Local Childcare owner rallies for funding before traveling to Madison
Amid concerns over the consequences of the loss of Childcare Counts funding, Julia Bennker of Ms. Julia's Schoolia organized a local rally and press conference before heading out to Madison to participate in Tuesday's larger rally at the state capitol.
'[The center has] been licensed for just over a year,' Bennker said. 'It started as a play group when I was in Colorado seven years ago.'
Bennker said said that American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding helped her with all of her start-up costs.
'That program isn't around anymore,' she said. 'I started really lucky. I got involved in child care advocacy in a meaningful way in October. Now that I own a business, it is very clear to me what role I can play in advocacy work.'
While the 'Day Without Child Care' is four years old, this year's comes less than a week after the Wisconsin Joint Finance Committee voted to remove Gov. Tony Ever's proposed funding for the Child Care Counts program from the state budget. This removes about $480 million, though those at the rally were still hopeful there was time to change this.
This proposal was meant to supplement the loss of federal funding for the Child Care Counts program. The funding is set to expire at the end of June, with the last payments to centers coming in July.
According to a report released in March by the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, a quarter of childcare businesses in Wisconsin are at risk of closure without an extension of the Childcare Counts funding. Closures in rural areas are currently estimated to be around 35 percent.
Attending the rally and press conference at Bennker's center were Senator Jeff Smith (D), Representative Jodi Emerson (D), Representative Christian Phelps (D), Chris Hambuch-Boyle of the Wisconsin Public Education Network, and Eau Claire City Council members Nate Otto and Jessica Schoen.
'We, as a society, need to treat childcare with the same respect we treat any education at all,' Smith said. 'Ninety percent of brain development occurs between birth and six-years-old. Why would we not treat that period of time in a person's life as valuable as we do the rest of their educational process to prepare them for life? And yet the average pay for someone doing that work is $13 an hour.'
Smith emphasized that the Child Care Counts program is not enough, but that losing it will have detrimental effects on families in terms of access and cost.
Emerson expressed similar sentiments.
'Childcare workers are the workforce of the workforce,' she said. 'Think about all the people that you work with who have kids at home. How many of them would not be able to show up at the office or [would need to] work virtually without these childcare providers.'
Emerson mentioned that 60 percent of her daughter's take-home pay goes to providing childcare for just one child.
'Every place in the workforce is looking for workers right now and so this is what we can do,' Emerson said. 'We know that the childcare workers, the educators are drastically underpaid, but we can't keep on putting that on the backs of young families. Look at what young families are going through right now. Housing costs are skyrocketing. College costs are skyrocketing. They're paying off their student loans and then they're paying 60 percent of their weekly wages to a childcare provider.'
In addition to several planning to drive out to Madison today, several who attended the rally were also aiming to speak at Monday night's City Council meeting where City Council members Otto and Schoen would be introducing a resolution to support the governor's $480 million funding for early childhood education.
'We want to send a message to the legislature that our community supports investment in early childhood education,' Otto said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC Sports
a day ago
- NBC Sports
DeMaurice Smith would not have hidden the collusion ruling
The most stunning, and underreported, development of the summer came from the news that the NFL and the NFL Players Association hid for more than five months the 61-page ruling in a collusion grievance regarding fully-guaranteed player contracts. The NFL won, but the NFLPA secured a finding of an attempt to collude — along with persuasive evidence of actual collusion and the right to appeal the case. The union should have used the document as the basis for a legal, political, and P.R. assault on the NFL. Former NFLPA executive director Lloyd Howell didn't do that. Former NFLPA chief strategy officer JC Tretter insists he was excluded from the development of the strategy to conceal the ruling. Appearing earlier this week on #PFTPM to promote his new book, Turf Wars, former NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith was asked what he would have done if the collusion case that had started during his tenure had been resolved while he was still on the job. 'I always try to avoid speculating or putting other people in a box based on what I would do,' Smith said, 'but, you know, given a finding that the Management Council, which literally runs and controls the entire National Football League, had urged teams to avoid fully guaranteed contracts, I think I would have — well, actually, I know — I would have filed another grievance based on that finding, looked to see if there was a class of players that, based on that finding, could have been negatively impacted by that decision by the Management Council, and certainly would have appealed anything in the ruling that I had thought, or we thought, was inconsistent with the law or inconsistent with the facts.' In other words, he wouldn't have struck a confidential deal with the league to keep the outcome just as confidential. 'You take the evidence that you have, and we had evidence that gave us a basis for filing, and you take the next step,' Smith said. 