Here & Now

Here & Now for November 15, 2019

Announcer:

The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

Zac Schultz:

I’m Zac Schultz filling in for Frederica Freyberg. Tonight on “Here & Now,” we’ll have congressional response to the impeachment hearings in Washington. A Milwaukee DACA recipient talks about the ongoing legal questions impacting her life. An inside look at diversity and inclusion efforts at the state level. And questions in Lafayette County over freedom of the press. It’s “Here & Now” for November 15th.

Announcer:

Funding for “Here & Now” a provided in part by Friends of Wisconsin Public Television.

Zac Schultz:

Our first look tonight is at the impeachment hearings that began this week in Washington. Democrats in the House presented their first witnesses into Donald Trump’s request that the Ukrainian government open up an investigation into Joe Biden in exchange for U.S. military aid. The question for members of Congress is whether those actions qualify as high crimes and misdemeanor and therefore justify impeachment. We begin tonight with Democratic Congresswoman Gwen Moore, who joins us from Washington. Thanks for your time today.

Gwen Moore:

Hi, how are you Zac?

Zac Schultz:

What stood out to you so far in the testimony that we’ve heard?

Gwen Moore:

What has stood out to me most of all, Zac, is the integrity of these State Department officials who have come forward. Their excellent credentials, the fact that they’ve served our country over the course of not only this Republican president, but Democratic presidents in the past. They’re fact witnesses. They’re not there with a so-called dog in the fight, but simply to give the facts.

Zac Schultz:

Yesterday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi started using the term bribery to describe Donald Trump’s actions. Do you agree with that term?

Gwen Moore:

Actually, that word is taken from the Constitution. What our founding fathers were very, very concerned about was bribery. They didn’t have the whole code of — the criminal code that has evolved throughout the centuries since they founded the country. But they were very clear that they were concerned about the abuse of power and bribery of or from a foreign country. I can tell you that the founding fathers anticipated this president.

Zac Schultz:

Now, some of these witnesses have already testified behind closed doors. What’s the importance of having them testify in public?

Gwen Moore:

Well, you know, I’ve learned a great deal through this process. And this was — the behind the closed doors phase was the indictment phase. And when subjects are being indicted, those testimonies are often taken before a grand jury or behind closed doors. And this would be sort of the public part of the indictment. So before the House of Representatives makes the indictment and impeaches — and puts forward articles of impeachment, we want the public to know and see what the reasoning is behind these charges. And I think that the public will have an opportunity to determine for themselves whether or not there was an abuse of power. Whether or not bribery of a foreign country was involved and whether or not the president used the office of the presidency for corrupt purposes.

Zac Schultz:

The votes to impeach in the House and a potential vote to convict in the Senate come with political baggage. How important is shifting public opinion before those votes occur?

Gwen Moore:

I think it’s extremely important to have public sentiment. Public sentiment is everything. But that being said, Zac, we all took an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States. And it’s our responsibility to move forward with this impeachment inquiry and if the Judiciary Committee determines that there are legitimate articles of impeachment, to move forward and to do our Constitutional duty. I don’t think that we should worry about the political fallout. Will this mean that we will or will not be re-elected, and I think that that is what I find so disappointing, that we are not finding our Republican colleagues stepping up to meet their Constitutional obligations to ask legitimate questions, but predetermining that they don’t want to be on the wrong side of this president. And I think that that is something that in the final analysis may inure to certainly a downgrading of the GOP, the Grand Old Party.

Zac Schultz:

Now, we’ve read a lot of reports about how Republicans in Congress are supporting Trump publicly but are saying different things behind closed doors. What are you hearing? Are you speaking to any of your Republican colleagues?

Gwen Moore:

I actually am. I have made some — I’ve had quiet conversations with Republicans and I have not asked them, you know, what they really thought. I’ve only admonished them to think about their careers beyond Donald Trump. Donald Trump will not always be the president. And for those Republicans that I care for — and there are many that I personally care for — I’m asking them to think about their personal reputations, their own integrity, their conscience, their souls and certainly the oath that they took. And if they can’t stand up and be brave enough to look at the facts — some Republicans have said we’re not going to even look at the facts. If they can’t really look at the facts, they ought to reexamine why they ran for office.

