Reading Time: 3 minutes

In 2024, a sheriff’s deputy working for the Outagamie County Sheriff’s Department was forced out for being lousy at his job. But even though the deputy, Cristian Morales, was flagged in the state’s negative separation database, he ended up being hired a few months later by the Menasha Police Department. 

Earlier this year, Morales was arrested and accused of stalking an ex-girlfriend using the city’s Flock camera system. He’s now facing criminal charges.

While some folks are suited for the difficult work of being a law enforcement officer, many are not. It’s hardly a controversial statement to say that police, who can arrest people and use force when necessary, should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.

And yet our reporting at The Badger Project has found that police chiefs and sheriffs in Wisconsin often give these “wandering officers” second or third chances, despite research saying that officers fired or forced out for misconduct are more likely than other cops to reoffend.

At our last count, more than 300 active officers in Wisconsin had been fired or forced out of previous law enforcement jobs. Many of these separations involved novices who couldn’t cut it in a tough job during their probationary period, when the bar for termination is low. But some, we’ve found, lost jobs for misconduct, including drunk driving, writing misleading reports and using sexist and racist language.

In Wisconsin, law enforcement agencies can report to the state DOJ when they fire or force out an officer, so we can track when that cop goes on to get hired by another policing agency. But we are currently unable to track these wandering officers who have been fired or forced out in other states and come to work here because we don’t have a list of all law enforcement officers here.

That’s why The Badger Project, along with our partners at the Invisible Institute, a Chicago-based nonprofit journalism organization, requested the full list of names and work histories from the Wisconsin Department of Justice and sued when it refused.

In April, Dane County Circuit Court Judge Rhonda Lanford ruled in our favor and ordered the DOJ to release the records. She cited a previous state appeals court ruling that said law enforcement officers “necessarily relinquish certain privacy and reputational rights by virtue of the amount of trust society places in them and must be subject to public scrutiny.”

Prominent members of Wisconsin’s law enforcement community have criticized the judge’s ruling, saying it goes too far. An appeal could be coming.

Jim Palmer, executive director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, wrote an op-ed saying the release of these records could put officers at “risk of harassment, doxxing and worse.” He said officers’ birthdates are part of the records whose release we are seeking. Not so: While our initial records request asked for birthdates or birth years (to distinguish between officers with the same name), our lawsuit only asked for birth years, not months and days.

The state DOJ raised another objection, saying release of the names would jeopardize undercover officers. But what cop uses his or her real name when working undercover? We did not request photos of the officers.

I salute and thank the men and women in law enforcement who are serving their communities. I don’t envy the chiefs and sheriffs who must staff their agencies at a time when finding good job applicants for law enforcement jobs is as hard as ever.

And you know what? We at The Badger Project are not against second chances for cops who screwed up. Perhaps an officer who made a fireable mistake has learned from it. Whether that officer should continue in law enforcement is not for us to decide. Our job, as journalists, is to shine a light on those in power and get facts to the public who are being policed by these folks.

If chiefs or sheriffs want to hire an officer with problems in the past, they should say so publicly and defend their decision. They just can’t make these decisions in secret.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Peter Cameron is managing editor of The Badger Project, a nonprofit news outlet.

Your Right to Know: Names of police should be public is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Life jackets save lives, but only if you wear them.

A kayaker escaped injury in April after his kayak capsized near Cuba Island on Beaver Dam Lake in Dodge County, Wisconsin. Fire crews responded quickly and brought the person to shore. In cold water, rescuers’ quick response — and the fact that he was wearing a life jacket — helped prevent tragedy. 

Life jackets save lives. Don’t take the risk by failing to put one on. 

According to U.S. Coast Guard boating statistics, 76% of fatal boating incident victims drowned, and 87% of those whose life jacket use was known were not wearing one. Many were skilled boaters who could swim. You wouldn’t try to put on a seat belt during a car crash, and you can’t put on a life jacket in the middle of a boating emergency.

Wearing a life jacket on the water is critical, so before you head out, make sure everyone has one that fits properly. Find a Sea Tow Foundation Life Jacket Loaner Station near you if you need to borrow one. It may protect your life. 

Gail R. Kulp is executive director of the Sea Tow Foundation, a New York-based nonprofit whose mission is to provide access to education, tools and resources to eliminate preventable recreational boating accidents and deaths.

Guest opinion: Going boating? Wear a life jacket. It could save your life. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

In the coming weeks, thousands of students will walk across stages at graduation ceremonies across Wisconsin. It is our job to ensure they are prepared for whatever step comes next. But as they step into a rapidly changing world, one question has become more important and complicated to answer: What does a successful graduate look like?

For generations, the answer has been straightforward: earn good grades, score well on tests and complete your coursework. Those things still matter — they always will. Academic mastery remains a cornerstone of our education system.

But alone, that is no longer enough.

Technology and the workforce are evolving in ways we couldn’t have imagined a generation ago.

The rise of artificial intelligence has left many questioning what jobs may disappear, even as schools try to prepare students for jobs that may not yet exist.

If we want our students to succeed in this evolving landscape, our definition of success must evolve with it.

That is why the Department of Public Instruction is developing a Wisconsin Portrait of a Graduate — a statewide effort to define the skills and dispositions young people need to succeed in their careers, as citizens and in life.

We continuously hear from our workforce partners that graduates need more than academic knowledge. They need skills that remain relevant over time, even as technology, artificial intelligence and the job market continue to change — skills like critical thinking, adaptability, problem solving, communication, collaboration and social intelligence. These essential skills aren’t measured on a standardized test.

What other skills define a successful graduate?

Ask a parent, educator and employer that question, and you may get three different answers.

That is why the Portrait of a Graduate must reflect a shared vision of student success. It must be shaped by voices from across Wisconsin. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction has formed a steering committee that includes educators, students, higher education partners, statewide education organizations, employers and industry representatives across Wisconsin to guide this work. We also held listening sessions in communities statewide and will continue gathering input through upcoming virtual listening sessions and a public survey. I encourage you to participate. This is your opportunity to help shape the future of education in our state. More information on this initiative is available on the Wisconsin Portrait of a Graduate webpage.

It’s past time we focus on preparing students for their future and not our past. If we don’t use this moment to redefine success, we are doing a disservice — not only to students, but to our employers, our communities and the future of our state.

Jill Underly is Wisconsin’s state superintendent of public instruction.

Guest opinion: A changing world demands a new vision for graduates is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: < 1 minute

I was delighted to read Wisconsin Watch’s article “Parkour for Seniors? Classes help older Wisconsinites build strength, community — and prevent deadly falls.” At a time when older Americans are facing a serious falls epidemic, we must promote fun ways to build fitness, prevent injury and maintain independence.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, Wisconsin has the highest rate of deaths from falls in the country. The number of falls that emergency medical services respond to is rapidly growing each year, resulting in 55,000 emergency department visits in 2024 alone. This is bad for older adults who get hurt, first responders and health care providers who are stretched thin and taxpayers who shoulder the burden of hospitalizations and lengthy recoveries.

Unfortunately, many older adults are not getting the preventative care they need to maintain their balance and health. That needs to change. 

The Stopping Addiction and Falls for the Elderly (SAFE) Act, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Carol Miller and U.S. Sen. Jim Justice, both West Virginia Republicans, would address this crisis by allowing Medicare beneficiaries to receive a no-cost falls risk assessment from a physical or occupational therapist as part of their annual wellness visit. 

A growing number of bipartisan co-sponsors — including Democratic Rep. Mark Pocan of Wisconsin — supports this legislation. I urge all of Wisconsin’s congressional delegation to do the same.

Kevin Svoboda is a physical therapist in Greendale and a member of the Alliance for Physical Therapy Quality and Innovation.

Guest opinion: How Congress can reduce deadly falls among older Americans is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Last month Gov. Evers announced the formation of a Commutation Advisory Board to consider shortening the remaining sentences of some individuals in our overcrowded prisons. The board hasn’t yet considered any cases, but some politicians have already decided it should automatically reject applications from everyone convicted of certain kinds of crime. The governor’s own proclamation ruled out clemency for those convicted of sex offenses, reinforcing the common but erroneous assumption that every person in that category poses a continuing danger to society. Now Wisconsin Watch has reported that two of the candidates to succeed Gov. Evers have expressed their opposition to commutations for anyone convicted of murder. 

