Here & Now

Here & Now for February 25, 2022

Announcer:

The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Frederica Freyberg:

Russia invades Ukraine, and a humanitarian crisis unfolds. The future of cash bail standards could be put in the hands of voters. And is the ferocity of COVID-19 finally over or are we just over it?

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” we hear the Wisconsin delegation respond to the crisis in Ukraine. The last county in Wisconsin drops its mask mandate. Two perspectives will weigh-in on the debate over bail reform. And lawmakers take action on historic teacher shortages. It’s “Here & Now” for February 25.

Announcer:

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

Frederica Freyberg:

The brutal assault on Ukraine as Russia fully invaded its borders leaves the world shaken and President Joe Biden promising escalating consequences. As Russia fired missiles and invaded cities, a humanitarian crisis is quickly unfolding with neighboring countries experiencing a flood of refugees. The U.S. has amassed some 20,000 troops in Europe to deter the Russian aggression. And the U.S. and the international community have imposed mounting sanctions on Russia condemning the attack. Wisconsin’s U.S. Senators have weighed in on the developing situation. In a statement, Republican Senator Ron Johnson wrote, “Weakness tempts tyrants and totalitarians to seek more power. People who only want to live in peace suffer the consequences… Europe must act with strength and resolve to prevent risking a wider conflict, and the U.S. must support our NATO allies and freedom loving people in this moment of extreme peril.” And Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin said in a statement, “Putin has violated international law, invading a sovereign and democratic nation that wants peace and independence… We need to continue standing strong with our European allies and NATO by providing them the support they need to hold Putin accountable for the largest invasion of Europe since World War II.”

Turning to COVID-19 in Wisconsin, over the course of the pandemic, Madison and Dane County Public Health imposed strict emergency orders, including mandating masks in public spaces. That mask order expires next week. So if one of the strictest prevention efforts in Wisconsin is now going away, what does that say about where we stand with this disease? We ask Ajay Sethi, associate professor in the Department of Population Health Sciences at the UW School of Medicine and Public Health. Thanks very much for being here.

Ajay Sethi:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

It seems like when even the strict Dane County eases up on masks and now today the CDC is doing the same. We’re in a new phase. Even as hospitalizations are still in the hundreds.

Ajay Sethi:

Yeah. Indeed. We’re just getting past the spike in cases due to omicron that also led to a lot of hospitalizations and deaths. And it’s a time to rethink our next phase of the pandemic and how we can move forward living with COVID but also taking necessary precautions as needed.

Frederica Freyberg:

Should we just be kind of comfortable with getting a breakthrough case, for example, of omicron, if that happens at this point?

Ajay Sethi:

Well, if you are vaccinated, and especially if you are boosted, you really can feel confident that the vaccines will protect you against having severe illness. If you have a weakened immune system, that’s a situation where it’s important to talk to your healthcare provider to see what are the options for you. In some cases, a fourth dose might be recommended. But no doubt the vaccines remain effective against severe illness and death, and it’s a time to acknowledge that we can potentially move forward and live with COVID and feel comfortable.

Frederica Freyberg:

Would most people in Wisconsin not vaccinated have already been infected, thereby helping us along to herd immunity, of which we’ve spoken?

Ajay Sethi:

There’s definitely a lot of immunity out there. From past infection, from vaccination, a combination of both. There are estimates that maybe 70% or higher of people in Wisconsin have some form of immunity and that definitely helps create a bit of a wall for the virus — to prevent the virus from being passed from one person to another. The wild card, of course, is future variants, and the ability of future variants to escape some of that immunity we have in the population. But right now we can feel comfortable that there’s a lot of protection that is out there.

Frederica Freyberg:

So the question is, when does COVID-19 become endemic, and what even is the definition of that?

Ajay Sethi:

Yeah. There isn’t necessarily an answer that we can all agree upon. And it’s not just a mathematical answer. It’s really when society feels that we can tolerate or we can manage the cases that are being transmitted. And I would say as long as our healthcare systems can manage surges that occur, much like they prepare for flu season, if there is a COVID season that’s in the winter months, our healthcare systems can deliver care to everybody. No matter what their needs are. That’s a sign that as a society we can live with COVID. But, of course, we have to get there. I think there’s a desire for endemicity right now, but we need time to sort of prove as a society that we can indeed live with COVID, but I think we can get there.

Frederica Freyberg:

Okay. One other question. Is long COVID no longer a concern for folks or people who’ve had the omicron?

Ajay Sethi:

It’s still a concern. Especially if you are unvaccinated. It’s a risk. It can occur. And it’s not as rare as some people may think. Vaccinated individuals, especially those who were boosted don’t have the same risk for long COVID. At least that’s what the research is showing right now. And that’s why I think with that important tool it’s important to continue to remind those over 2 million Wisconsinites who aren’t vaccinated yet that it’s a good option because we want people to avoid COVID and those long-term outcomes for some individuals.