Zac Schultz:

How many members of Congress in either party do you think are still undecided on impeachment and want to hear all the testimony to make up their minds?

Gwen Moore:

You know, I do think that there are many Americans and there are members of Congress who really, really, really do want to hear the facts. And I do think that within the Democratic caucus for sure I know that there are people who really do want to hear the facts. They want to thread that needle. Because it is very consequential what they do. We have so many brave Democrats, particularly the women who have backgrounds in intelligence, backgrounds, again, with the CIA and Special Forces, who are putting themselves at potential election risk to do the right thing. And I admire these women so much because they are standing on principle and not just standing on whether or not this will affect their election outcomes.

Zac Schultz:

All right. Congresswoman Moore, thanks for your time today.

Gwen Moore:

You be well, Zac.

Zac Schultz:

We invited all four Republican Congressmen and Senator Ron Johnson to appear on this show. They either did not reply or declined our offer. Also this week in Washington, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether the Trump administration has the right to shut down the DACA program. DACA stands for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. It’s a program created through an executive order from President Obama that allows immigrants brought to the U.S. as children to receive work permits and renewal two-year deferral on deportation. Joining us now is Alejandra Gonzalez, the lead youth organization for Voces de La Frontera in Milwaukee. Thanks for your time today.

Alejandra Gonzalez:

Thank you for having me.

Zac Schultz:

Now the Supreme Court won’t issue a ruling until next year but most observers seem to think the conservative majority on the court agreed with the Trump administration. What was your reaction to oral arguments?

Alejandra Gonzalez:

It was — as a DACA recipient myself, it was concerning, of course, listening to the oral arguments, but I’m hoping that it’s not a true reflection of what their decision will be. I’m hoping that we have one swing vote in the middle that will keep the program alive.

Zac Schultz:

Donald Trump has said if the courts strike down DACA, he’ll work with Democrats to find a solution, but this would be next year during an election year. Do you believe that will actually happen?

Alejandra Gonzalez:

I do not, no. And I think if it does happen, it’s going to be a compromise that might endanger my parents and I’m not willing to accept a deal like that.

Zac Schultz:

And how would it endanger your parents?

Alejandra Gonzalez:

Well, I think the narrative has been DACA recipients, through no fault of their own, they came to this country because their parents brought them. So that kind of puts our parents as the criminals and that’s simply not true. They acted out of desperation. I also wouldn’t want to throw another group of immigrants under the bus just so that I could benefit from it.

Zac Schultz:

DACA was always supposed to be a temporary program while Congress worked out a deal on immigration, but that never happened. What has it been like to live under all this uncertainty throughout this time?

Alejandra Gonzalez:

It’s been really stressful. I actually started school. I go to Alverno College. I’m in my senior year. So I’ll be graduating this May. And it’s very frightening to think about the possibility of not being able to use my education after DACA ends. It’s a matter of like trying to fit all of my life goals within this time period so that I can achieve them. But even then it probably doesn’t even matter because I might lose what I’ve worked for.

Zac Schultz:

Well, what will you and others do if DACA program ends?

Alejandra Gonzalez:

I think — I think dreamers are a very resilient group. I believe that we will continue to advocate for ourselves and for our community. We will continue to advocate for a permanent solution. We’ve been able to last this long, right. I’ve been able to get this far. I believe in their passion and in their bravery to continue moving forward with their lives.

Zac Schultz:

Now, you’ve talked about trying to finish up some of the things in your life. Are other DACA recipients that you know, are they doing similar things or are they already making contingency plans?