At first sight these may seem like reasonable exclusions. As a society, we want to express our condemnation of both sex offenses and murder. But we should know a lot more about the people serving the longest sentences in our prisons before we deny them any chance to present their cases for commutation.

How many people convicted of murder or a sex offense might be affected by these blanket exclusions? 

The most accessible statistics are those for Old Law prisoners (individuals convicted before the advent of Truth in Sentencing in 2000). According to the Parole Commission website, nearly 1,600 men and women whose crimes were committed in the 1990s or earlier are still in prison, 26 years later. Two-thirds of these individuals were convicted of either murder (540) or a sex crime (527). A large proportion of them are not yet eligible for parole, and the parole process is so uncertain that the rest have no guarantee of release within their lifetimes.  

Why shouldn’t someone who committed a serious violent crime be locked up for life? 

Our religious traditions encourage us to seek the redemption of wrongdoers and their reintegration into the community, if at all possible. And we know as a practical matter that people can and do change as they mature. A person who committed a violent rape or murder at 20 is likely to be a very different person by age 45. (In fact, research shows that the likelihood of violent behavior drops with every decade of age.) If they have used their time behind bars to become a good, responsible citizen, does it make sense to keep punishing them at taxpayers’ expense for the sins of the person they used to be? 

Why is it reasonable to consider clemency for individuals convicted of murder, in particular? 

As volunteers for an organization that advocates for second chances, we have taken a close look at the records of some 200 potential candidates who have already spent 26 years or more in prison for violent crimes. Although the majority were convicted of “first-degree intentional homicide,” either alone or as parties to the crime, very few of their crimes resembled the media image of first-degree murder. At the time of conviction the typical candidate in this group was a teen or very young adult who did not set out to kill anybody but impulsively overreacted out of anger or fear. Sometimes they were trying to protect themselves or someone else. Some were abuse victims who fought back against their abusers. A few seem to have played only a small part in a crime committed by others. But it was the “tough on crime” 1990s when many of these young folks were convicted. They were prosecuted to the full extent of the law and given such extreme sentences that they may never be released unless they receive a commutation. 

Apart from the original crime, what factors should matter most in decisions about clemency?

Historically, Wisconsin governors used commutation both to rectify unjustly harsh sentences and to recognize exemplary evidence of rehabilitation among prisoners. As a result, commutation provided both a reward for the recipients’ hard work and good behavior and a valuable incentive to other prisoners to follow their examples. As we reviewed the records of potential candidates, we saw many impressive examples of personal growth, consistent job performance, degrees and vocational licenses earned, achievements in the arts, participation in volunteer efforts and leadership and mentoring of fellow prisoners. We need more people like these in the state workforce, and their return could also contribute to the well-being of their families and local communities. We hope the governor’s new commutation board will pay at least as much attention to the mature men and women these candidates have become as to the mistakes they made when they were young.

Sherry Reames, Mark Rice, Joyce Ellwanger, and Harlan Richards are members of the WISDOM commutations committee. WISDOM is a statewide network committed to bringing diverse communities together to work for racial and economic justice.

Guest opinion: After decades in prison, who deserves a chance at clemency? is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

The two most common complaints I hear from people seeking public records are “Why is it taking so long?” and “Why does it cost so much?” Unfortunately, it’s often difficult to mount a successful legal challenge to delays or fees because of the way the state’s laws are worded.

Wisconsin’s Open Records Law imposes no deadline on producing records. All it says is they must be produced “as soon as practicable and without delay.” What does that actually mean? While the state Department of Justice recommends that simple requests receive a response within 10 business days, the DOJ itself doesn’t heed its own advice, often taking months — even years — to fulfill requests.

Courts haven’t given much guidance. They’ve essentially said it’s a reasonableness test that takes into account the size and complexity of the request, the resources of the government agency, and whether they are making a good faith effort to comply. But how long is too long? 

Ideally, we’d have a deadline in our law, as some other states do. This may require prioritizing resources properly, which should already be happening. Fulfilling record requests, the law says, is “an essential function of a representative government and an integral part of the routine duties” of public officials.” And yet I’ve seen agencies with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars who have one person doing this work.

The other common problem with the records law is it allows custodians to charge fees for complying with records requests. Here, I am especially concerned about “location” fees. The government can charge for the “actual, necessary and direct cost” of finding records, typically at the hourly rate of the lowest-paid employee capable of searching. But sometimes this is still a considerable amount, and some custodians even want to charge for employees’ benefits.

This amounts to, essentially, the government getting paid twice for the same work. Our taxes already pay the salary or wage of the employee searching for records. The requester pays them again.

Permitting location fees also incentivizes government agencies to be sloppy in their recordkeeping. The more disorganized their records are, the longer it will take them to find records, so the more money they can collect from requesters. Those high costs also discourage requesters from following through with requests.  

For example, I’ve run into police departments that still store their personnel records in paper boxes, so if somebody wants, say, disciplinary records, the department can quote an often prohibitively high price to search each box for disciplinary files. Even if records are stored electronically, they can be hard to retrieve if they are not sensibly organized.

How can we fix these twin problems? If I were in charge (and I’m not), I’d put a strict deadline in the law and eliminate location fees altogether. But realistically, we are unlikely to see either reform. 

Perhaps a more practical solution would be to tie the two problems together. Change the law so that custodians can charge location costs only if the records are produced within a strict deadline — perhaps 10 business days.  

That compromise would incentivize better, more organized record keeping. Government agencies would now want to keep their records — especially those people frequently request — arranged in ways easy to search and easy to find. It would also incentivize them to devote enough resources to fulfill record requests promptly.  

The result? Requesters will get records faster and cheaper, and government agencies might also see a net increase in revenue, as more requesters opt to pay for prompt service rather than walk away.

Pairing these two issues is an idea worth pursuing.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a group dedicated to open government. Tom Kamenick, a council member, is the president and founder of the Wisconsin Transparency Project.

Your Right to Know: How to solve high record costs and long delays is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

In relaunching our guest opinion section earlier this year, we asked you to bring us arguments rooted in evidence, lived experience and a genuine interest in Wisconsin’s future.

You’ve delivered — and then some.

Since January, we’ve published perspectives tackling everything from the rise of data centers and threats to groundwater to the systems shaping youth mental health and the everyday pressures of poverty. Here’s what these pieces have in common: They aren’t quickly dashed-off hot takes. They’re arguments built on research and careful thought.

That strength has created a welcome challenge. We’ve received more high-quality submissions than we anticipated, and they require the same kind of fact-checking and editing we apply to our journalism. The result is a longer queue. To those still waiting to see their work published: thanks for your patience. We’re working through them, and there’s much more to come.

Below is a sampling of the WisConversation so far.

As a reminder, these commentaries reflect the views of their authors and are independent of the in-depth reporting produced by Wisconsin Watch’s newsroom staff. Want to join in? Email your submission to opinion@wisconsinwatch.org. 

How poverty’s gravity pulls workers under

“Being poor, it turns out, is expensive,” writes Sachin Shivaram, CEO of Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry in Manitowoc. His experience with employees shows how small setbacks and mounting fees create a gravitational pull that’s nearly impossible to escape.

After-school programs are essential. Wisconsin should fund them that way.

Wisconsin lags behind other states that provide dedicated funding for after-school programs. That leaves an estimated 275,000 children without access to programs that make them safer and healthier, writes Daniel Gage, a consultant with the Afterschool Alliance and Wisconsin Out of School Time Alliance.

In Wisconsin’s CAFO counties, glyphosate monitoring gaps threaten groundwater

State monitoring programs largely overlook glyphosate in northeastern Wisconsin’s CAFO-heavy counties, where groundwater may be most vulnerable, writes Allison Gilmeister, a Yale University graduate student and Appleton native.

