Here & Now

Here & Now for Feb. 16, 2018

Announcer:

The following program is part of our “Here and Now” 2018 Wisconsin Vote election coverage.

Frederica Freyberg:

I'm Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here and Now,” the aftermath of the school shooting tragedy in Florida, including a closer look at funding for mental health services in Wisconsin. A look ahead to a wetlands deregulation bill headed to the state Senate next week. Then more capitol insight with WPR’s Shawn Johnson, a week of heavy lifting at the legislature. It’s “Here and Now” for February 16.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Frederica Freyberg:

Seventeen dead, 14 wounded. Grim numbers in the aftermath of the horrific school shooting in Parkland, Florida on Wednesday. President Trump spoke to the tragedy on Thursday.

Donald Trump:

To every parent, teacher and child who is hurting so badly, we are here for you. Whatever you need. Whatever we can do to ease your pain. We are all joined together as one American family. And your suffering is our burden, also. No child, no teacher, should ever be in danger in an American school.

Frederica Freyberg:

Here’s what Wisconsin’s U.S. Senators had to say about the Parkland school shooting, starting with Democrat Tammy Baldwin, who said, “My heart breaks for the victims of senseless gun violence in Broward County. This is yet another school shooting and another tragedy our nation must confront.” Republican Ron Johnson tweeted, “Horrified by the senseless act of violence in Florida today. My prayers go out to all the families affected.”

In the aftermath of this week’s shooting in Florida, the debate over guns arose again, as it does with each successive mass shooting and loss of life. Many politicians pivoted however to the role of mental health in such crimes. In tonight’s closer look, we talk about mental health and whether there are gaps in funding or access. We are joined by Nate Schorr, Executive Director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness, Wisconsin. Thank you for being here.

Nate Schorr:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

It was politicians including President Trump, Governor Walker and Senator Ryan talking about the need to address mental health in response and reaction to this school shooting in particular. How does Wisconsin fare in terms of its funding for mental health?

Nate Schorr:

Well, it’s a complicated question which will have sort of a complicated answer. And I think that mental health is something that there’s no one treatment or there’s no one specific thing that we’re pushing for that’s going to make the people of Wisconsin that are affected by mental illness, that’s going to solve that for them. So I think that there are certainly things that Wisconsin is doing well. And there’s certainly things that Wisconsin does allocate money toward that does make a huge difference for the people of Wisconsin that are affected by mental illness. But I think what it really comes down to is ultimately there’s so much more that needs to be done. And there’s so much more that we do want to focus on and allocate money towards and time and energy and also just reshape people’s perspective of what it means to be affected by mental illness.

Frederica Freyberg:

I've read that Florida in particular has a real funding gap in terms of spending for mental health initiatives. Do you have any idea how Wisconsin compares?

Nate Schorr:

I don’t have as much of a perspective — I'm obviously a little bit more focused on what’s going on here in Wisconsin. When I do speak to colleagues in other states, I know that there are certain things that Wisconsin is definitely a leader in. There are certain things that Wisconsin doesn’t do as well. But I think that, you know, a lot of mental health advocacy was really championed here in Wisconsin. My organization, NAMI, was founded here in Madison 40 years ago. When you compare to that other state organizations within NAMI, I think you’ll see in general NAMI-Wisconsin really benefits from a community that at least in some ways comparatively is invested in the mental health of its community.

Frederica Freyberg:

I know that recent state budgets have increased funding for mental health, but where would you regard this kind of funding is needed most in Wisconsin?

Nate Schorr:

Yeah. And there’s a lot of different directions that you could go with that. There’s a lot of things that Wisconsin has been doing really well. One thing in particular that we’re only going to see more and more investment in and I think that is certainly important for us is crisis intervention training, which is a 40-hour, week-long training for law enforcement officers to better understand how to interact and work with people that are experiencing some sort of mental health crisis or some sort of mental health episode.

Frederica Freyberg:

I know that the sheriff in Broward County was quoted as saying it’s a pretty good assumption that the shooter had unspecified mental health issues. How could mental health treatment help prevent what happened in Florida?

