Announcer:
The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Ryan Westergaard:
We’ve issued a statewide standing medical order that allows pharmacists to provide the COVID-19 vaccine to those who want it, without requiring a prescription from a clinical provider.

Frederica Freyberg:
The state’s chief medical officer issues a prescription for all Wisconsinites to get their COVID vaccine, breaking from federal guidance as vaccine hesitation spreads.
I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” the case for and against an oil pipeline reroute near tribal lands. Fallout from comments about Charlie Kirk’s assassination continue to ricochet. But college students are still trying to bridge divides and Republican lawmakers want public employees to return to office buildings. It’s “Here & Now” for September 19.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:
Wisconsin health officials want to make sure anyone who wants to get an updated COVID-19 vaccine can. That’s why the state’s top epidemiologist has issued a standing medical order after a federal vaccine panel Friday declined to recommend COVID-19 vaccines for all Americans. The state order coincides with guidance from the commissioner of insurance, saying health plans should cover the cost.

Ryan Westergaard:
In the past, our nation’s medical associations and our nation’s federal health agencies who review the same data have issued recommendations that align with one another. Today, that’s not the case. In the past several months, leaders at federal agencies have made policy decisions and issued recommendations that aren’t supported by or directly contradict scientific consensus. These decisions may result in limited access to the COVID-19 vaccine, which scientific studies have continuously showed lower the risk of illness, hospitalization and death for people who choose to get them.

Frederica Freyberg:
In other news, the controversy over the oil and gas pipeline through northern Wisconsin went before the public this week during the third of four contested case hearings across the state. In Ashland, the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa presented witnesses in their challenge of the permits the Wisconsin DNR granted to Canadian Enbridge Energy Inc. for a 41 mile reroute of the pipeline. Operational since 1953, Line 5, as it’s known, carries 23 million gallons a day from Superior to Ontario. The tribe had sued to remove the pipeline from its reservation lands after easements expired. And in 2020, Enbridge proposed rerouting part of the line around tribal lands. Late last year, the DNR granted permits for pipeline construction that impacts wetlands and waterways, as well as granting permits to maintain erosion control and water quality in the midst of construction that includes blasting bedrock and drilling. The tribe and environmental groups challenged those permits, resulting in the court ordered public hearings. Bad River tribal chairman Robert Blanchard was the first to take the stand. And chairman, thanks very much for being here.

Robert Blanchard:
Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what did you most want the judge to know about the impacts of Line 5 and its reroute around the Bad River Reservation, but through nearby wetlands and water lands, what did you most want the judge to know about those impacts?

Robert Blanchard:
The reroute is going within the ceded territories of the band. And impact is going to be over 100 acres of wetlands, which, you know, will get disturbed. Thirty some acres of that will not be usable again through horizontal direct drilling, blasting, which is going to, you know, a lot of it’s going to impact our water resources.

Frederica Freyberg:
Now, I know, I know, the tribe wanted the pipeline removed from your land. Why isn’t rerouting it around the reservation proper enough?

Robert Blanchard:
All that will do is shift the risk upstream, exposing more of the environment to be put at risk than, than what is now. But, you know, like I said before, we have ceded territories where we do a lot of hunting and fishing and gathering of, of medicines and other, other stuff. So I mean that, that’s just going — it’s just moving the problem upstream. You know, we’re — we’ll be downstream from that. And if something were to happen, you know, it’s really impacts us as people and our way of life.

Frederica Freyberg:
Circling back to something you spoke to a moment ago during your testimony, you spoke about the wild rice harvest. Why is that and hunting and fishing rights you hold so key to your community?

Robert Blanchard:
Well, we’ve been harvesting wild rice on — in the Sokaogon Streus for over 100 years. You know, my grandparents brought — harvested down there, and they made rice camps down there. And, you know, so that, that’s near and dear to my heart and a lot of other people also, but it identifies us as, as people. You know, that, that — we were brought here for a reason. And, and one of the reasons is that to go where the food grows on the water, and that was the wild rice, and that is quite dear to us. And as far as other things, hunting, fishing and gathering, you know, there’s a lot of people today that, that use that resource to provide and put food on the table for their families. So it’s very important to us.

Frederica Freyberg:
Why are the waters and the land so important to the protection of those rights?

Robert Blanchard:
Well, we also feel that, you know, everything out there is sacred. You know, we, we use that, that, those resources and when we go and harvest and we go hunting or fishing, we take only what we need to do for our families. So and we also believe that, you know, that everything out there has a spirit. Every living thing out there has a spirit, you know. And that’s what we’re protecting is the spirit of that medicine, the spirit of that wild rice and the spirit of those waters and lands to be able for our future generations, to be able to enjoy that.

Frederica Freyberg:
For its part, Enbridge states that they have learned what they do today impacts the next seven generations. And it has — that it has a responsibility to care for the land. What’s your response to that statement from the CEO of Enbridge?