How Wisconsin can protect consumers and the environment during the data center boom

Renewable energy and efficiency are the lowest-cost ways to meet soaring demand, but they aren’t enough on their own, writes John Imes, co-founder and executive director of the Wisconsin Environmental Initiative and village president of Shorewood Hills. He argues Wisconsin needs clear guardrails to protect consumers, water and the climate.

How to fix water bills so conservation pays off

Fixed charges and delayed pricing signals can make water conservation hard to see on household bills, freelance writer Michael V. Haley argues. He proposes ways to redesign rates so saving water pays off.

Wisconsin must regulate crisis pregnancy centers to protect patients

Layne Donovan, a native Wisconsinite who works in reproductive health, highlights a proposal that would require crisis pregnancy centers to obtain consent before sharing client information. But she argues lawmakers should go further — cracking down on deceptive practices and protecting access to evidence-based care.

To curb alcohol harm, Wisconsin must rethink its drinking culture

Alcohol misuse is woven into the state’s history and identity, but its health consequences are widespread, writes Kayla Doege, a graduate student at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater’s Master of Social Work program. Treating addiction as a public health issue — not an individual failing — is the first step toward meaningful change, Doege writes.

No shortage of opinions: Readers fuel the WisConversation is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

April 22, 1970, was no ordinary day in the bustling city of St. Louis. On this first Earth Day, streets filled with rallies, and lecture halls were packed with attendees. Most famously, rows of students marched through the streets wearing gas masks, protesting air pollution.

Around that time, John E. Franz was brewing up something dark in the depths of Monsanto’s St. Louis lab: glyphosate, an herbicide since linked to widespread environmental harm, cancer concerns and more than 100,000 lawsuits. 

While other countries have regulated or limited glyphosate production, the U.S. has largely ignored the problem. In February, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14387 to promote the production of glyphosate and security for its producers.

The U.S. is increasingly dependent on glyphosate, and its overuse is becoming a serious concern. Amid the many environmental issues competing for attention, glyphosate deserves a prominent place this Earth Day, especially in Wisconsin.

Why Wisconsin? Glyphosate levels in groundwater aren’t being consistently monitored in the state’s highest-risk areas — its CAFO counties.

From fields to faucets 

Wisconsin farmers apply millions of pounds of glyphosate each year, primarily to fields growing soybeans and corn — the state’s two biggest crops. Those crops are used to feed animals at Wisconsin’s 293 concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. 

After animals eat glyphosate-treated crops, the chemical can reemerge in their manure. This is a problem, considering that mismanagement of CAFO waste frequently leads to groundwater contamination. 

Seems like something that should be setting off red flags, right?

Monitoring falls short in Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) oversees groundwater and surface water testing for agrichemicals. The agency monitors pesticides and agricultural runoff through a private well sampling program, a field-edge monitoring program and random well sampling conducted every five to 10 years.

However effective these programs may appear, a closer look at where Wisconsin’s CAFOs are located compared with where monitoring occurs reveals a stark mismatch.

The three counties with the most CAFOs — Manitowoc (25), Brown (22), Kewaunee (19) — are all located in the Northeast Lakeshore region, where none of DATCP’s 22 field-edge monitoring wells are located, according to a 2023 report, the most recent available. The state’s monitoring system misses areas at highest risk for aquifer contamination.

Unfortunately it gets worse. DATCP’s Targeted Sampling Program also does not cover the entire Northeast Lakeshore Watershed, and these sampling panels do not test for glyphosate or its byproducts, the agency’s most recent program report shows.

The solution? Advocacy

Glyphosate usage has increased 15-fold since the 1990s. It will continue to go unchecked if more research and monitoring aren’t conducted to track where this chemical ends up.

What can citizens do? Write, speak and act.

1. Monitor the DNR’s hearing and meetings calendar for groundwater-related meetings you can attend.
   
2. If you’re a private landowner with a well, write to DATCP and volunteer to have your well sampled.
   
3. Universities such as University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh and UW-Green Bay also play a role. DATCP already partners with both on research. Contact leaders of their water-related programs.

Why glyphosate still matters

To be sure, glyphosate is not the only problematic agrichemical. But it is by far the most widely used herbicide in U.S. agriculture, and its scale alone warrants closer monitoring of its spread in aquifers.

Still not convinced? Consider the many other contaminants that can leach into groundwater from CAFO manure — including other agrichemicals, pharmaceuticals, heavy metals and bacteria. Glyphosate is just one of many reasons stronger groundwater monitoring is needed in this region.

We’re not asking for much.

Glyphosate well testing is relatively inexpensive and should not strain government resources. Progress will depend on public pressure: Concerned citizens must keep pushing until stronger monitoring is in place across all at-risk areas of this beautiful state we call home.

Allison Gilmeister is a graduate student at Yale University studying religion and ecology. She grew up in Appleton. 

Opinion: In Wisconsin’s CAFO counties, glyphosate monitoring gaps threaten groundwater is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A homeowner in Wauwatosa can do exactly what public messaging asks: take shorter showers, time irrigation thoughtfully, fix leaks and otherwise reduce water use. Then the quarterly bill arrives, and the cost barely moves. The homeowner might jump to a dangerous conclusion: that conservation is symbolic, not economic.

It’s an understandable reaction to misaligned incentives.

Utilities need stable revenue to maintain infrastructure that does not shrink with short-term changes in household use. At the same time, households need bills that make conservation visibly and promptly worthwhile. If both are true, the issue is not whether residents are wrong to feel frustrated, but whether rate design effectively translates public goals into household-level incentives.

This tension — between conservation messaging and what bills actually show — points to a broader public accountability issue for utilities across Wisconsin.

Wauwatosa is a useful case study because the city publishes its bill components clearly enough to reveal this trade-off.

What the Wauwatosa bill structure shows

As published by Wauwatosa’s water utility, a residential bill combines multiple components across water, sewer and storm water. For common 5/8-inch and 3/4-inch meters, the city page currently lists:

• A fixed quarterly water service charge: $20.00.
• A fixed public fire protection charge: $15.99.
• A fixed quarterly Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (regional sewer) connection charge: $16.41.
• A fixed quarterly storm water charge (per equivalent residential unit): $35.63.

Taken together, that amounts to $88.03 per quarter in fixed charges before any usage-based costs, local sanitary flows or temporary surcharges are added. For many households, that fixed baseline stands out because it does not change with daily behavior.

The Wauwatosa webpage notes another key detail: Residential sewer charges are based on average water use from the previous winter quarter. That approach can make engineering sense for irrigation-heavy months, but it also means residents who cut back now may not immediately see those savings reflected in their sewer charges.

When customers see both that delay and a large fixed baseline, the takeaway is simple: “My effort doesn’t matter.”

That is the policy risk.

Why this perception matters beyond one city

This pattern extends beyond Wauwatosa to utility systems statewide.

The Wisconsin Public Service Commission describes rate setting as a balancing problem among cost recovery, financial stability, affordability and system sustainability. EPA guidance similarly explains why many utilities use fixed-plus variable charges: Fixed charges support pipes, treatment assets and financing obligations that exist regardless of short-term household demand.

So yes, a large fixed component is not automatically evidence of bad intent. Often it reflects the cost profile of infrastructure.

But even well-designed systems can produce a weak conservation signal.

EPA water finance resources note that some pricing structures are better than others at encouraging conservation. If a city publicly asks for conservation while bill design makes savings hard to notice, policy and pricing are misaligned where customers experience them: on the bill.

The accountability test 

Can a typical resident estimate cost savings before taking action to reduce use?

If the answer is no, then the price signal is too opaque.

If customers must decode fixed charges, lagged sewer formulas and unclear unit rates to understand marginal savings, the bill functions more as a revenue tool than a behavior signal — preserving cash flow but weakening conservation and public trust.

Residents do not need a lecture about civic virtue. They need rate transparency and faster feedback.

What Wauwatosa could pilot 

This does not require a simplistic “slash fixed fees” response. It requires clearer design and better signal delivery.

