Latest news with #Nedweski
Associated Press
11-03-2025
- Business
- Associated Press
Wisconsin's DOGE-inspired effort gets off to more collegial start
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin's version of the Elon Musk-led effort charged with making government run more efficiently struck a more collegial, bipartisan tone in its first meeting Tuesday, taking input from Democrats and hearing testimony from a broad array of government leaders. Wisconsin is one of several states that have sought to mimic the work of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, run by billionaire Musk at the federal level. Others that have created similar groups include Florida, Oklahoma, Iowa, Missouri, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana and New Hampshire. The Wisconsin Assembly's GOAT committee, which stands for Government Operations, Accountability and Transparency, is much more constrained in its mandate and powers than DOGE, which has broad authority given to it by President Donald Trump. The Wisconsin committee was created by Republican Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, but three of its nine members are Democrats. There is no counterpart in the state Senate, which means any of its recommendations may face difficulty clearing both houses of the Legislature. And the committee can't unilaterally fire state workers or slash government spending. Broad actions like that require action by the full Legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, in addition to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers. Evers has broken records for vetoing Republican-sponsored bills, making it highly unlikely he would go along with anything significant the GOAT committee may recommend. Still, as a committee of the Legislature, it was able to solicit testimony Tuesday from numerous agency heads in Evers' administration at its first meeting Tuesday. University of Wisconsin President Jay Rothman and Bob Atwell, the founder of Nicolet National Bank, also testified. Republican Rep. Amanda Nedweski, chair of the committee, said the goal was to address 'strong demand from the public' about what is happening with telework, state office use, whether public workers are being held accountable, what cybersecurity is in place and whether there is a cost savings. Nedweski even cut off fellow Republican and committee vice chair Rep. Shae Sortwell when he began asking questions of a state education department official about spending related to DEI. 'We're going to stay on topic today,' Nedweski said. Sortwell sent numerous requests seeking information to the state's largest cities and all 72 counties related to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in local governments across the state before the committee met, drawing criticism from Democratic members of the committee. Wisconsin Watch was the first to report on Sortwell's efforts. Vos, the Assembly speaker who created the GOAT committee, has said that its goal was to root out waste, fraud and abuse in state government. He attributed Sortwell's inquiries to information gathering related to that goal. DOGE claims credit for saving more than $100 billion at the federal level through mass firings, cancellations of contracts and grants, office closures and other cuts that have paralyzed entire agencies. Many of those claimed savings have turned out to be overstated or unproven.
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What to know about the 'inseminated person' language in Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers' budget
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers' state budget proposal is under fire from Republicans nationwide over a provision that would change language in some areas of state law related to same-sex couples and the process of having a baby through in vitro fertilization by replacing words like "mother" and "father." Evers proposes to swap out "husband" and "wife" for "spouse." In areas of state law related to legal rights to children that couples choose to have through in vitro fertilization, sperm donors or surrogates, Evers proposes replacing "woman," "mother" and "wife" with versions of "person who is inseminated," or "inseminated person." Here's what to know: The Democratic governor has included the changes in two previous budget proposals. They were removed by Republicans who control the state Legislature and budget-writing process in 2021 and 2023 without public discussion. This year, however, state lawmakers and Republicans nationwide have leveled sharp criticism at Evers over the proposal, specifically for swapping out "mother" for "inseminated person." Rep. Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, was the first to point out the changes, calling the proposal insulting to mothers. "It is not only deeply offensive, but it is an outright attack on the very essence of motherhood," Nedweski said in a statement released Friday. "It is unconscionable that the Governor has the audacity to take the most beautiful, life-giving act a woman can perform — bringing children into this world — and turn it into nothing more than gender-neutral, virtue-signaling jargon to appease his far-left base.' 'Governor Evers is a former science teacher,' Nedweski said. 