Frederica Freyberg:

Who should still again be taking precautions?

Ajay Sethi:

It’s not a bad idea for anybody to take precautions. Especially if they perceive their risk to be high. But those with co-morbidities, older individuals and of course, anybody who’s unvaccinated, just remember they are the most vulnerable for getting COVID. Even if you’ve had past infection, that immunity may not last as long as you think, and if you have had a past infection a while back with a variant that doesn’t circulate anymore, you have a risk for more severe disease.

Frederica Freyberg:

Ajay Sethi, thank you so much for joining us.

Ajay Sethi:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

Both houses of the legislature have passed a proposed constitutional amendment to change the way cash bail is set in Wisconsin. We’ll hear from both sides of this issue, but first, Marisa Wojcik explains the proposal.

Marisa Wojcik:

Wisconsin voters may have the question of bail reform put before them. The Wisconsin State Legislature passed a resolution that could give judges more latitude in deciding if someone charged with a crime requires higher bail amounts or stricter conditions of release. The primary function of bail is to ensure someone who is accused of a crime will return to court for trial. Currently, the court must follow certain conditions under which a person is eligible for release, and the district attorney is the one that requests bail amounts. Under this proposal, judges will consider a person’s criminal history and potential threat to public safety when setting bail. This debate has come to the forefront after a man out on bail tore through a downtown Waukesha Christmas parade in his SUV, killing six people and injuring dozens more. The joint resolution must be taken up and passed by the legislature again next session before the question will go in front of voters to ratify the state’s constitution. The Republican proposal was passed largely along party lines and in seeking a constitutional amendment, the legislature bypasses the governor’s authority to veto the measure.

Frederica Freyberg:

The move to change the bail system in Wisconsin took on new urgency after the Waukesha Christmas parade when a man out on $1,000 bail on an assault charge plowed through crowds killing six people. Republican Senator Van Wanggaard authored the resolution calling for the amendment. He joins us now. Thanks for being here.

Van Wanggaard:

Thank you Frederica, pleasure to be here.

Frederica Freyberg:

Senator, we described in a report just ahead of this interview about how judges or commissioners under this amendment would now have to consider the seriousness of the crime, past criminal history and protection of the community. Does this fly in the face, as some people say, of the presumption of innocence?

Van Wanggaard:

The problem with monetary bond — the way our constitution reads now is monetary bond is designed to assure that that individual is going to appear in court for appearance. But if I say, okay, I will put up my — you make my bond $50,000, I’ll come up with a $50,000 from somewhere, but you know what if I get out, I am going to kill every witness, and all the people who were involved in my case when I get out. But I will show up for court. Well, the judge has to be able to consider all of those potential threats, and intimidations to witnesses. The individual’s conduct beforehand. And what their threats are. And can they deliver on what those threats are. Those things should be considered now. But the way the law reads is monetary bail is supposed to be a reasonable amount someone can make to tie them to the community. Bail used to be about linking them and keeping them here so they show up for court.

Frederica Freyberg:

Can’t a judge though impose conditions, like of what you speak, if a defendant is threatening people or something like that? Can’t there be no contact orders and stuff like that under the current law?

Van Wanggaard:

Sure. The judge can put that in place. Again, it’s the same thing. If I have a history of being violent, and I have a history of delivering on my threats, the judge should be able to consider that too. If I just ran dozens of people down with my vehicle, and they set the bond really low, and I say I am going to go run some more people over, the monetary side of things, that’s the way the stature reads. The monetary is supposed to be reasonable that the person can meet the bail but that they’re going to show up. In the Waukesha case, the judge set the bail at $5 million because there were five people were killed. And his comment was he is not going to get out now because I’m setting this bail high. That really doesn’t fit with what our constitution says it’s supposed to be. So there came the difficulty. With this amendment, what it will do is it will give the judge the ability to consider those things specifically, and give it back to them like it did pre-1981 but it’ll also give them the responsibly to do it. Which are two different things. So there will be some accountability for what they are doing or not doing.

Frederica Freyberg:

Interesting. Interesting stuff. Certainly we’ll be following it. Senator, thank you very much.

Van Wanggaard:

Frederica, thank you for the time. I appreciate it.

Frederica Freyberg:

Opponents of the amendment to change the bail system in Wisconsin worry it will lead to many more people held in jail prior to trial. People who are presumed innocent and do not, in fact, pose a safety risk. Among them Wisconsin state public defender Kelli Thompson. She joins us now. Thank you very much for being here.