'And again, I know and you know that while I was the executive director, there were always a few people who wanted to throw out the tagline that 'De Smith would rather litigate than negotiate.' You know, that was never true, but I was also never ignorant — willfully ignorant — of the history of not only this player's union, but the history of every player's union that ever existed. 'You don't have to go far, but if you don't understand the role of Oscar Robertson and if you don't understand the role of John Mackie and if you don't understand the role or the importance of Bill Radovich and if you certainly don't understand how important Curt Flood was to the business of sport, if you are willfully ignorant of the stories of collusion and the fights for free agency in the history of sports unions, I don't think that you can be qualified for that job. If you do understand the role of those people over history, you understand that you have an obligation to pay it forward. And that would have been an easy decision for me.' While Smith never mentioned Howell, the message is inescapable. Howell had no union history. By all appearances, he lacked any basic understanding of the role of a sports union in ensuring a proper balance between management and labor. That's why people should care about the current chaos within the union. If things get too far out of balance, problems can arise. Up to and including a work stoppage aimed at restoring the right balance. As to the collusion case, the NFLPA caught the NFL with its hand in the cookie jar. Howell opted to look the other way and to say, basically, 'Enjoy the cookies.' That fact alone proves that Howell was not qualified for the job he held for more than two years.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Oregon Government Ethics Commission opens third investigation in 2025 for state lawmaker
The Oregon Government Ethics Commission on Aug. 8 launched an investigation into whether state Rep. Greg Smith, R-Heppner, violated state law regarding the reporting of income sources, marking the third probe into potential violations by Smith in recent months. The commission voted unanimously to open an investigation into whether Smith violated state laws when he failed to disclose income from the Morrow Development Corporation in his 2024 and 2025 Statements of Economic Interest. Smith did not appear or speak during the meeting and did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has been a representative of Oregon's House District 57 since 2001. The district includes Umatilla, Morrow, Gilliam, Sherman, Wheeler, Wasco, Jefferson, Marion and Clackamas counties. State Rep. Greg Smith failed to disclose client, preliminary review says Public officials must list in their annual disclosure statements the name, principal address and a brief description of any source of income that accounts for 10% or more of their household's total annual income. As of 2024, they are also required to list additional information about sources of income for listed businesses. They are required to list clients who contribute 10% or more of the business's gross annual income and have a legislative or administrative interest in the public body that the public official serves. A complaint alleged that Smith's income from the Morrow Development Corporation meets the criteria and should have been reported. According to the preliminary review report, Smith confirmed MDC does contribute more than 10% of income for Gregory Smith & Company, LLC, which is focused on business development. The report added that because the Morrow Development Corporation is registered to do and does business in Oregon, it appears to have a legislative or administrative interest in the Legislature. The investigator said Smith contended, however, that he had called OGEC for advice this year regarding whether he needed to report the income from MDC. The investigator said the call included "a couple" of different topics related to the SEI filing and that she could not recall if Smith inquired specifically about MDC. "Still, due to the failure to disclose Morrow Development Corporation on both his 2024 and 2025 SCI, there is a substantial objective basis to believe that Representative Smith failed to report a client that constitutes 10% or more of his business's income and has a legislative or administrative interest," investigator Casey Fenstermaker said. Both filings have been amended to include MDC as of Aug. 8. OGEC opened investigations into state Rep. Greg Smith earlier in 2025 The Aug. 8 vote is not the first time the ethics commission has taken action related to Smith in 2025. On June 13, the commission opened an investigation into Smith's role as executive director of the Columbia Development Authority. Commissioners are investigating whether Smith improperly used his position when he received a pay raise from $129,000 to $195,000 and failed to disclose an apparent conflict of interest in the process. The pay raise was later reversed, according to reporting from the Malheur Enterprise. Smith also received a letter of education in lieu of a financial penalty in March for another investigation the commission had opened on Jan. 24. The commission investigated Smith's failure to list Harney County as a source of income for his business, even though Harney County contributed more than 10% of the business' gross annual income and has a legislative or administrative interest in his decisions or votes as a representative. The actions described constitute one violation of state ethics law, the commission's final order said. In addition to the ethics cases, Smith is also a defendant in a $6.9 million lawsuit filed in July by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield against a group of Morrow County officials. The lawsuit alleges eight officials, including Smith, abused their positions as board members of a nonprofit named Inland Development Corp. when it sold a for-profit subsidiary, Windwave Communications, to themselves. The lawsuit claims Windwave was valued at $9.5 million but was purchased for $2.6 million. "These were people in power who knew that Windwave was about to explode in value—and instead of protecting the public's interest, they cashed in," said Rayfield in a July 15 press release. Dianne Lugo covers the Oregon Legislature and equity issues. Reach her at dlugo@ or on X @DianneLugo. This article originally appeared on Salem Statesman Journal: Oregon Government Ethics Commission investigating Rep. Greg Smith Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