Nate Schorr:

I think an important way for us to maybe frame that conversation or look at that conversation is that people with mental illness are no more likely to perpetrate violent crimes than the general population. And in fact people with mental illness are more likely, significantly more likely to be victims of violent crimes, and particularly with gun violence as it relates to suicide attempts. And so I think when it comes to a situation like what just happened, these are terrible events, but what a lot of people try to do is to try to make sense of the situation, you try to look for — to put people in a box and try to put things in a way that makes sense to them, when it’s obviously a lot more complicated than a specific person’s diagnosis. So I think that it’s important to frame the conversation in a way that isn’t demonizing people with mental illness.

Frederica Freyberg:

Sure, but there were red flags in terms of behavior that are learned in hindsight in this kind of situation as in Florida.

Nate Schorr:

Right.

Frederica Freyberg:

So who is it incumbent upon to get someone help before that kind of thing happens?

Nate Schorr:

And, again, there’s a lot that goes into that question. I think that one of the things that we’re trying to do here in Wisconsin is there is a huge push for early intervention with people that are experiencing mental health. There is a lot of money in our — an increase in funding in our most recent state budget that was allocated toward mental health intervention and screening in schools, which is very important. I think that there’s a lot of people that–a lot of young children, a lot of youth and a lot of people in the state of Wisconsin as a whole that are affected by mental illness that aren’t getting access to the treatment that they need when they are certainly experiencing some sort of, you know, mental health condition.

Frederica Freyberg:

All right. We leave it there. Difficult discussions. Nate Schorr, thanks very much.

Nate Schorr:

Hey, thank you so much for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

It's a sprint to the finish for lawmakers at the state capitol as they try to pass major pieces of legislation before the session ends in March. In tonight’s capitol insight we check in WPR’s Shawn Johnson who’s been running as fast as he can to cover the bill-passing dash. Shawn, thanks for being here.

Shawn Johnson:

Hey Fred.

Frederica Freyberg:

So describe what this bill-passing dash is like up there.

Shawn Johnson:

It's kind of crazy. I mean there was a day last week when, if you take executive sessions of committees, the times when they vote on bills, public hearings, when they take public testimony on bills, there were like 30 of those in one day last week. So pretty much impossible to keep track of all of them. Look at the Thursday session day, they had one committee where they formally introduced a bill, held a public hearing on it and voted on it in the Assembly committee. It was a Lincoln Hills bill. And then they dashed off to the floor and they ripped through the Assembly calendar there on a bunch of different topics. That’s kind of what it’s like now.

Frederica Freyberg:

So we talked about this being major pieces of legislation though and you just mentioned the Lincoln Hills bill. What else are they doing?

Shawn Johnson:

You've got the governor’s welfare special session bills. The Assembly went through ten of those. The Senate hasn’t taken those up yet. But they’re out of the Assembly now. A bunch of foster care bills that had bipartisan support also. You had a big wetlands bill that would make it easier for developers to fill state wetlands, non-federal wetlands. That’s pretty contentious as well. That passed the Assembly and will likely be up in the Senate next week.

Frederica Freyberg:

The juvenile correction bill calls for closing Lincoln Hills and Copper Lake Correctional Facilities for juveniles and replacing them with facilities in counties across the state. The plan is bipartisan. It was announced this week by Assembly Speaker Robin Vos. State Representative Evan Goyke was among the Democrats who worked on that bill and he was there for the announcement as well.

Robin Vos:

The basic idea is to say that we need to have a facility that continues to take care of the worst of the worst among juvenile offenders but our goal has always been the same: to make sure that any juvenile who commits an offense, be it minor or major, has the chance to rehabilitate themselves. Hopefully become a productive member of society and do it in a way that also protects the public.

Evan Goyke:

The hard part is we're at the end of the legislative session, and so time is of the essence to get this signed into law before we recess for the electoral process. And I hope–there’s no doubt that we can get this done. The only doubt is if we will get it done. It takes the political will of the majority party. Certainly you saw today the Assembly has a bipartisan group pushing this. We just need to get it through the Assembly, the Senate and signed by the gov.