'It appears to me that he needs a refresher on basic biology. Last I checked, only one gender is capable of giving birth — women. Anyone who says otherwise is denying science.' Since Nedweski's comments on Friday, the proposals have received criticism from Republicans across the country. "Hi Mom, I mean 'inseminated person'. This is crazy!!" Elon Musk, owner of Tesla, X and SpaceX and a leader of the Department of Government Efficiency under President Donald Trump, said in a post Tuesday that was reposted about 42,000 times. "Imagine opening a card on Mother's Day with the message, "Happy Inseminated Person's Day," Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina posted Wednesday on X. "As a woman currently going through IVF I can think of countless ways I'd rather be referred to than 'inseminated person,'" Alyssa Farah Griffin, co-host of "The View," posted Monday. On Tuesday, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos blasted the provisions and dismissed the idea that statutes needed to change to address situations involving fertility treatments for same-sex couples, signaling they would again be removed from the spending plan. "It's really one of those times where you have an answer to a problem that nobody agrees exists," Vos said. "It's really made Wisconsin a national embarrassment." Evers defended the provisions in an appearance Monday in Wausau, saying they are meant to provide legal clarity for same-sex couples in the process of creating or growing families through IVF. "What we want is legal certainty that moms are able to get the care they need," Evers said, according to WSAW. "That's it. End of story." A spokeswoman for Evers said Republicans are lying about what the changes do. "These are more lies, disinformation, and conspiracy theories from Republicans, Elon Musk, and right-wing extremists who are trying to politicize providing legal parental rights and certainty under the law for parents using IVF," Evers spokeswoman Britt Cudaback said in a statement. "Republicans are lying about the governor and budget language that's identical to a Republican-backed bill, has nothing to do with what parents call themselves or what kids call their parents, does not eliminate 'mother' and 'father' from state law, and is about ensuring full legal rights for parents under the law. Full stop." According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau, the proposal "recognizes same-sex marriage by making references in the statutes to spouses gender-neutral, with the intent of harmonizing the Wisconsin Statutes with the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges ... which recognizes that same-sex couples have a fundamental constitutional right to marriage.""The bill makes applicable to married persons of the same sex allprovisions under current law that apply to married persons of different sexes," the analysis said. "... the bill specifies ways in which married couples of the same sex may be the legal parents of a child and, with some exceptions, makes current references in the statutes to 'mother' and 'father,' and related terms, gender-neutral." The proposed changes would help codify a 2016 federal court ruling requiring the state to put the names of same-sex parents on the birth certificates of their children, according to Madison-based attorney Theresa Roetter, who specializes in legal issues related to creating families. The case involved a same-sex couple, Chelsea and Jessamy Torres, who were married in New York in 2012. Same-sex marriage became legal in Wisconsin in 2014. In March 2015, Chelsea gave birth in Madison to the couple's son. They filled out paperwork at the hospital in Madison but claimed the state health agency would not supply an accurate certificate with both Chelsea and Jessamy listed as the parents. Their federal lawsuit pointed out that DHS issued birth certificates to children of opposite-sex couples without regard to how the child was conceived or whether both spouses were the biological parents because Wisconsin law presumes the spouse of a woman who gives birth is the father. According to drafting files related to the 2021-23 state budget bill, Evers officials included in that spending plan language from a 2019 bill that ultimately did not go anywhere. It was supported by a group of Democratic lawmakers, including Senate and Assembly minority leaders Dianne Hesselbein of Middleton and Greta Neubauer of Racine, and two Republicans: Reps. Joel Kitchens of Sturgeon Bay and Todd Novak of Dodgeville. The bill did not receive a public hearing or floor vote. Roetter said the state statute under scrutiny was first created in 1979 to accommodate sperm donation. "It needs to be updated for all families who need to use assisted reproduction to become parents," Roetter said, including for same-sex couples, heterosexual couples, couples using an egg donor or donated embryos, or for a person who wants to become a single mother or single father using donated eggs, embryos or sperm. "I know that some people feel like this is an ideological, right-left sort of issue, but I will tell you my clients are all across the board politically," Roetter said. Roetter said she would not have used "inseminated person" to make the changes she said are needed because it only accounts for sperm donation and suggested "intended parent" as a substitute. "(The statute) only talks about somebody who's receiving donated sperm, not (donated eggs) or embryos. So, updates are definitely needed. I just wouldn't have used the word 'inseminated person.'" This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: What to know about 'inseminated person' language in Tony Evers' budget
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What to know about the 'inseminated person' language in Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers' budget
Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers' state budget proposal is under fire from Republicans nationwide over a provision that would change language in some areas of state law related to same-sex couples and the process of having a baby through in vitro fertilization by replacing words like "mother" and "father." Evers proposes to swap out "husband" and "wife" for "spouse." In areas of state law related to legal rights to children that couples choose to have through in vitro fertilization, sperm donors or surrogates, Evers proposes replacing "woman," "mother" and "wife" with versions of "person who is inseminated," or "inseminated person." Here's what to know: The Democratic governor has included the changes in two previous budget proposals. They were removed by Republicans who control the state Legislature and budget-writing process in 2021 and 2023 without public discussion. This year, however, state lawmakers and Republicans nationwide have leveled sharp criticism at Evers over the proposal, specifically for swapping out "mother" for "inseminated person." Rep. Amanda Nedweski, R-Pleasant Prairie, was the first to point out the changes, calling the proposal insulting to mothers. "It is not only deeply offensive, but it is an outright attack on the very essence of motherhood," Nedweski said in a statement released Friday. "It is unconscionable that the Governor has the audacity to take the most beautiful, life-giving act a woman can perform — bringing children into this world — and turn it into nothing more than gender-neutral, virtue-signaling jargon to appease his far-left base.' 'Governor Evers is a former science teacher,' Nedweski said. 'It appears to me that he needs a refresher on basic biology. Last I checked, only one gender is capable of giving birth — women. Anyone who says otherwise is denying science.' Since Nedweski's comments on Friday, the proposals have received criticism from Republicans across the country. "Hi Mom, I mean 'inseminated person'. This is crazy!!" Elon Musk, owner of Tesla, X and SpaceX and a leader of the Department of Government Efficiency under President Donald Trump, said in a post Tuesday that was reposted about 42,000 times. "Imagine opening a card on Mother's Day with the message, "Happy Inseminated Person's Day," Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina posted Wednesday on X. "As a woman currently going through IVF I can think of countless ways I'd rather be referred to than 'inseminated person,'" Alyssa Farah Griffin, co-host of "The View," posted Monday. On Tuesday, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos blasted the provisions and dismissed the idea that statutes needed to change to address situations involving fertility treatments for same-sex couples, signaling they would again be removed from the spending plan. "It's really one of those times where you have an answer to a problem that nobody agrees exists," Vos said. "It's really made Wisconsin a national embarrassment." Evers defended the provisions in an appearance Monday in Wausau, saying they are meant to provide legal clarity for same-sex couples in the process of creating or growing families through IVF. "What we want is legal certainty that moms are able to get the care they need," Evers said, according to WSAW. "That's it. End of story." A spokeswoman for Evers said Republicans are lying about what the changes do. "These are more lies, disinformation, and conspiracy theories from Republicans, Elon Musk, and right-wing extremists who are trying to politicize providing legal parental rights and certainty under the law for parents using IVF," Evers spokeswoman Britt Cudaback said in a statement. "Republicans are lying about the governor and budget language that's identical to a Republican-backed bill, has nothing to do with what parents call themselves or what kids call their parents, does not eliminate 'mother' and 'father' from state law, and is about ensuring full legal rights for parents under the law. Full stop." According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau, the proposal "recognizes same-sex marriage by making references in the statutes to spouses gender-neutral, with the intent of harmonizing the Wisconsin Statutes with the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges ... which recognizes that same-sex couples have a fundamental constitutional right to marriage.""The bill makes applicable to married persons of the same sex allprovisions under current law that apply to married persons of different sexes," the analysis said. "... the bill specifies ways in which married couples of the same sex may be the legal parents of a child and, with some exceptions, makes current references in the statutes to 'mother' and 'father,' and related terms, gender-neutral." The proposed changes would help codify a 2016 federal court ruling requiring the state to put the names of same-sex parents on the birth certificates of their children, according to Madison-based attorney Theresa Roetter, who specializes in legal issues related to creating families. The case involved a same-sex couple, Chelsea and Jessamy Torres, who were married in New York in 2012. Same-sex marriage became legal in Wisconsin in 2014. In March 2015, Chelsea gave birth in Madison to the couple's son. They filled out paperwork at the hospital in Madison but claimed the state health agency would not supply an accurate certificate with both Chelsea and Jessamy listed as the parents. Their federal lawsuit pointed out that DHS issued birth certificates to children of opposite-sex couples without regard to how the child was conceived or whether both spouses were the biological parents because Wisconsin law presumes the spouse of a woman who gives birth is the father. According to drafting files related to the 2021-23 state budget bill, Evers officials included in that spending plan language from a 2019 bill that ultimately did not go anywhere. It was supported by a group of Democratic lawmakers, including Senate and Assembly minority leaders Dianne Hesselbein of Middleton and Greta Neubauer of Racine, and two Republicans: Reps. Joel Kitchens of Sturgeon Bay and Todd Novak of Dodgeville. The bill did not receive a public hearing or floor vote. Roetter said the state statute under scrutiny was first created in 1979 to accommodate sperm donation. "It needs to be updated for all families who need to use assisted reproduction to become parents," Roetter said, including for same-sex couples, heterosexual couples, couples using an egg donor or donated embryos, or for a person who wants to become a single mother or single father using donated eggs, embryos or sperm. "I know that some people feel like this is an ideological, right-left sort of issue, but I will tell you my clients are all across the board politically," Roetter said. Roetter said she would not have used "inseminated person" to make the changes she said are needed because it only accounts for sperm donation and suggested "intended parent" as a substitute. "(The statute) only talks about somebody who's receiving donated sperm, not (donated eggs) or embryos. So, updates are definitely needed. I just wouldn't have used the word 'inseminated person.'" This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: What to know about 'inseminated person' language in Tony Evers' budget
