>> THE FOLLOWING PROGRAM IS A
PBS WISCONSIN ORIGINAL
PRODUCTION.
>> PATIENCE IN WISCONSIN CAN'T
COUNT ON GETTING THE CARE THAT
THEY NEED WHEN THEY NEED IT,
THEY CAN'T TRUST THAT THEY WILL.
PHYSICIANS CAN'T TRUST THAT
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE PUT
BEHIND BARS DOING WHAT THMP
TRAINED TO BE DOING.
>> THE 1849 ABORTION BAN BEGAN
IN COURT AND RACIST COMMENTS
FROM A UW MADISON STUDENT
SPARKED OUTRAGE NATIONWIDE.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
TONIGHT ON "HERE & NOW," A LEGAL
EXPERT EXPLAINS THE LAWSUITS
CHALLENGING ABORTION STATUTES ON
THE BOOKS.
PROTESTS OVER A VIRAL VIDEO WITH
RACIST COMMENTS FROM A UW
MADISON STUDENT.
WE HEAR MORE DETAILS BEHIND THE
G.O.P. SHARED REVENUE PLAN AND A
LOOK AT THE STATE'S RELIANCE ON
IMMIGRANT LABOR.
IT'S "HERE & NOW" FOR MAY 5.
>> FUNDING FOR "HERE & NOW" IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR
JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.
?
>> A DANE COUNTY JUDGE THIS WEEK
HEARD ARGUMENTS WHETHER TO
DISMISS ATTORNEY GENERAL JOSH
KAUL'S LAWSUIT OVER WISCONSIN'S
ABORTION STATUTES.
A NEAR TOTAL BAN ON ABORTIONS
FROM 1849 IS BACK ON THE BOOKS
AFTER THE U.S. SUPREME COURT
OVERTURNED ROE VERSUS WADE.
THE ARGUMENTS IN COURT FOCUSED
ON DISTRICT ATTORNEY JOEL
URMANSKI'S MOTION TO DISMISS.
KAUL AND ATTORNEYS ON HIS SIDE
ARGUE A MORE PERMISSIVE ABORTION
LAW PASSED IN 1985 CONFLICTS
WITH THE EARLIER STATUTE AND
ALSO THAT THE EARLIER BAN IS
NULLIFIED BY NOT BEING ENFORCED
FOR SO LONG.
>> FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE
PLAINTIFF'S LAWSUIT IS
UNPRECEDENTED IN WISCONSIN
HISTORY.
THE PLAINTIFFS, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND OTHER STATE
OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES HAVE SUED
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, OTHER STATE
OFFICERS, OVER WHAT AMOUNTS TO A
DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND THE
PLAINTIFFS A OWN DESIRE TO KNOW
WHAT THE LAW IS.
>> THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ABLE TO
KNOW BEFORE THEY ACT WHAT IS AND
IS NOT SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL
SANCTION.
IT CANNOT BE THAT WISCONSIN LAW
TELLS THE WISCONSIN PUBLIC THAT
THE SAME FACTUAL ACTS ARE BOTH
LAWFUL AND ILLEGAL AT THE SAME E
TIME.
>> HERE TO UNPACK THIS
COMPLICATED CASE, UW LAW SCHOOL
PROFESSOR, THANKS VERY MUCH FOR
BEING HERE.
AS YOU LISTEN TO THESE ARGUMENTS
IN COURT, DID ANYTHING SURPRISE
YOU?
>> THERE WERE NO MAJOR
SURPRISES.
IT WAS A LENGTHY, RIGOROUS
ARGUMENT.
THE JUDGE ASKED PROBING
QUESTIONS OF BOTH SIDES.
JUDGE AND ATTORNEYS WERE ALL
VERY WELL PREPARED.
IF THERE WAS A NOTABLE FEATURE
OF THE CASE OR OF THE ARGUMENT,
IT WAS JUST HOW MUCH UNCERTAINTY
SURROUNDS WISCONSIN LAW RIGHT
NOW.
THERE WERE NEARLY TWO HOURS OF
ARGUMENT ABOUT HOW THIS
INTERLOCKING WEB OF STATUTES
FITS TOGETHER OR DOESN'T, AND I
THINK THAT SPEAKS TO THE LEVEL
OF UNCERTAINTY THAT THE STATE
FACES.
THERE ARE OTHER STATES AROUND
THE COUNTRY THAT HAVE SETTLING
IN ONE WAY OR NEAR THE ISSUE OF
ABORTION BUT WISCONSIN REMAINS
IN LIMBO.
YOU HEARD THE PHYSICIAN ATTORNEY
SPEAK TO THAT SAYING THAT THE
PHYSICIANS ARE NOT PERFORMING
CARE THEY WERE TRAINED TO
PROVIDE NOT BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN
A COURT RULING BUT ACTUALLY
BECAUSE THERE HASN'T BEEN ONE.