Shawn Johnson:

And as to whether it will get done, Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald threw a little cold water on that this week. When he was asked about the Lincoln Hills bill by reporters, he said that would be a big lift.

Scott Fitzgerald:

I mean, in concept I agree with it. It’s just a matter of can you — that’s a big lift before the end of session. And we’ve had these discussions during the budget about just, not just juvenile, but also DOC and new facilities.

Frederica Freyberg:

Add to that Speaker Vos threw a little of his own shade.

Robin Vos:

Every major proposal is a big lift. I mean that was the whole point. For us, we have been working on it for a while. We’ve had authorship. I guess in my experience if you have the buy-in from all four caucuses, it seems like it should make it a lift, but maybe not as big.

Shawn Johnson:

And then you had this from the governor, who wants this done this session and before the election.

Scott Walker:

I think so far the response has been positive, but I want to make sure that there’s enough time to get this through not just the Assembly, but the Senate, and it’s something we stressed to Senator Fitzgerald and others that we want to get this done. We think it’s important to get this done yet this session.

Frederica Freyberg:

For his part, the Assembly minority leader described the breakneck pace of trying to pass a bunch of legislation in the governor’s agenda, like the $100 child tax credit. He called this part of the Republican 2018 “Regret Agenda. And yet is the minority being a little bit marginalized now because they have these pretty major bills, the foster care bill and the juvenile corrections reform bill, that are bipartisan. Where does that leave kind of the minority when that’s their role, to kind of not like the stuff in the governor’s agenda?

Shawn Johnson:

Yeah. I mean especially with the Lincoln Hills bill, the juvenile corrections bill that is about as bipartisan of any bill that we’ve seen up there in some time in the Assembly. You look at the public hearing on that issue. That is a potential political liability for the governor in an election year and yet politics really did not seep into that particular hearing. They’re definitely onboard with that. That said, we could go through probably a much longer list of bills where the minority party has been marginalized, their voice hasn’t been heard and they can say we are at odds with Republicans on this stuff.

Frederica Freyberg:

In terms of the governor’s agenda, whether the Assembly and the Senate can pass this in the remaining days, does it matter all that much politically? Because the governor could always say, “Well, I wanted this,” right? If it doesn’t get to his desk and he doesn’t get to sign it, politically may not be as important as knowing he was pushing for it.

Shawn Johnson:

Yeah. We’ve kind of talked about that before. He planted that flag, said this is my agenda. Whether or not the legislature goes along, so what. This is what Governor Walker stands for. It kind of depends on issues, right? When it comes to the Lincoln Hills issue, you know, if they don’t do anything on that, we look at recent history there, and there have been years of reports of abuse there. They don’t know that that’s not going to stop. That’s a facility that’s been under investigation.

Frederica Freyberg:

Right.

Shawn Johnson:

So just saying you want to do something there is not going to fix a problem. When it comes to say, the tax credit, though, the governor has said he wants a child tax credit. He’d like to see a sales tax holiday also, but seems to be alluding that that’s not going to happen. But if he wants to get $100 checks into the hands of parents in August in an election year, they’re going to have to pass something there.

Frederica Freyberg:

Yeah. That’s got to pass. So what about next week? What’s up?

Shawn Johnson:

More chaos. The Senate’s in for their only day in February. They’re only going to meet two more times this year according to Senator Fitzgerald. You got the Assembly could potentially be in three days next week and basically wrap up the rest of their agenda.

Frederica Freyberg:

Put your running shoes on. Shawn Johnson, thanks a lot.

Shawn Johnson:

You’re welcome.

Frederica Freyberg:

The State of Tribes Address took place Tuesday before members of the state legislature and their guests. Former Menominee Chair Gary Besaw delivered this year’s speech. A talk that included tribal concerns over mining and the environment.

