On June 18, 2001, the Department of Public Instruction received a request for a due process hearing under Wis. Stats., Ch. 115, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1400, et seq., from the attorney for [Guardians] (the Guardians), legal guardians of [Student] (the Student).

Prehearing conferences were held on July 3, 2001 and July 20, 2001. The hearing was conducted on August 29, 30 and 31, 2001. Both parties agreed to extend the date for issuance of a final decision to October 3, 2001.

At the hearing, the Guardians alleged that the Student had been denied a free and appropriate public education because the District should not have determined that the Student’s behavior of smoking marijuana on a school field trip was not a manifestation of his disability. In particular, the issues are:

1. Whether or not the District violated the procedures of IDEA by preparing a deficient Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA).
2. Whether or not the Student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) was appropriate in relation to the behavior of smoking marijuana on the school field trip because it lacked speech and language therapy, adequate counseling services and problem solving skills.
3. Whether or not the District failed to provide the services required in the Student’s IEP on the school field trip by providing inadequate supervision to the Student.
4. Whether or not the Student’s behavior of smoking marijuana on the school field trip was a manifestation of his disability.
5. Whether or not the Student should be given compensatory education for the District’s failure to provide Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to the Student in a Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES).

Based on the entire record and arguments in this case, this is the final decision and order of the undersigned Administrative Law Judge.

1. The Student, date of birth XXXXXX, is currently a 9^th grader at the Cumberland High School in the Cumberland School District ("District"). At the time of the incident that led to the manifestation determination, he was 14 years old and an 8^th grader in the Cumberland Middle School. He attended the District from an early childhood program in 1989 until the spring of 1991. He moved back to the District and has been attending school in the District since the fall of 1993. The Student has lived with his Guardians for the past three years and they have participated in developing his IEPs during that time.
2. The Student is a child with a disability and has been identified in his IEP as a child with emotional disturbance. The Student has been identified as a student with a disability since the first grade as a child with cognitive disabilities and emotional disturbance. When he was re-evaluated in the fourth grade, his cognitive abilities were found to be in the normal range and the District determined that his earlier identification as cognitively disabled was the result of environmental factors and his behavior. When the District re-evaluated the Student in 1999 (Exhibit #1), he was again found to be a child with emotional disturbance. The evaluation found no need for speech and language therapy.
3. An IEP was completed on October 6, 2000 (Exhibit #25). The Guardians participated in the IEP and agreed with the IEP. The IEP identified that the Student’s behavior impeded his learning or that of others. The IEP listed positive behavioral interventions, strategies and supports to address the behavior (Exhibit #25, second page):

"During times of frustration, [the Student] may ask to be excused from a class to:

1. go to a resource room
2. small group study hall
3. small group and/or individual assistance
4. assignment modified
5. tests read aloud and/or modified
6. directions given step by step
7. extra time to complete work
8. talk with special needs teacher, guidance counselor, adult of his choice or the Native American coordinator
9. behavior management system designed as needed
10. assistance from Native American support system"
4. The IEP also stated an annual goal of increasing the Student’s appropriate social skills to a more age appropriate level. The short-term benchmarks to attain this goal included use of appropriate language, refraining from making inappropriate noises, gestures or comments, sitting correctly in his chair and not bothering others and receiving direction from staff without arguing, avoiding or manipulating the situation (Exhibit #25, 10^th and 11^th pages).
5. The IEP noted that the Student had academic delays, a slower rate of processing, and the need for a highly structured setting and much individual assistance. Since a regular classroom would not allow for his success, he was in special education classes for math, reading, language and social studies (Exhibit #25, 12^th and 13^th pages).
6. As a related service, the IEP included counseling upon request or need (Exhibit #25, 12^th page). The school counselor testified that the Student rarely, if ever, requested counseling. The school counselor also testified that he counseled on a regular basis by talking to the Student in the hall, lunchroom or classroom when they saw each other. He also counseled the Student upon request from the Student’s special education teacher.
7. The IEP was modified on March 30, 2001 to address behavioral problems of the Student. Again, the Guardians participated and agreed with the IEP. The new IEP added a "Behavior Accommodations Addendum" that the Guardians were involved in developing (Exhibit #14, last page). This addendum outlined a plan of what would be followed with the Student if his behavior were unacceptable at Cumberland Middle School. The plan included giving choices, giving reminders and giving time-outs. If the problem could not be resolved with the listed steps, the principal would be called or if the Student’s safety or any other person’s safety was a concern, another agency or the Guardians would be called.
8. The new IEP also added a requirement that the Student would need to be escorted directly to and from his destination if he needed to leave the classroom during class time (Exhibit #14, 10^th page). This was added because there had been incidents when he would be allowed to leave the classroom to do things such as use the restroom and he would be found wandering the halls or somewhere else that he was not supposed to be.
9. In addition to this behavior plan, both the special education teacher and the Student’s aunt (one of his Guardians) agreed that the special education teacher contacted her several times during the school year to discuss the Student’s behavior and work on strategies to improve the Student’s behavior.
10. The Student participated in the Middle School wrestling program from mid-February, 2001 until mid-April, 2001. The Student successfully participated for the entire season, which included 10-15 matches. During the wrestling season, the Student showed good sportsmanship, never reacted negatively or got upset, stayed in control of himself, always complied with the referee at each match and was able to control his behavior. Moreover, the teachers at the Middle School found that his academics also improved during the wrestling season.
11. The Student continued to have discipline problems during the school year that included several trades to class, fighting, attempting to buy prescription pills from another student and inappropriate language. However, the Student’s behavior in class improved during the school year. He became less aggressive and more responsive to teachers and his noises and comments in class decreased (Exhibits 3 and 5).

