Announcer:

The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Frederica Freyberg:

Lac du Flambeau residents push back after weeks without access to and from their homes. And a year into Ukraine’s invasion, these volunteers refuse to lose momentum.

I’m Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” an update on the easement dispute in Lac du Flambeau. The UW System president asks to end the tuition freeze. An election official describes future security challenges and volunteers bring power to Ukraine. It’s “Here and Now” for March 3rd.

Announcer:

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

Frederica Freyberg:

Residents living on the Lac du Flambeau Reservation filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday over barricades blocking four roads that cut through tribal lands. An easement to the roads expired 10 years ago. The Lac du Flambeau tribe is today asking for $20 million for right-of-way access and trespass damages. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to the barricades, as residents have not been able to come and go from their homes for more than a month now, and communication with the tribe has all but ceased. Homeowner and plaintiff Dave Meiss told PBS Wisconsin, “This is affecting homeowners’ physical and mental health. We have become beyond discouraged at the inability for anyone to help us. We likely only have a couple of weeks left before the ice becomes dangerous to cross. Once that happens, we are truly stuck and have to make decisions whether we have to abandon our homes.” For the tribe’s part, a statement said, “The town and title companies want the tribe to give them right-of-way access forever. Essentially they are asking us to give up our land. We have given up millions of acres of land over generations. We now live on a 12 by 12 square mile piece of land known as a reservation. This is all we have left. Why are there so many non-tribal homeowners on the Lac du Flambeau reservation? Part of the answer goes back more than a century, when in 1887, the Federal Dawes General Allotment Act carved up indigenous land for individual ownership. Marisa Wojcik speaks with Richard Monette, a UW-Madison professor of law and director of the Great Lakes Indigenous Law Center.

Marisa Wojcik:

Generally what did indigenous lands look like before the Dawes General Allotment Act?

Richard Monette:

They almost didn’t look like anything to the untrained eye. And that’s part of the problem with European Americans coming over. Europeans coming over, and not seeing territory and not seeing property. Maybe territory defined a little differently. You know, different nations, shared territory, maybe seasonally, et cetera. They didn’t quite get that. There certainly was property, you know, different tribes, different families. Clans had fishing sites, had sugar bushes, you know, had places where they did their ceremonies. They didn’t see all that.

Marisa Wojcik:

The Dawes General Allotment Act in the 1800s, what did that do?

Richard Monette:

In 1887, the Dawes Act attempted to take what was the then legally recognized territory, usually because of a treaty of a tribe, and divided it up into property. Divided it into several — generally from 40 acres to 160 acres, sometimes a little less, sometimes a little more, depending on the numbers, reservation size, et cetera. But it was with the intent to — purportedly, to make farmers out of natives, make private property owners out of them. And one statement always attributed to Teddy Roosevelt is to act as a great pulverizing engine to destroy the tribal mass. That’s what he said. So it did that. You know, on many reservations like Lac du Flambeau, the federal government came in and drew lines and disregarded all those prior sugar bushes, fishing holes and other places where families had relatively recognized, quote-unquote, ownership. They came in with a ruler and a pen, and divided up the reservations, often, not always but often along, you know, the American, you know, system of metes and bounds, township lines, section lines, et cetera. And individual Indians and families ended up with private property in the American sense of the word.

Marisa Wojcik:

And they did this tribe by tribe, one at a time. Did tribes or individual people have any choice in the matter?

Richard Monette:

That was depending on tribe by tribe too. It made the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the secretary of the interior the trustee. And so they started acting on behalf of the tribes and the tribal members, as trustees do, oftentimes unilaterally. And thus we find rights-of-ways and easements and/or the Bureau of Indian Affairs leasing their lands for gas and oil, for timber, for grazing and for roads. Right? So that’s how we sort of fast forward to get to this. And then it’s important, along that historical line, to recognize, well, that 25-year period expired, and then they lost — the tribes lost significant amounts of land through a variety of means: foreclosures by banks, by creditors, sheriff’s sales. So people are sometimes surprised, they see the big square on the map and they say, well, that’s the reservation, how did there get to be so many non-Indians in there? This is largely how that occurred, was the allotment process. You can then quickly fast forward to all these easements, all the people living on some of the best land in the reservations, including at Lac du Flambeau, and that’s how we got here.

Marisa Wojcik:

What was the cultural consequence of this on tribes, and what was the impact on tribal sovereignty?

Richard Monette:

The impact has been huge. I mean, we can write books on the consequences of this. But when you’re not in control of how land is used in a territory, your sovereignty is greatly undermined. The Indian Reorganization Act was intended to facilitate a rebirth of tribal sovereignty and governance, right? Some self-determination and to get to the specific point here, while they, in fact, resurrected their self-determination in a lot of arenas when it came to governing property, they largely have not.