Gary Besaw:

When the mining moratorium law was passed in 1998, or the “Prove It First” law, as it was known, it included a common sense provision that any metallic sulfite mining attempts in Wisconsin must first prove that the same type of mining was operated for ten years, then closed for ten years and there was no environmental degradation or pollution emanating from it. So basically when technology caught up with mining and could prove it could happen and it wouldn’t hurt us or the environment, Wisconsin would agree to monitor it and allow it. Made sense. But this year, the mining moratorium law was repealed. This reversal of much of the protections of the “Prove It First” law goes against all our knowledge and common sense. But as we said, we’re not luddites. We understand a certain amount of risk might be tolerated in exchange for certain minerals that help society. We get it. But we don’t think that technology day has come yet. We aren’t allowed ethically to put our future babies’ world at high risk. We’re not allowed to. We must look at alternatives such as recycling or no mines near water. We got to find an alternative. We have no choice. That’s our moral ethics as Tribal Nations. And please, we are no one’s enemy when we oppose this law change. We’re not doing this to argue or make enemies. This is our moral grounds and we have no choice but to stand and hold them.

[cheers and applause]

Frederica Freyberg:

Gary Besaw also voiced concerns over reducing state regulation over certain wetlands. We move now to the controversial bill that allows developers to fill some Wisconsin wetlands without a permit, which is expected to pass in the state Senate next week after Assembly passage this week. The measure then heads to the governor’s desk. Under the bill, builders could fill urban wetlands without a permit and fill up to three acres of rural wetlands if the land is related to an agricultural structure. Developers complain Wisconsin's regulation of wetlands is onerous. Environmentalists saying allowing builders to fill without permits on about one million acres of wetland would hurt water quality and worsen flooding. Tonight we check in with an expert on wetlands, UW-Madison Assistant Professor of Geography Morgan Robertson. Thanks very much for being here.

Morgan Robertson:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

I understand the area of wetlands in Wisconsin at issue as we’ve discussed in this bill is like a million acres but then the feds regulate another four million acres that are connected to navigable waterways. Why are wetlands protected by these kinds of regulations?

Morgan Robertson:

Wetlands protection generally has two major justifications. First they are focused areas of the provision of habitat and biodiversity values, recreational values and the landscape. That’s generally what people focus on when they talk about the environmental purpose of wetlands conservation. But I think there’s an underappreciated element which is the public health function of wetlands that they concentrate and sequester and sometimes treat the landscape of contaminants that flows into them as low points in the landscape. Specifically, the nutrient problem that we’re facing in Wisconsin. Because wetlands are focused places where surface water becomes groundwater. Where groundwater becomes surface water. They’re an essential part of solving the problem of especially nitrate pollution that’s affecting our groundwater. And of course we get most of drinking water from groundwater.

Frederica Freyberg:

So there’s that. There’s their kind of cleaning effect on drinking water.

Morgan Robertson:

Yes.

Frederica Freyberg:

What about how wetlands protect against flooding?

Morgan Robertson:

Wetlands are sort of the natural detention basins in the landscape. As we have seen an increase in extreme precipitation events in the state over the recent decades, we’re seeing the need for greater detention and greater ability to store that storm water as it flows across the landscape, especially in urban areas. To reduce flood peaks. It’s actually a very clear part of not only public health, but public safety and infrastructure element that wetlands provided. As you lose those, especially those small wetlands in urban areas, you lose the protection against flooding.

Frederica Freyberg:

So what could that look like, say if there were many acres of wetlands filled in?

Morgan Robertson:

You'd see an increase in storm peaks and you would see that water not being absorbed into the groundwater and being directed instead into the storm sewer system. It would result possibly in the need for upgraded storm sewer systems and certainly ecological impacts downstream.

Frederica Freyberg:

The bill requires mitigation by building new wetlands or paying into I understand a DNR wetland restoration fund. Would these measures mitigate the filling in of wetlands?

Morgan Robertson:

Potentially. They have in the past. Mitigation is something. Compensation for permitted impacts has been allowed since the late ’70s and there’s been a long track record of examining how this works. Now Wisconsin was in the forefront of skepticism back in the ’80s and ’90s that compensation could achieve the goal of appropriately replacing the lost functions and values. But since 2001, Wisconsin has been sort of in the business of overseeing compensation, the DNR has overseen effective and appropriate compensation. So it’s possible. I think one of the things that this bill does is to establish a study team that does have the mission of thinking carefully about how to do that appropriately.