Robert Blanchard:
Well, I don’t think Enbridge really understands, you know, the — they look at it a lot different than we do. You know. They’re, they’re there for different reasons. And we’re there to, to protect the land, truly protect the land and the resources.

Frederica Freyberg:
Your Bad River Band is fighting hard over this. What will you do if the Line 5 project is allowed to proceed in this way?

Robert Blanchard:
Well, that’s a — that’s the big question. We are still trying to come up with some, some answers, and we’re just going to keep moving forward and keep fighting.

Frederica Freyberg:
We will be watching. Chairman Robert Blanchard, thanks very much.

Robert Blanchard:
Thank you very much for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
Next week, Enbridge and the DNR will present their cases in the fourth public hearing on the proposed reroute of Line 5. Jennifer Smith is the director of U.S. tribal engagement for Enbridge. She joins us now. And thanks very much for being here.

Jennifer Smith:
Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So, as you know, the legal fight over Line 5, as it’s known, has been ongoing for years. Why is it worth it to your company to persist?

Jennifer Smith:
Sure. So the project that we’ve proposed is related to our Line 5 pipeline. Line 5 is critical for supplying the energy that our Midwest, Great Lakes regions all rely on. Millions of us every day are using the end products that Line 5 is transporting to ten different refineries. It’s providing natural gas liquids to other companies that will extract the propane and deliver it to the homes throughout the region. And so we have a responsibility to make sure that we can continue to safely deliver that energy that we’re all relying on. And the project — we proposed this project almost five years ago, over four years, and initiated the project permits, because this is in response to the Bad River Band’s request that we remove Line 5 from the reservation, which it currently crosses.

Frederica Freyberg:
So your company has an indigenous reconciliation action plan that includes acknowledging an historical lack of inclusion of indigenous people and their wellbeing. Additionally, the Enbridge CEO states, we have learned that what we do today impacts the next seven generations, and we have a responsibility, he says, to preserve and care for the land, learn from her original inhabitants and move forward together in the spirit of healing, reconciliation and partnership. We take these responsibilities seriously. So how does that statement square with the pitched legal fight with the Bad River over Line 5?

Jennifer Smith:
In specific to the Indigenous Reconciliation Action Plan, our first plan was issued in 2022. That – we call it the IRAP – identified 22 tangible commitments and actions that we can take as a company to try and work with tribal communities. And since that time, you know, there have been a number of successes to that in terms of, you know, making sure that our tribal contractors, tribal community members are able to work with Enbridge and economically participate in what is it that we do. I will point out that, you know, it was the band that sued Enbridge back in 2019 regarding Line 5 crossing the reservation. And so even with, you know, we are full steam ahead on this project, we fully expect to see the permits get reaffirmed. But at the same time, we, we want to work with the Bad River Band and tribal community to — we’d rather work together.

Frederica Freyberg:
How do you respond to the concerns from those challenging the permit that a pipeline spill could impact the tribal communities’ very way of life that depends on clean water and wetlands for food sources?

Jennifer Smith:
First of all, I’ll say we all depend on clean water as humans, and so we all have a vested interest in safety and environmental protection. You know, we are operating these pipelines. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines across the U.S. that operate every day quietly, safely. We don’t hear about them. And so, you know, Enbridge for one, has invested billions of dollars over the years into the integrity of our systems. We are monitoring these pipelines 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We are continuously running tools and doing checks to make sure that we know the integrity of our pipeline. We know that it’s safe.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what happens if this reroute is rejected?

Jennifer Smith:
The DNR did an environmental impact statement, which was done over four plus years, and it concluded that those impacts will be minimal, temporary and localized, just like with most, if not any, you know, all construction projects. And so we fully believe that when we get through the contested case process, the permits will be affirmed and we’ll be able to start construction, and we’re ready to do that as soon as we get all the approvals required.

Frederica Freyberg:
Jennifer Smith from Enbridge, thanks very much.

Jennifer Smith:
Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
This update to our tribal college report last week. The Department of Education announced a $108 million increase in funding for tribal colleges and universities before the 2025 fiscal year ends this month. Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwe University and the College of Menominee Nation will now receive a boost in funding that the administration says is a one-time investment. Tribal institutions are also funded by the Department of Interior, which has proposed cuts to tribal higher education programs in its 2026 budget.
Following the assassination of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk, dozens of people across the country have lost their jobs over social media comments they made in reaction. In Eau Claire, Republican Congressman Derrick Van Orden threatened to pull federal funding going to the city over comments two council members made online saying they celebrated Kirk’s death. The council members reject that accusation. Political discourse, especially online and in social media, even before Kirk’s assassination, has been beyond toxic. But how to agree to disagree and talk about it? BridgeEauClaire is a chapter of BridgeUSA, which brings college students of different persuasions together to discuss polarizing topics. UW-Eau Claire political science professor Adam Kunz is the group’s faculty advisor.