Marisa Wojcik:

What do you think is going to happen next?

Richard Monette:

From that historical perspective, you know, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was probably the font of these leases in the first instance, and largely to blame for them. They probably issued some of those leases, rights-of-ways, et cetera, without any consultation or consent from the tribe. The town probably just thought, well, we’ll just let it lie and it will go away, and, you know, just like those leases from 25 or 50 or even 99-year leases which are common. They’ll run out and the Indians will be gone, right? Well, they ran out and they weren’t gone. And instead, there’s a policy towards self-determination. Frankly, we are getting to the stage in 2023 where the Bureau of Indian Affairs might say, Congress might say, we will settle this out, the trespassing, for 10 years now, future cost, we’ll pay a few millions to do that. But we will do that under a couple of conditions. Tribe, you will establish a recording office so that these kinds of interests can be registered somewhere, so that title companies can find it. And Bureau of Indian Affairs, you will provide all the technical assistance they need to do that. And that’s what should happen and could happen here if this is done correctly. And then this kind of thing won’t happen again, and if it does, we know where the finger points.

Marisa Wojcik:

What do you think is most important, especially for a non-indigenous audience, to understand about this situation, especially if they feel like already most of the finger pointing goes to the tribe?

Richard Monette:

I think they have to understand all this. The difficult, terribly difficult history that people say, you know, well, I wasn’t there, I didn’t have anything to do with it. Okay, but you’re there now. And it very clearly derives from that. Imagine the feeling of irony if you’re a tribal member with this whole history of, you know, imposed American property-ization, right, and then you’re looking at a bunch of non-natives telling you they didn’t quite understand the property stuff at play here, right? It’s hard for them to buy. So there are a lot of difficult dynamics. We just have to take some ownership of what we’ve done in this country. Now as far as the tribe, you know, well, equities are equities, and they understand the relationship. They teach this, between the collective and the individual. They teach people to assess those things separately, so you can see how they’re properly related and properly balanced. Well, these individual Americans, sure, they’re Americans and they are part of that whole ugly history, but they’re also individual people. And they have some equity at stake. And the tribe and its people will need to recognize that too.

Marisa Wojcik:

All right, professor, thank you very, very much.

Richard Monette:

You’re welcome very much.

Frederica Freyberg:

You can watch that extended interview on our webpage at PBSwisconsin.org/news.

Turning to education, after a decade of undergraduate tuition freezes at the University of Wisconsin, the system president is now asking to be able to hike the cost of attendance by 5% starting next fall. Current tuition rates vary at the 13 universities in the UW System from about $4,750 per year to just under $9,275 at UW-Madison. A 5% increase would add hundreds of dollars to that bill. Governor Tony Evers’ budget calls for giving the UW System more than $300 million over the next two years, but that is still short to cover costs, according to the university. UW System President Jay Rothman joins us now. Before we begin, we should note PBS Wisconsin is part of UW-Madison. President Rothman, thanks very much for being here.

Jay Rothman:

It’s my pleasure. Thank you for inviting me.

Frederica Freyberg:

You described there are two levers for the university when it comes to meeting costs: state GPR tax dollars and tuition. But even the governor’s education-friendly budget doesn’t get you there, is that right?

Jay Rothman:

Well, I think we have to look at it, and coming from the private sector, I look at it and say we have to have a profit and loss statement that balances out at the end of the day. We have to look at the various revenue levers that are available to us, and that’s GPR as a practical matter and tuition and we have to look at the expense side. It’s been 10 years since tuition has been adjusted, and during that period of time, inflation has been there, but much more accelerated over the last couple of years. So, you know, we had to balance off what we’re asking for in terms of a tuition increase. It’s not going to cover the cost of inflation as a practical matter, so we are going to have to also look at those expense levers to make sure that we can achieve the two goals that we really have. One is to maintain the quality and excellence that the UW System is known for, and secondly, to ensure the long-term financial stability and sustainability of our universities.

Frederica Freyberg:

What are the main drivers of the increased need for the system right now?

Jay Rothman:

In some sense, it’s the inflationary pressure but we also need to invest. Wisconsin is in a war for talent. We are not filling the jobs that are needed by state employers. Certainly coming out of the private sector, I knew that, because I was experiencing those same pressures. But as I spend time in my current role talking to employers in the state, the need for engineers, the need for nurses, the need for teachers, the need for data scientists, that list goes on and on. We need to invest in enrollment and in increasing the number of students who are graduating. The new strategic plan adopted by the regents in December has a target of increasing our graduates by about 10% to 41,000 annually by 2028.

Frederica Freyberg:

In your mind, what happens in Wisconsin if the university system cannot attract and retain that talent, those workers?

