Here & Now; 532

You We speak from our hearts, tell the truth, get the job done, work hard. Not because you're Democrats or because you're Republicans, because it's the right thing to do. Great Lakes Intertribal President Patricia DePerry and her state-of-the-tribes address yesterday at the State Capitol. Welcome to here and now I'm Art Hackett sitting in for

Frederica Freiberg tonight. President DePerry's speech was given before a joint session of the legislature in the Assembly Chamber with members of Indian nations present from across Wisconsin. We'll hear other highlights from the speech during tonight's program. Also tonight, some state school district superintendents and administrators say they may have to close up their shops. Find out where and why. Also, we'll find out why a Wisconsin organization appeared before the United States Supreme Court. But first, the state crime lab too much work, not enough help. That's what we learned throughout the campaigns for state attorney general last fall. A unanimous state finance committee this week voted funds for an extra 16 positions for the lab, which in addition to the previously proposed 15s brings the total now to 31 new positions. We'll talk about this with state attorney general, JB Van Hollen. But before that, we get to a story which broke late yesterday. A federal grand jury handed down an indictment against Kenosha

to businessman Dennis Troha. Troha is accused of giving over $100,000 to his relatives. They later gave that money to the campaign of Governor Jim Doyle. Troha, who was involved in a proposal to build an Indian casino in Kenosha, had already given the maximum contribution allowable. Governor Doyle's office issued a statement pointing out that Troha has given money to many candidates of both parties over the years. Dennis Troha has contributed to my campaign, just as they have for many other Democrats and Republicans in Wisconsin and elsewhere, including former governor Tommy Thompson and president George W. Bush. Should the allegations be proven true, my campaign will immediately return the money. And since we've got the state's chief law enforcement officer here, I got to ask you, did the state justice department have anything to do with this indictment? You know, our practice that we put into place as soon as I became Attorney General is that we weren't

in a comment on the existence or lack thereof of any investigations until there was a reason to make them public. And in this particular case, we're going to hold true to that theory and not comment on whether we're involved in any investigation of Dennis Troha or not. Did you know this was coming? I certainly was made aware of it, yes. Okay. We'll move to the crime lab now. You've got a total of 31 positions. Is that everything you ever wanted? No, you never get everything you ever wanted. Matter of fact, we didn't ask for everything that we could have possibly wanted. It's very important for me to make sure we maintain our integrity. And when we ask the legislature for something, we can justify what we're asking for. To get rid of the backlog at the crime lab by 2010 and to make sure that the backlog doesn't continue to grow after that, we believe we needed substantially more positions than that. But what we asked for was what we believe was the bare minimum necessary to combine with the increased productivity and efficiencies that we want to make sure take place in the crime lab, as well as increased relationships with law enforcement on what their

submissions will be, would hopefully be enough to deal with the problem. The 31 is what we requested. And I thank the joint finance committee, both Republicans and Democrats for unanimously approving of that request. In the world of management, when you ask for something, you're generally expected to give some sort of performance criteria to, if you give me this money, I'll give you this. Two years from now, at the end of this budget cycle, what can you tell us about what will be different because you've got these new positions? Well, I have no doubt in my mind that we're going to be able to turn around forensics evidence to law enforcement at the local level much more rapidly than is being done now. I also have very little doubt that we will have started reducing the backlog at the crime laboratory. What a lot of people don't realize is that it's going to take us months to hire these people. It's going to take a year to train, fully train, and entry-level crime technician. So it's going to be a considerable period of time well over a year before we see any results

from this, and the backlog will grow in the meantime. But by the end of this budget cycle, we expect that we will be chipping away at that already. During the campaign, there were stories saying that you thought that the backlog could be dealt with with the people you have now on the resources you have available. What was the rude surprise that that told you that was not possible? The growing trend of the backlog at the crime lab. We were led to believe that it was a slow growth in the backlog, and we learned when we got in that the graph had just gone off the charts. And the backlog was increasing by so much every month that if we were going to take care of that through hiring DNA analysts through attrition, that we were never going to be able to catch up with the problem. Is the backlog going to be gone at some point? Absolutely. We'll wholeheartedly expect that to be the case because, well, based upon the numbers that we've crunched, assuming that the rate of growth goes along the trends that it has been going, we anticipate sometime during 2010.