Alejandra Gonzalez:

I think everybody is just trying to live their life at this point. You know, at the end of the day, we’re all just human beings trying to live the life that our parents brought us to live, right. They brought us here for a reason. And most of the DACA recipients that I know are college students and their plan is still to attend college. They’re just working twice as hard because DACA recipients don’t feel federal aid to pay for college. They’re working twice as hard to pay for their education, looking for scholarships to support their education so if DACA fails, they at least have some sort of financial support.

Zac Schultz:

One concern is that DACA required people to provide personal information to the government. Do you worry about the Trump administration using that info to pursue deportations?

Alejandra Gonzalez:

Oh, for sure. That’s my biggest fear. DACA recipients are taxpayers. There’s just some irony in that my tax money could be going towards my own deportation. DACA recipients are required to update their home address with the federal government as soon as they move, which is what I did. And it is a big fear. I mean I live in a home with my boyfriend’s children. I just don’t want to imagine what could happen if there are mass deportations and these kids have to witness that. I, I — the idea that — it’s traumatizing enough. I couldn’t imagine the actual experience.

Zac Schultz:

Do you believe that ultimately there will be a political solution to this?

Alejandra Gonzalez:

I’m hopeful. I am hopeful. I think that things are moving the right way. I think that a lot of people are supportive of dreamers and I’m really hoping that the Senate decides to bring the Dream and Promise Act to the Senate floor and vote on it the right way and be on the right side of history.

Zac Schultz:

And if that doesn’t happen in the next year, do you think going forward, perhaps in another administration or down the road, there could be a fix?

Alejandra Gonzalez:

Oh, for sure. You know, just with Voces de La Frontera’s action, we’ve been working towards making sure that Latino and youth vote really becomes present in the 2020 election. I’m the lead youth organizer for Youth Empowered in the Struggle. I work mostly with high school students. Some of them are 18 years old and they are motivated now more than ever to vote and to show up at the polling places.

Zac Schultz:

All right. Alejandra Gonzalez. Thank you for your time today.

Alejandra Gonzalez:

Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Zac Schultz:

Earlier this week, Governor Tony Evers signed an executive order relating to diversity, equity and inclusion in state government. Among other things, the order creates a governor’s advisory council and requires state employees to attend equity and inclusion training. Joining us now to talk about this effort is Democratic Representative Sheila Stubbs. Thanks for joining us today.

Sheila Stubbs:

Oh my goodness. Thank you for having me and covering a really important topic.

Zac Schultz:

What do you want these diversity, equity, inclusion efforts to focus on at the state level?

Sheila Stubbs:

To focus on systemic racism that exists. We know that there are practices, there are trainings that must take place, and we know that when we begin to really take a deep dive and analyze our practices and analyze our policies, we will begin to address racism the way that it should and it’s going to focus on root causes. If we get to unemployment, housing, education, criminal justice reform work, we’ll begin to really start addressing the systematic racism that exists in our state.

Zac Schultz:

When you talk about systematic racism, you’re talking about the institution of state government as relates to the public or are you also talking about workplace culture within state government?

Sheila Stubbs:

I’m talking both. Workplace culture is critical. We need to diversify our employment. And in order to do that, we need to be intentional with our work. We need to set goals. We really need to create an equity plan. That plan gives us a chance to look at every state agency, look at the work that they’re doing and to allow us to have equity specialists who will say, you know what, this is the policy that we need to do. Or here’s the training that’s necessary to move us to the next place. We need to be realistic within our goal-setting. Are we going to achieve what we set out to do, which is a new practice, which is a new policy, which is a new effort.

Zac Schultz:

So what kind of training do you envision for state employees?

Sheila Stubbs:

Implicit bias trainings. Explicit bias trainings. I think that’s critical when you begin to talk about you. It starts within you. I think it’s really important to talk about diversity as something that we want in this state. The governor has made that very clear. Our lieutenant governor has made it clear. I made it clear. Other policymakers are saying we want people of color to not just live here, not to just live, but we want them to thrive in all aspects of their life. So that’s one of the areas that’s really key for this work.

