The following program is a PBS Wisconsin original production.

predictable is really a court that looks like a legislature.

>> Despite criticism, courtrooms continue to be a check and balance on partisan disputes of power and resolve remains strong, as a Janesville worker strike drags on.

[MUSIC] I'm Frederica Freyberg.

Tonight on "Here& Now", health workers in Janesville reached two months on the picket line heading into Labor Day.

Alzheimer's and dementia research funding continues for now, but the work is still at risk.

Recent rulings from the Wisconsin Supreme Court shuffled the power balance in state government, and a sudden spike in overdoses in La Crosse.

It's "Here& Now" for August 29th.

[MUSIC] >> Funding for "Here& Now" is provided by the Focus Fund for Journalism and Friends of PBS Wisconsin.

>> Leading up to this Labor Day picket lines in Janesville.

That's where more than 130 health care workers are on strike.

In a contract dispute with Mercyhealth.

The workers are members of UAW local 95.

Local 95.

President Judy McRoberts joins us now.

And thanks very much for being here, Judy.

>> So this strike started July 2nd and is now coming into month three.

Why are your members on strike?

>> Well, one of their main concerns is safety.

And the security of of their building and themselves and the patients.

The.

We have an urgent care in this building, and it's open until the evening.

And we've had people out in the parking lot panhandling and asking for rides and so on.

And it's scary for the women who are leaving this, this facility at night.

We've also had some one of our nurses come in for an urgent care shift and went to the break room.

And here's somebody was sitting had was staying in the break room.

And so that we there was no security in the building.

And that's not only unsafe for employees, that's unsafe for our patients.

We've asked for at least security cameras or security cameras, security officers to be in the building to in the morning and at least in the evening to make sure the building is secure and people can get out safely.

>> Why is it proving so hard to settle with Mercyhealth over, over that issue?

>> I have no idea.

But one thing I do want to point out is the first day that we had our pickets set up, our peaceful picketing picket line was that have had no problems whatsoever.

They've had security out there for their people coming in the building and worrying about their building being vandalized, which is pretty sad.

>> Are there issues around pay and benefits as well, or is it most specifically about safety?

>> They did it for for a wage increase.

But the the wage increase that they asked for is barely cost.

The cost of everything that's gone up in our country.

Everybody sees that.

But also they raised their their premiums for their mercy care health insurance, which is their their insurance, Mercy's insurance.

And they raised the rates and with with the, with with the wage increase it barely covers.

We're not asking for anything that's unreasonable.

We're just asking for a fair agreement.

And the last agreement, the last negotiations we had, they actually offered us less than they they offered in the in the initial negotiations, which is a slap in the face.

>> The issues that you're pressing, common concerns among health care workers generally.

>> I believe so.

They've had several issues at the hospitals that people have been unruly.

I mean, what what happens if you're in an urgent care at night and somebody becomes unruly?

I mean, you have nobody there.

You know, most of those people are not equipped to fight off someone who's it's a common thing that security should be, should be, should be in medical facilities everywhere.

>> What about for your striking members?

How are they faring?

As as the weeks go on?

>> They are they are they're concerned, but they're not willing to give up the fight.

We're 95% union facility.

And like I said, we're just looking for a fair agreement.

We're not asking for anything.

Unbelievable.

I mean, we we're talking about a CEO in a nonprofit that is making $13 million a year and has 12 vice presidents that are making $450,000 a year, plus their perks.

That's that's that's horrible.

When you don't want to pay these people a decent living rate where living wage.

>> Judy McRoberts President of local 95.

Thanks very much for joining us.

>> Okay.

Thank you.

>> When asked for comment, Mercyhealth provided their original statement released in late June from Vice President Jeni Hallatt saying, quote, throughout our negotiations with the union, we have always treated our 137 partners at Mercyhealth East in a fair and equitable manner, consistent with our other 8000 plus employee partners.

Unfortunately, the union has rejected our offer as the fall semester is poised to begin.

Wisconsin's major research university, UW-Madison, is grappling with the potential of tens of millions of dollars of cuts to federal funding, most of it cuts to National Institutes of Health research funding.

But the cuts span other disciplines, like money from the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense.

What does this mean for the state's flagship university?

We check in with the senior associate dean for basic research, biotechnology and graduate studies at the UW School of Medicine and Public Health.

John Audia.

Thanks very much for being here.

>> So, all told, what is the hit to federal research funding at UW-Madison as it stands now?

enormous delays in a lot of funds that we were expecting to arrive on campus nationwide.