>> GIVEN THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE
THE COURT THIS WEEK, DID THEY
RISE TO OUTRIGHT DISMISSING OF
THIS LAWSUIT, IN YOUR MIND?
>> DEFENDANT URMANSKI IS CORRECT
THAT THIS DOCTRINE THAT'S CALLED
IMPLIED REPEAL IS PRETTY
DISFAVORED BY COURTS.
THAT MEANS THAT COURTS WILL
GENERALLY TRY TO RECONCILE AND
HARMONIZE ALL THE PARTS OF A LAW
AND GIVE EACH ONE MEANING, BUT
THE PLAINTIFFS ARGUMENT IS THAT
THAT CAN'T BE DONE HERE, AS YOU
HEARD IN THE CLIP, THAT THESE
ARE JUST IRRECONCILABLE.
TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT
FINDS IT TO BE A CLOSE CASE,
THAT WOULD CUT IN FAVOR OF NOT
DISMISSING THE CASE BECAUSE AT
THIS STAGE OF THE LITIGATION,
THE CASE IS TO BE DISMISSED ONLY
IF THE LAW IS CLEAR-CUT AGAINST
THE PLAINTIFFS.
>> COUNTY JUDGE DISMISS THE CASE
AGAINST THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
AND NOT THE DOCTORS?
>> THE DOCTORS ARE INTERVENING
AS PLAINTIFFS.
SO THE QUESTION THAT'S PENDING
ABOUT THE PARTIES IS ABOUT
WHETHER THE STATE PLAINTIFFS ARE
ALSO INVOLVED ENOUGH IN THE
PROVISION OF ABORTION THAT THEY
HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO BE THERE,
BUT THE DEFENDANTS WOULD REMAIN
IN THE SUIT UNLESS THE MOTION IS
GRANTED AND THE CASE CAN
DISMISSED ON ITS MERITS.
>> CAN TWO STATUTES CONFLICT, AS
IN THIS CASE, ARGUABLY, ONE
OLDER AND ONE MORE RECENT?
>> THERE ARE, AND THAT'S A LOT
OF WHAT THE PARTIES WERE
DEBATING AT THE ORAL ARGUMENT,
WHICH IS IS THIS SITUATION CLOSE
ENOUGH TO THOSE CASES WHERE
IMPLIED REPEAL HAS BEEN FOUND
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE
JUDGE WILL LIKELY BE SORTING OUT
AS SHE PROCESSES THE BRIEFS.
>> THE JUDGE SUGGESTED IN THIS
CASE, I IN THE, THAT THE 1849
LAW WAS FET I CRIED AND NOT
ABORTION.
WHAT WOULD THAT MEAN FOR LAWSUIT
OR ABORTION LAW IN WISCONSIN?
>> WHAT THE JUDGE AND THE
PARTIES WERE REFERRING TO THERE
WAS A 1994 WISCONSIN SUPREME
COURT OPINION THAT REACHED THAT
CONSTRUCTION OF A DIFFERENT
SECTION OF THE SAME ABORTION
LAW.
SO IT LOOKED AT A RELATIVELY
SIMILAR SITUATION, TRYING TO
RECONCILE NEWER STATUTES WITH
OLDER ONES, AND IT SAID THAT
THAT EARLIER STATUTE WAS JUST
LIMITED TO THIS FETICIDE.
THE CASE IS NOT ON POINT BECAUSE
IT WASN'T ABOUT THE SECTION OF
THE STATUTE THAT'S AT ISSUE
HERE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE COURT
AND THE PARTIES WERE REFERRING
TO AND THE PLAINTIFFS' ARGUMENT
IS THAT THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR
THE COURT TO FOLLOW IN THIS
CASE.
>> SO JUST HEARING YOU SPEAK,
THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY
COMPLICATED, AND AS YOU SAID AT
THE BEGINNING, THESE AREN'T THE
KINDS OF ISSUES THAT OTHER
STATES ARE ADDRESSING AROUND
ABORTION LAW.
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER STATES
IN WHICH THE QUESTION THAT'S
BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COURT IS
ONE ABOUT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO ABORTION.
THIS CASE IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE
IT'S ON THIS NARROWER AND MORE
TECHNICAL ISSUE OF HOW THE
STATUTE SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AND
HOW ALL OF ITS PROVISIONS SHOULD
BE WRITTEN TOGETHER.
>> SO DID THIS HEARING PROVIDE
CLUES AS TO LEGAL ACTORS GOING
FORWARD?
>> THERE WERE NO MAJOR NEW
SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS, I
THINK, AT THE HEARING.