Now the other question I have is, do these people exist? In other words, where do you go out and find this many DNA analysts? Amazingly, these people do exist. Some years ago during the last budget cycle when it was approved for the Department of Justice to hire four positions, it's my understanding there were roughly 80 applications. We have already posted for a couple of positions that are available now, and I believe we've received a similar number of applications again. So I'm confident that the people are out there to fill these positions. The other thing we talked about was if Wisconsin Public TV decided we needed to hire 31 new producers, we'd have to put a wing onto this building and buy some more cameras and desks and what have you. Where are you going to park these people? We looked at that very thoroughly. We have three crime labs in the state and we looked at where we would have space and where the most efficient place was to put them. It just so happens that the crime lab in Madison is located in a building already owned by the Department of Administration, of which the

majority of the basement is unused unfinished space. So we already have space that the taxpayers own that isn't being utilized, and we have crunched the numbers and determined we have enough space there to house all the additional analysts that we plan on bringing on. And equipment? Equipment is another thing we have to get, of course. Supplies and equipment are things that we have budgeted for. Some of that will get through federal grant money. Some of that is going to be in the budgetary request that we'll get through the legislature in Wisconsin. I can remember being in the other end of this studio a number of years ago when Jim Doyle was debating Don Hannaway, the last Republican to hold your job. And the whole debate was the crime log backlog. Is this going to end that debate? I absolutely believe it will. What we tried very hard to do is make sure that we structured our analysis and our requests in such a way that we were going to finally deal with this problem once and for all. I wholeheartedly believe that we're going to be able to do so. And if things change and there are a lot of assumptions

that went into our request. And if parts of those assumptions change over the course of the next two years, I'm going to be the first one there advising the governor and the legislature as to what's changed and what we need to change to then continue to address the problem. Is there a danger that this is actually a treadmill because of the better that DNA analysis gets? The more samples, prosecutors and police officers keep sending you. There's a great danger of that. Success breeds submissions. We know right now that law enforcement is holding back submissions because of the backlog. They know they're not going to get back results anyway, so they don't even send them in. So we expect that that can increase. But I've got a very strong working relationship with law enforcement and prosecutors all over the state in both political parties. We've hired Sheriff Gary Hamlin, of course, from Dane County to work with us to head up to crime labs and our law enforcement services division. We believe that we're going to be able to continue to develop the relationships we need with law enforcement to get them to use a little more discretion in what they submit. So this isn't all just about new resources,

it's about working worth people to make sure we use them as efficiently as possible. And you've been on the job now for two months in one word, describe your feelings after two months on the job. Great. Attorney General JB Van Hollen, thank you for joining us tonight. Thank you. In a moment, we'll learn about a Wisconsin case heard before the U.S. Supreme Court this week. But first, another excerpt from yesterday's state of the tribe's address at the state capital. Great Lakes Intertribal Council President Patricia DePerry had this to say about managing the state's natural resources. Do we really understand what consultation really means? I was at a meeting with the Wisconsin DNR last Thursday. As we sat in the room, I was listening for about an hour and a half as they had prepared

from all of the departments, from within the departments, what things they've been doing. And I was one tribal leader that sat there in Wasa and I questioned the definition of consultation. Consultation to me means sitting at the table with each other and processing. It means discussing. And it means, amably, coming to agree upon subjects and decisions. It does not mean this tribal leader sitting in a room full of Wisconsin DNR representatives and listening to what they feel they've done without any input at round zero from this Native American representative.

That is not consultation, ladies and gentlemen. That is not consultation. Separation of church and state, the first amendment's establishment clause sounds black and white, but when you get into court, anything but as our next guest will attest. The clause reads, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Can a taxpayer alleged violation of that clause? That's what Freedom from Religion, Co-President Annie Laurie Gailer,

set out to answer an illegal quest that took her and the foundation's attorney before the US Supreme Court this week. Ms. Gailer joins us now. Welcome to here and now. Tell me in short form the history of this case. In 2004, the Freedom from Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in Judge Shabbat's courtroom here in Madison to challenge the creation of the offices of faith-based initiative at the White House and at that time in about eight cabinets. We had of course wanted to sue as soon as Bush announced that he was going to do this. It was I think the ninth day of his new presidency when he announced this big faith-based initiative starting with the faith-based office at the White House. And these offices are supposed to do what? They exist to facilitate handing money over to faith-based groups. Our allegation is they exist to do that preferentially. They have kind of shielded themselves by calling themselves the offices of faith-based and community initiatives. Our allegation