• Publish a one-page “marginal savings” table for typical homes.The table should answer: “If I reduce use by 1, 3 or 5 CCF this quarter, what is the expected bill impact now and next quarter?” Include timing notes for winter-quarter sewer logic.
• Add bill lines for “behavior-sensitive charges” and “system-fixed charges.” Split the bill into two subtotals so the customer can see immediately which share was behavior-driven and which paid for infrastructure. 
• Introduce a conservation dividend. If systemwide demand drops below peak projections and defers capacity costs, return part of those savings as a visible credit in the next cycle. Make conservation legible.
• Run a transparent pilot on stronger conservation pricing bands. EPA and national guidance point to increasing-block rates as one way to strengthen conservation signals. Pilot carefully, publish distributional impacts and protect affordability with targeted credits.
• Publish a trust metric: “conservation-to-bill responsiveness.” Track how often conservation leads to measurable bill changes within one cycle. If responsiveness is weak, publish a redesign plan.

The larger policy point

When homeowners conclude, “the city designed this to extract money no matter what,” leaders should not dismiss it but treat it as a warning sign in the system.

Most residents are not accusing utilities of villainy. They are describing an incentive mismatch.

If Wisconsin cities want durable conservation, they need bill designs that preserve financial integrity and reward action quickly enough for residents to feel the loop. Otherwise, we train households to stop caring, then blame them for not conserving.

Water policy fails when the math is defensible on paper but illegible at the kitchen table.

Michael V. Haley is a Wisconsin freelance writer focused on accountability commentary about how public systems affect household outcomes. His work translates municipal policy, utility design and implementation choices into practical impacts for residents.

Opinion: How to fix water bills so conservation pays off is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 5 minutes

On a rainy Friday afternoon, I walked into the Manitowoc County Jail. I asked tentatively into the metal box at the door: “I’m here to see Randy Curtis?”

I was there to deliver a simple message. What I stumbled into was something much larger, a reality I had not previously fully understood.

Randy had missed a few shifts without calling in. His supervisor looked for him where we sometimes do when an employee disappears without a word: the inmate list at the county jail. Sure enough, there was his name.

Randy is a knockout pourer at Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry, doing hard physical work for $27.53 an hour – good money, the kind that, if you’re careful and nothing goes wrong, can be the beginning of something. He had spent years rebuilding his life in Manitowoc after a troubled young adulthood in Milwaukee. He had a girlfriend. He was saving for a car. Then an old legal matter surfaced, along with a small claims debt.

It is not uncommon for our employees to find themselves in jail. Often it’s a DUI, delinquent child support or drugs. The ones who don’t have money for bail spend weeks or months awaiting resolution. Usually in these situations we let the employment relationship expire.

But Randy’s supervisor called me: “We have to keep his job for him.” Of course we would. But how would we let him know? I pictured him in that cell, cut off from the outside world, assuming he had lost his job and maybe his apartment and girlfriend too, watching his precarious new life crash down.

I went to tell him myself.

The corrections officer was polite but matter-of-fact. I could not see the inmate in person. To speak with him, I would need to create an account on a third-party video service, deposit money, schedule a window and wait.

I am a CEO. I work on computers all day. It still took me the better part of an hour to figure it all out.

The service was called CIDNET, operated by Encartele, a corporation in Nebraska. The site defaulted to a purchase of 150 megabytes at 30 cents per megabyte. That’s $45, before a “Data Security Token” fee and a 5% merchant surcharge on top. I put $10 on the account, enough for a few minutes. On Sunday evening I logged on, saw Randy on a small screen and quickly told him his job was waiting. He looked relieved.

I want to be fair. Someone has to pay for that infrastructure. The same logic applies to bank overdraft fees and payday loan rates. Even the $2.59 Snickers bar in our plant vending machine, nearly four times what my family pays at Costco, is bought by a worker without the time or transportation to shop elsewhere. Each of these charges is, on its own terms, defensible. Together they amount to something else: a compounding tax on not having enough.

Being poor, it turns out, is expensive.

Randy made it through. Another of our employees didn’t fare as well.

I’ll call him Michael. He had spent his entire life in America, brought here as a small child. He was a DACA recipient – a “Dreamer” – tantalizingly close to getting his papers in order for permanent residency, but first he had to navigate old speeding tickets, lawyer fees, court dates and filing costs. He had a newborn and two toddlers at home. He could not even afford a cellphone. Outside of work, he reached me through Facebook Messenger when he could find Wi-Fi.

The fees accumulated the way fees do: the lawyer, the filings, the court dates that cost him wages he couldn’t replace, the paid leave that drained away appointment by appointment. Everything was a small thing.

But Michael had no margin for small things.

The weight of it followed him onto the shop floor. He grew distracted, made mistakes — costly ones in a manufacturing environment — and we had to let him go. I think about that a lot.

The word I keep coming back to is margin. In business, margin is everything. The difference between a company that survives a bad few years and one that doesn’t is not always the size of the problem. It is the cushion beneath it.

Families have margins, too.

A salaried employee who gets a DUI posts bond and goes home. She takes a long lunch for a dental appointment and loses nothing. When life disrupts her, it disrupts her. When life disrupts Randy or Michael, there is no category called disruption. There is functioning, and there is collapse. A car breaks down, the flu strikes, child care closes unexpectedly — attendance points rack up, the job is suddenly in jeopardy, and the carefully assembled structure of a life starts to come apart.

What I find remarkable is not that Randy and Michael sometimes stumble. It’s that they hold everything together as long as they do, maintaining a level of daily discipline against a backdrop of distress that most of us will never be tested to match.

My 8-year-old and I have been reading about black holes. The closer you get, the more energy you need to escape – until escape becomes physically impossible. That is what I witnessed. Not a failure of will. A gravitational pull that compounds with every setback, every fee, every missed day. 

There is a threshold, call it escape velocity, below which the system’s small relentless extractions become unsurvivable. My former college professor Lisa Dodson, who spent years embedded with low-income workers across the country, calls this the “house of cards” – the architecture of poverty where there is no redundancy, no reserve, no margin for the ordinary turbulence of a human life.

So what can we do? At Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry, we’ve introduced daily pay so workers can access wages as they earn them rather than waiting two weeks. We offer $400 per month in child care reimbursement, structured specifically to help newer, younger employees.

Most traditional benefits – vacation time, tenure-based wage levels, pension plans – naturally favor workers already on solid footing. Our most expensive benefit, health care, is the one our youngest and lowest-paid employees use the least. We can design benefit structures with that reality in mind, and we are trying.

These are imperfect responses to a structural problem. They are what one employer can do.

On policy, cash bail reform deserves serious attention. In theory, judges already weigh risk when setting bail. In practice, a $500 bail amount means freedom for one person and months in jail for another. A system that makes that distinction irrelevant might have kept Randy’s life from nearly unraveling.

The full set of public policy answers is beyond my grasp. But what I do know is that the national conversation about affordability — housing, gas, airfares — is largely about the middle class. Randy and Michael aren’t worried about buying a house. They are fighting for the basic foothold that most of us take entirely for granted.

My parents came to this country with very little and found the American Dream to be real. I believe it can still be real. Randy believed in it enough to leave Milwaukee and start over in a city where no one knew him. Michael believed in it enough to show up every single day while his entire future hung on a bureaucratic decision somewhere.

Just this week, JPMorgan Chase announced its “American Dream Initiative” aimed at strengthening small businesses, homeownership and economic mobility – a recognition that the American Dream is not self-sustaining and requires constant effort from institutions large and small.

At our holiday party earlier this year, my wife and I spotted Randy across the room — arm around his girlfriend, at a table full of co-workers, dressed in his best, laughing. 

Michael messaged me last week. He’s been out of work for two months, getting by on his wife’s income. He said he’s going to reapply at the foundry. When he does, we’ll take him back.

Neither story is finished yet. They haven’t reached escape velocity. But they are defying gravity, every single day.

Sachin Shivaram is the chief executive officer of Wisconsin Aluminum Foundry in Manitowoc.

Opinion: How poverty’s gravity pulls workers under is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

Wisconsin’s Open Records Law gives requesters the right to request records from their government. After all, as the law states, “a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate.” 