THE ONE NOTABLE FEATURE WAS
THAT, ALTHOUGH THERE IS AN
ARGUMENT IN THE CASE ABOUT
DISUSE, WHICH IS THAT THE 1849
PROVISION IS NO LONGER
ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE OF A LONG
PERIOD OF DISUSE, THAT WASN'T
REALLY ADDRESSED AT THE HEARING.
MORE OF THE FOCUS WAS ON THIS
DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED REFEEL AND
IF THE MOTION TO DISMISS IS NOT
GRANTED, THEY'LL MOVE FORWARD
WITH THAT FIRST.
>> SO AS TO THAT DISUSE OF THE
LAY, IS THAT A THING?
HAS THAT BEEN THROWN OUT BEFORE
BECAUSE OF THAT?
>> IT'S A LEGAL CONCEPT THAT'S
ROOTED IN IDEAS ABOUT FAIR
NOTICE SO IF SOMETHING REALLY
HASN'T BEEN ENFORCED FOR A LONG
TIME, THEN PERHAPS IT WOULD BE
UNJUST OR EVEN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
TO JUST SORT OF REVIVE IT, BUT
IT IS LIKE IMPLIED REPEAL.
IT'S NOT A DOCTRINE THAT'S
COMMONLY APPLIED ENTER SO IN
TERMS OF COURT PROCESS AND THE
TIME LINE HERE, WOULD IT BE YOUR
EXPECTATION THAT THIS WILL GO TO
THE STATE SUPREME COURT, AND IF
SO, WILL DO SO AFTER THE NEWLY
ELECTED LIBERAL JUSTICE
PROTASIEWICZ IS SEATED?
>> I THINK THE CASE WILL
PROBABLY REACH THE WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT, BUT IT'S STILL AT
A PRETTY EARLY STAGE.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF STEPS THAT
STILL NEED TO BE GONE THROUGH AT
THE LOWER COURTS SO IT PROBABLY
WON'T REACH THE WISCONSIN
SUPREME COURT IN THE VERY NEAR
TERM.
>> ALL RIGHT.
PROFESSOR, THANKS VERY MUCH.
>> MY PLEASURE.
>> TURNING TO EDUCATION,
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR STATE
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES MAY
REPORTEDLY BE HELD HOSTAGE BY
REPUBLICANS IF THE UW SYSTEM
DOES NOT AGREE TO ELIMINATE
OFFICES RELATED TO DIVERSITY,
EQUITY, AND INCLUSION, A TREND
BEING SEEN NATIONWIDE.
THIS NEWS COMES THE SAME WEEK A
SOCIAL MEDIA VIDEO OF A UW
MADISON STUDENT HURLING RACIST
SLURS HAS GONE VIRAL.
OUTRAGE OVER THE STUDENT'S
COMMENTS PROMPTED PROTESTS ON
CAMPUS AND A LIST OF DEMANDS
FROM THE STUDENT-LED BLACK POWER
COALITION, DELIVERED TO THE
OFFICE OF UW MADISON CHANCELLOR,
JENNIFER NOOK KIN, INCLUDING
ACADEMIC ACCOMMODATIONS, MENTAL
HEALTH RESOURCES AND COMPULSION
OF THE STUDENT IN THE VIDEO.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT A LOT OF
STUDENTS' INITIAL THOUGHTS WERE
SHOCK, CONFUSION AND PAIN.
EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, ACTS LIKE
THESE ARE NOT UNCOMMON HERE AND
WE DECIDED THAT THIS WAS THE
TIME TO REALLY BAND TOGETHER IN
ORDER TO MAKE THESE THINGS NOT
CONTINUE TO BE A REOCCURRENCE.
AMONOOK KIN'S RESPONSE ACKNOWLED
HARM CAUSED BUT SAYING AS TO THE
INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE RACIST
VIDEO, THERE ARE NUMEROUS LEGAL
CONSTRAINTS, BOTH ON WHAT WE CAN
SAY AND WHAT WE CAN DO AS A
PUBLIC UNIVERSITY, EVEN THOUGH
THE VIDEO IS BOTH HATEFUL AND
HARMFUL, I KNOW THAT IS NOT WHAT
YOU WANT TO HEAR, BUT WE ARE
ALSO MOUND TO OBEY THE LAW.
DESPITE THAT, MORE THAN 50,000
PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED A PETITION
CALLING FOR THE STUDENT IN THE
RACIST VIDEO TO BE EXPELLED.
HERE TO TALK MORE ABOUT ALL OF
THIS IS INTERIM PROVOST ERIC
WILCOTS.
THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US.
>> MY PLEASURE.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> TELL US WHY THE UNIVERSITY
CANNOT DISCIPLINE THIS STUDENT.