12. In April of 2001, the 8^th grade class of the Cumberland Middle School went on a weeklong field trip to Wolf Ridge, an instructional learning center in Minnesota. Prior to the trip, the principal reviewed a behavioral contract with the entire class that specified that no illegal drugs were allowed on the trip. The Student’s uncle (his other Guardian) also reviewed the contract with the Student and they both signed the contract that said that they had read and understood the rules (Exhibit #6). The Student testified that he understood the rules and understood that he was not allowed to have illegal drugs on the field trip.
13. On the trip, the 8^th grade class was broken up into groups of 17 to 18 students. 2 teachers and another adult supervised these groups during class times. During non-class times, the groups were supervised by 2 adults each. One of the chaperones for the Student’s group was his wrestling coach who chose to be in this group since he was familiar with the Student. The wrestling coach is not a special education teacher, but he did discuss chaperoning the Student with the Student’s special education teacher prior to the trip.
14. During the Wolf Ridge trip, the only time that the Student was not supervised was in the dormitory when he was allowed to go to his room. During that time, the chaperones were in the Day room of the dormitory.
15. On two occasions on April 23 and 24, 2001, the Student and 3 other students went out a back door of the dormitory and smoked cigarettes and marijuana in a location that was against a back wall and where they were not easily seen by anyone.
16. The principal learned of this incident on Tuesday, April 24, 2001. He searched the Student’s room and found cigarettes hidden in his rolled up socks.
17. The principal interviewed the Student that day and the Student admitted to smoking cigarettes and denied smoking marijuana. The Student admitted to smoking marijuana the next day. The Student was returned to Cumberland and attended school the rest of the week. He was suspended from school on May 2 and 3, 2001.
18. The IEP team held a manifestation determination was held on May 4, 2001 to determine if the Student’s behavior of smoking marijuana on the Wolf Ridge school field trip was a manifestation of his disability (Exhibit #13).
19. Prior to the May 4, 2001 meeting, the Student’s special education teacher prepared a document titled "Functional Behavioral Assessment" (Exhibit #12). This document identified the Student’s target behavior on the Wolf Ridge trip as "non-compliance by avoidance or withdrawal." This document was presented by the Student’s special education teacher at the May 4, 2001 meeting, but the IEP team did not specifically discuss the document.
20. At the May 4, 2001 meeting, the IEP team determined that the Student’s IEP was appropriate, that the Student’s placement was appropriate and that the Student was receiving services consistent with his IEP and placement (Exhibit #13). They also determined that his behavior of smoking marijuana on the Wolf Ridge field trip was not a manifestation of his disability. The IEP team determined that the Student’s disability did not impair his ability to understand the impact and consequences of this behavior. The Guardians never said that they disagreed with this determination at the hearing and the Student’s uncle specifically stated that the Student "should have known better."
21. After the IEP team determined that the behavior was not a manifestation of the Student’s disability, they developed an Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES) for the Student for the remainder of the school year (Exhibit #15). The IAES was at the Cumberland Hospital on Wednesday and Friday mornings for a total of 7 hours a week from May 9, 2001 until June 6, 2001. The District hired a teacher specifically to teach the Student and one other child in the IAES. That teacher was not a special education teacher, but had taken many special education classes and the District had gotten approval from the Department of Public Instruction to hire the teacher for this temporary IEAS. Also, the teacher was under the supervision of the Student’s special education teacher who designed the curriculum to meet all the Student’s general curriculum and IEP goals. The Student’s special education teacher was scheduled to be at the IAES for 1 of the 7 hours a week.
22. The Guardians were opposed to the IAES. They felt that the Student needed the structure of full-time school to succeed as a student and that 7 hours a week was not adequate. At the end of the May 4, 2001 meeting, the Guardians stated that they would not sign anything because they were concerned about the amount of time that the Student would be out of school.
23. The Student attended the IAES one day and did not return to school. The Guardians placed the Student in a treatment program for chemical dependency through the end of May, 2001. The Guardians did not inform the District of this placement.
24. The Guardians had the Student evaluated by Dr. Joel Schirvar, a neuro-psychologist, on June 29, 2001 and July 28, 2001 (Exhibit #22). It was Dr. Schirvar’s opinion that the Student’s IEP was not adequate because it lacked speech and language therapy, that the behavior plan was not specific in the type of behavior the plan meant to target and that the Student should have been getting more frequent counseling on a regular schedule.
25. The District received a copy of Dr. Schirvar’s report 5 days prior to the due process hearing. The District did not have the opportunity to do any evaluation for speech and language therapy prior to this due process hearing.
26. Dr. Schirvar diagnosed the Student with Fetal Alcohol Effect and it was his opinion that the Student was not able to understand the consequences of his behavior on the Wolf Ridge trip due to his Fetal Alcohol Effect, his language deficits and his lack of executive functioning.
27. Dr. Joan Kjorsvig-Beans, a licensed school psychologist, reviewed the Student’s school records and the evaluations performed by Dr. Schirvar. It was Dr. Kjorsvig-Beans’ opinion that it was not reliable to make a diagnosis of Fetal Alcohol Effect without a medical diagnosis from a physician. Also, she did not believe that the Student could be diagnosed with Fetal Alcohol Effect and still be able to participate in the sport of wrestling since a person with Fetal Alcohol Effect would have difficult with the agility and emotional requirements and would not be able to learn from his mistakes. Also, she did not believe that a person with Fetal Alcohol Effect would be able to have the organizational skills to hide cigarettes before going on the school field trip.
28. It was also Dr. Kjorsvig-Beans’ opinion after reviewing Dr. Schirvar’s evaluations and test results that the Student had the language abilities and the cognitive abilities to understand that marijuana was not allowed on the Wolf Ridge field trip.
29. It was also Dr. Kjorsvig-Beans’ opinion that Dr. Schirvar did not have adequate information to determine if the Student had any language disorder or needed speech and language therapy because Dr. Schirvar’s opinion was based upon one assessment test that she believed to be unreliable. There were no evaluations of the Student’s speech and language needs by any speech and language experts.

The primary issue presented in this matter is whether the Student’s misconduct of using marijuana on the Wolf Ridge field trip was a manifestation of his disability. The IDEA and its implementing regulations require that the Student’s IEP team must have demonstrated that the child's behavior was not a manifestation of the child's disability consistent with the requirements of 34 C.F.R. §300.523(d). See 34 C.F.R. §300.525(b)(1).

For the District to sustain its manifestation determination at the hearing level, it must affirmatively establish by a preponderance of the evidence that its IEP team and other qualified personnel first considered, in terms of the behavior subject to disciplinary action, all relevant information including evaluation and diagnostic results, including the results or other information supplied by the parents of the child, observations of the child, and the child's IEP and placement. See 34 C.F.R. §523(c)(1). There is no allegation that the IEP team failed to consider all of the relevant information in this case.