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Legislation to force state employees back to the office gets cold shoulder from governor
State Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie) testifies on Tuesday, Feb. 11, in favor of legislation to require state employees to work in the office five days a week starting July 1. (Screenshot/WisEye) State employees who worked in the office before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020 would have to return to working in person starting July 1 under a proposed bill that went before a state Senate committee Tuesday. 'The pandemic is now over and has been for quite a while,' said State Rep. Amanda Nedweski (R-Pleasant Prairie), testifying at a public hearing on SB-27 in the Senate Committee on Licensing, Regulatory Reform, State and Federal Affairs. 'Yet a high volume of state duties that required in-person execution prior to 2020 are still being performed in locations outside of the state offices in which they were long housed prior to the pandemic.' Sen. Cory Tomczyk (R-Mosinee), the bill's Senate author, cited decisions by major U.S. employers to return to at least partial in-office schedules. 'Returning to work in person makes sense and forces accountability,' Tomczyk said. Nedweski and Tomczyk were the only witnesses to testify at Tuesday's hearing. There is not an Assembly companion bill, but Nedweski is the lead Assembly co-sponsor of the Senate legislation. She also chairs the Assembly's new Committee on Government Operations, Accountability, and Transparency. Republican state lawmakers have been pushing for state employees to end remote work for most of the last four years. Meanwhile, the Department of Administration (DOA) and the administration of Gov. Tony Evers have been moving forward with a plan, Vision 2030, to reduce the state's real estate footprint. No administration representatives testified at Tuesday's hearing. But in a memo to reporters Tuesday afternoon, Evers' communications director, Britt Cudaback, said Vision 2030 is based on moving to a 'modern and hybrid work environment' mixing remote and in-office work 'in order to continue to be a competitive employer and bolster our efforts to recruit, train, and retain workers statewide.' If SB-27 is enacted, she said, returning to in-office-only work would require more private leases for office space or reopening buildings that are to be closed and sold, or both. The administration has projected savings of more than $7 million in occupancy costs and more than $540 million in deferred maintenance costs. Reversing those plans 'would neither be pragmatic nor fiscally prudent,' Cudaback said. At the hearing, Nedweski emphasized that the bill's intent is not simply to bar all remote work, but she argued that the state hasn't systematically evaluated its impact. 'We don't have a handle on what's going on,' she said. 'So the idea would be, everybody, please come back and let's figure out what the best situation is.' Two years ago the Legislature's Joint Audit Committee commissioned the Legislative Audit Bureau to review remote work and space allocation in state government. The resulting report said the state lacked comprehensive data on the extent of remote work and recommended more detailed monitoring and documentation of remote work agreements and practices. Democrats on the five-member Senate committee balked at the legislation, calling it inflexible and a potential deterrent to the state's ability to hire. Sen. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee) noted with remote work more state employees have been able to work from counties across Wisconsin, not just in its two largest cities. 'If those people are going to have to keep their jobs and be in the office, which I assume would be Madison, are they going to be forced to give up their jobs?' he asked. Nedweski and Tomczyk said that employees who were hired to work remotely or had employment agreements allowing remote work before the pandemic would not be required to return to an office five days a week. But Sen. Chris Larson (D-Milwaukee), said the legislation's wording appeared to be more narrowly written. 'I am worried about this being wildly inflexible, and you're talking about a level of flexibility that is not contained within the bill,' he said. Nedweski said she 'would be more than happy' to add language 'that underscores that we already have DOA policy in place to allow for flexibility.' Larson replied that the bill 'would be a law that would override the policy.' In an email message, Nedweski's office staff member Tami Rongstad told the Wisconsin Examiner that there would be an amendment to exempt the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics from the bill 'and clarify that the requirement to return to onsite work would not apply to duties that were performed off-site prior to March 1, 2020.' Rongstad said Nedweski 'was open to considering adding clarifying language to the bill related to future telework options for state employees beyond the July 1, 2025, return to in-person work date,' based on existing terms for remote work in the state human resources handbook. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