>> IT'S A GREAT QUESTION AND ONE
WE GET A LOT.
I KNOW FOLKS ARE NOT HAPPY WITH
THE ANSWER, BUT LET ME POINT A
COUPLE OF THINGS.
ONE IS WITH FEDERAL LAW,
PARTICULARLY SOMETHING CALLED
FERPA, WE CAN'T SPEAK ABOUT THAT
INDIVIDUAL CASE.
THE OTHER THING IS WE HAVE SEEN
CASES AFTER CASE, AND IT'S
REALLY ESTABLISHED CASE LAW OF
INSTANCES AT A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY
WHERE THIS KIND OF SPEECH, AS
ABHORRENT AS IT IS, AS HORRIBLE
AS IT IS, IS PROTECTED SPEECH
UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
BECAUSE OF THAT, WE ARE NOT ABLE
TO GET -- ACT ON THIS, EVEN
THOUGH THIS SPEECH IS ABSOLUTELY
HORRID BECAUSE IT IS PROTECTED
SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT
OF THE COUNTRY.
>> BLACK STUDENT LEADERS TOLD US
THAT THEY WERE DISAPPOINTED IN
THE RESPONSE TO THE SITUATION BY
THE CHANCELLOR.
AS IT DIDN'T FEEL, THEY SAID,
LIKE A CALL TO ACTION.
WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
>> I THINK THE CHANCELLOR'S
COMMUNICATION AND RESPONSE
STARTED OUT FIRST BY SHE AND THE
ENTIRE LEADERSHIP TEAM ARE
DEEPLY, DEEPLY HURT BY THIS.
THIS IS HA ABHORRENT, AND WE DO
APOLOGIZING TO THE STUDENTS AND
OTHER MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY
WHO ARE OFFENDED BY THIS.
THIS IS HORRIBLE.
SUSTAIN THAT, THEN WHAT IS IT
THAT WE CAN DO GOING FORWARD TO
BE BETTER?
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE AS A
CAMPUS, IF WE REALLY DEDICATED
TO, PARTICULARLY OVER THE PAST
FEW YEARS, WE'VE GOTTEN A LOT OF
GREAT DIRECTIONS IN THIS SPACE.
I WANT TO POINT TO THE REBECCA
M. CENTER, THE CENTER THAT WE
HAVE, SO WE'RE MAKING STEPS.
WE HAVE INCREASED THE DIVERSITY
OF THE STUDENT BODY OVERALL OVER
THE PAST FEW YEARS, AND I DEEPLY
RECOGNIZE.
I'VE BEEN ON THIS CAMPUS 27
YEARS.
WE HAVE NOT MADE GREAT PROGRESS
IN INCREASING THE PERCENTAGE OF
BLACK STUDENTS ON OUR CAMPUS AND
WE NEED TO DO BETTER AND WE WILL
CONTINUE TO WORK TOWARDS DOING
BETTER.
SO WE ARE MAKING STEPS.
THE STUDENTS HAD -- IN THEIR
DEMANDS A SET OF ISSUES WHERE WE
AS CAMPUS LEADERSHIP REALLY WANT
TO SIT DOWN AND THINK ABOUT HOW
CAN WE MOVE FORWARD ON A NUMBER
OF THINGS THAT WE ARE INTERESTED
IN AND THAT'S THE CONVERSATION
THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE GOING
FORWARD.
>> YOU JUST SPOKE ABOUT THE KIND
OF LACK OF DIVERSITY,
PARTICULARLY DIVERSITY OF BLACK
STUDENTS.
ON THIS CAMPUS AND SYSTEM-WIDE,
SYSTEM-WIDE, IT SITS AT
SOMETHING LIKE 2.9% OF THE
STUDENT POPULATION.
SO HOW DO YOU CHANGE THAT?
>> WITH A LOT OF HARD WORK, AND
I THINK SOME OF THAT HARD WORK
HAPPENS ON OUR ADMISSION SIDE,
ON OUR OUTREACH INTO DIFFERENT
COMMUNITIES TO RECRUIT STUDENTS
TO COME TO UW MADISON.
PART OF THAT IS OUR ABILITY TO
BRING SCHOLARSHIP AND OTHER
DOLLARS TO THE TABLE TO TAKE
THAT FINANCIAL CONCERN OFF THE
TABLE, TO BE ABLE TO RECRUIT
STUDENTS.
PART OF THAT IS WHAT KIND OF
PROGRAMMING DO WE HAVE, WHAT
KIND OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS DO WE
HAVE THAT EXCITES STUDENTS ABOUT
BEING HERE.
I FEEL LIKE YOU'RE ABOUT TO JUMP
IN.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK, IS PART
OF THAT THE CULTURE.