Then the District must establish that (1) in relationship to the behavior subject to disciplinary action, the child's IEP and placement were appropriate and the special education services, supplementary aids and services, and behavior intervention strategies were provided consistent with the child's IEP and placement; (2) the child's disability did not impair the ability of the child to understand the impact and consequences of the behavior subject to disciplinary action; and (3) the child's disability did not impair the ability of the child to control the behavior subject to disciplinary action. See 20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(4) and 34 C.F.R. §523(c)(1) and (2).

Free and Appropriate Public Education

The Guardians have alleged that the Student’s IEP was not appropriate. Under IDEA, an IEP must be developed by the IEP team tailored to meet the unique needs of a child that had been identified as having a disability. 20 U.S.C. §§1401(11), 1414(d). This IEP sets forth the child’s education level, performance and goals and is the governing document for all educational decisions concerning the child. Board of Education, No. 218, Cook County v. Illinois State Board of Education, 103 F.3d 545, 546 (7^th Cir. 1996).

The IEP is the document that provides FAPE to a child with a disability that is required under IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). The IEP is specifically designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction. Board of Educ.of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188-89 (1982). "By passing the Act, Congress sought primarily to make public education available to handicapped children. But in seeking to provide such access to public education, Congress did not impose upon the States any greater substantive educational standard than would be necessary to make such access meaningful." Id. At 192.

The Supreme Court has provided a two-part test to determine if FAPE has been provided to a child with a disability:

1. whether there has been compliance with IDEA's procedural requirements; and
2. whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07.

If the answer to both questions is yes, no IDEA violation will be found: "[I]f these requirements are met . . . the courts can require no more." Id. at 206-07.

Functional Behavioral Assessment

The Guardians have alleged that there was a procedural violation of IDEA because the Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) was deficient. IDEA requires that if a local education agency has not conducted a FBA and implemented a behavioral intervention plan for the child before the behavior that resulted in the change of placement, the agency shall convene an IEP meeting to develop an assessment plan. 34 C.F.R. x 300.520(b)(1)(i).

The Guardians argue that the District has only conducted one FBA that was completed by the special education teacher immediately prior to the manifestation determination. The Guardians argue that this FBA was deficient and incorrectly identified the Student’s behavior that led to smoking marijuana on the Wolf Ridge field trip.

The issue is whether or not the District properly conducted a FBA and implemented a behavioral intervention plan. These terms are not defined in IDEA. According to the Department of Public Instruction (DPI), an FBA is a continuous process (not a one-time event) for identifying (1) the purpose or function of the behavior; (2) the variables that influence the behavior; and (3) the components of an effective behavioral intervention plan (BIP). See DPI Information Update Bulletin 00.01 – RE: Behavior. The DPI recommends an FBA when challenging behaviors are a concern and the IEP team determines that the behavior of a student is interfering with his/her learning or that of others. The DPI recommends that the FBA should not be the sole responsibility of one person, that the IEP team and the parents should be involved and that the FBA can be conducted using data obtained in the normal course of the student’s educational program. The DPI goes on the recommend that the IEP team consider strategies, including positive interventions and supports to address the behavior.

There is no question that the essential components of a behavior intervention plan were in place in this case. The October 2000 IEP specifically identified goals to deal with the Student’s behavior and listed strategies and positive interventions to deal with his behavior. In March of 2001, another IEP meeting was held specifically to work on creating a plan of action to address the Student’s behavior. The IEP team added a behavior plan to specifically deal with the Student’s problem behavior. Also, the special education teacher was in regular contact with the Student’s aunt during the entire school year to work on strategies to address the Student’s behavior.

I am satisfied that the FBA was an ongoing, continuous process that the District was addressing for the Student. The IEP team had the Student’s evaluations and observations of the teachers and the input from the Guardians to work on the plans to address the Student’s behavior. Even though it was never specifically identified in the IEPs that an FBA had been performed or that any target behaviors were specifically identified, there is ample evidence that an FBA was being performed throughout the school year and that the IEP team was addressing the Student’s problem behavior.

