Eau Claire Leader-Telegram. May 4, 2022.
Editorial: Turn, turn, turn
Wisconsin’s next legislative session doesn’t have many guarantees, but there is one thing that is becoming very clear: there are going to be a lot of new faces.
A quarter of the state’s 118 lawmakers are up for reelection. Most are indeed running. But 23 members of the Assembly — 13 Republicans and 10 Democrats — are opting out. That’s almost a quarter of the full body.
The Wisconsin Senate is seeing a similar percentage decide against seeking reelection. Four Republicans and three Democrats, 21 percent of the chamber, are leaving.
This has happened before, but it’s rare. In 2014 a total of 30 members left their seats. That’s the same total as this year currently has. But it’s near the top. The Legislative Reference Bureau’s records date back to 1940, and only two years since then top 2022’s tally. Thirty-one legislators moved on in 1954. The record of 32 dates to 1942, the year after Pearl Harbor.
The fact this year is above average for legislative turnover isn’t a surprise. Years involving redistricting often see higher numbers of legislators retire or seek other offices. The volume, though, is considerably higher than normal.
Turnover in Madison isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. This nation was never meant to have a semi-permanent cadre of professional politicians. While those who founded this nation had their flaws, they also had the great merit of knowing when to step aside. The vast majority served their time and went back to private life, and there’s no reason to infer that’s anything but how they believed it should be.
That model still largely holds true for local government across our country. And turnover at the state level is also fairly consistent. There are surges and ebbs in the numbers but, generally speaking, you’ll see a fair number of new faces in a state’s legislature over the course of a decade or so.
The federal government? Well, that’s usually a different story. The number of states that design truly competitive districts for their federal representatives is vanishingly small. Most give in to the temptation to create unassailable districts that guarantee one party or another holds the district. And, once that’s done, many of those elected to Congress give in to the temptation to seek reelection for decades.
Turnover in government is a double-edged sword. There are unquestionable gains. Few people genuinely like career politicians. And the introduction of new members often means a concurrent introduction of new ideas and energy. Sometimes breaking a deadlock requires thinking about the issues in new ways, and new members are often better suited to doing that than people who have held their seats for a generation.
The flip side is that there is an undeniable level of expertise that builds as members hold office year after year. They understand how procedures work and how to use them effectively. They’re able to build relationships with others in government. They even, on occasion, do so with those on the other side of the aisle. The familiarity can pay dividends both for the legislator and for the people that individual represents.
Our preference would be for voluntary turnover in government, a pattern in which legislators serve a few terms then return to private life. The mechanisms that would guarantee turnover, things like laws setting term limits, generally have one key element working against them. Passing such legislation requires the legislators to vote against their own self-interest. Such an event isn’t impossible, but we’re not holding our breath for it to happen.
But another mechanism that can offer a good chance at turnover is far from impossible, and we’ve written about it before. Take the redistricting process out of the politicians’ hands and place it in those of a nonpartisan body.
There are good models to work from. Iowa may not be able to do a presidential nominating process very well, but its redistricting results in routinely competitive contests. And a handful of other states have similarly effective measures in place.
Wisconsin’s Legislature will look very different during its next regular session. It’s a shame the state’s redistricting process probably won’t.
___
Racine Journal Times. May 2, 2022.
Editorial: What’s the big buzz over No Mow May?
While winter’s chill is lingering too long over southeastern Wisconsin, warmer days are soon to come and the roar of lawnmowers will return.
But not in some communities.
The big buzz this Spring has been over an initiative called “No Mow May”, an effort to provide a food source for bees and other insects by keeping the lawn mowers in the garage until June so that dandelions, violets, clover and creeping Charlie can flower and help out the declining populations of bees in the country – bees which are essential to pollinate many agricultural crops in the U.S.
Surprisingly, at least to us, the No Mow May initiative has gotten a sign-on from more than 20 communities across Wisconsin, according to a recent story in the Appleton Post-Crescent. Appleton was the original No Mow city three years ago.
This year Green Bay, Oshkosh, Stevens Point, Wausau, Greenfield, Sun Prairie, Fort Atkinson, Superior, La Crosse and 10 other state communities are on the bee-friendly list.
And we have no doubt that soon one or another Racine County community will give it a try.
Under the bee-helping plan, communities suspend enforcement of their grass cutting ordinances until June 1. While it varies by community, many municipalities have ordinances restricting the length of grass to eight inches on residential and commercial properties.
If there is a complaint, the municipality usually notifies the owner and if the lawn is not mowed it can result in a fine. In some cases there is still no compliance, the municipality will send a crew out to mow the person’s lawn and then bill for it.
