3/17/2017 7:27:00 AM Sunshine Week: The Lakeland Times' 2017 open records grades (D-F)
In honor of Sunshine Week - a celebration and advocacy of open government - The Lakeland Times presents the newspaper's 2017 awards and grades for openness in conducting public business.
The following grades are calculated using several measures, including how responsive officials have been this past year to open records' requests, how diligently they have strived to keep the workings of government open, how willing they were to communicate with the media and with the public, as well as their past track record.
The rating scale:
A - Excellent. Passionately committed to open government and accountability. The public is lucky to have these officials. They have full knowledge of the open records' and open meetings' laws.
B - Good. These records' custodians do an above-average job. They may need more knowledge and education about the law but are committed in principle to openness and side more often than not with open-records' advocates.
C - Average. These custodians need more immediate education about open government laws. They tend to respond slowly to records' requests, and they are as likely to withhold information as to release it. Still, these officials have never landed in court over an open records' dispute.
D - Below Average. These custodians do not believe in open government or in the release of open records. They usually land on the side of secrecy. These officials are suspicious of the public. They have very little knowledge of the open records' and open meetings' laws, and have even less interest in learning about them.
F - Failure. These people should be removed as records' custodians. They cannot be trusted by the public and couldn't spell FREEDOM if you spotted them F-R-E-E-_-O-M.
I - Incomplete. While it is too early to rate an overall performance in their current positions, we will record any recent actions and use their track records to calculate a "trending" rank.
The newspaper is listing grades because we want to downplay the passion and ethics of those who understand and defend open government but to draw attention to the rapidly increasing ranks of the many attacking it.
Consider them wanted posters in the post office of public records. And now, this year's grades:
D - Meets few expectations
D: Oneida County Public Works/Solid Waste Committee. The committee is open to transparency, but has shown dysfunction during meetings.
The Solid Waste supervisor position job description has been posted three times since November, and most recently, was posted before the committee decided to reconstruct the description after the application deadline had passed.
D: Oneida County Board of Supervisors chairman Dave Hintz. Prior to the mandatory open meetings law training for the Oneida County board in February, Hintz delivered a passionate speech about how the supervisors needed to have a good attitude and try to get better in that department.
Here's the problem with that: It's the law.
Simply trying to get better and have the right attitude isn't enough. The county must do better. It's required, by law, that they get better.
D: Lac du Flambeau Town Board. The Lac du Flambeau Town Board receives a 'D' for their lack of public comment and inaccessible meeting times. While not leaving time on the agenda for public comment is not illegal in Wisconsin, it does not garner an open door policy where people feel as though their voices are being heard. However, a citizen may have an item added to the meeting agenda by contacting chairman Matt Gaulke. This would be beneficial if the meeting times did not fall at 1 p.m. on Wednesdays, where the average, working citizen could not attend the meetings. The LdF Town Board is saved from a lower grade because of their general openness and compliance when requesting information and materials discussed at the meetings.
D: Attorney general Brad Schimel. When Brad Schimel was elected attorney general, we had high hopes he would continue in the open government tradition of his predecessor, J.B. Van Hollen. Van Hollen routinely earned high grades in our annual ratings.
Schimel got off to a good start. Among other things, he opened the attorney general's Office of Open Government, and he reduced the average response time to open-records requests to 20 days, down from 59 days in 2014.
In addition, Schimel had the guts to speak up when Gov. Scott Walker and company tried to obliterate the open-records laws in 2015.
What's more, Schimel convened an open-government summit that brought together transparency advocates and government officials for a frank discussion - the kind of summit Scott Walker promised when he was elected but never followed through on.
But this year Schimel has traveled a darker road. He has opposed the release of Department of Justice training videos, videos that should be treated as merely cinematic versions of printed training manuals, which are open to the public.
The very idea that the methods used to train law enforcement personnel are not open to the public threatens the public's safety. Just what are they teaching them?
Even worse, the DOJ continues its clearly illegal policy of withholding the names of employees disciplined for misconduct. There is simply no rational foundation for withholding such information - not in the statutes and not in case law.
Protecting the names of those who engage in misconduct is a sop to the unions and the bureaucracies, and only emboldens them, for they can act with impunity and without accountability.
F - The failures
F: Oneida County Board of Supervisors. While many of the supervisors have conducted themselves appropriately and have followed open-meetings laws, the board on the whole has not.