I am satisfied that the document titled Functional Behavioral Assessment completed by the special education teacher just prior to the manifestation determination was not the only FBA completed for the Student. This document appears to be a review of the Student’s evaluations and behavior and gave more information to the IEP team for their consideration. There already was an ongoing FBA had been taking place and a behavior intervention plan was in place prior to the manifestation determination on May 4, 2001. Therefore, there was no procedural defect by the District in preparing the FBA document by the special education teacher.

THE STUDENT’S IEP

The Guardians have alleged that the IEP in place at the time of the manifestation determination failed to provide FAPE because it failed to provided for adequate counseling needs, speech and language therapy and poor problem solving skills. This allegation is based upon the evaluation of Dr. Schirvar, the neuro-psychologist who evaluated the Student in June and July of 2001.

Speech and Language Therapy

At the time of the IEPs that took place in the 2000-2001 school year, there was no evaluation or information that led the IEP team to determine if there was any need to evaluate the Student for speech and language problems. At each IEP meeting, the Guardians were present and never requested any evaluation for speech and language problems.

Even after the evaluation performed by Dr. Schirvar, it is not clear that the Student is in need of speech and language therapy. According to Dr. Kjorsvig-Beans, Dr. Schirvar relied primarily on one assessment test to come to the conclusion that the Student needed speech and language therapy that may not have been reliable and he did not perform additional assessments to confirm his conclusion. Moreover, there have never been any evaluations completed by speech and language experts to determine the Student’s therapy needs.

Since the District had no information about the Student’s possible speech and language problems from any previous evaluations and IEP meetings and the Guardians never requested any speech and language evaluation. The District has not had the opportunity to do any evaluations to determine if the Student really has any speech and language therapy needs. At the time of the manifestation determination, the District had not been given this opportunity and the IEP was not defective for this lack of speech and language therapy.

Counseling and Problem Solving Skills

The Guardians have alleged that the IEP was not appropriate because it failed to provide adequate counseling for the Student. Dr. Schirvar recommended that the IEP should have specified a set number of counseling sessions with the school counselor to help him deal with past trauma and help him develop coping with problem solving.

The IEP provided for counseling services base[d] upon the Student’s need or his request for counseling. The school counselor testified that the Student never requested any counseling sessions. The school counselor would talk to the Student when he saw him in the hall or lunchroom (they ate lunch together for much of the school year). The counselor also talked with the Student’s special education teacher to keep informed as to the Student’s need for counseling and would give counseling if the special education teacher requested it. The IEP team had not specified the times for counseling because they felt that the Student’s behavior had been improving and they didn’t feel there was a need for specific counseling sessions.

In relation to the behavior of the Student at the Wolf Ridge trip, the counseling services provided by the District were appropriate. The evidence has shown that the behavior of the Student was making improvements during the 2000-2001 school year. He continued to have several discipline problems, but the District was actively working on those problems through the behavior intervention plan. Also, the counselor saw improvements in the Student’s ability to control his behavior and improve his problem solving. This was particularly evident during the wrestling season when his academics also improved.

Although increased counseling could possibly benefit the Student, the evidence has not shown that it could have prevented the behavior of the Student on the Wolf Ridge trip. The counseling that was provided through the IEP was reasonably calculated to provide an educational benefit to the Student and the Student was showing improvement in his behavior and problem solving skills.

Supervision on the Wolf Ridge Field Trip

The Guardian’s allege that the District was not providing the services required in the Student’s IEP on the Wolf Ridge field trip. The Guardians argue that the Student’s IEP required a structured setting for the Student. Also, the Guardians argue that the Student should not have been left alone at any time on the field trip because the IEP required an escort for the Student whenever he requested to leave a classroom during class time.

The Guardians do not characterize the escort requirement in the IEP correctly. The escort is only required when the Student wanted to leave during class time to use the rest room or get something from his locker. The Student was not escorted or chaperoned between classes or at lunchtime.

I am satisfied that the Student was adequately chaperoned according to his IEP at Wolf Ridge. The Student was chaperoned at all times by more than one adult except when he went to his room at the dormitory. They were escorted at all other times including walking from building to building. The schedule for the students on the field trip was from morning until evening and the only free time was a short time at lunchtime. At this time, the Student and 3 others snuck out a back door of the dormitory and smoked cigarettes and marijuana where they were not easily seen by anyone.

