¶ 44. {concurring). I agree with the conclusions reached in the majority opinion. However, I write separately to point out that the majority opinion's statutory analysis of Wis. Stat. § 109.03(1) is a departure from that which has been this court's mode of statutory analysis and that it is not one that the court has discussed and decided to adopt.
¶ 45. Our jurisprudence has repeatedly explained that the interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review de novo. State ex rel. Angela M.W. v. Kruzicki, 209 Wis. 2d 112, 121, 561 N.W.2d 729 (1997); Stockbridge Sch. Dist. v. DPI, 202 Wis. 2d 214, 219, 550 N.W.2d 96 (1996). Our goal in statutory interpretation is to ascertain and give effect to the legislature's intent. *113Angela M.W., 209 Wis. 2d at 121; Ball v. Dist. No. 4 Area Bd. of Vocational, Technical and Adult Educ., 117 Wis. 2d 529, 537-38, 345 N.W.2d 389 (1984). We begin our interpretation with the language the legislature has chosen to use in the statute. Angela M.W., 209 Wis. 2d at 121. We give that language its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. at 121; Bruno v. Milwaukee County, 2003 WI 28, ¶ 20, 260 Wis. 2d 633, 660 N.W.2d 656. If the language is clear on its face, we need go no further and we simply apply it. Bruno, 260 Wis. 2d 633, ¶ 20. As a general rule we do not review extrinsic sources unless there is an ambiguity in the statute. However, if the language is ambiguous, we consult the "scope, history, context, subject matter and object of the statute" in order to ascertain legislative intent. Ball, 117 Wis. 2d at 537-38. A statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible to two or more reasonable interpretations. Angela M.W., 209 Wis. 2d at 121.
¶ 46. The majority opinion employs the analytic framework for a statute that is ambiguous, while purposely not analyzing whether Wis. Stat. § 109.03(1) is ambiguous. This is a change in our traditional analysis, which is set out above. I offer no opinion about whether our mode of statutory analysis ought to be changed. However, when we change the statutory analysis in a majority opinion without explaining that the majority of the court has not decided to change its analysis, we lead our readers to conclude that we have changed. This can cause confusion among those we write to assist and make our opinions less useful to the public. Accordingly, I respectfully concur.
*114¶ 47. I am authorized to state that Justices JON E WILCOX and N. PATRICK CROOKS join this concurrence.