Adam Kunz:
Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
So do you suppose that your next session you will be discussing Charlie Kirk?

Adam Kunz:
I believe the students actually already have. They’ve had their first session, and they have discussed openly about what their views are on the, on the event. And I believe the students are going to have an ongoing conversation about it probably throughout the year.

Frederica Freyberg:
What kinds of other topics has BridgeEauClaire engaged on?

Adam Kunz:
So BridgeEauClaire is basically what I would describe as the anti-debate club. The goal of the club is basically to be a conversation club. It’s less about winning an argument, it’s more about trying to discuss and understand one another in terms of our perspectives on politics, culture, religious backgrounds, etc. And so the topics can be far reaching. It can be anything from is a hot dog a sandwich all the way up to should the United States disassociate from Israel. So those, those kinds of topics can be rife with lots of different opinions. And the goal behind any bridge meeting is basically to bring people from all different perspectives into a room, feel empowered to be able to share your opinions and to try to understand one another. The goal is not to convince. The goal is not to win. The goal is to basically try to get students listening to one another, understanding in a very sincere and genuine way, and then going away and kind of processing that for your own beliefs.

Frederica Freyberg:
So what are the ground rules? What are the mechanics of these discussions? How do you start?

Adam Kunz:
Yeah, so that’s been a learning experience. This took off a couple years ago when we decided after an event that was run by the Menard Center for Constitutional Studies, which is what I’m affiliated with on campus, that we wanted to found a club like this. This is less about free speech, which is certainly a right that every American citizen has. This is more about how do I exercise my free speech in responsible ways, and to allow other people to express those free speech rights. And so the ground rules are very much, first of all, guided by the national organization. It’s — there’s, there’s a whole handbook that the students go through to kind of figure out how they would bring up a topic. There’s moderating time. There is a club president. There are people that are in charge for picking the topics themselves. But then within the local organizations, there’s a lot of adaptability and Eau Claire students are very polite students. They’ve got, you know, Wisconsin nice. And so I think that they, they add this extra layer of kind of wanting to build a community despite political differences. And I have to admire the Gen Z students because I think they are looking for ways to build that kind of social connection in a world that’s mostly driven by algorithms.

Frederica Freyberg:
So how, to that, how eager have you found students to engage in actual civil discussion with this generation, possibly craving real connections?

Adam Kunz:
Yeah, I think so — I’ve, I’ve watched — I’ve been teaching for about ten years in different capacities, and I’ve watched as the Gen Z population has started to mature. And it’s interesting. We’re about three years away from having our first Gen Alpha student in college, which makes me feel so old. But the Gen Z students are absolutely looking for ways to connect. But there’s this feeling among them that they don’t really know how to connect. There’s this kind of catch 22. They want a social situation. They want to find a community, but they’re so used to being targeted or trolled online, they’re scared to be able to express their opinions. And so clubs like Bridge are a great way for them to learn, you know, those social skills in a real way, and to do so in a closed environment where they don’t feel like they’re going to get piled on or misunderstood, or have something screenshotted and taken out of context.

Frederica Freyberg:
Circling back to Charlie Kirk in the aftermath of his assassination, do you sense a chilling effect on freedom of expression with people across the country right now?

Adam Kunz:
I think that there is a huge divide right now over the terms of free speech. I think that for many Americans, if you ask them on Pew Research questions, for instance, it’s, it’s over a 90% threshold that Americans cherish the value of free speech. I think the challenge that we always have, though, is what does that mean when it’s the other person expressing it? Everybody wants free speech for themselves. Query as to whether or not we’re going to allow free speech for others. There are, of course, categories of speech that are not protected. We know what those are: incitement, obscenity, etc. but for the most part, our First Amendment protects us. It gives us the chance to be able to express ourselves, and especially on university campuses. That means both Republican as well as Democratic students. And so I think that universities have a real opportunity right now to show that, you know, in a pluralist society where people come with multiple beliefs, the university can be a place where people express themselves and do so in ways that are not going to be silencing to them, to them. I wish that we could replicate that in the rest of the public sphere. I wish that we could help other Americans after college or in other areas of life, recognize that that is really the lifeblood of what we’re doing in our American democracy.

Frederica Freyberg:
Indeed. Professor Adam Kunz, thanks very much.

Adam Kunz:
Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:
The list of candidates to be the next governor continues to grow since Democrat Tony Evers announced he would not seek a third term. This week, two more Democratic challengers entered their names into the primary race for governor. State Senator Kelda Roys and State Representative Francesca Hong joined Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley and Lieutenant Governor Sara Rodriguez.
In other state government news, a political debate is brewing at the Capitol over whether state employees should be allowed to work remotely or be required to return to the office. “Here & Now” reporter Steven Potter has details.

