Real Politics; 104

[Peter Bear] I think that we are taking away the civil liberties of adult citizens in this state and it happens to be 18 year olds now. They don't happen to have a lot of political clout. Maybe some other day it will be the elderly or black or people who just don't have the political clout that other groups do. And I think it sets a very bad precedent. I think it's irresponsible. I think yes people are doing it so they can go back to their districts and say I've done something about the drinking problem and that'll be a lie. Any legislator who goes home and says he's really done something to seriously deal with the alcoholism problem we have in this state is not telling the truth. And and I think it's important that that be said. When they tell you yes I'm sending this child to Lincoln Hills or Ethan Allen even though I know he belongs elsewhere because this way the state will pay? Yes. Without objection the clerk will call the roll. Senators Adelman, Bablitch, Bear, Berger Bidwell, Brown. Hello I'm John Paul. Young people often feel that politics and government don't affect them very much. Issues like property taxes, welfare, and highway bonding issues seem far

removed from the world that young people live in. But did you know that the single largest item in the state budget is one that's spent on you? Education is the top dollar priority in our state. And this just doesn't mean textbooks and teachers. It also means schools sports tennis courts and football fields. It also means paying for school papers band instruments theater props and extracurricular programs. And don't forget the money needed to run the parks you visit or the beaches where you swim. During the last state budget session two items of special interest to young people were major items for discussion. The first concerned state aids for young offenders. When the budget comes here to the state assembly there may be a fight over something called the Youth Aids formula. That formula determines how money available to help young people in trouble will be distributed. Youth aid money comes from both the state and the counties. But the amount of that money is limited. Critics of the present formula say that it contains an incentive for delinquency. Here's a hypothetical case. Suppose for a moment

you're a county social services director. You have a teenager who has committed a minor crime like shoplifting. But what he really needs is help with emotional problems. You want to send him to a treatment center. But if you do that the entire cost will come out of your county budget. So instead you send the child to court and ask the judge to declare him a delinquent. Then the child can be sent to a state training school. The juvenile justice equivalent of a prison. As soon as that happens the state pays all costs. The county's hope that the state will recognize that our hypothetical shoplifter doesn't belong in a training school. They then will send the child to a treatment center. Perhaps the very same treatment center you wanted to send him to in the first place. But now the state not the county is picking up the tab. [Roland Todd] Unnecessary confinement is damaging to the child because they have to come back to the local community and live anyhow. And it's felt that the closer we can keep them to a normal living situation the easier it's going to be to reintegrate them into society. The other

thing that happens in the institutions is that they're designed for the youths of the most problems those that require secure custody. And unfortunately for some of them it becomes an advanced school on crime. What Todd and number of others would like to do is to take the money which the state now spends on locked correctional institutions and give it back to the counties. Then the counties would purchase correctional services from the state whenever they had a child who really belonged in a state training school. From a financial point of view sending a child to what amounts to jail would be no more and no less attractive than any other option. Backers of the change have the support of the Department of Health and Social Services but they also have a powerful opponent the speaker of the state assembly Edward Jackamonis. No one has come forward to show us that we have a great many inappropriate placements. Secondly noone has showed us the financial incentive or disincentive system will actually

reduce any inappropriate placements that haven't been shown to exist. Because it's the judge that is the key decision maker at the county level and not the budget writers. And so the whole idea I have several questions about it and I've called for a pilot project. If we had a pilot project we could line up five or six counties urban, rural. And look at the commitment process and how juveniles are treated in those counties with a matched set of counties that were not under the youth aids formula and see if anything different happened. That would be just a good way to kill the whole proposal for youth aids. It's not something you can turn on and turn off. It's not something that you can see the results of in just a few months. How do you know that what you say is happening, what proponents of this change say is happening is really happening? That children are really being wrongly sent to training schools for financial reasons.

[unclear] in talking to county social service personnel we know that they are making the recommendations to the judges of commitment because they don't have in their budget money for the childcare. Now they are going to go around and brag about that so that there is no hard data to show that. But we know it's being done privately. They don't hesitate to admit it. Do they tell you yes I'm sending this child to Lincoln Hills or Ethan Allen even though I know he belongs elsewhere because this way the state will pay? Yes. I've followed the legislative Council's juvenile corrections committee I've sat in with the Committee on several occasions. This is testimony I've never heard. This is claims that I've never seen in writing. And why don't these people come forward and show give us the statistics. Show us the problem. I've asked for it on several occasions. And what I get is the kind of statement that you're making. Well somebody said at some occasion [reporter] I'm not making it. They're making it. [Jackamonis] Well, OK. Well, somebody said over here that he did it once. Jackamonis says the joint