But how to get started? Under the law, “any person” can make a request for records from any Wisconsin state or local government agency or official, verbally or in writing. You don’t have to start from square one: There are many tools available to help you make requests and ensure you get the records you want with minimal fuss. 

The Wisconsin Freedom of Information Counsel has long posted a records request template on its website, wisfoic.org. It cites Wisconsin law and uses language to target your request and help you avoid surprise fees.

Many national groups also post letter generators online that can be used to make requests to state and local governments.  

For example, the Student Press Law Center, a nonprofit organization devoted to assisting student journalists, posts a heavily used letter generator, which is available for free and can be used to make requests.

An organization called MuckRock not only has a letter generator, but also allows users to post responsive records they receive on its website at muckrock.com. Here you can search through records others have received from all over the country.

Other groups post records they have received through their own open records and U.S. Freedom of Information Act requests.  

For example, a group called Reclaim the Records posts genealogical and historical records on its website, reclaimtherecords.org. The website governmentattic.org provides a searchable collection of oddball federal government records and reports.

Of course, this is in addition to records the government proactively publishes or posts online itself. A wealth of information is already available on Wisconsin agency and local government websites, or in local libraries. 

Federal agencies are even required to follow the “Rule of 3,” or make electronically available records that have been requested three or more times. The website data.gov contains more than 400,000 datasets, from what it describes as the home of the U.S. government’s open data.

In some cases, it may be easiest just to start with a phone call to the state or local agency that has the records you want. It may be able to send you the record on the spot, or help you understand available records to target your request.  

If you’re looking to better understand the law, the Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of Open Government posts numerous resources online, including its Public Records Compliance Guide, which is helpful for requesters and records custodians alike.  

A well-drafted records request is useful for everyone: It can help requesters get the records they want, in less time, and at a lower cost. It can also help custodians find records more easily, freeing them up to respond to others’ requests and carry out other duties.

But the most important tip is to not be intimidated by the process: There are no magic words required to trigger your right to get records, and the law must be interpreted broadly in favor of access.

Wisconsin’s Open Records Law, by design, makes it easy to get records, to fulfill its important objective of informing the electorate. Don’t hesitate to exercise your right to use it.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Christa Westerberg is the group’s vice president and a partner at the law firm Pines Bach LLP.

Your Right to Know: How to jump-start your records requests is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service invites community members to submit opinion pieces of 500-800 words on topics of interest to central city Milwaukee. To send a submission for consideration, please email info@milwaukeenns.org. The views expressed are solely those of the authors.

There is a kind of pain that does not wait its turn. It crashes into your life, rearranges everything you thought you understood about safety, justice and faith, and then expects you to keep going.

This is not just about grief. This is about trauma and grief, intertwined, unfolding in real time in our homes, schools, workplaces and communities.

I know this kind of pain intimately.

My brother Sam

My siblings were my first friends. My brother Sam was my twin in every way that mattered. We shared a bunk bed, childhood routines and milestones. We grew up side by side, experiencing life in sync in a way only siblings that close can understand.

He was part of my beginning.

And then, suddenly, he was gone. 

NNS wrote about it here. 

My brother was taken in a violent and publicly misunderstood way. While the investigation unfolded over months, narratives spread in hours. His life was debated in real time. People stepped into the roles of judge, jury and executioner before the facts had even begun to surface.

What I experienced was not just grief, but the added trauma of watching my brother’s humanity be debated and misrepresented in real time.

And then there is the part people do not talk about enough.

Reliving our tragedy

His death was broadcast and circulated repeatedly, forcing our family to relive a moment we were already struggling to survive. And even after the headlines fade, the process continues. 

Legal cases, policy discussions, public commentary. Each step pulls you back into the trauma.

It follows you. In the news. In conversations. In the things you used to enjoy.

This is what navigating trauma and grief looks like in real time. It is not a single moment. It is ongoing.

I am a grown woman, well into my 40s, and nothing prepared me for this. And still, in the middle of that devastation, I was expected to show up to work, to function, to perform.

Three days

That is what we give people to grieve.

Three days to process a lifetime of connection. Three days to make arrangements, gather family and return as if something that significant can be contained and concluded.

Three days is not enough for natural loss.

So it is certainly not enough for loss that is sudden, violent or intentional.

And this is not exclusive to murder.

Trauma lives in all loss. Illness. Old age. Accidents. The loss of a child. Some loss we may anticipate, but none of it prepares us.

Yet the expectation remains the same: return to normal.

We have built systems that understand the need to bond with life, but not the need to grieve its loss. We offer time to welcome a child into the world, but minimal time to process losing one.

What kind of system measures productivity with more care than it measures pain?

We earn more time off to rest from work than we are given to recover from loss.

And it forces a deeper question:

How pro-life are we, really?

Because what we see does not reflect a culture that values life in a meaningful way. We see cruelty in comment sections, judgment attached to loss and a detachment that forgets every headline represents a real person and a real family.

Cycle of trauma continues

Trauma does not end when the news cycle moves on.

It lives in the people who are still here.

It lives in individuals carrying invisible weight, in people one moment, one word, one interaction away from the edge.

And when that trauma goes unprocessed, we see the consequences.

People snap.

And then we ask children and teenagers to be resilient in environments where even adults are barely holding it together.

We expect them to focus, to behave, to perform, while ignoring a critical truth: Their brains are not fully developed. They do not yet have the tools to process trauma and grief at this level.

So when we see emotional outbursts, withdrawal, defiance or risky behavior, we rush to label it.

But what if what we are witnessing is not defiance but distress?

What if something has gone wrong emotionally, mentally, developmentally, and no one has stopped long enough to ask why?

And it may not always be loss. It could be trauma in all its forms.

When trauma goes unaddressed, it does not disappear. It shows up.

This is not a failure of character. This is the impact of unprocessed trauma and grief.

Hard questions and a simple truth

So we have to ask:

Who decided that three days was enough? Enough for who? Enough for what kind of loss?

Why are people forced to prove how close they were to someone in order to be granted the space to grieve?

What about chosen family? Do they matter less?

How do we expect people to return to life carrying something that has not even begun to settle?

Have we truly gone so far to the dark side that we no longer have compassion for people who have lost loved ones, regardless of how they left this place?

How do we continue to call ourselves compassionate while enforcing timelines on pain?

Because the truth is simple.

Three days ain’t enough.

---

Angelique Sharpe, known in the community as “MsLadyInc,” works at the intersection of broken systems and resilient people. She lifts their voice and helps organize solutions. You can visit her website here.

Opinion: 3 days ain’t enough. Grief, trauma and the expectation to perform is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

State Rep. Lisa Subeck, D-Madison, this month introduced legislation requiring crisis pregnancy centers to obtain permission from clients before sharing their sensitive health information.

Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs), also known as unregulated pregnancy centers or pregnancy resource centers, provide some services for pregnant people but largely aim to dissuade clients from choosing abortion care. Importantly, most CPCs are not licensed medical facilities and are intentionally vague about their inability and unwillingness to provide abortions or make referrals. They attract clients with targeted advertising that promises free pregnancy testing, ultrasounds and options counseling.

Without the restrictions proposed by Subeck and more like it, Wisconsinites will continue to be victimized by this industry.

Since CPCs are not medical providers and do not charge for services,they are not subject to the same consumer protection laws and licensing requirements, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA.

Without confidentiality protections, CPCs are not required to protect sensitive client information and may misuse private client data with no accountability. Subeck’s bill would help close this loophole and ensure that client information is secure.

While this legislation would be a step in the right direction, privacy is just one of many instances in which CPCs violate medical ethics.

With the funding they receive from faith-based organizations, anti-abortion advocacy groups and taxpayer dollars, CPCs may present themselves in ways that resemble medical settings. Staff and volunteers may wear white coats, visit with clients in exam rooms and adopt language used by clinicians. But many of their services fail to meet evidence-based standards of care.

For example, CPCs have been reported to overestimate gestational age to convince clients they are too far along in pregnancy to legally access abortion. They also readily share medically inaccurate information about abortion.