is that they kind of dropped the community and they preferentially fund faith-based groups. They hold White House conferences and regional conferences that are like revival meetings and that's the press saying that with gospel singers and prayer and then they take religious groups by the hand and tell them how to apply for funds. Okay, so you took it before Judge Shabbat's and Judge Shabbat's ruled? He said we do not have standing as taxpayers and I and my co-president Dan Barker and my mother, the principal founder of the Freedom from Religion Foundation who's now president Amarita, are the three taxpayer plaintiffs and we represent everybody, we represent you, we represent the public at large. Your argument is you have standing to sue because it's your tax money. Well, our argument is that the court precedent gives us standing to sue. There is a case dating to 1968 called Flash vs. Cohen, which is predicated on this idea that it is our nation is founded on the idea that there is only religious liberty if citizens are not compelled to be taxed and tithed to support a place of worship

or a ministry and James Madison said even thropence of money to go to the establishment of religion was too much and there's no way to get at many violations of the separation of church and state unless you can sue as a taxpayer because your tax money is going. But your case before the Supreme Court this week was not over this is this legal or not it's can your organization sue to block it. That's right, we were thrown out of court but last year the seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated our case in a very strong decision and the Bush administration wasn't happy with that ruling so they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. So we now have this extra hurdle to jump over so that we can go back to district court and argue the case on its merits. So what we are waiting for is the judgment of the Supreme Court on whether our lawsuit can proceed. And if the Supreme Court rules you don't have standing to sue cases over, right? Yes, although they couldn't

rule on very narrow grounds or they could rule on very broad grounds and if they rule on very broad grounds that would have a very chilling effect on most litigation with separation of church and state because much of it there is no plaintiff who's injured except the taxpayer. So there's a lot at stake in this case we think that if the law is followed we should have a unanimous victory but since the lawsuit was filed in 2004 and today of course there's been a big change on the U.S. Supreme Court and I would have loved to have argued this case before Judge O'Connor Justice O'Connor and she wasn't there. One of the accounts of of this week's hearing said that there seemed to be a possibility that your organization could potentially win the battle but lose the war. In other words they would say as part of this ruling yes you have standing to sue but by the wording of that ruling they would make it harder for you to prevail on the overall issue.

I saw all kinds of different summations lend a greenhouse to the New York Times. I think had a rather pessimistic outlook on the case not so much the Washington Post. There's a lot of commentary. I mean we're just going to have to sit and wait. I think that the other side the solicitor general was beat up a little bit more than our attorney but it's a very esoteric argument. Our night and shining armor as far as I'm concerned with the oral arguments was just as briar and I loved his line of questioning. He tried to get the solicitor general to agree to any case that a taxpayer would have standing to sue over a state church violation and there was virtually none and it got ridiculous. It got to the point where briar was saying what if we decided our country was going to commemorate the Puritans and the pilgrims by setting up a Puritan church in Massachusetts which would have worship. Would you have taxpayers standing to sue over that? No. And he went on and said what if this was nationwide and we would set up Puritan churches everywhere?

No. And I thought it was flooring how the Bush administration really wants to squelch all state church challenges. Your group has filed many lawsuits. Do you feel that this case has some broader implications? The ruling you get here would affect other cases that you might bring? Well, there's no question if they overturn the precedent of flasks versus colon that's going to affect all state church litigation but if they, for example, find out very narrow grounds that it doesn't apply to us not so much and of course we could win and then we will just proceed. It would be business as usual because we're not asking the court to change anything. We're asking them to uphold the status quo. And you think that's easier? Well, I think that our law does follow under flasks versus colon. Our law suit does but who knows what this change in the Supreme Court. But we think that taxpayers' citizens should have the right to challenge establishments of religion.