>> PART OF THAT IS THE CULTURE.
IF YOU LISTEN TO MNOOKIN'S
WORDS, A CLEAR FOCUS ON WHAT SHE
IS CALLING FLOURISHING, AND THAT
IS THAT NOTION THAT WE ALL
BELONG AT UW MADISON, REGARDLESS
OF OUR RACE AND ETHNICITIES, TO
GET THAT SENSE OF FLOURISHING.
HOW DO WE DOOR THAT?
HOW DO WE BEGIN TO CHANGE MINDS?
AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT HAS EMERGED OVER THE PAST
48 HOURS, AND I'VE SEEN A LOT OF
EMAIL FROM DIFFERENT ACADEMIC
UNITS ON CAMPUS DOING A BIT OF
THAT SELF-REFLECTION, SAYING,
OKAY, WHAT IS IT THAT WE NEED TO
BE DOING WITHIN OUR PARTICULAR
UNIT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR
CLIMATE, OUR CULTURE IS ONE THAT
IS WELCOMING AND INCLUSIVE OF
ALL.
>> HOW MUCH DOES THIS KIND OF
THING SET ALL OF THAT BACK?
>> IT'S A DING.
IT'S A DING.
WE WILL HAVE TO -- IT'S A STEP
BACK WASHED.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP
CHARGING FORWARD AND I THINK
WE'RE ALL DEDICATED TO DOING
THAT.
I'VE BEEN A DEAN FOR THE LAST
FOR YEARS, BUT ON CAMPUS FOR 27
YEARS.
I'VE SEEN IN MY COLLEAGUES A
REAL COMMITMENT AND DEDICATION
TO NOT JUST THAT
DEXTROMETHODEMOGRAPHICS,IT'S EAE
OUR NUMBER, BUT HOW DO WE MAKE
SURE WE'RE CHANGING THAT
CULTURE.
>> I WANTED TO GET YOUR REACTION
TO THE IDEA THAT THE REPUBLICAN
LEGISLATURE WOULD LIKE TO
ELIMINATE CAMPUS DIVERSITY
OFFICE IN RETURN FOR STATE
FUNDING.
>> I THINK THAT'S A HORRIBLE
IDEA, AND I THINK THIS INCIDENT
PROVES THE NEED THAT WE NEED TO
FOCUS ON MAKING SURE OUR
CAMPUSES ARE OPEN AND WELCOMING
FOR EVERYBODY AND THAT REQUIRES
DEDICATED PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE
IN THESE POSITIONS WHO ARE
ALLOWING US TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
ARE THE BEST PRACTICES AND
THAT'S WHAT THESE ROLES CAN
DELIVER FOR OUR CAMPUS AND
DECREE WHAT OUR STUDENTS ARE
REALLY ASKING FOR.
>> ERIC WILCOTS, THANK YOU FOR
JOINING US.
>> THANK YOU.
>> REPUBLICANS THIS WEEK
RELEASED THE DETAILS OF THEIR
PLAN TO INCREASE SHARED REVENUE,
WHICH WOULD INCREASE FUNDING FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BY AT LEAST
10%.
IT WOULD ALSO ASK MILWAUKEE
VOTERS WHETHER TO INCREASE THE
LOCAL SALES TAX BY 2% IN ORDER
TO PAY OFF DEBTS TO THE COUNTY'S
PENSION SYSTEM.
HOWEVER, THE PLAN ALSO HAS
NON-MONETARY STRINGS ATTACHED,
LIKE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF POLICE
OFFICERS RETURN TO SCHOOLS IN
THE MILWAUKEE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR
PROHIBITING A LOCAL GOVERNMENT
FROM PUTTING AN ADVISORY
REFERENDUM QUESTION ON A BALLOT.
GOVERNOR TONY EVERS SAID HE
WOULD VETO THE PLAN AS IT IS NOW
IN ITS ENTIRETY.
FOR MORE ON THE SHARED REVENUE
PLAN, WE TURN TO ROB HENKEN,
PRESIDENT OF THE RESEARCH GROUP,
WISCONSIN POLICY FORM.
ROB, THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH
US.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> SO JUST WHEN LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS COULD TASTE THE
RELIEF IN THEIR SHARED REVENUE
AND IN THEIR BUDGETS, A POSSIBLE
IMPASSE WITH THE GOVERNOR'S
THREAT OF A VETO.
HOW FAR APART ARE REPUBLICANS
AND THE GOVERNOR NOW ON THIS
PLAN?
>> SO I OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE ANY
INSIDE KNOWLEDGE, BUT I WILL SAY
THAT UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS
SAUSAGE MAKING, SAUSAGE MAKING
IS NOT PRETTY.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY COULD HAVE
REASONABLY EXPECTED THAT THIS
WAS GOING TO GO COMPLETELY
SMOOTHLY.