2 days ago
- Boston Globe
RI federal judge blocks Trump administration's restrictions on grants from Office on Violence Against Women
Advertisement A group of 17 state coalitions, led by the Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, filed a lawsuit in June in US District Court in Rhode Island against US Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the Department of Justice, and the acting director of the Office on Violence Against Women. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up They argued that the restrictions were unlawful and that the administration had overstepped its authority and violated the statutory requirements in the After hearing arguments on July 29, US District Court Judge William E. Smith issued his decision Friday, siding with the Coalition that the restrictions ran afoul of the prohibition against 'arbitrary and capricious' actions by the federal agency. Advertisement Smith decided that the coalition was likely to succeed in its lawsuit finding that the new restrictions violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law that governs how agencies develop regulations. He wrote that he found that the federal Office's decision to impose those conditions was 'in such a vague and haphazard manner to be arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion.' Smith criticized the process that the Office used as 'wholly under-reasoned and arbitrary.' He noted that the federal office provided 'a single declaration' from a supervisory official as the basis for its decisions. The judge was unimpressed. He wrote that the office couldn't 'plausibly claim' that it examined any relevant data and that it 'completely failed to consider' the impacts of its decisions. Smith also looked at the coalitions' fears and confusion over what the changes in the grants would mean for their work. For one thing, many who provide services to victims who are transgender questioned whether they would be permitted to provide the same quality of services — even using their preferred pronouns and training staff on serving people who are transgender or binary. And some also feared they wouldn't be able to give victims of sexual assault and domestic violence any options other than reaching out to law enforcement, which not all victims are prepared to do. Smith wrote that the coalitions were faced with a difficult choice: If they accepted the grants with the new conditions, it would require them to guess what 'formerly unobjectionable activities' were now not allowed, and therefore risk prosecution under the False Claims Act. Without the money, though, the organizations couldn't do their work. Advertisement The coalitions applauded the judge's order. 'This order is a critical step toward protecting survivors and ensuring that communities across the country can continue to provide the services Congress mandated,' the Coalition said in a statement. 'The administration's attempt to politicize essential funding that supports survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault was not just unlawful, it was cruel. We will continue to be alongside survivors in fighting for justice and accountability.' The Violence Against Women Act, which passed in 1994, specifically addressed concerns about incidents of violent crimes against women such as domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, and dating violence. In May, the office issued new restrictions on the grants, with a list of new categories that the money couldn't be used for. Those included: to promote or facilitate 'the violation of federal immigrations law,' promote 'gender ideology,' promote 'discriminatory programs or ideology' including 'illegal ... diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility' programs, and also any activities that 'frame domestic violence or sexual assault as systemic social justice issues rather than criminal offenses.' In June, the office required all grant applicants to submit a letter certifying the grants wouldn't be used for those out-of-scope activities. It also required that all award recipients certify that they do not 'operate any programs (including any such programs having components relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion) that violate any applicable federal civil rights or nondiscrimination laws.' The Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which includes 10 member agencies, has an annual budget is about $5.3 million, with about $1 million in grants from the Office on Violence Against Women. The other groups in the lawsuit include: the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault, DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence, End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Idaho Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Jane Doe Inc. (the Massachusetts Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence), Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Oregon Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, ValorUS, Violence Free Minnesota, Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, and the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Advertisement Amanda Milkovits can be reached at