Thank you for joining us. Thank you. In just a moment we'll learn why some school superintendents around the state believe they may be going out of business. But first another excerpt from the state of the tribe's address given yesterday at the state capital. Here's great lakes intertribal council president Patricia DePerry with her thoughts on the toll of Indian gaming. We ourselves need a lot of work as well. We are in a self-termination era right now. And excuse me we don't need your help to get us there. We we're doing it to ourselves. Native people need to come together. There's a lot of hidden, lurky, ugly issues out there that keep us as tribal leaders as well apart. Gaming God forbid don't talk about gaming. Jump and Jesus don't go there. I'm going to go there. Gaming is part of the lurking that goes on.

I asked where are the Indian hearts? Where have they gone? I was raised to share. I was raised to use what I can use and what I cannot. I was raised to give. It's tearing us apart. For over 10 years Wisconsin school superintendents have filled out an annual survey about how things

are going in their district. The survey sponsored by the Wisconsin Association of School District Administrators and the State Teachers Union, we act. This year the survey included a new question. Has your school district considered consolidating or dissolution? One in four, superintendent answered yes. Stan Johnson is the president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council. Good evening. Good evening. Glad to be here. I noticed in your release it says, according to the survey the average school district holding these discussions on dissolution is small in size and has experienced little growth in enrollment since 1993. Why should I be surprised that a district that's small and isn't growing is thinking about going out of business?

Well you shouldn't be surprised. The surprise part is people are actually having these types of conversations. They've always been small school districts in Wisconsin but to actually think for a community to even have this discussion as important as that school and at school district in a community to have it saying we may not even have a school in our community. That's the big thing about it. Given that we've got limited resources for education, should the state be trying to keep these small districts in business? Well those school districts are an important part of a community art and when you get rid of it you lose a fabric of that community. You know, it kind of takes away. Let me ask you the other question is will a business or a corporation want to move into a community without a school district for their employees? What is it that's making them have these discussions now? What we call it is the death spiral. What those districts have been doing as well as others, it's been a death by a thousand cuts.

What the revenue caps have done which comes out in the survey, they are to the point now that we've done everything to be more efficient, to be more effective. Right now we're really hurting our product that we want to come out. Is it just the revenue caps or is it the whole formula, the system we have for distributing aid, equalization aids as they're called to districts that have low property values? Well if you're asking me I think we need to sit down. Everybody needs to come to the table and really have a discussion. Are we funding our schools to be competitive, to be 21st century schools, making sure that those kids have the skills and the knowledge to go on and be productive citizens as well as attractive to corporations and businesses coming into state of Wisconsin to do business? But the reason I ask this is about the formula is that there was a legislative council task force which asked the question should we

blow up the aid formula and start over again? And that committee and Governor Doyle both said no we don't want to blow it up, we're going to just make a few tweaks to the existing formula, we're going to take get rid of the QEO and so on. But the basis of the formula isn't going to change. Should we need to do something? Yes they ought to because you know school districts just from the survey you know what we're losing art is with the current school funding that we have we're losing the comprehensive education and what I mean by that is the arts, music, technology, all things that kids need to be well rounded those are the kind of subjects that are being cut you know with new technology you know school districts have to pay for that new technology so that our kids can work that new and be productive with that new technology. That's what's hurting. Given that a wholesale change in the formula is not in the governor's budget,

do you see any hope of getting the legislature to pick up that ball on its own? Actually what I see is that the governor doing the tough fiscal times because you have to make huge choices and what choice that the governor has made is that he doesn't want schools to fail or to fall further behind. So we say okay with that but sometimes we have to sit down maybe not in this biennium but the next biennium and say we need to fix the school a formula and you know the problem with that is that everybody says well there'll be winners and losers. Well let's figure out a formula that everybody becomes a winner. Last question we talk about dissolution of districts yet in the the Gresham school district which is a new district starting up. They actually split off from the Chano district and we'll be operating independently as a smaller district this coming fall and they're talking about doing the same thing in Caledonia outside or Racine. What does it say when as some districts are consolidating other ones are splitting off?

Well I guess the real thing is what can we do in those communities to make sure that our kids are getting the resources that they need they may be growing as compared to another district and want to have those particular funds come and fund their students. I mean that's what has got down to art. Stan Johnson from the Wisconsin Education Association Council thanks for joining us this evening. My pleasure thank you. And that's all for tonight's program. Next week are singing commentator Peter Lightius back with a musical tribute to the tournament bound. We hope basketball badgers. I'm Art Hackett sitting in tonight for Frederica Freiberg from everyone at here and now have a great weekend.