Kelli Thompson:

Thank you very much for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

Why will this lead to many more people jailed pretrial?

Kelli Thompson:

It likely will lead to additional people being held pretrial because cash bail does not equate to risk. You and myself could be charged with the same crime and be provided a cash bail by the court or by the commissioner. One can pay. One cannot pay. And that doesn’t necessarily mean that the person that can pay is less risky. We have individuals in our criminal justice system, in our jails right now, presumed innocent. And they just don’t have the ability to pay the cash bail that has been set in their particular case.

Frederica Freyberg:

In terms of the amendment, why is it wrong to consider the seriousness of the crime, past criminal history, and protection of the community when setting bail?

Kelli Thompson:

It’s not that it’s wrong, it’s just are we looking at the correct factors that we should be to keep our community safe. And still stay true to what I think is extraordinarily important to all of us – that presumption of innocence and our liberty interest. We’re taking away someone’s liberty interest when we hold them in jail presumed innocent. Part of what happens, when we keep someone in custody, prior to a conviction in a case, we’re taking away their housing security, we’re taking away their children, we’re taking away their ability to work, to be employed and we’re doing that again on the assumption that they have committed a crime. They’re still just charged. And again that presumption of innocence is so, so very critical. What we see daily, and in real life is that a number of individuals are sitting that are too poor to pay a cash bail, even sometimes a low cash bail, and so they sit waiting for their day in court. We know nationally — this is not a new discussion. In fact, we have had discussions with other legislators, with senators, with representatives, Senator Wanggaard has been on the forefront of this issue for years. We’re looking at different states, different communities, different counties on what’s working and cash bail is not the direction that others are going or expanding cash bail.

Frederica Freyberg:

Would you like to do away with cash bail all together?

Kelli Thompson:

I would. But I know that’s not what is going to happen. And that’s not what I am asking for. I know that cash bail does play a role. That people feel that does hold basically a stick or a carrot to get people to come back to court. But that should be used in such limited situations. Again, I’m going back to most people should be out of custody. They’re presumed innocent. There’s a group of individuals may need something more to continue them in the community. And that can be no contact order. No violent contact order. That could be some type of services. That could be electronic monitoring. And then there’s a group of individuals that we say, hey, you need something more, and that could be the cash bail system we use. But, again, cash bail does not equate to public safety. When we go before a commissioner, before a judge to make a determination on bail, we have some information but these hearings go very, very quickly, and we don’t often have a lot of information on these individuals. And what we’re doing is we’re saying somehow, especially to poor people, you are more risky so we’re going to keep you in custody. And I don’t think that’s the system we should be striving to have in Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

There are other models of which you spoke that people are discussing including the federal model — federal prevention detention. How is that better people think than what we are looking at?

Kelli Thompson:

It doesn’t put two people similar situated, one being poor though, in custody while someone else who can post that cash bail out of custody. Preventive detention is used in a very limited number of cases. But it does, what I think individuals are looking at, we have perhaps a very high risk group of individuals who have been charged with very serious cases, and a commissioner or a judge can determine that there is — you should not be released. Again it’s a very limited number of cases. But they do have that ability. With a lot of parameters. We have to respect due process and make sure that people can have hearings and that there could be motions so that we can go before a judges and say, hey, we have new information this person should be released. But the federal system does that. A number of states do that. We actually have it in our constitution, just the way it is now is unworkable. But is that somewhere we should be focusing some of our attention if public safety is one of our primary concerns with the individuals. Again what we’re doing here is by expanding that cash bail, is ultimately keeping who can’t afford it in custody, and away from their communities and most importantly away from their families.

Frederica Freyberg:

We leave it there. Thank you very much, Kelli Thompson, and thanks for your time.

Kelli Thompson:

Thank you very much. Thanks for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

The constitutional amendment would allow judges to deny bail all together based on prior criminal history.

Also in the legislature this week, a package of election reform bills was passed by Republicans. The bills address issues that came up in 2020, including absentee ballot applications, indefinitely confined voter status and outside grant funding to local municipalities.

Duey Stroebel:

How they think that a private corporate interest parachuting into Wisconsin can drop millions of dollars in certain areas they deem important just reveals to us how out of touch they really are.

Chris Larson:

A lot of people have questions. And don’t know if they should trust the election because we’ve been saying they shouldn’t trust the election.

Frederica Freyberg:

And before the Assembly this week, Shannon Holsey, the president of the Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohican Indians delivered the State of the Tribes Address. She spoke to a number of issues facing Wisconsin’s Tribal Nations including veterans, conserving natural resources, education, healthcare, and preserving the sanctity of democracy. The full address can be seen on PBSwisconsin.org, but here’s an excerpt.