CPCs across Wisconsin claim that abortion can lead to depression, substance abuse, nightmares, and future fertility issues. Major medical organizations say there is no evidence that abortion leads to mental illness or negative impacts on future fertility. In fact, research suggests that denying people abortion care is associated with worse outcomes to their long-term health and well-being.

Many CPC websites list “abortion reversal” as a service. This involves taking progesterone to “reverse” the effects of mifepristone, the first medicine used in medication abortion. University of California-Davis researchers attempted to test the effectiveness of this treatment, but the study was stopped early due to ethical and safety concerns. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has determined that abortion reversal is “not supported by science.”

Despite their questionable practices, CPCs in Wisconsin continue to benefit from public funding, and some state legislators want them to receive even more. In 2023, Sen. Robert Quinn, R-Birchwood, proposed legislation that would give $1 million a year to Choose Life Wisconsin, a statewide network of CPCs.

Funds raised through Choose Life license plates are also directed to CPCs. Meanwhile, some of Wisconsin’s legislative Republicans have not supported measures that would benefit pregnant people and new parents. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, repeatedly blocked proposals to expand postpartum Medicaid coverage, calling it “an expansion of welfare,” until the Assembly this session finally sent the bill to Gov. Tony Evers’ desk.

In Wisconsin, legitimate providers of abortion care must navigate a litany of restrictions. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP laws, are widely criticized by medical groups and exist only to make obtaining and providing abortion care harder. Yet CPCs are free to operate under limited regulations while they enjoy our tax dollars.

In other states, efforts to regulate CPCs have failed on the grounds that these organizations are protected under the First Amendment. But these centers are a growing public health risk, and protecting people’s health and safety should take priority. This is especially important as the network of CPCs continues to grow. In Wisconsin, there are just five clinics that provide abortion care, compared to an estimated 60 CPCs.

When pregnant people reach out for support, they deserve to be met with compassion, honesty and the opportunity to consider all of their options. The ongoing failure of our lawmakers to regulate these facilities is an affront to evidence-based sexual and reproductive healthcare. It is time that Wisconsin’s lawmakers uphold respect and humanity, not deception and manipulation.

Layne Donovan was born and raised in Wisconsin and holds a degree from Barnard College. She has studied the history of abortion in the United States, and currently works in reproductive health, rights, and justice. 

Opinion: Wisconsin must regulate crisis pregnancy centers to protect patients  is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Two attempts to peel back the veil of secrecy over the proliferation of data centers, including one by Wisconsin Watch reporter Tom Kertscher, are being honored in this year’s Openness in Government Awards, or Opees, bestowed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council.

In advance of national Sunshine Week (sunshineweek.org), March 15-21, the council has named the winners of its 20th annual Opees. These recognize outstanding efforts to protect the state’s tradition of open government, as well as highlight some threats to it. Winners have been invited to appear at a free public event in Madison on March 19. (See WFOIC website for details.)

The winners are:

Public Openness Advocate (Popee): Vilas County District Attorney Karl Hayes. District attorneys in Wisconsin are statutorily empowered to enforce the state’s open records and open meetings laws, but in practice rarely do so. Early this year, Hayes showed how it can be done, warning officials in the town of Presque Isle that they needed to comply with a nearly year-old request from the Lakeland Times newspaper for records regarding the town’s computers. His intervention succeeded, and the records were released. Other DAs might look for occasions where they can turn the lever in favor of openness.

Citizen Openness Advocate (Copee): Midwest Environmental Advocates. This nonprofit public interest law firm last year filed two pivotal lawsuits challenging the secrecy surrounding data center projects. The first, against the city of Racine, forced the prompt release of water usage projections for Microsoft’s Mount Pleasant campus. The second lawsuit, against the state Public Service Commission (PSC), contested the “trade secret” status of energy demand data for Meta’s proposed data center in Beaver Dam; that case is pending. Kudos to MEA for insisting on the public’s right to know.

Media Openness Advocate (Mopee): The Badger Project. In recent years, this nonprofit news outlet has been requesting records from police departments around the state about internal investigations of police officers and suing when they are not provided. In 2025, it filed three such lawsuits — against a police department in Racine County, the state Department of Transportation and St. Croix County. All led to the release of records. The Badger Project is now appealing St. Croix County’s refusal to pay attorney fees, which could lead to the overturning of a deeply problematic state Supreme Court decision. Fingers crossed. 

Open Records Scoop of the Year (Scoopee): Tie: Tom Kertscher of Wisconsin Watch; Danielle DuClos of The Cap Times. Among much other good reporting on openness issues, the work of these two journalists stands out. Kertscher pulled back the curtain on the secrecy surrounding data centers, including at least four projects in which local officials signed nondisclosure agreements with the companies. And DuClos reported on how the state Department of Public Instruction secretly investigated more than 200 Wisconsin K-12 educators accused of sexual misconduct or grooming behaviors toward students, prompting a statewide audit and legislative action.

No Friend of Openness (Nopee): Deborah Kerr, superintendent of the St. Francis School District. While there were other contenders for this award, there was also little question that Kerr would be the winner and new champion. Last June, she threatened to have a TMJ4 News reporter and camera operator arrested for wanting to film a school board meeting “because you did not give us any notice or tell us why you were here,” neither of which is required. The jaw-dropping video (see for yourself at https://tinyurl.com/zvam889a) went viral, and Kerr issued a weak apology, but her eruption is one for the ages. Credit reporter Megan Lee for her deft handling of the situation.

Whistleblower of the Year (Whoopee): John Sigwart. This former Port Washington city council member refused to keep the public in the dark about a clandestinely proposed microchip production facility, revealing that local officials had signed nondisclosure agreements. The city’s mayor retaliated by stripping Sigwart of his committee appointments, precipitating an end to his many years of public service, said an editorial in the Ozaukee Press. Sigwart died in August at age 80, but his example of courage will live on.

Your Right to Know is a monthly column distributed by the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council (wisfoic.org), a nonprofit, nonpartisan group dedicated to open government. Bill Lueders is the group’s president.

Your Right to Know: Opees highlight good works, and bad is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

If we care about addressing alcohol addiction in Wisconsin, we must start thinking about it as a public health issue. Alcohol use is deeply embedded in Wisconsin’s history and has maintained its prevalence through the socialization and normalization of drinking culture. 

Rather than focusing on an individual’s capacity to remain sober in a state known for its beer-battered you-name-its, pub crawls, wine walks, and pedal taverns, we need to shift our focus toward making our communities more welcoming spaces for sobriety.

To consider something a public health issue, it must pose a physical or mental health risk to populations rather than just individuals. 

Alcohol use is a highly socialized activity and has been embraced by Wisconsin since its inception, due largely to its population of German immigrants in the 1800s. German-founded breweries laid the economic groundwork in Wisconsin’s early years, supporting farmers, employing families, fostering community and generating profit. With a culture that has prospered from the industrial, financial and social aspects of brewing throughout the years, it is no wonder that Wisconsin carries on this tradition.

In a state where drinking runs generations-deep, so do the health effects, and addressing a widespread issue calls for widespread changes. 

Alcohol addiction must be considered a community risk rather than an individual’s shortcoming. The majority of Wisconsinites, more than six in 10 adults, reported consuming alcohol within the past month, and nearly 20% reported binge drinking. In 2024, alcohol-related hospitalizations in Wisconsin reached their highest number since 2015. Reports from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that more than 3,450 Wisconsinites die from excessive drinking each year.

Wisconsin is the only U.S. state in which every county has reported engaging in excessive alcohol consumption among at least 23% of its adult population. We are also home to 10 out of 20 of the “drunkest cities in America” as reported by 24/7 Wall St. last year. 

The average number of alcoholic beverages consumed throughout Wisconsin has decreased in recent years, but people are consuming more ethanol over the same time span. This means people are tending to consume drinks with higher alcohol content. As the data illustrates, this is a statewide concern, not a private matter.