Zac Schultz:

For people that haven’t dealt with these topics before, talking about systematic racism and institutional privilege can be really tough for a lot of overwhelmingly white workforce to address at first. How do you keep them open to talking about this?

Sheila Stubbs:

First and foremost, I think the training is the very first step. To mandate that we have our staff participate in these trainings. It’s a first step. As we begin to think about we have to say there are just some people in this state that are not being treated fair. And when you talk about equity, it’s on everyone to be able to see the same plan filled with multiple opportunities. We oftentimes say everything is fair. But is it really fair? Is that really what it’s about? I’ll give you a perfect example. We’ll look at a baseball game and there are three individuals watching this game. There is a fence. Each person is at a different height level. That fence prevents all us from seeing this game from the same perspective. But if we lower the fence, if we remove the fence, if we put pillars and allow all of us to see the same viewpoint, that’s what equity does. It says let’s look at it from the same viewpoint. It’s looking at work with an analytical aspect. It’s actually doing a deep dive and saying it exists. I think the first step is to say, does it exist. Oh, yes. It exists. I think when we begin to meet people there, they’ll begin to say you know what? We do have a problem. Why haven’t we diversified our employment? What is the reason? What are the barriers? Where are the obstacles? Why do we have oppression? How do we move people from that place of oppression to a place of opportunity for all in this state?

Zac Schultz:

So part of the governor’s executive order talks about collecting data and then using that data. What kind of information do you want to gather and how would you use it?

Sheila Stubbs:

Let’s look at unemployment. Why are so many African-Americans unemployed in this state? How do we say we want to make sure that more than African-Americans are getting an opportunity? What about other people of color? And I think taking the data and beginning to say we notice within our departments we don’t have a lot of diversity for people hired. How are we going to reach a pool that we have really never truly engaged? What prevents us from really reaching out for employment opportunities? Let’s look at our incarceration. Why do we have more people of color, African-Americans, incarcerated in this state than the population? Why is that? What are our policies? This really drives at policy. And once we begin to write a policy that is fair for everyone, we’ll begin to change those numbers. I can say firsthand I’ve been a champion at the local level. And so happened to create an office of equity and inclusion and saying it is intentional. That’s what we expect to get with that data and then begin to say what are we missing? What can we do better? Let’s make sure we do these equity plans every year versus when we think they should be done.

Zac Schultz:

All right. Representative Stubbs, thanks for your time today.

Sheila Stubbs:

Thank you, sir.

Zac Schultz:

The Lafayette County Board recently debated a proposal that threatened prosecution for journalists reporting on water quality issues. The proposal was ultimately amended but not before it drew national attention. Joining us now is Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council. Thanks for joining us.

Bill Lueders:

Sure.

Zac Schultz:

The proposal warned journalists they should quote directly from a press release or violators would be prosecuted. What is that — what were they trying to prevent? What was the intent there?

Bill Lueders:

Well, I guess there had been what they perceived to be, maybe in fact were, errors in the reporting of an earlier report and this was the hysterical overreaction of committee in Lafayette County to say you’re going to report what we tell you to report word for word or we’re coming after you, which is ridiculous. There’s no legal basis for making a threat like that. It additionally threatened members of the county board in Lafayette County and public employees with consequences if they were to talk at all about this upcoming groundwater quality report. They had to toe the company line or they would be in big trouble. Again, huge Constitutional problems. That’s not why we have independently-elected public officials, so they can be told to sit down and shut up. Both prongs of this proposal were removed. First the one against media. Then later in the day on Tuesday, the prong that dealt with public officials elected and public employees in Lafayette County.

Zac Schultz:

Now, the county board chairman won’t admit who wrote it. Is it possible the author didn’t know it was blatantly unconstitutional? Or was there a direct chilling effect?