Frederica Freyberg:

Could you fill in a wetland in one place and mitigate by rebuilding a manmade wetland in another place?

Morgan Robertson:

Well, that’s been the long-term question with compensation. There’s some understandable skepticism about that. I think the track record shows that you can if you are very careful about where that replacement goes. You can replace some of the functions and values that have been lost. You always do lose something by losing the wetland in that place. Not everything can be replaced. But of course to prevent all wetlands impacts also has its own social and economic costs.

Frederica Freyberg:

Have other states allowing the filling of wetlands to the extent that this Wisconsin law would allow?

Morgan Robertson:

Yeah. To go back a little bit to the Supreme Court case that opened up these wetlands in 2001 for development, that is the Supreme Court case said these wetlands are no longer covered by the Clean Water Act. Wisconsin jumped on the sort of patching that gap in coverage and immediately in Senate Bill 1 unanimously approved this system of protecting them. Other states followed suit, but Ohio and Indiana only in the area where these wetlands are particularly common, these isolated wetlands. Getting data on whether or not these wetlands have unduly been targeted in the states that haven’t protected them is very difficult. It is only anecdotal. It is very hard to say.

Frederica Freyberg:

And so if other states have gone kind of full bore with filling in their wetlands with very little time left, about 30 seconds, are there some states that experts like yourself have seen that you say, “Well, that’s what happens if developers and builders fill in these wetlands.”

Morgan Robertson:

Well, one could look at Illinois, I think. But recognize also that Illinois, counties and municipalities have the power to regulate that filling and that development. Something that this bill takes away from counties and municipalities in Wisconsin. So that’s a difference that means this isn’t something we’ve seen before.

Frederica Freyberg:

Morgan Robertson, thanks very much.

Morgan Robertson:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Looking ahead now to next week and the spring primary election on Tuesday. That’s when the field of candidates running to fill the seat of retiring Justice Michael Gableman will be narrowed to two. We talked with candidates Tim Burns, Michael Screnock and Rebecca Dallet in previous weeks on “Here and Now.” In anticipation of Tuesday’s primary, here they are on why they think they are the best fit for the high court and their judicial philosophy.

Tim Burns:

I'm the most likely candidate to stand up to Scott Walker and the legislature when they act outside the law.

Michael Screnock:

I believe strongly in the rule of law and I believe that the role of the court is to interpret and to apply the law, but not to rewrite the law or to try to legislate from the bench.

Rebecca Dallet:

I prosecuted sexual predator cases in two counties and now as a judge for almost a decade, I have heard 10,000 cases, 230 jury trials, experience that is really unparalleled between me and my opponents. And experience matters.

Tim Burns:

I have strong opinions and in fact, no one who serves on the Supreme Court is a blank slate. You expect people to come to that position, having informed themselves of the law and our political system.

Michael Screnock:

And it’s not unusual for me to have a case in front of me that I have a personal feeling about or an emotional attachment about one way or the other. And I must set aside those feelings, personal opinions and emotions and not let them get in the way of my role as a judge in applying the law to the facts as they come to me.

Rebecca Dallet:

We have our roles as judges. We are not a legislature. But we also have a duty to uphold the Constitution of both the United States and Wisconsin. And when that Constitution has been violated, that’s when we are a check on those legislators.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now for an update away from the state capitol and a look at the Olympics, where Wisconsin athletes have competed throughout the week. As of today, the men’s curling team is 2-2. Women’s team are 2-1. Both have matches this weekend. Wisconsin has sent three women’s hockey team members to the games this year. The women lost two and one won this week and will play in the semifinal on Monday. Another Wisconsin athlete, Matt Antoine, placed 14th on Friday in the skeleton. Nita Englund missed the final round in ski jumping by one spot. Ben Loomis placed 41st in Nordic combined skiing. He has more to come next week.

And finally tonight, a look ahead to next week when we will have coverage of those spring election results. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here and Now” is provided, in part, by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

For more information on “Here and Now’s” 2018 election coverage, go to WisconsinVote.org.