We can make our communities easier places to be sober, not only in the interest of addiction recovery, but for the sake of promoting community well-being. On a structural level, this looks like advocating for greater access to recovery facilities and services. It also looks like supporting and sustaining local third spaces that are sober-friendly. 

Want to be part of the solution? Then consider hosting alcohol-free gatherings, socializing at a café or a mocktail lounge and welcoming conversations about your choice to do so. Setting the bar starts with us, and this time, it’s not a bar with alcohol.

Kayla Doege is a graduate student at University of Wisconsin-Whitewater’s Master of Social Work program. She lives in Neosho and has spent five years working in youth mental health and substance use intervention.

Opinion: To curb alcohol harm, Wisconsin must rethink its drinking culture is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

If you’re following recent national headlines, you know that attacks on press freedom are having a moment — from the FBI’s raid on the home of Washington Post reporter Hannah Natanson and seizure of her devices to the arrests of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort following their coverage of a protest at a Minneapolis church.

But some positive news is emerging in Wisconsin: State legislation is advancing that would make it harder to use the courts to silence people speaking on matters of public concern — whether they’re journalists or private citizens — by draining their time and resources.

About 14 months ago, I wrote about how Wisconsin is particularly vulnerable to these kinds of lawsuits, one of just 11 states without legislation to shield residents from them. Our friends at the Wausau Pilot & Review felt the consequences firsthand, spending $200,000 to defend themselves against a since-dismissed defamation lawsuit.

There was little momentum for anti-SLAPP legislation when I wrote the column. But that has since changed. 

Lawmakers last year introduced bills that would create a clearer process for quickly dismissing SLAPP suits and require defendants’ legal fees to be paid by plaintiffs who bring meritless claims: AB 701/SB 666, introduced by Republican Reps. Jim Piwowarczyk and Sen. Eric Wimberger, with a suite of co-sponsors, including Democratic Reps. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez and Randy Udell.

The Assembly passed AB 701 last month with unanimous consent — a rare show of bipartisan agreement. The legislation still requires Senate passage before reaching Gov. Tony Evers’ desk.

If it makes it to the finish line before the Senate wraps up for the year, its impact would extend well beyond newsrooms. Everyday people face SLAPP risks, too. People in other states have been sued for leaving negative reviews online. 

As a fiercely independent newsroom, Wisconsin Watch doesn’t typically opine on specific policies; we assemble information on matters of public concern so residents can form their own views through their own value systems. But free expression is fundamental to what we do — and fundamental to a functioning democracy.

That’s why Wisconsin Watch is joining other newsrooms and free speech advocates in urging the Senate to enact protections against frivolous lawsuits.

Have thoughts about this legislation or this moment for free speech in Wisconsin and the U.S.? I’d love to hear from you. Reach me at jmalewitz@wisconsinwatch.org.

Opinion: How Wisconsin can slap down efforts to silence speech is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Reading Time: 2 minutes

I have visited many after-school and summer programs across Wisconsin, from large urban sites to small rural schools, and what I’ve seen has stayed with me. I’ve watched students immersed in creative writing, acting and robotics. I’ve observed staff working one-on-one with kids navigating intense emotional challenges. And I’ve seen the smiles on middle schoolers’ faces as they reconnect with trusted mentors at the end of the school day. These programs are not “extras”; they provide crucial support to kids, families and entire communities.

The access gap

And yet, for far too many Wisconsin families, these opportunities remain out of reach. According to the latest America After 3PM report, nearly 275,000 Wisconsin children who would participate in after-school programs are not enrolled because none are available. Four in five children who could benefit from these supports are missing out. Parents cite cost, lack of transportation and a simple lack of local programming as the biggest barriers.

The benefits are clear

The impact of these programs is undeniable. Parents overwhelmingly rate their children’s after-school programs as excellent or very good, reporting that they keep kids safe, build social skills and support mental wellness. Research in Wisconsin shows that students who participate in extracurricular activities are less likely to report anxiety or depression and more likely to feel a sense of belonging.

Out-of-school-time programs often provide the space for deep, long-term mentoring, a powerful protective factor in a young person’s life. While teachers are often stretched thin during the academic day, out-of-school-time staff can focus on the relational side of development.

The cost of instability

When funding is unstable, it undermines the very connections that make these programs transformative. Recently, a Boys & Girls Club director shared the human cost of budget constraints: They were forced to reduce a veteran staff member to part-time. This didn’t just trim a budget; it severed a multi-year mentorship. When that bond was broken, several youths stopped attending entirely.

Wisconsin lags behind national trends

Across the country, after-school and summer programs are increasingly viewed as essential to youth development. Twenty-seven states provide dedicated state funding for these programs; Wisconsin provides none. States as different as Alabama and Texas recognize that federal funding alone is not enough. So do our Midwestern neighbors.

• Minnesota and Illinois have invested in these programs for years.
• Michigan established a $73 million grant program to expand before-school, after-school and summer learning statewide.
• Pennsylvania created the $11.5 million Building Opportunity through Out-of-School Time (BOOST) program.

The opportunity to act

Public support for these programs is strong and bipartisan. Families across Wisconsin want safe, enriching opportunities for their children. With a significant budget surplus, Wisconsin is uniquely positioned to invest in its future.

State leaders should view out-of-school programming as a foundation for safety, mental health and long-term economic opportunity. We have the resources; now we need the will. By committing to consistent state funding, we can ensure that every young person in Wisconsin has a place to belong when the school bell rings.

Daniel Gage is a consultant with the Afterschool Alliance and Wisconsin Out of School Time Alliance, focusing on advocacy and outreach. He co-founded the Wisconsin Partnership for Children and Youth, a coalition that promotes after-school and summer programs as vital for healthy youth development and future citizenship.

Opinion: After-school programs are essential. Wisconsin should fund them that way. is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The following commentary was written by Jesse Velazquez, Climate Justice Manager at the Ohio Environmental Council. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

In his victory speech, President-elect Donald Trump promised to further boost “liquid gold,” also known as oil and gas. Today, oil and gas production is at record highs and continues to grow. As the industry expands, so do concerns about methane pollution.

The primary component of natural gas is methane, a potent greenhouse gas that warms the planet more than 80 times as much as carbon dioxide over 20 years. It’s also a significant contributor to smog and public health issues like asthma and respiratory disease, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities. Yet, efforts to reduce methane emissions present a rare win-win opportunity: they not only curb pollution but also create jobs and foster innovation.

Take Pennsylvania, one of the largest natural gas producers, for example. By adopting innovative methane mitigation strategies, the state is reducing harmful emissions from oil and gas operations while creating jobs and fostering a cleaner, more sustainable energy future. This balanced approach showcases how economic growth and environmental responsibility can go hand in hand, offering a model that Ohio should replicate.

According to the 2024 State of the Methane Mitigation Industry Report, developing and implementing technologies to cut methane pollution would create jobs ranging from manufacturing leak-detection equipment to technicians skilled in repairing faulty infrastructure. Pennsylvania saw a 22.2% growth in methane mitigation companies over the last three years. Since 2014, the industry has expanded by 65% with the state now hosting 33 methane mitigation companies. In fact, Pennsylvania is now home to 8.5% of the total employee locations in this sector nationwide.

These good-paying, family-sustaining jobs bolster local economies while addressing critical environmental challenges. And the opportunity for Ohio is immense.

The benefits extend far beyond jobs. Reducing methane emissions means less wasted energy. Nationally, oil and gas companies emit enough methane waste annually that could be utilized to meet the energy needs of millions of homes. Capturing the lost gases would translate directly into increased efficiency and cost savings. For a state like Ohio, with its large-scale oil and gas operations, this represents a tangible economic benefit.

This isn’t just about economic gains. Methane mitigation is also a crucial climate strategy. The U.S. EPA’s Section 111 Methane Rule, finalized a year ago, set robust federal standards to limit methane emissions from oil and gas operations. While essential, this rule relies heavily on state-level implementation to achieve its full potential. States like Ohio have a chance to lead by adopting and building on these standards, aligning economic growth with environmental stewardship.

And we know clean air and economic growth are priorities that transcend party lines, as evidenced by the broad coalition of businesses, environmental advocates, and community leaders rallying behind these initiatives.

