISM, AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.