I THINK FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THE IMPORTANT
THING IS THAT THERE IS SOLID
AGREEMENT AMONG LEADERS OF BOTH
PARTIES THAT NOT ONLY BOOSTING
THE AMOUNT OF SHARED REVENUE,
BUT TYING IT PERMANENTLY TO A
PERCENTAGE, IN THIS CASE,
ONE-FIFTH OF THE DA STATE SALESX
IS SOMETHING THAT THEY AGREE ON,
AND THAT WILL BE VERY IMPORTANT
FOR THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, BOTH
IN THE IMMEDIATE FUNDING
INCREASE IT WILL PROVIDE OVER
THE NEXT TWO-YEAR BUDGET, BUT
ALSO IN TERMS OF ENSURING THAT
THERE IS SOME REVENUE SOURCE.
>> HOW USUAL IS IT TO HAVE
RESTRICTIONS AS TO HOW THE MONEY
WILL BE SPENT OR NOT ALLOWING
LOCAL REFERENCE.
>> IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.
OBVIOUSLY, STATE GOVERNMENT HAS
A GREAT DEAL OF AUTHORITY IN
TERMS OF THE RESTRICTIONS IT CAN
PLACE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, THE
PARAMETERS IT CAN SET FOR LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IN THE CASE OF DPTS
IN PARTICULAR, COUNTIES ARE
REALLY ARMS OF STATE GOVERNMENT.
HOWEVER, YOU CAN LOOK AT IT THE
OTHER WAY, TOO, AND THAT'S THE
CHAIR REVENUE IS DIFFERENT.
THIS WAS A COMMITMENT MADE BY
STATE LEADERS MORE THAN A
HUNDRED YEARS AGO WHEN THE STATE
WAS THE FIRST IN THE NATION TO
ADOPT AN INCOME TAX AND THERE
WAS THIS PRINCIPLE THAT HAS THE
STATE COLLECTED BOTH SALES AND
INCOME TAXES AND THE ABILITY OF
GOVERNORS TO DO LIKEWISE WAS
EITHER ELIMINATED OR
SIGNIFICANTLY RESTRICTED, THAT
THERE WOULD BE SOME COMMITMENT
TO SHARING THOSE REVENUES SO
PUTTING FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON
IT, ARGUABLY DOES MAKE THIS A
DIFFERENT ANIMAL.
>> HOW HAMSTRUNG IS THE CITY OF
MILWAUKEE LIKE POTENTIALLY
FACING BANKRUPTCY WITHOUT NEW
MONEY OR THE ABILITY TO RAISE
IT?
>> I WOULDN'T D GO SO FAR AS TO
SAY BANKRUPTCY, BUT I WOULD
CERTAINLY SAY DRACONIAN SERVICE
CUTS WOULD BE TO BE ADOPTED IN
ORDER TO FILL A BUDGET HOLE AS
DEEP AS THE ONE THAT THE CITY OF
MILWAUKEE WOULD FACE WHEN THESE
FEDERAL PANDEMIC RELIEF DOLLARS
ARE EXHAUSTED AFTER 2024.
IT'S ROUGHLY 120 TO $150 MILLION
BUDGET HOLE IN A GENERAL PURPOSE
BUDGET OF $650 MILLION AND GIVEN
THE FACT THAT POLICE AND FIRE
ARE MORE THAN HALF OF THE CITY
OF MILWAUKEE'S BUDGET, NOT ONLY
IS THERE NO WAY TO AVOID
POSITION CUTS IN GENERAL, BUT
THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID VERY
DEEP PUBLIC SAFETY POSITION AND
SERVICE CUTS AND, REALLY, I
THINK THAT'S THE FACTOR THAT'S
BRINGING EVERYBODY TO THE TABLE
HERE.
>> ARE THE POLITICS OF
RESENTIMENT AS THE BOOK TITLE
DESCRIBED STILL AT PLAYED FOR
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS FROM
RURAL DISTRICTS WHEREBY OUTSIDE
VOTERS BELIEVE THAT MILWAUKEE
GETS TOO MUCH MONEY?
>> YOU KNOW, THE ARGUMENT CAN GO
BOTH WAYS.