The county went into closed session a total of 118 times in 2016 for committee meetings and during board meetings.
A number of the supervisors have shown a lack of knowledge regarding open-meetings laws and open-records laws, and some have shown a refusal to learn more about them.
F: Oneida County Labor Relations and Employee Services Committee. The committee, comprised of county supervisors Ted Cushing, Dave Hintz, Billy Fried, Carol Pedersen and Sonny Paszak, combined with human resources director Lisa Charbarneau, have failed in regards to honoring open meetings laws, as well as open records laws.
The Lakeland Times filed an open records complaint against the committee in November after a document detailing closed session minutes was obtained, in which the committee discussed matters legally unfit for closed session.
One month later, the Times' publisher Gregg Walker filed an open meetings complaint against the committee after it did not disclose the name of a suspended county employee. That matter resulted in each committee member being fined $25 and the Oneida County board underwent mandatory training in open meetings laws.
F: Vilas County supervisor Jay Verhulst. As the chairman of the zoning and planning committee, Verhulst has bumbled his way through meetings and public hearings with an apparent lack of knowledge.
On more than one occasion, during the county's public hearing for its new shoreland protection ordinance, Verhulst did not seem to know proper guidelines and procedures of the hearing.
During meetings, he did not know when to take a vote, and has moved along to the next item on the agenda before other committee members informed him that he needed to take action on the previous item first.
In one particular meeting, Verhulst refused to allow a reporter from The Lakeland Times to place a recorder on his desk, prompting other supervisors to apologize for his mistake.
F: Myles Alexander, UW-Extension. When the moderator of the city of Rhinelander's Parks Public Engagement Task Force opened the group's first meeting a couple months ago with a 10-minute tirade against how media coverage of city government is counter-productive to it conducting the people's business, it got our attention. He also suggested at the same meeting that public hearings before the city council are not a good way to obtain public comment, because only those citizens against the matter being discussed will attend. Alexander also had to be reminded that as a quasi-governmental body, his task force is subject to open meeting and records laws. These actions came after a pair of public listening sessions on parks held last fall upset local residents because they were not allowed to speak for or against a proposed second softball field at Pioneer Park.
As someone who is helping the parks, buildings and grounds committee gather public input on a parks master plan, his lack of openness seems to be at odds with this goal.
F: Attorney Lori Lubinsky. Attorney Lori Lubinsky has a bad reputation in open-government circles, and she certainly didn't help it in the last couple of years in Oneida County.
Lubinsky was a lead attorney for the county in this newspaper's open-records case against the sheriff's department, which the county lost and which cost taxpayers $50,000 in legal fees.
Lubinsky also defended the county in 2004 in an open-records case filed by The Times against then corporation counsel Larry Heath. The Times settled that case out of court, with the county agreeing to pay more than $6,000 in legal fees to the newspaper.
Just this past month, the county hired Lubinsky to lead - no, this is not a joke - an open-meetings compliance seminar. There, she offered more bad advice, with critical omissions concerning what constitutes an official meeting that has to be noticed and how specific agendas must be when they are posted.
We hope the county stays clear of her in the future, but this much we know: Whenever you see Lubinsky hanging around, it can't be good for open government. She's the hired gun of closed government; her job in open records cases is to squeeze the breath out of transparency, not revive it.
F: Supervisor Ted Cushing. Supervisor Ted Cushing does not strike us as an official who is inherently opposed to open government. In fact, for many years he has given us no reason to believe that he is anything other than supportive of transparency.
But his actions this past year, whether by purpose or by lapse, force us to give him a failing grade. Specifically, Cushing is a member of two committees we have singled out for intolerable open-government conduct.
In fact, he was the chairman of the labor relations and employee services committee, which, the district attorney determined, violated the state's open meetings law. And he served, too, on the county's public safety committee, which refused to reveal who gave the bad advice leading to the county's loss of its open-records lawsuit with this newspaper, though there was no public policy or legal reason to keep the name hidden.
This kind of protection for good old boys and his cavalier treatment of what can be discussed in closed sessions earn Cushing his 'F' this year.