Ohio is at a crossroads. We can continue business as usual, or we can follow Pennsylvania’s lead, investing in proven technologies and practices that cut emissions, prevent waste, protect public health, and drive economic growth.

By prioritizing methane mitigation, the state can chart a path that aligns with both the nation’s energy ambitions and the pressing need for climate action. This is not just a moral imperative but an economic one that promises cleaner air, healthier communities, and a thriving workforce for generations to come.

Commentary: Ohio should replicate Pennsylvania’s success cutting methane pollution is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The following commentary was written by Carrie Zalewski, former Chair of the Illinois Commerce Commission and currently vice president of markets and transmission at the American Clean Power Association; and Brent Bailey, former Mississippi Public Service Commissioner and current vice president of operations at Efficient Power & Light LLC. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

Building the power grid of the future requires deploying every available tool in the present.

When it comes to electricity generation, energy wonks often reference an “all-the-above” strategy, which includes all available power sources — fossil fuels, renewable energy, and storage technologies. But generation is just one part of the reliability and affordability equation.

The Midwestern transmission grid must also evolve and adopt an “all-the-above” mentality to withstand increasingly frequent extreme weather events and support rapidly growing power demand while ensuring reliable and low-cost electricity for consumers. This is no small task. As such, policymakers and grid operators must carefully consider all near-term and long-term solutions.

New high-voltage transmission lines are essential to ensure the grid of the future is prepared for surging load growth. But new transmission line development and construction can take many years. To address immediate needs, there are other solutions that can improve capacity in the near term. Enter: advanced grid technologies.

Significant technological advancements are available now that can come online in one to three years compared to the decade or so it takes to build new transmission lines. Such advancements include: grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) — hardware and/or software that can increase the capacity and efficiency of existing transmission lines most hours of the year — as well as high-performance conductors (HPCs) — which offer greater capacity and efficiency benefits compared to traditional conductors.

While these advanced grid technologies cannot provide enough capacity to meet long-term system needs, they are relatively inexpensive and drive enormous cost savings until we can bring regional backbone lines into service. Deploying GETs and HPCs in the near term to help meet projected demand growth while simultaneously planning and constructing new regional and interregional transmission lines is key to ensuring the delivery of reliable, low-cost power across the Midwest.

MISO, the central U.S. grid operator, is considering a second portfolio of transmission projects aimed at creating a regional backbone of long-distance lines that will enable power to flow across the Upper and Central Midwest. These transmission lines will build upon investments made in the first tranche of projects, approved by the grid operator in 2022, which began to lay the groundwork for an evolution of the system.

The second batch of potential projects aims to “reliably and efficiently enable MISO member goals and load growth,” delivering benefits that significantly outweigh costs. Across much of the current system, MISO found that at least 10% of facilities are overloaded and annual curtailments exceed 15%, meaning available generators are forced offline because there is not enough grid capacity to carry their power.

MISO will also soon consider transmission projects for the Southern region of MISO as well as measures to increase the flow of electricity between the MISO regions.  A regional problem requires regional solutions, including well-vetted, long-distance transmission lines.

Additionally, there is a significant need for greater interregional transmission capacity between MISO and its neighbors. The U.S. Department of Energy identified especially high congestion between the Midwest and Plains states. This means there are bottlenecks in the system that hinder the ability to deliver electricity between these areas. As a result, more interregional transmission ties from MISO to the Plains would offer considerable consumer benefits in the form of increased reliability and decreased costs when affordable clean energy can be accessed and transmitted back to MISO members.

Building the grid of the future will require every technology at our disposal. It’s critical that grid operators and state regulators consider and implement all transmission technology tools when planning and building a system that will enhance national security, facilitate regional economic development, and withstand new and growing reliability threats for generations to come.

Commentary: To keep the lights on, the Midwest needs an ‘all of the above’ power grid is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.

The following commentary was written by Daksh Arora, a project engineer at GameChange Solar, content director for the MIT Energy Conference 2025, and a fellow at the Clean Energy Leadership Institute. See our commentary guidelines for more information.

---

States like Massachusetts must take the lead in advancing the United States’ climate goals, especially under the incoming Trump administration. While the Biden Administration’s landmark Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 made significant strides, the U.S. is still on track to achieve only 66% of its greenhouse gas reduction targets by 2030.

With the potential for further setbacks, such as a possible second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, states like Massachusetts must step up to drive the deployment of clean energy and climate solutions.

The “Direct Pay” provision in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is a game-changer for municipalities, state and local governments, and other tax-exempt entities to access federal clean energy tax credits. This provision allows entities such as nonprofits, schools, tribal governments, and municipal utilities to receive tax credits directly from the IRS, rather than relying on tax liability to claim them.

Before the IRA, only private entities could benefit from these credits, putting public entities at a disadvantage in developing clean energy projects. The Direct Pay provision has no cap on government spending through 2032, offering new opportunities for public sector investment in clean energy. Furthermore, IRA also increases the maximum available tax credit for certain clean energy projects, from 30% to 50%, with the potential for up to 70% or more for projects in energy or low-income communities, or those using American-made materials, helping overcome financial barriers that previously slowed public clean energy development.

To claim direct pay, eligible entities must complete their energy projects before receiving payment from the federal government, which will occur the following year. While the tax credits will lower overall project costs, upfront capital is still needed to finance projects before the refund arrives.

To help address this, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a $27 billion program established by another IRA provision, provides increased green bank financing, supporting an equitable green financing ecosystem across the U.S. The IRS just finalized the direct pay rules and it would be really difficult for the next administration to repeal it. 

City governments like in Somerville and Cambridge can use direct pay to supplement the costs of deploying renewable energy infrastructure such as solar panels and storage technologies on public lands and buildings; electrifying vehicle fleets; and building out electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

The cities can also establish their own municipal clean energy utility. In 2024, voters in Ann Arbor approved the creation of a “Sustainable Energy Utility” (SEU) with 79% support. The SEU is designed to supplement the existing energy grid and help residents transition to cleaner, more reliable energy sources. The SEU plans to initially secure 20 megawatts of demand, using that to finance and install solar panels, batteries, and energy-efficiency upgrades for customers. The utility will own and maintain the solar systems, providing power to customers at cost, with no markup, allowing residents to access solar and backup power without upfront costs or debt.

Direct Pay is also a significant shift that allows public power entities, like the New York Power Authority (NYPA), to directly own renewable energy projects instead of relying on complex public-private partnerships. This makes it easier for NYPA to scale up clean energy projects by bypassing the need for third-party ownership structures that were previously required.

While there is an urgent need for funding in renewable energy, infrastructure, and other green initiatives, challenges like high capital costs and slow land acquisition complicate the transition. Some critics argue that financial de-risking may lead to the privatization of public goods and place the private sector in control of the green transition, raising concerns about the fairness of these arrangements. Despite these challenges, the question remains whether private investors can truly finance the world’s vast unmet green infrastructure needs and whether it’s technically possible to overcome the barriers in place. 

Regardless of this question, investing in public capacity is a net win for the environment as direct pay not only levels the playing field between for-profit and tax-exempt entities but also shifts energy generation ownership from private to public and nonprofit sectors, enabling more consumer-focused management of energy assets. States like Massachusetts should ensure that benefits from the IRA reach low-income and marginalized communities.

Massachusetts just streamlined the process for building solar and wind farms, transmission lines, and other energy infrastructure to help meet its climate goals by 2050. The state can do more by working to help communities understand the types of investments eligible for direct pay and how to secure financing for clean energy projects, making access to this funding easier and more efficient. The state can also lead by setting an example by deploying climate solutions at scale and ensuring utilities maximize the federal clean energy tax credits by regulatory oversight.

At the moment, when the state is experiencing a historic drought fueled by climate change, the inaction to expand clean energy infrastructure and advance environmental justice is no longer an option.

Commentary: Trump may struggle to repeal this IRA provision; Massachusetts should use it is an article from Energy News Network, a nonprofit news service covering the clean energy transition. If you would like to support us please make a donation.