Bill Lueders:

Well, whoever wrote this intended to have a chilling effect, intended to chill speech, intended to frighten people into compliance. It’s hard to believe that the person thought that this was okay, but apparently the person did or they wouldn’t have proposed this. And it was so outlandish, as you noted, it generated national attention. The Washington Post and the New York Times and I presume many other papers around the country ran an Associated Press story about this. It’s just so, you know, crazy that it’s the type of thing that draws national attention. I think at the hearing that took place on this on Tuesday, there was a fair amount of expression by citizens that they were embarrassed by the conduct of their public officials, that they would put out something like this that would bring disrepute to the county.

Zac Schultz:

We’ve heard similar stories or roughly similar versions of this happening in other places. Is that because we’re hearing more news, this gets a national repeat when it happens, or is it happening more often?

Bill Lueders:

I don’t know if it’s happening more often. I think it’s an anomaly. I hope it’s an anomaly. But what’s dispiriting about this episode is that it happened to begin with. That there were people in positions of authority even at a county government level, who didn’t know better than to put something like this forward.

Zac Schultz:

But questions like this still exist all the way up to federal and state level. Governor Evers recently had some issues about what information he was going to release to reporters.

Bill Lueders:

Yeah. That was the second dispiriting thing that happened that we called attention to this week, is that a Milwaukee television station, Fox 6, reported that it had requested initially a month worth of emails to and from Governor Evers, one of his key staff people, and was told that was too broad a request, they couldn’t comply. So it asked for a week’s worth of emails. They were told that was too broad an about, they couldn’t comply. And then they said give us just one day’s worth of emails. They were told that was too broad a request and they weren’t going to get any records. Again, the mere fact that the governor would refuse a request like that generated news stores. It’s not a good thing and I think the governor’s office is wrong to have denied the request, particularly a day’s worth of emails. That’s not unmanageable. That’s not too much. Our open records law, like our open meetings law, has baked right into it the presumption of maximum openness. Public officials are supposed to err, if they err at all, on the side of being too open, not too secretive. In this case, it looks as though the governor’s office was doing everything it could to try to find some reason to say no to a request from this television station, when under the law and under good public policy, it should have been doing everything it could to find some reason to say yes, here are your records.

Zac Schultz:

So the chilling effect quiets people, but all the attention, does that have the opposite effect, of maybe keeping this from happening again somewhere else?

Bill Lueders:

Oh, I think so. I hope so. I think what happened in Lafayette County and I hope what happened with the governor sends a signal to public officials that there are certain things they can’t get away with and shouldn’t try. It may come down to litigation in the case involving the television station, the governor’s office. If the station were to sue under our open records law and say that the denial was improper, I think the courts would agree with that. That would be very unfortunate because Governor Evers doesn’t need a black eye over this issue. He should be seizing every opportunity he can to use transparency as a way first of all, to build trust with the people that he represents and second of all, to make positive advances in an area where the public is onboard. The public likes when public officials do things to make government more open and he should be doing that.

Zac Schultz:

All right. Bill Lueders, thanks for your time today.

Bill Lueders:

Sure. Thank you.

Zac Schultz:

Now for an update on former DATCP Secretary-designee Brad Pfaff. Just a few days after Senate Republicans voted down his confirmation, Pfaff found a landing spot back in the Evers’ administration. He’s now the director of business and rural development at the Department of Administration. He will not need Senate confirmation in his new position. However, the fallout from the Pfaff vote is not over. Afterwards, Governor Evers meet with DATCP employees and according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Evers called Republican Senators amoral and stupid and told employees not to let the bastards impede their work. Evers later clarified he does not think Republican Senators are bastards. Finally tonight, a look ahead to next week, when we’ll take an in-depth look at chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin’s deer herd and its impact on hunters.

The number of deer killed by hunters each year has actually gone down since the discovery of CWD. But that coincides with the drop in number of hunters. But CWD has also spread. From the first three positives in 2002, it has expanded to cover most of southwest Wisconsin. And now 56 counties either have a deer that has tested positive or are within ten miles of a positive case.

That full report next week. Also next Friday we’ll have information from the latest Marquette Law School poll including how hunters feel about chronic wasting disease. I’m Zac Schultz. Have a great weekend.

Announcer:

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