F: State Rep. Mary Felzkowski (formerly Czaja). Last year, we labeled state Rep. Mary Felzkowski (R-Irma) as a lawmaker who was particularly distinguished as an enemy of openness, the Quasimodo of the Cathedral of Open Government, where she helps organize Madison's own Festival of Fools, otherwise know as yearly attacks on open records.
We have not changed our opinion of her. Though the Northwoods' lawmaker this past year said she made a mistake to vote to gut the state's open-records' law, she has held her ground on other noxious measures that aim to do the same thing by any other name.
She refuses to commit to placing the Legislature under the open-records retention law, which covers most other government officials and agencies and generally requires public records to be kept for seven years. In other words, she doesn't want to have to play by the same rules (in this case, a law) that virtually all other government officials have to follow.
She also does not believe in waiving fees to pay the cost of fulfilling open-records requests, though she said they should be reasonable. For newspapers, she told The Times last year, the newspaper should pay reasonable fees for records as a cost of doing business.
Somehow she misses the fact that open government - and the consequent waiving of fees in the public interest - should be seen by officials as the cost of doing the people's business. Instead, she wants to place the cost of openness on the backs of average people rather than on a $76-billion state government, where it would be, and is, a minuscule portion of the tab.
That's what we call having your priorities wrong.
Worst of all, Felzkowski wants to narrow the information listed on the state's circuit court online database, specifically by removing the records of charges when there is an acquittal or the charges are dropped. The truth is, wiping that charge off the books can endanger innocent people more by having a record of their innocence removed from CCAP, leaving headline readers and gossipmongers free to spread false rumors without any recourse to correcting them.
Felzkowski also believes the public should have no access to legislator-constituent communications that are personal and not policy oriented. But redacting personal information would accomplish the same goal, while preserving the context and substance of the communication, which often yields important policy information.
This legislator has no sense of the importance of transparency, and, given her consistent record, seems incapable of learning it.
F: Wisconsin Counties Association, Wisconsin Towns Association, Wisconsin League of Municipalities, Wisconsin Association of School Boards. If ever there were four organizations that should not exist, these are the four: Wisconsin Counties Association, Wisconsin Towns Association, Wisconsin League of Municipalities, and Wisconsin Association of School Boards.
For one thing, towns, villages, cities, and counties are all creatures of the state; their existence depends on laws enacted by the state. There are some home rule powers for cities and villages, but the main job of these units of government is to provide services and serve as administrative arms of the state.
So why do they need to form an interest group to lobby the state? As a creature and subordinate of the state, they should not be lobbying the state for anything, and, in doing so, they are in fact lobbying against the public interest.
What does any of this have to do with open records? Plenty.
Consider that these associations are all lobbying for a bill in the Legislature that would end the requirement that they publish most public notices in newspapers. That is a decision they should decidedly not have a hand in.
On the federal level lobbying by government agencies is outlawed; these units of government are essentially state agencies by virtue of their relationship to state government, and they shouldn't be lobbying, either.
When they do, they are almost certain not to lobby for the people so much as for the public officials themselves. That's why they formed an interest group for themselves, and that means they'll be lobbying for ever more secrecy, as they are doing with the public-notice legislation.
And while the Association of School Boards is different structurally from the others in its relationship to the state, the same lobbying principle goes for it, too. It's a bold conflict of interest.
F: The Wisconsin Supreme Court. The state's courts, and in particular the state's Supreme Court, have not been very favorable in recent year to the state's open records laws.
In fact, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court is apparently blind to the fact that letting government operate in secrecy increases government power, the very opposite of what one would expect limited government conservatives to support.
In a particularly noxious example, in 2015, the Supreme Court declined to review an appellate court decision that a government authority can keep a record sealed even if it is a lie crafted deliberately by the government authority.
That's right, if a government official makes up a lie on a document and then tries to cover up the lie up by using an open-records law exemption to keep it secret, that official can certainly do so, now with the Supreme Court's blessing.
Shame on them.
This year, the high court added to its dismal rulings when it decided on a 5-2 vote that attorney general Brad Schimel does not have to release Wisconsin Department of Justice training tapes. The attorney general argued that the tapes would reveal techniques used by law enforcement used to catch child predators.
However, as lower courts pointed out, those techniques were already in the public domain and so the tapes were not revealing anything not already known.
But the Supreme Court majority said essentially, 'So what?' and proceeded to give law enforcement a new excuse to deny access to public records - you'll reveal our secrets!