That amounts to about $5 billion in shortfall in NIH funding to go to research institutions.

We've been fortunate in some senses, in that many of our grants have come through.

However, many more are sitting, waiting where there's an expectation for months.

I personally even went through a period of time where I waited on a grant to be awarded for four months beyond the time that I expected it to start.

This has enormous impacts on our ability to fund our research, to fund our people.

And luckily though, UW-Madison has stood up bridging programs, which have been phenomenal.

So our chancellor, Chancellor Jennifer Mnookin, has just reached out and really enabled us to continue to thrive, even in an era where there's a lot of uncertainty.

uncertainty being felt most acutely?

larger research programs when there's interruptions in funding to our large grants.

This really affects a lot of individuals.

And unfortunately, there has been directives from the National Institutes of Health to remove certain language from the work that we're doing.

Some of the directions that we've been taking historically in really very important areas.

Those types of disruptions lead to really enormous challenges in ensuring that our people are able to stay employed.

We have put a people first mentality.

We want to ensure that the folks that are currently working at the university are able to continue to do so and pursue their lines of research.

that people often focus on when they talk about research at UW-Madison is Alzheimer's and dementia research.

How much federal funding is does that research get and is that at risk?

>> So right now we bring in over $100 million a year in research funding from National Institutes of Health and other federal sources in support of our work directed against Alzheimer's disease, as well as related dementias.

Currently, the grants that we have in that area, the largest ones led by Doctor Sterling Johnson, for example, a grant called clarity, which is hoping to identify biomarkers for dementia.

This grant was funded on time, fully funded.

Our Alzheimer's Disease Research Center, its core grant was funded late but fully funded.

Many other institutions across the nation have not seeing their funds come in when they are expecting them.

We've been fortunate to this point.

However.

coming out of NIH that puts some of this or other research at risk?

>> So there's layers now of additional review that very little.

It's quite opaque to be honest.

We don't actually know who is actually reviewing the grants.

After the point.

The scientific review process is done.

Those additional layers of review that are being led by the administration, whether it's within the HHS, Health and Human Services or at NIH specifically, we really don't understand why they exist, what value, what purpose they serve.

But what they do do is cause delays in those grants being funded, and the money being able to be dispersed to the institution.

>> Is some of it.

They're looking at research that goes to disadvantaged populations.

>> Absolutely.

And as I think many of us know, our disadvantaged populations are often the most impacted by various types of disease.

Alzheimer's disease is no different.

We see that Alzheimer's rates are much higher in groups that are suffering from economic disadvantage, from And when we have to remove language related to those areas, it actually goes against what the science is telling us by studying what's happening in those populations around the state of Wisconsin, our rural populations, our urban populations.

That is absolutely critical for us to be able to meet the needs of everyone across the entire globe, across the entire United States.

>> Are cuts to indirect costs for research operations happening.

>> So far?

They haven't started.

There is sort of this idea that this is coming in the future, and there's huge concern.

We've seen, for example, messaging from the National Science Foundation, from the Department of Defense that are requiring us to put in place smaller amounts of indirect costs, which funds the institution, the actual fabric of the university that allows this research to be done.

Not yet.

We're really worried about where things could go in the future, however.

>> So if some of this research this year was delayed but eventually dispersed, what about next year?

that delta of about $5 billion that hasn't made it out of NIH.

Come the end of the NIH fiscal year, which is the end of September, if those funds aren't likely to be reverted back to Treasury.

So those are dollars that become they were appropriated by Congress but not actually fulfilled.

>> All right.

We leave it there.

Thanks very much.

>> Thank you for hosting me today.

>> In state election news, conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley announced today she will not seek reelection in 2026, saying her work to rebuild the conservative movement is not as a minority member of the court.

Conservatives have lost the last two state Supreme Court elections by double digit margins.

Giving the court a Liberal majority until at least 2028.

In other news, on September 1st, new commercial building codes will go into effect, nearly two years after a legislative committee blocked a rule that would have brought Wisconsin building codes into compliance with international standards.

The rule update was at the center of a Wisconsin Supreme Court case that did more than just change building codes.

Here and now, senior political reporter Zach Schultz explains how this case is part of a series of court decisions that have dramatically shifted the balance of power at the Capitol.

>> Any discussion?

Hearing?

None.

Clerk will call the roll.

>> The Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules is probably not well known by most people outside the Capitol.

>> I've been on the committee the entire time I've been on the legislature.