THERE'S NO QUESTION, WHEN YOU
LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF SHARED
REVENUE THAT THE CITY OF
MILWAUKEE RECEIVES, ABOUT $230
BILLION PER YEAR, THAT'S A LOT
OF MONEY.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE SET
UP A STRUCTURE IN THIS STATE
WHERE OUR GAME PLAN IS TO BE
VERY RESTRICTIVE ON LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS IN TERMS OF THE
VARIETY OF TAXES THAT THEY CAN
LEVY ON THEIR OWN IN RETURN FOR
COMMITTING TO GIVE THEM
APPROPRIATE STATE AIDS AND
PROPERTY AUTHORITY TO ALLOW THEM
TO PROVIDE CRITICAL LOCAL
SERVICES, AND SO WHILE VOTERS
OUTSIDE OF MILWAUKEE CAN LOOK AT
THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY AND SAY BOY
THAT'S A LOT AND WHY SHOULD WE
ADD TO THAT, YOU CAN ALSO LOOK
AT IT AS THAT THIS APPROPRIATION
HAS NOT GROWN FOR 25 YEARS IN
NOMINAL TERMS AND I THINK THE
ENTIRE STATE WOULD SUFFER IF THE
CITY OF MILWAUKEE IS UNABLE TO
PROVIDE THE TYPES OF CORE
SERVICES ON WHICH NOT ONLY ITS
RESIDENTS BUT ALSO THE MILLIONS
OF PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE OF THE
CITY AND THE COUNTY WHO VISIT
MILWAUKEE ATTRACTIONS AND SO
FORTH EVERY YEAR.
>> WITH ONLY ABOUT A HALF A
MINUTE LEFT, HOW DIVERGENT DO
YOU EXPECT THE TWO BUDGETS TO BE
WHEN IT COMES TO BIG TICKET
ITEMS LIKE K THROUGH 12 FUNDING?
>> YOU KNOW, K THROUGH 12
FUNDING IS A HUGE ISSUE IN TERMS
OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT.
I DO THINK, I'M DETECTING THAT
THERE'S SOME FUNDAMENTAL
AGREEMENT THAT MORE MONEY NEEDS
TO BE AVAILABLE, PARTICULARLY
FOR SPECIAL ED.
THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY'LL
MEET IN THE MIDDLE OR, AS YOU
SAY, IT WILL REMAIN DIVERGEENT
AND THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE
ISSUES THAT POTENTIALLY DRAGS
DOWN EVERYTHING AND DELAYS THE
ADOPTION OF A BUDGET.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WELL, ROB HENKEN, THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR YOUR EXPERTISE.
APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
>> THE ANNUAL DAY OF IMMIGRANT
WORKERS RIGHTS ON MAY 1st SAW
DEMONSTRATIONS IN MADISON AND
MILWAUKEE THIS WEEK.
AMONG ITS GOALS, ADVOCATING FOR
DRIVER'S LICENSES FOR
IMMIGRANTS.
MEANWHILE, THE REPUBLICAN LED
BUDGET COMMITTEE THIS WEEK AXED
545 ITEMS FROM THE GOVERNOR'S
PROPOSED BUDGET, INCLUDING
DRIVER'S LICENSES FOR ALL.
THERE'S AN ESTIMATED 5,000
MIGRANT WORKERS ARRIVING IN
WISCONSIN ANNUALLY TO WORK
FARMING OR FOOD PROCESSING JOBS.
FOR MORE, WE TURN TOP TONY
GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR OF THE
AMERICAN HISPANIC ASSOCIATION OF
MARATHON COUNTY, AND THANK YOU
FOR BEING WITH US.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME ON
YOUR PROGRAM.
>> SO WHY ARE DRIVER'S LICENSES
SO IMPORTANT FOR THE IMMIGRANT
WORKER POPULATION?
>> WELL, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT
BECAUSE THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT
EVEN THROUGH THIS PANDEMIC
THEY'VE JUST EXPERIENCED, IT WAS
THOSE IMMIGRANT WORKERS OUT IN
THE FIELDS PUTTING THE FOOD ON
AMERICA'S TABLE, AND, YOU KNOW,
WHATEVER PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT
IMMIGRANTS, THE REALITY IS THAT
THEY'RE WORKING, THAT BUSINESSES
ARE HIRING THEM AND NEEDING
THEIR LABOR AND OTHERWISE, WE
WOULDN'T HAVE A LOT OF
PRODUCTION, AND PARTICULARLY
HERE IN NORTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN,
WHERE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS
NON-EXISTENT, JUST ABOUT, VERY
LIMITED, AND THE DISTANCES ARE
SO GREAT.
SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THEY
GET THEIR IN A SAFE WAY AND ALSO
YOU DON'T WANT -- YOU HAVE TO
CONSIDER THE FACT THAT A LOT OF
THOSE IMMIGRANTS' KIDS ARE
AMERICAN-BORN KIDS, THEY GO TO
SCHOOLS, THEY NEED TO GO TO THE
HOSPITALS, THEY NEED TO ARRIVE
THERE IN A SAFE WAY SO IT'S AN
IMPORTANT THING THAT PEOPLE DO
SO IN A SAFE WAY AND THAT WE
KNOW THAT -- WE ALL WANT TO KNOW
THAT THOSE THAT ARE SHARING THE
ROADS BUT IT IS ARE PEOPLE THAT
HAVE BEEN TRAINED AND KNOW HOW
TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE ROAD.