Amanda Nedweski:
We want to get the most out of our state workforce, and this should have been done a long time ago.

Steven Potter:
State Representative Amanda Nedweski is pushing for big changes to how, or more importantly, where state employees work.

Amanda Nedweski:
The Return to Work bill simply requires state employees who worked inside an office building for the state prior to March 1st of 2020 to come back and work in person.

Steven Potter:
The Republican lawmaker from Pleasant Prairie has several reasons why she thinks state employees should be working in state office buildings instead of at home.

Amanda Nedweski:
It’s been five years since this temporary solution to the COVID response was instituted. There hasn’t been an effort to evaluate productivity outside of the office. So it just sort of was we’re all going to go home and work remotely, and no one ever has to come back. It’s become sort of a permanent solution to what was a temporary problem.

Steven Potter:
Last week, the state Assembly debated and ultimately passed Nedweski’s bill, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against it.

Amanda Nedweski:
As amended, it requires most state employees to be in the office at least 80% of the work month, roughly four days a week, allowing for some flexibility.

Steven Potter:
Nedweski says she wrote the Return to Work bill to rein in a state government remote work system that lacks proper oversight of its employees.

Amanda Nedweski:
People are very concerned about efficiency, fiscal management or mismanagement and fraud. And I’m — you know, this is an accountability issue.

Steven Potter:
And she says her constituents are asking for this bill.

Amanda Nedweski:
A lot of money comes out of your taxes. If, you know, if you’re a teacher or a nurse, or maybe you’re a small business owner, you’re paying a lot into the system. You want to know you’re getting the most you can out of it. And that’s, that’s what we’re hearing from constituents around the state.

Steven Potter:
Representative Mike Bare, a Democrat from Verona, says he’s hearing very different things from his constituents.

Mike Bare:
I’ve not heard from one single constituent, one single state worker who thinks this bill is a good idea. We heard over and over from, from the state government, from secretaries and managers and state government that they don’t need this bill. What they’ve been doing is working.

Steven Potter:
He says remote work is effective, which is why it’s still in place so many years after the pandemic began.

Mike Bare:
There’s no evidence that suggests that this would be helpful to state workers, that this would be helpful to our state government. No evidence to suggest that this would save any money or make us more efficient. In fact, it will cost more money and make us more inefficient.

Steven Potter:
To that point of cost, if this bill becomes law, finding office space for state employees to return to would be a challenge. Over the last few years, many state agencies have realized savings in rent and building maintenance by shrinking or even eliminating their needs for physical office space. In fact, the state is currently emptying and getting ready to sell three of its largest office buildings in downtown Madison.

Amanda Nedweski:
The fiscal impact of the bill at the time I introduced it was something like $200 to $400 million to bring employees back because they’ve closed buildings without evaluating telework performance.

Steven Potter:
Representative Bare says that remote work has allowed many state employees to move away from the state’s larger cities, a benefit they appreciate.

Mike Bare:
They’ve moved out into the state, across the state, out into Assembly districts that aren’t as close to Madison as mine is. So that means that those workers will have to come back, and that has a tremendous cost to it in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Steven Potter:
Both lawmakers note that cybersecurity issues for remote working state employees is a concern that needs to be addressed. Bare and Nedweski also agree that ending or limiting remote work for state employees will have a significant effect on hiring and retention.

Mike Bare:
There would be a bleed of good, talented, skilled people from state government that we wouldn’t want to see.

Amanda Nedweski:
Well, I expect there’d be some turnover.

Steven Potter:
In all, there are about 70,000 employees working for various state agencies and the Universities of Wisconsin system. Estimates range that from 19% to 75% of those employees work remotely or have hybrid work schedules, depending on the agency. Representative Nedweski says her bill doesn’t mandate that all state employees can never work remotely again.

Amanda Nedweski:
All the bill says is you have to come back, reevaluate, and if you — it’s determined by your business unit or by your department that you’ve been working effectively in your remote work situation, you can reengage in a remote work agreement.

Steven Potter:
Representative Bare, however, says offering public employees remote or hybrid work options keeps the state competitive in the job market.

Mike Bare:
I don’t think that this is special treatment. I think this is treatment that’s consistent with what the private market is doing. And, and I think that managers have been holding them accountable for being good, productive workers who are working for the taxpayers as they’re expected to do.

Steven Potter:
While the Republican majority in the Assembly passed the bill last week, it must still go to the Senate. And if approved by the Republican majority there, it will go to the desk of Democratic Governor Tony Evers, who will almost certainly veto it. Reporting from the Capitol, I’m Steven Potter for “Here & Now.”

Frederica Freyberg:
For more on this and other issues facing 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.

Announcer:
Funding for “Here & Now” is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.