We know that the bee populations in the U.S. have seen some huge declines in recent years and they are important to agriculture – the production of crops that depend on pollinators generates an estimated $50 billion each year. Commercial honeybee operations which move bee colonies from one site to another pollinate $15 billion worth of crops in the U.S. each year.
So, yes, bees are important to all of us. Here in Wisconsin the apple crop and cherry crop especially are dependent on working bees.
A leading advocate for the No Mow May initiative, Del Toro, an assistant biology professor at Lawrence University, told the Post-Crescent, the increase in community participation was “outstanding.”
“I’m happy to see that a lot of suburbs around major cities like Milwaukee and Madison are starting to pick it up. Hopefully in future years , the larger cities will jump on board when they see the success in the surrounding communities.”
Initial samplings and comparisons of mowed and un-mowed areas in Appleton the first year showed a fivefold increase in bee abundance and a tripling of bee diversity.
Del Toro said preliminary results from other samplings suggest somewhere between a seven and tenfold increase in insect abundances. “That’s a good thing because insects are the basis of a lot of the food web.”
That may also be a bit of the rub – a tenfold increase in “insect abundances” may well have some residents reaching for a can of Raid or Off! And we’re sure sufferers from pollen allergies are not going to welcome a big bump in flowering grasses and clover.
But our biggest worry over this bee-friendly effort is that it might aggravate conflicts among neighbors – pitting those with pristine, well-manicured lawns against those with a bumper crop of dandelions and creeping Charlie that show no deference to property lines. A trashy looking yard can trigger some real neighborly resentment.
That could be an issue, so we would urge municipalities in our area to go a little slow before jumping headfirst into “No Mow May.”
___
Wisconsin State Journal. May 2, 2022.
Editorial: Yes to endorsement deals, pay for grades, NCAA enforcement
Star athletes at UW-Madison are finally getting a piece of the enormous revenue surrounding Badgers sports, especially men’s basketball and football.
That’s only fair.
Other players with lower profiles deserve greater financial incentives, too. We love the idea, floated by the chancellor earlier this month, of offering student athletes cash awards for good grades. That will help continue Wisconsin’s strong reputation for graduating most of its players in all of its sports.
Anyone who drives the Beltline in Madison has seen a giant sign of college sports’ improving financial fairness. All-American and Big Ten Player of the Year Johnny Davis hawks soda on a billboard in his Wisconsin basketball uniform. “Game on, Badgers,” the advertisement reads. Davis appears on a second billboard with his teammate and brother, Jordan. The two have another endorsement deal with Kenosha-based apparel company Jockey International.
The NCAA started allowing players to monetize their name, image and likeness (NIL) last summer, and so far it seems to be working in Wisconsin. According to State Journal sports reporter Colten Bartholomew’s article last week “Different approach to the NIL,” several top Badgers have generated six-figure revenue, while others have earned tens of thousands of dollars through NIL deals.
It’s about time, given the huge impact these star players have in filling seats at games and drawing national television audiences. The Big Ten’s television contract is expected to top $1 billion annually by 2023.
Unfortunately, Congress has failed to set uniform rules on NIL, leaving a patchwork of state laws and practices. As Bartholomew reported, even the most basic rules on NIL are being violated by other programs, with no enforcement so far. That needs to change to protect the integrity of college sports, which help promote enthusiasm for higher education.
Wisconsin athletic director Chris McIntosh is wise to resist the temptation to dangle NIL payouts in front of coveted recruits. That’s ripe for abuse. NIL should be a limited way to provide more fairness to high-impact athletes, not a corrupting influence that turns college sports into professional leagues with million-dollar bidding wars.
Wisconsin also should do more for the vast majority of players on all of its varsity teams who will never turn pro. It takes a full team, after all, to compete and gain national attention. And successful sports team help recruit non-athletes to apply for admission, bolstering academic programs. Unlike most students, college athletes often risk injury by competing and don’t have time for off-campus jobs because they’re so busy training.
Pay for grades is the answer. As outlined by UW-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank, college athletes soon could collect nearly $6,000 per year for academic success such as good grades. UW appears to have plenty of money to cover such an expense, given the inflated salaries it showers on its coaches.
Many college athletes already get free room and board, tuition, health insurance and tutors. That’s substantial. But providing greater incentive for academic success would help ensure the “student” part of student athletes remains the priority. To its credit, Wisconsin already requires tougher admissions policies than a lot of its sports rivals.
We also like Blank’s idea of disqualifying athletic programs across the country that aren’t graduating their student athletes at a solid rate. If they’re not really students, they don’t belong at universities.
Academics are more important than sports. Wisconsin needs to keep it that way, while being fair to all of its athletes who dedicate so much time and energy into making Wisconsin successful on and off the field.