>> SOME CRITICS SAY THAT THIS
COULD LEAD TO FRAUD OR ILLEGAL
VOTING.
WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?
>> YOU KNOW, THAT IS A NARRATIVE
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
NUMBER ONE, IF SOMETHING LIKE
THAT HAPPENS, YOU HAVE TO BLAME
THE PEOPLE AT THE VOTING POLLS
BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE TO SHOW
THEIR I.D. AND THE OFFER HAS
ALWAYS BEEN THERE TO MAKE SURE
THAT THESE AREN'T GOING TO BE --
I.D. CARDS THAT ARE VERY
SPECIFICALLY GOING TO SAY NOT
FOR VOTING, SO THEY'RE NOT REAL
I.D. COMPLIANT AS THEY HAVE TO
BE, SO IT'S GOING TO BE VERY
CLEARLY MARKED THAT THEY'RE NOT
ABLE TO VOTE, AND I'VE GOT TO
ADD SOMETHING TO THAT.
THE POPULATION ALSO HAS NO
INTEREST IN DOING THAT.
THEIR INTEREST IS BEING ABLE TO
GET ON THE ROAD SAFELY.
>> HOW IS THE TIDE TURNING ON
THIS ISSUE, THOUGH, BETWEEN THE
WORKER SHORTAGE AND THE
PROMOTING PUBLIC SAFETY?
>> WELL, I THINK WE ARE VERY
OPTIMISTIC THAT THINGS ARE
CHANGING.
THE CONVERSATION HAS CHANGED TO
BE MORE EDUCATIONAL, WHERE OUR
LEGISLATORS UNDERSTAND THE NEED
THAT BUSINESS OWNERS AND THE
INDUSTRY NEEDS FOR THE WORKERS
AND THAT SAFETY IS SOMETHING
THAT IS INCREDIBLY BIG, NOT ONLY
JUST ABOUT THE IMMIGRANT
UNDOCUMENTED WORKER, BUT THE
REST OF US THAT ARE ON THE ROAD.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT
PEOPLE HAVE INSURANCE, THAT THEY
KNOW HOW TO DRIVE AND THAT WE
ARE SAFE ON THE ROADS.
>> YOU SAID ANOTHER TOP ISSUE IN
YOUR AREA WITH NOT VERY MUCH
TIME LEFT HERE TO TALK, IS
MENTAL HEALTH.
WHAT'S THE SITUATION?
>> WELL, WE FIND OURSELVES IN A
VERY HARD SITUATION BECAUSE
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MENTAL HEALTH
PROVIDERS TO START WITH, AND
MOST IMPORTANTLY, THERE'S NOT
MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS THAT
SPEAK THE LANGUAGE OR THAT HAVE
THE CULTURAL KNOWLEDGE.
SO WE HAVE TO BRIDGE THAT GAP.
HOPEFULLY WITH MORE
PROFESSIONALS THAT CAN DO THAT,
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, THE USE OF
PEOPLE THAT KNOW THE LANGUAGE,
INTERPRETERS THAT CAN HELP
BRIDGE THAT GAP IS VERY
IMPORTANT HERE BECAUSE IT IS AN
ISSUE WITH MANY OF OUR FARMERS,
BEING A QUARTER OF AN INCH THEIR
FAMILIES, -- BEING AWAY FROM
THEIR FAMILIES, HAVING TO LIVE
IN THE SHADOWS, AND DID ALSO
GROWING IN THAT ENVIRONMENT IS A
REALLY BIG BURDEN AND IT'S A BIG
NEED HERE, MENTAL HEALTH, AND
PROVIDERS TO HELP WITH THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT.
WELL, TONY GONZALEZ, THANKS VERY
MUCH.
>> WELL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME
ON YOUR PROGRAM.
PLEASURE.
>> FOR MORE ON THIS AND OTHER
ISSUES FACING WISCONSIN, VISIT
OUR WEBSITE AT PBS WISCONSIN
DOT-ORG, AND THEN CLICK ON THE
NEWS TAB.
THAT'S OUR PROGRAM FOR TONIGHT.
I'M FREDERICA FREYBERG.
HAVE GOOD WEEKEND.
(CLOSED CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY
RIVERSIDE CAPTIONING)
FUNDING FOR HERE AND NOW IS
PROVIDED BY THE FOCUS FUND FOR
JOURNALISM AND FRIENDS OF PBS
WISCONSIN.