To her credit, justice Shirley Abrahamson dissented, writing, "The question for me is: What has the majority achieved with its opinion grounded in speculative, abstract, and unsubstantiated fears? The answer for me is: A dimming of the light on public oversight of government, especially in matters pertaining to criminal justice."
The court majority favoring secrecy was Rebecca Bradley, Michael J. Gableman, Daniel Kelly, Patience Roggensack and Annette Ziegler.
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley joined Abrahamson in the dissent.
So why include Abrahamson and Bradley in the bad grade? Because, as we have noted, the Supreme Court has a long list of bad decisions about transparency, and no one on the court can be said to have clean hands.
F: The Wisconsin Legislature. The Wisconsin Legislature continues to be a cesspool of secrecy and self-serving nonsense. Every year legislative leaders come up with new ideas to thwart the open-records law, and recycle old ones they haven't been able to pass. Every year, for instance, lawmakers attempt to dismantle CCAP, the state's online circuit court records database.
The reason these ideas have to be recycled is because public outrage forces these legislators to abandon the bad ideas and head back into their sewers to plot more attacks on openness. This year, the new assault is on public notice requirements in newspapers.
The truth is, lawmakers do not deserve to be heard on any open-records proposal until they bring themselves under the open-records retention law - a statute they have conveniently exempted themselves from but which they have required almost every other government official to abide by.
Hypocrites every one, exempting themselves from the open meetings and records retention laws, all the while protesting that each of them individually is honest and open.
F: State Sen. Duey Stroebel; Sen. Lena Taylor; Rep. Jeremy Thiesfeldt, and Rep. Jason Fields. These lawmakers have taken the lead in authoring and pushing legislation this year to end the requirements that summaries of state and local government meetings be published in newspapers.
The bill would banish much important government information to government websites, and enable government officials to escape the scrutiny of much larger newspaper audiences.
Among the four lawmakers above are two Republicans (Stroebel and Thiesfeldt) and two Democrats (Taylor and Fields), demonstrating just how bipartisan the disdain for open government is among government officials.
F: Boulder Junction Town Board. Last year, the Boulder Junction Town Board received an A.
This year, it's not going to be so good.
We're not sure exactly where the disconnect is, but town chairman Dennis Reuss, who's been on the town board nearly six years with nearly two of those as town chairman, sat down to meet with Lakeland Times publisher Gregg Walker in October after there were some questions presented about how meetings were conducted and so forth.
The Times had submitted an open records request before the Walker-Reuss meeting that revealed, among other things, the purchase last year of more than $25,000 for a piece of mowing equipment with attachments that was never formally voted on and approved at a town board meeting.
There was documentation to show a resolution done to formally identify funds that would pay for the mower and attachments.
It had been budgeted for, sure, but there was never a vote conducted to actually approve the purchase, from what we were able to find.
Walker told Reuss in that meeting if there continued to be issues, the newspaper would go to the Vilas County attorney.
There were issues. And we did.
After another open records request was submitted to the town by the newspaper, the Feb. 17 edition of The Times contained a story written by Richard Moore reporting the newspaper had asked Vilas County attorney Martha Milanowski to investigate the Boulder Junction Town Board for open meetings complaints.
They were connected to what appears to be an improper payout of almost $9,000 in September 2016 to town clerk Kendra Moraczewski and another smaller payout to town employee Gary Jacobi in August.
Milanowski had Vilas County sheriff Joe Fath investigate.
A ruling from her on that matter is pending.
More recently, meetings of the town's road improvement committee, which consists of the three town board members as well as two Boulder Junction residents serving in an at-large capacity, have been a little confusing.
The committee has been meeting almost weekly and its agendas, including the agenda for Wednesday's meeting (see the story in this edition), have been ... contradictory in nature.
For example, item 3 is listed as "Unfinished business with discussion and possible action."
That's fine except at the bottom, the agenda says a "quorum of town board members may be in attendance at this meeting for information gathering purposes only and no town board action will be taken at this meeting."
Well, seeing as how the majority of the committee is made up of the three town board members, the way the agenda is worded is a bit contradictory.
One suggestion might be to have "discussion/possible action" after each agenda item and get rid of the verbiage at the bottom.
That way, they're covered - the committee, including the three town board members - can discuss an item and then, if needed, take action on that item.