Jay Rothman:

I mean, I think it’s a broader issue. It’s a Wisconsin issue. It’s for the state. If we are not able — we are the best talent magnet, in my judgment, the state has in terms of recruiting, developing and retaining great talent in the state. 87% of our in-state residents who graduate from one of the system schools stay in the state. That’s a great magnet. But if it doesn’t happen, if we aren’t successful and if Wisconsin is not successful in winning that talent war, the economic prospects for the state decline. It’s as simple as that. And I think we have to look at what is the state going to look like 10 and 15 and 20 years from now, and we have challenges. We look at demographics, we look at birth rates, we look at net outward migration, and we look at the decline in college participation, the number of high school graduates going into college. Those are challenges for our state. The UW System, partnering with the executive branch, partnering with the Legislature, can help address those for the state of Wisconsin.

Frederica Freyberg:

Now, as you know, the governor included an additional $24.5 million to fund your Tuition Promise Program, but Republican legislative leaders have said state funding of that is unlikely and should come from private donations. What’s your response to that?

Jay Rothman:

A couple factors. One is, I think, that is a step in helping us win the war for talent. That is an investment in students that are coming from lower socioeconomic means, and that impacts all 72 counties in our state, including the county that I grew up in, in northcentral Wisconsin. It can help get more students in because it takes tuition off the table. Those students still have a whole lot of skin in the game. They have a whole lot of skin in the game because they still have to pay for housing. They have to pay for books. They have to pay for transportation, and they are investing four years of their life in that college education, so there’s a lot of skin in the game but it allows for social mobility and allows us to try to address the talent war. So I think that is a big piece of trying to respond. Secondly, I think we have to be open. I’d welcome the conversation with the legislators about how we can structure that program. I believe in it. I think it’s important. I think it helps achieve some goals for the state, but I also think we have to — you know, we have to be open to having that conversation with them, and I look forward to doing that.

Frederica Freyberg:

With less than a half a minute left, what is your message to students and families in Wisconsin about this tuition increase?

Jay Rothman:

I think we have to look at it and say three things. One is, we want to make sure that we maintain the quality of education and if we don’t invest in it, we won’t maintain that quality the system is known for. Secondly, we want to make sure our universities are sustainable, but third, we did an affordability study last summer. We are the most affordable public university in the Midwest. This tuition increase is not going to change that. We are still going to be the most affordable, best value of any public university in the Midwest. The value of a college education is, I don’t think the economics — they are unassailable. It is clear that students can benefit from that, both economically but also socially. It is a great investment in the future.

Frederica Freyberg:

Jay Rothman, thanks very much.

Jay Rothman:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

With international tensions high over U.S. support of Ukraine following Russia’s invasion, and heightened acrimony between the United States and China, election officials are on alert for cyber-attacks leading up to 2024, including our own officials. Administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Meagan Wolfe, who also is the immediate past president of the National Association of State Election Directors, joins us now. Thanks very much for being here.

Meagan Wolfe:

Thank you. Good morning.

Frederica Freyberg:

So why do election officials precisely, like yourself, have concerns about cyber-attacks from Russia or China in the 2024 elections?

Meagan Wolfe:

Election officials always have concerns about cyber threats regardless of where they’re eventually attributed to. And so as election officials, we are constantly preparing for the possibility of some type of cyber threat. Elections are considered national critical infrastructure, and that means protecting them from a cyber and a physical threat perspective is a priority, both at the national, state, and local level.

Frederica Freyberg:

Is it accurate that you didn’t see any attacks in the 2022 elections?

Meagan Wolfe:

That is — that is accurate to say. While we’re always preparing for that possibility, we’re always preparing for things like a denial of service attack, for example, where someone may try to overwhelm the network of a state or a local government so that it disrupts their flow of being able to conduct their processes. With that being said, we certainly did not see any of those specific types of attacks in the 2022 election, but we’re always preparing for those and working to make sure our systems are resilient and robust.

Frederica Freyberg:

What active cyber-attacks did Wisconsin see in 2020?

Meagan Wolfe:

In 2020, we certainly — I don’t know that we saw any specific cyber threats to our systems, but again, it’s a constant looking at our systems, making sure that they are resilient. It’s doing things like conducting the post-election voting equipment audit. So after each election, we conduct a post-election voting equipment audit, with involves hand-counting ballots in randomly selected jurisdictions to ensure that the paper ballots reflect the machine totals on the tabulators. And in the state of Wisconsin, after the 2020 election, and then again after the 2022 election, we actually audited 10% of the ballots in the state of Wisconsin and compared those paper totals against the machine totals, and found that they were incredibly accurate. And so it’s not just a matter of avoiding those attacks, preparing for those threats. We actually take a look after each election to ensure that our protections of the system did, indeed, work.