Adam Neylon, it's one of the most important been the place where Republicans can stop what they view as executive overreach by the administration of Governor Tony Evers.

because the real world impact of administrative rules, people don't necessarily understand that rules have the same impact as law.

>> Administrative rules are proposed by state agencies.

So when the DNR wants to update the standards on how to clean up a hazardous waste spill, or the Department of Safety and Professional Services wants building codes, they have to go through a series of steps, including scope statements and public hearings, and eventually the proposed rule will end up in front of the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules.

>> On behalf of the Department, I respectfully request that this committee extend the expiration date for emergency rule 2502 by 60 days.

>> The committee can request changes, but one of the laws passed during the lame duck session at the end of Governor Scott Walker's term gave JCR the ability to indefinitely block rules.

Both new rules and old rules that have already been in effect for years.

In 2023, the committee blocked an update to the building codes.

>> When they proposed the building code, it went what we believe far above and beyond legislative intent.

>> The committee also blocked a proposed rule that would have banned gay conversion therapy.

>> We're not here specifically to discuss the merits of any conversion therapy or any other type of therapy.

>> Governor Evers filed a lawsuit claiming Jkr's ability to indefinitely veto and unconstitutional.

>> This case is as consequential for the operation of government is.

Maybe I've seen in my time on the court.

>> At oral arguments, conservative Justice Brian Hagedorn seemed to acknowledge the decades old arrangement may not be legal, but so many laws have been passed giving state agencies the power to make new rules.

With the understanding the to make sure they didn't go too far.

Constitution says, but hey, this is how we've been operating for a long time, and the legislature has passed a lot of laws accepting the framework that's been given.

>> Maybe it's not what the Constitution says was the key phrase from Hagedorn.

In a split decision, the Liberal majority struck down Jkr's ability to object and suspend rules.

>> Sanity will reign.

That's what I think.

We've been dealing with this for all the time I've been in office, and that is this committee, mainly the leadership.

We're able to stop everything dead in their tracks and then it things just don't happen.

>> Governor Tony Evers celebrated the decision.

While Republicans like Neylon fear what rules may be coming now that they can't object.

>> What we're seeing now is how much this has expanded executive authority and how The ability to sidestep the legislature and potentially have agency heads create a super legislature where they're able to implement rules with no oversight from the legislature.

>> This isn't the only case in the last term where the Wisconsin Supreme Court has eliminated legislative oversight.

In Evers v Marklein 1, the court ruled 6 to 1.

The Joint Finance Committee couldn't hold up purchases by the Noles.

Nelson Stewardship Fund in Kohl versus legislature, the court ruled seven zero.

The attorney general didn't need JFC approval to settle civil lawsuits.

>> Both at the national level and particularly at Wisconsin.

There is a redefining and shifting of what people thought was the balance of power and what the court is saying is now the balance of power.

>> Former Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Jeanine Gajewski says as the partizan divides grow, the court is being asked to look at the constitutionality of old agreements on how government works.

there's a justification for it, not just the gentleman's agreement or party's agreement.

There has to be a constitutional legal justification, or if not, we're going to redefine it.

>> I think there's been a travesty of justice, honestly, because there has been absolute weakening of legislative oversight.

>> Neylon may not like it, but Democrats say the case was only filed because of what they call the excessive abuse of authority to shut down rules ranging from the DNR, setting safe levels for PFAS contamination, election rules on absentee ballots or the conversion therapy ban.

>> But I don't think the headline should be about conversion therapy.

I think the headline should be we lost legislative oversight because that's what really happened.

>> Gajewski says she was happy so many of the cases cut across the partisan labels on the bench, with conservatives joining with liberals, at least in part an all these cases.

>> I think that's healthy.

I really was glad to see that because I think a court that is totally predictable is really a court that looks like a legislature.

>> The decisions by the court are already having an impact.

Governor Evers cited the stewardship decision when he recently approved raises for state employees passed in the last budget without sending them to the Joint Committee on Employee Relations, as is required by law.

Republicans refused to fund the stewardship Fund in the last budget and are working on a new bill to give them some level of oversight.

Neylon says they were already drafting legislation in a more narrow fashion, to reduce the need for agencies to draft rules.

>> You're already seeing bills be much more prescriptive and not granting rulemaking authority explicitly through legislation.

>> Well, I think that's what happens on decisions that particularly upend what people have been doing.

And I think that what happens is that the the branches get more creative.

>> Neylon says his next bill will attempt to restore some oversight for Jcra in a way both sides can agree on.