They've been doing the same with agendas for recent special meetings regarding the town clerk/town treasurer position.
At the top, there's "Unfinished business with discussion and possible action" and at the bottom of the agenda, instead of town board members it says a "quorum of other town committee members may be in attendance at this meeting for information gathering purposes only and no committee action will be taken at this meeting."
Again, it's contradictory. And three of the committee members are the town board.
At the Feb. 23 meeting of the road improvement committee, Boulder Junction resident Barb Boston was not allowed to speak because public comment wasn't on the agenda.
That was rectified the next week with the addition of public comment regarding items on the agenda.
It's just some little things, in these particular cases, that can be fixed pretty easily.
The rest though, such as the investigation into the pay for the town clerk and how that was done, has helped bring things crashing down grade-wise for the Boulder Junction town board this year.
F-minus - The worst of the worst
F-minus: Gov. Scott Walker. Last year Gov. Scott Walker roared to the worst possible grade any official can receive, on the strength of his and the Republican Legislature's attempt to eviscerate the open-records law.
As we pointed out last year, the governor did not merely try to evade the law - which he had done by trying to withhold "deliberative" documents - he did not just seek to weaken the law.
The governor and his comrades sought to destroy it, to effectively repeal it.
This year the governor is up to no good again in his seemingly never-ending quest to close the doors of government. In his budget proposal, the governor unleashed yet another assault on transparency, proposing to abandon requirements that governmental bodies publish certain public notices in newspapers.
The proposal comes on the heels of a bipartisan effort by a group of lawmakers to roll back the publication of governmental meeting minutes.
Specifically, the governor would allow all governmental units with printing, publishing, and mailing requirements the option to make most materials available electronically on government websites.
In other words, the governor wants to remove critical information from those publications and news websites where most people get their news, and put them instead on government websites, which can safely be called digital ghost towns. Nobody goes there.
So, gone would be the required publication by hospitals of rate increases. Gone would be the publication of ordinances and resolutions, of governmental financial reports, of the legislative review of general permits, of development moratoria, of notices of educational options, of school board meetings and reports, of permits for discharges into wetlands, and a whole lot more.
This governor seeks to do more damage to open government than any other Wisconsin official has since the passage of open records and open meetings laws.
F-Minus: Oneida County Public Safety Committee
F-Minus: Oneida County Labor Relations & Employee Services Committee. With a few notable exceptions, Oneida County government has over the years been notoriously opposed to government transparency. The resistance to openness has come from many individual government officials, but also from various committees and boards, and this year two committees lead the way when it comes to egregious behavior.
Such behavior should make no one feel safe.
Most recently, Oneida County district attorney Michael Schiek found that the Oneida County Labor Relations & Employee Services Committee violated the state's open meetings law.
During a closed session, the committee engaged in routine leave-of-absence and policy discussions that were not exempt from the open-meetings statute, as well as in a discussion of this newspaper's open records request with the county, which was not noticed on the meeting agenda.
Committee chairman Ted Cushing agreed to pay a forfeiture of $25, and all county board members were required to attend a training seminar on compliance with the state's open meetings laws.
Cushing admitted the violations, telling the newspaper the closed-session discussions "shouldn't have happened." But we continue to wonder just how routine such infractions are, and whether the regret has more to do with getting caught than with a desire to uphold the law.
The other members of the committee besides Cushing were supervisors Billy Fried, Sonny Paszak, Carol Pederson, and Dave Hintz.
The other Oneida County committee with an outstandingly bad open-government record this past year is the public safety committee.
During last year, Oneida County agreed to pay The Lakeland Times more than $50,000 in attorneys' fees and court costs as a final settlement in an open-records lawsuit involving the sheriff's department that the county lost to The Times. Vilas County circuit court judge Neal "Chip" A. Nielsen III ordered the sheriff's department to release certain records The Times had sought.
In the months after the records were released, Times' publisher Gregg Walker attempted to find out from the public-safety committee who gave sheriff Grady Hartman the legal advice to withhold the records and force the litigation.
Walker said the public had a right to know whose bad advice had cost the county $50,000, especially since Walker had warned Hartman before filing litigation that the newspaper would sue for the records and that the county would lose because no court since a 2007 decision in Kroeplin had allowed the disciplinary records and closed investigatory files of employees to be kept sealed.