Shannon Holsey:

The next generation of our young people are now emerging as political actors in global, regional and local debates. That is why representation truly matters and it’s so critical to preserve the sanctity of democracy, where diverse groups of people are included where decisions are made. That is why voting is so sacred.

[applause ]

Frederica Freyberg:

There was already a shortage of teachers in Wisconsin before COVID-19. But the pandemic only made it worse. The state Department of Public Instruction says schools are facing historic teacher shortages with fewer students pursuing education degrees. Democrats at the Capitol this week proposed a package of eight bills to address the critical need. One bill would set the minimum salary for Wisconsin teachers as the equivalent of what state legislators make. Now at just over $56,000. Another would create a recurring $7,000 bonus teachers would receive for every 5 years of service and another measure would set a $15 an hour minimum wage for student teachers. Milwaukee Senator LaTonya Johnson is among Democrats pursuing the bills. She joins us now. Thanks for being here.

LaTonya Johnson:

Thank you for having me.

Frederica Freyberg:

So people have been sounding the alarm over Wisconsin’s teacher shortage for years. How do you think these proposals will work to attract people to the profession and keep them there?

LaTonya Johnson:

I think that we have to do everything humanly possible to make sure that we are recruiting the best and the brightest minds to educate our children, and we know that even before the pandemic that was a hard obstacle to overcome. And now with the pandemic it has just exasperated the teacher shortage. So we have to do more in terms of providing loan payoff, and paying an equivalent starting wage to attract those individuals into our classroom.

Frederica Freyberg:

So is it mostly about pay? Or is it more that teachers or would be teachers need?

LaTonya Johnson:

It’s about pay but mostly about so much more. It’s about bringing the professionalism back to it status quo, and being professional. My Republican colleagues have scapegoated teachers and villainized teachers for so long that you have younger individuals not wanting to pursue a degree in teaching because they don’t see the profession as being appreciated or highly regarded. And we have to do more to attract those individuals into the profession, but also to bring it back to that professional status that it used to be long before Act 10.

Frederica Freyberg:

Where would the money come from to pay for the package?

LaTonya Johnson:

We have more than enough money to pay for the package. We have $1.7 billion sitting in our rainy-day fund. And we are anticipating $3.8 billion to come in GPR. So that’s a total of over $5 billion that we should invest back into our classrooms, and back into those individuals who are educating our children.

Frederica Freyberg:

Meanwhile, Republicans in legislature are passing bills to expand school choice and parents’ rights around curriculum, for example, allowing parents to sue. What is your expectation that your proposals, your Democratic proposals will ever even get a vote?

LaTonya Johnson:

You know it’s going to be an uphill battle. And in most cases this legislation probably will never reach the floor to get a vote this session as it’s going to quickly come to an end in March. But we wanted to make sure that people knew that there are individuals out there, especially on the Democratic side, that are — we understand the need to have well-qualified teachers in the classroom teaching our most vulnerable and our most valuable. We have seen our — my Republican colleagues on the other side not show any care or concern, especially for public education. And I have to be honest about it. I am not against choice and charter schools. My daughter graduated from a private high school on choice. So I do understand the need. But I don’t understand the bias. In my Republican colleagues choosing to want to pit school systems against each other rather than adequately funding and making sure all school systems across the board have what they need, and the resources they need to provide a quality education to our children.

Frederica Freyberg:

Another Republican bill passed in the Assembly would break up Milwaukee Public Schools into smaller districts. We know it’s not the first time this has come around. As a senator who represents Milwaukee, what do you think of that proposal?

LaTonya Johnson:

It’s demeaning. Because we have failing schools that exist in our choice and charter systems too, and we aren’t doing anything to try and hold those schools accountable. We — Milwaukee Public Schools educates over 78,000 students. And out of that 78,000 students, over 62,000 of those students are impoverished and economically disadvantaged. Another 20% of those students are special needs and require special education funding which is exceptionally expensive. Rather than my colleagues doing what they need to do, to make sure that Milwaukee Public Schools has the resources that they need to adequately fund the schools, they choose to want to break it up. Milwaukee Public Schools in the past had something called a Milwaukee map partnership. That was a partnership with UW-M and the technical colleges in Milwaukee public schools. And we saw those math gaps close. We saw math improve in our public schools. And my Republican colleagues chose to not fund the program anymore, and it was cut out, and now we’re seeing those gaps come back again at a much larger rate. If they want to do things to improve and help Milwaukee Public Schools, they would fund those services that are most needed to close the gaps and stop trying to penalize a school system that is bigger than some of our counties.

Frederica Freyberg:

We need to leave it there. Senator Johnson. Thanks very much.

LaTonya Johnson:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

For more Wisconsin news, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org, and then click on the news tab. That is 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.