>> I think there needs to be some sort of bipartisan agreement, some sort of working together to make sure that we put checks and balances back into our system.

>> Reporting from Madison.

I'm Zach Schultz for "Here& Now".

>> In western Wisconsin, a spike in drug overdoses led the city of La Crosse to issue a safety alert in recent days.

What's going on?

When overdoses were trending down, we asked Doctor Chris Eberlein, emergency medicine Health System.

And, doctor, thanks for being here.

>> Yeah.

You're welcome.

Thanks for having me.

>> So what are the overdose numbers that led to this safety alert?

>> So it's more of a trend.

So we've been watching overdose numbers really closely ever since.

Probably early pandemic time, but only in the last several years have we really coordinated with EMS, both first responders, including fire transport agencies, some other members of the county, Vivek health, some others that respond to overdoses, and starting to pool data and sharing what we're seeing in the community.

So we had noticed, and thankfully so last year we had great numbers.

You know, we're still way too high, but it was like a 60% improvement year over year and overdose deaths and responses.

So really a great trend.

And we're seeing that at the beginning of this year as well.

And we would still go on about 1 to 2 overdose calls a week is what kind of the trend was.

Throughout most of year we get small spikes and we and we meet once a week and we discuss the data and we were just watching it.

We had a few that were like 3 or 4 in a week, but didn't really meet our threshold to make any sort of announcement or, or change our response.

And then over this course of the last couple of weeks, in late July, we were getting over over ten responses in a week.

And so, you know, you're talking you know, that's a five fold increase from what we were used to.

And so that really made us take pause.

And then it happened again in the next week as well.

So so this is why we we figured we'd better get some word out, figure out what we could do as a community to see if there's anything we're missing, and hopefully prevent some people from having a bad outcome.

>> Because you've said that you get concerned when overdose cases begin to increase in quick succession like that.

>> Yes.

>> And that's just a marker for something going on.

>> Yeah.

And usually it is a change in supply change in use pattern.

And so we're really looking at trying to figure out what that is.

We did figure out what this one was.

And it was actually a change in the supply of not opiates.

Actually what we are seeing is that fentanyl was intermixed with other stimulants, primarily cocaine and methamphetamine.

So these users had no idea that they were at risk of an opioid overdose.

>> So do these synthetic opioids combined with other drugs like those of which you speak, render Narcan less effective?

>> They would not.

Narcan would still be very effective for these, and still a critical component in in our response.

>> And so is it known where these drugs are coming from?

Or is this just kind of the beginning of an investigation to understand the scope of this?

>> Yeah.

And unfortunately, we usually at our level don't don't ever get that information of where these are coming from.

You know, that's more of a law enforcement historically.

You know, being in La Crosse, we're between two major metropolitan areas as far as Chicago and Minneapolis.

And so they come from one of those two areas, usually, at least that's what I've been told by law enforcement.

>> So what is your message to people, drug users who might who might be using these substances?

And then suddenly there's fentanyl mixed in.

What is your message?

>> So there's a few things to be aware of.

One, any illegal drug could have fentanyl in it.

You know, it's something that is relatively cheap to produce.

Gets here in large with other drugs.

So I would assume that any drug that you use could have fentanyl in it.

Use fentanyl test strips to test for fentanyl in the drugs.

Those are legal and widely available and then never use alone.

Always have someone there that could call 911 and preferably give Narcan as well as call 911, but you have to have Narcan available, test your drugs and have a sober bystander nearby that could enact help if you need it.

>> How hard is it for you to see this spike and treat people experiencing it, or to lose someone to it?

>> I mean, it's always difficult.

You know, this is something we've been dealing with for years now.

You know, the country has lost hundreds of thousands of people to the opioid epidemic.

I think it's touched just about every family at some point over these last, you know, 15 years or so since it started, no community has gone without impact.

And so when you see the spikes like this, you really want to try and get, because sometimes I feel that we can get a little bit complacent, especially when things are going well.

And that was one of my concerns with this.

You know, the the overdoses have gone down.

I just want to make sure, as you know, our whole team wanted to make sure that everyone was aware that it is still dangerous.

And ideally, you know, we could get them to stop and get help.

But this is the first step.

You have to be alive to be able to do that.

And this is the step to do so well.

>> Doctor Chris Eberlein, thanks very much.

>> Very welcome.

>> For more on this and other issues facing Wisconsin, visit our website at PBS Wisconsin.

Org and then click on the news tab.

That's our program for tonight I'm Frederica Freyberg.

Have a good weekend.

[MUSIC] .

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