Despite repeated requests, the public-safety committee stonewalled the newspaper, refusing on multiple occasions to divulge who counseled the county to deny the request. Ultimately Hartman revealed the initial source of his advice: Corporation counsel Brian Desmond.
The public found out, but no thanks to the public safety committee's ongoing intransigence to openness.
The members of the public safety committee were Ted Cushing, Billy Fried, Bob Metropulos, Mitchell Ives, and chairman Mike Timmons.
F-Minus: Oneida County supervisor Billy Fried. It's hard to say that any one Oneida County supervisor is worse on open government than another - except for a notable few, they're all bad - but if one can be singled out for exceptional failure, it's Billy Fried.
Give him credit for hard work, though, for you have to work hard to be this bad.
First, as with supervisor Ted Cushing, Fried is a member of both committees we singled out for extraordinarily bad open-government conduct this year.
He served on the Oneida County Labor Relations & Employee Services Committee, which, the district attorney determined, violated the state's open-meetings law. And he served, too, on the county's public safety committee, which refused to tell this newspaper who gave the bad advice leading to the county's open-records loss in the sheriff's department (Lee Lech) lawsuit.
There was no public policy reason to shield the identity of the lawyer who gave the bad advice, nor was there any legal exemption that would allow them to do so; the committee was merely circling the wagons to try and cover for their good-old-boy buddies.
So far, that puts Fried on a par with Cushing as rating an 'F.'
But Fried goes one better to earn his F-Minus. During a meeting of the public safety committee, in which Times' publisher Gregg Walker expressed concerns about the lack of accountability of the sheriff's department to other county elected officials and bodies and urged the committee to revise the county code to provide more oversight, Fried said he was upset.
Amazingly, instead of pledging to investigate the concerns raised, Fried defended the department and turned his fire on Walker. He was especially upset, he said, because the committee chairman had been "gracious enough" to allow Walker to speak to the committee.
The very idea that elected officials are "gracious" enough to "allow" citizens to speak at their meetings should be offensive to every Oneida County citizen, and it is indicative of how these officials think about open government.
They believe that we are their royal subjects, and what they do - and the decisions they make that affect our lives - is their business and their business alone, and we have no right to see what they are doing or to question them, unless they are gracious enough to allow us to.
That kind of thinking is abhorrent, and is fatal to open government if it is allowed to persist.
F-Minus: Oneida County corporation counsel Brian Desmond. Oneida County corporation counsel Brian Desmond pretty much follows a standard pattern when it comes to open government. Under his direction and advice, the county seems to look for every conceivable way to deny and delay access to records.
At least give him credit for consistency. What's more, if we were in his shoes - thankfully we are not - we wouldn't want the public to see what we were doing, either. That's because he is totally incompetent in addition to being hostile to transparency.
Usually we don't get to see that incompetence played out directly. County supervisors like to cover for him, and they circle the wagons to protect their little dodo.
But every once in a great while, we get to see Desmond's incompetence in all its blazing glory, and that's just what happened this past year.
When the sheriff's department lost its records case in the Lee Lech matter to this newspaper, Times' publisher Gregg Walker asked the public safety committee who was responsible for giving sheriff Grady Hartman bad legal advice.
After all, Walker had warned Hartman, settled case law made the county's position politically absurd, and legally doomed.
Naturally, the good old boys of the public-safety committee circled those wagons and hid the dodo from view: "Who gave us that bad advice? Who? We will not tell you who, that's who?"
See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil, thus no evil. That's the motto of the public-safety committee.
Unfortunately for the little dodo, along came the sheriff and gave him away: "Who gave the bad advice? Who? I'll tell you who. Brian Desmond, that's who!"
And so we ask, since the bill for losing the case cost taxpayers about $50,000, we ask the county: Who should pay the $50,000? Who? We'll tell you who. Brian Desmond, that's who.
Anyway, aren't dodos extinct? They should be.
Oneida County should do itself a favor and get rid of the last remaining one.
Posted: Sunday, March 19, 2017
Article comment by:
Should be interesting to see if our resident "conservatives" have anything to say about these grades. Wonder if they still support Boss Walker and his minions, especially our illustrious Supreme Court, given the information written n the article.
And didn't the LT endorse the main offenders mentioned on the state-wide level? Hmmmmm.