Frederica Freyberg:

And yet why could Wisconsin be vulnerable to this?

Meagan Wolfe:

Any corporation, any government entity, any individual is certainly susceptible to cyber threats. So it is our responsibility as not just election officials but as government officials in general to make sure that we are preparing for, practicing our contingency plans and our resiliency efforts. And we do a lot with our local officials to ensure that they understand cybersecurity best practices, and that they have the resources they need to be able to operate their local election systems in a secure manner. We do this through scenario-based trainings with our local election officials, and we also provide grants to local election offices so that they’re able to procure the resources they need, like a secure computer, access to managed support services for their computers, and even grants so that they can attend training where we focus on cybersecurity initiatives. So we may have a very decentralized election system here in the state of Wisconsin, with each of our cities, towns and villages operating elections, but we do a lot to work together to make sure that we’re prepared for any potential physical or cyber threats to elections.

Frederica Freyberg:

What does Wisconsin and other states need for that preparation and that training going forward? Something more than what we have now?

Meagan Wolfe:

That’s a great question. I think from my perspective, what we need is sustainable funding for cybersecurity in elections. And physical security in elections as well. What we see right now is we received federal grant funding, which allows us to implement one-time solutions for local election offices, for state election offices, for us to be able to build out our capabilities. But there is no finish line when it comes to cybersecurity in elections. Every day that goalpost moves. The threats that we face, those move and they change. And so we really need to find a way as states and local governments to be able to sustain those initiatives. Because the threat of a cybersecurity attack, it’s not going to go away and there is no finish line. So I think finding ways to create sustainable funding and programming to support security in elections is really, really an important initiative and should be a priority at both the state and the local level.

Frederica Freyberg:

Right. Meagan Wolfe, thank you very much.

Meagan Wolfe:

Thank you.

Frederica Freyberg:

More than a year since the Russian military invaded Ukraine, relief efforts remain high. “Here & Now” student journalist Aditi Debnath has this story of a Wisconsin Rotary Club helping to power homes during the Ukrainian winter.

Anya Verkhovskaya:

My partners at that time told me what I’m doing is insane, but it’s going to save thousands of lives, and it’s only money, and we’ll figure it out.

Aditi Debnath:

Risking her retirement savings, Anya Verkhovskaya ordered just under $1 million worth of portable power generators to be sent to Ukraine in preparation for the winter months ahead.

Anya Verkhovskaya:

I’ve never ordered 1100 generators before. Actually, a few months ago, I didn’t even know how to start a generator, and I didn’t know anything about generators.

Aditi Debnath:

She then met Dr. Doug Davis, who had a similar mission. Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine almost a year ago, Dr. Davis has shipped an estimated 100,000 pounds of medical aid from a warehouse in Germantown.

Doug Davis:

We had probably 50 gaylord boxes of supplies that we were having trouble getting shipped. And she’s like, I could take care of that.

Aditi Debnath:

Dr. Davis, whose family is Ukrainian, evacuated his in-laws last February to his home in Oregon, Wisconsin. His brother-in-law, Dr. Taras Khaba, has been able to use his medical connections in Ukraine to help determine high-need items.

Taras Khaba:

I didn’t feel very well at that time and he told me I know how to help you, how to help your country, and that’s to become volunteers.

Aditi Debnath:

But Davis and Khaba didn’t do it alone. The Rotary Club of Milwaukee has provided countless volunteers toward the cause, and in January, the group was able to fundraise for Verkhosvkaya’s generator project.

Dave Anderson:

We like to think of ourselves as people of action who work together to really make a difference, not only in their communities, but communities throughout the world.

Aditi Debnath:

This February, Dr. Davis traveled to Ukraine, where he and the Rotary Club of Ukraine took delivery of the first generators to arrive. Amid air raid sirens and catching up with family, he says witnessing the payoff is what keeps him going.

Doug Davis:

I think learning about all that may have even been harder than medical school.

Aditi Debnath:

Back in Wisconsin, volunteers don’t have time to celebrate the generator project’s success.

Anya Verkhovskaya:

And you can’t really celebrate any small victories or big victories because there is this tremendous cloud of collective tragedy that is happening that you are trying to fight all the time.

Aditi Debnath:

Though donations may be slowing down, the crisis level need for humanitarian aid in Ukraine persists, now one long year after the invasion.

Doug Davis:

If people think this is just some country in eastern Europe, no, this is World War III.

Aditi Debnath:

For “Here & Now,” I’m Aditi Debnath in Germantown.

Frederica Freyberg:

For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBSwisconsin.org and then click on the news tab. That’s our program for tonight. I’m Frederica Freyberg. Have a good weekend.

Announcer:

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