Manifestation Determination

The Guardian’s allege that the Student’s behavior of smoking marijuana on the Wolf Ridge field trip was a manifestation of his disability. Dr. Schirvar diagnosed the Student as a child with fetal alcohol effect and that a child with this diagnosis would not be able to understand the impact and consequences of his behavior nor would he be able to control his behavior. Dr. Schirvar also opined that the Student’s language problems and poor problem solving skills contributed to the behavior.

Whether or not the Student is a child with fetal alcohol effect is not clear. There has been no medical diagnosis to confirm this diagnosis and the Student’s own behavior does not support this diagnosis. He demonstrated that he was able to participate in a sport that required him to follow rules, make good decisions and solve problems. He was able to participate in many wrestling matches, cope with the stress of competing by himself and had no disciplinary problems with his coach or the referees.

I am satisfied that the Student’s behavior at Wolf Ridge was not a manifestation of his disability. The rules of the trip were reviewed with him on more than one occasion and he testified that he understood the rules. The act of smoking marijuana in a hidden location on two separate days shows that this was not an impulsive act and was planned. He understood that he was doing something against the rules and tried to do it in a way that he wouldn’t get caught because he understood that he could be disciplined as a consequence of his behavior. He has shown that he can control his behavior and he chose to smoke marijuana on the Wolf Ridge school field trip.

Interim Alternative Educational Setting

The Guardians allege that the Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES) did not provide FAPE to the Student. It was only providing 7 hours of education a week and only 1 hour of that was special education. After one morning of the IAES, the Student did not return for the rest of the school year.

IDEA requires that an IAES must:

1. Be selected so as to enable the child to continue to progress in the general curriculum, although in another setting, and to continue to receive those services and modifications, including those described in the child’s current IEP, that will enable the child to meet the goals set out in that IEP; and
2. Include services and modifications to address [drug use and possession], that are designed to prevent the behavior from recurring. See 300 C.F.R. §300.522(b)

The IAES in this case was designed to enable the Student to progress in the general curriculum and to meet the goals of the IEP. The schedule for the IAES was put together by the Student’s special education teacher. The classes were being taught by a teacher who had taken several special education classes and was approved by DPI to teach in this setting. The Student’s special education teacher was going to be in the setting for at least an hour per week to supervise the teacher.

The District also requested an alcohol and other drug assessment and regular drug screening through the 2001-2002 school year to address the Student’s drug use (Exhibit 15). The Guardians did not let the District know if they would have the Student assessed or not. They placed the Student in a drug treatment program without informing the District.

The District has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that all of the special education classes required by the IEP were in the IAES to allow the Student to progress in the general curriculum and to enable him to meet the goals set out in his IEP. Therefore, the IAES would have provided an educational benefit and FAPE. Because the Student stopped attending the IAES after only one day, there is no evidence to show that the IAES would not have provided an educational benefit.

1. The Division of Hearings and Appeals has authority to hear due process hearing requests related to Review of Manifestation Determinations pursuant to §227.43(m), Wis. Stats. And 20 U.S.C. §1415(k)(6)(B)(i).
2. The Student is a "child with a disability" needing "specially designed instruction" within the meaning of Chapter 115, Wis. Stats.
3. The District has carried its burden in demonstrating that it did not violate the procedural requirements of the Individual With Disabilities Act because the Functional Behavioral Assessment was not deficient.
4. The District has carried its burden in demonstrating that the Student’s Individual Education Program was appropriate in relation to the Student’s behavior of smoking marijuana on a school field trip.
5. The District has carried its burden of demonstrating that it provided the services to the Student that were required in the Student’s Individual Education Program while on the school field trip.
6. The District has carried its burden of demonstrating that the behavior of the Student of smoking marijuana on the school field trip was not a manifestation of his disability.
7. The District has carried its burden of demonstrating that the Interim Alternative Educational Setting would have provided a Free and Appropriate Education to the Student and the District is not required to provide compensatory education to the Student.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the due process hearing request be dismissed with prejudice.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin on October 3, 2001.