Finance Committee made some changes in the Youth Aids formula including a provision for evaluation of just how well it works which make it more palatable to him. He says he's not sure yet if he'll move to further amend it when it comes up for floor debate in the assembly. Both sides in this debate agree that the change would add little to the cost of the Youth Aids program. On this issue the question is not how much to spend but rather how to spend it. Another issue of special interest to young people was taken up during the budget debate. Raising the drinking age. If you took a poll of high school students and asked them what they considered the most pressing legislative issue it's unlikely that anyone would mention the budget. Most would mention a bill soon to be considered by the Senate. It calls for a new drinking age 19. Geoff Clark [Jeff Clark?] reports. In recent years when legislators handled bills dealing with the drinking age they were put in the position of playing with hot potatoes. You couldn't touch them without getting burnt. Not much has changed in tackling the problem of teenage drinking in the state specifically in Wisconsin high schools isn't something any lawmaker relishes. But the problem won't go away by itself. And school

administrators are begging the legislature to do something to give them relief from alcohol related problems on their campuses. Senator Walter Chilsen of Wausau has authored a bill that would raise the drinking age to provide an answer to this dilemma. Let me say ah briefly first I think there is broad support growing for an advance in the drinking age in Wisconsin whether it be 19 20 or 21. Most recently in Madison newspaper indicated there's about 80 percent support for an advance in the drinking age. Most of those responding to that survey said they'd like to go to 21. I would vote for 21 but I think there is a broader support for going to 19. That would bring us in harmony with neighboring states. That's one of the principal reasons to bring us into line with neighboring states and to remove the peer pressure that exists so strongly in the high school. I think that is one of the main reasons for going to 19 to try to help a little bit to get the drinking problem which is becoming a massive social problem out of high school.

The Chilsen bill is a simplistic way to attack the problem one that most lawmakers may not vote for because they say it doesn't work to treat or prevent teenage alcohol abuse. Senator Tim Cullen of Janesville has offered an alternative to the Chilsen bill in an effort to secure passage. If Senate bill 19 is passed with Cullen's amendments some additional changes would result in the statutes. The biggest change raising the drinking age to 19 would remain. In addition other preventative programs would be included. Consultants would be hired to advise state schools on how to handle alcohol problems and overall school and community prevention plan would be developed. The use or possession of alcohol on school property would become illegal. Changes in enforcement would include shifting sale to minors violations from criminal to civil court. Liquor laws violators age 16 to 18 now facing the judge and Children's Court would do so in criminal or civil courts. The measure also adopts some treatment programs that lawmakers feel are vital to solving the problem. Minors who now receive limited detoxification treatment due to physician liability would be able to get help with consent from parents

as early as age 12. It would also set up alcohol counseling programs for minors 12 to 18 without parental consent. Senator Cullen says the compromise bill would be more palatable to allow for its passage. There's much criticism that the simple raising of drinking age 19 was a very simplistic approach to a very serious problem which is the growing teenage alcoholism and drinking problems. And so my substitute is attempt to react to that criticism which I think is valid. And we deal with that was in a more comprehensive way. You raise the drinking age we do some other things too. What kind of opposition if any do you see to the substitute amendment in the passage of the bill? Well I see some opposition obviously from the beer lobby strong opposition. I think they have some problems some legislators who represent areas that have the breweries. But I also see lots of legislators who oppose the simple raising the drinking age. I see them possibly coming along and saying well we'll go along with raising the drinking age as long as there's this

comprehensive approach to the real problem which is the serious, serious alcohol alcoholism problems in people all the way down to age 12. Legislators what I would like I think to just raise the drinking age and go home and and tell all the voters that we did something about the problem. There's been illegal drinking for for regardless of the drinking age in Wisconsin and there will continue to be regardless of the drinking age and the more serious problems in our society are I think are addressed by the substitute and I'm hoping we can bring enough along to pass this thing as a comprehensive package. Two opponents of the Chilsen and Cullen bill are senators Peter Bear of Madison and Paul Offner of La Crosse. I think that we are taking away the civil liberties of adult citizens in this state and it happens to be 18 year olds now. They don't happen to have a lot of political clout. Maybe some other day it will be the elderly or black or people who just don't have the political clout that other groups do. And I think it sets a very bad precedent. I think it's

irresponsible. I think yes people are doing it so they can go back to their districts and say I've done something about the drinking problem and that'll be a lie. Any legislator who goes home and says he's really done something to seriously deal with the alcoholism problem we have in this state is not telling the truth. And and I think it's important that that be said. I think that there are really two sort of thrusts that need to be taken. One of course is that the whole area of treatment making treatment easier making, providing for more education et cetera et cetera that litany of things that social workers and planners think need to be done. The second thing which I suspect is more important this case is to find a way of enforcing the existing law. It is I think agreed by all the professionals at the drinking law right now is well-known for it's not enforcement. The law enforcement people admit that it's a joke at least if the ones I've talked to. And until we find a way of enforcing the existing law to talk about raising the

drinking age I think is silly. Either version of Senate Bill 19 could pass this session. Any form is sure to draw fire from the brewing lobby. Both versions would pull more than 100,000 legal drinkers off the market. And the amended bill would pay for the treatment programs by adding a 10 cent per barrel tax on beer made in Wisconsin. A legislative council committee voted three to one to recommend passage today. The fireworks will start when the bill hits the Senate floor possibly as early as next week. From what we've seen in this edition of real politics it's clear the government has a lot more to say about issues that concern young people than first meets the eye. The closer you look at state government the more reasons you can find for getting involved whether you're old enough to vote or not. Even if you can't vote there are ways that young people like any other interest group can influence government. It's called lobbying and we're going to examine that process close up on our next program. In talking to county social service personnel we know that

they are making the recommendations to the judges of commitment because they don't have in their budget money for child care. Now they aren't going to go around and brag about that so that there's no hard data to show that. But we know it's being done privately. They don't hesitate to admit it.