The Senate was called to order by the Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Philip E. Hoffman.

 

The roll was called by the Secretary of the Senate, who announced that a quorum was present.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator DeGrow moved that Senators Dunaskiss, Posthumus and Schwarz be temporarily excused from today's session.

The motion prevailed.

 

Senator DeGrow moved that rule 3.902 be suspended to allow the guest of Senator Hart admittance to the Senate floor.

The motion prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

 

Senator V. Smith moved that Senator Miller be temporarily excused from today's session.

The motion prevailed.

 

 

The Secretary announced the printing and placement in the members' files on Tuesday, June 3 of:

 

By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of

 

 

Senator DeGrow moved that the Senate resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for consideration of the General Orders calendar.

The motion prevailed, and the Assistant President pro tempore, Senator Hoffman, designated Senator Rogers as Chairperson.

After some time spent therein, the Committee arose; and, the President pro tempore, Senator Schwarz, having assumed the Chair, the Committee reported back to the Senate, favorably and with a substitute therefor, the following bill:

House Bill No. 4305, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for community colleges for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998; to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations; to establish or continue certain funds, programs, and categories; and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state departments, officers, and employees.

Substitute (S-1).

The following are the amendments to the substitute recommended by the Committee of the Whole:

(2) A community college shall not approve a collective bargaining agreement which includes health care coverage for abortion services other than spontaneous abortion or to prevent the death of the woman upon whom the abortion is performed. This section shall not prohibit a health care benefit program which provides for an employee-paid rider coverage for abortion services.

(3) If a community college receiving funds under this act expends funds in violation of subsection (1), the appropriation under this act for that community college is reduced by 5%.".

Sec. 304. A community college receiving funding under this act that extends employee benefits to the unmarried partners of the community college's employee shall have its appropriation reduced by an amount equal to the cost of extending employee benefits to the unmarried partners of the community college's employees.".

The Senate agreed to the substitute, as amended, recommended by the Committee of the Whole and the bill as substituted was placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

 

During the Committee of the Whole, Senators Schwarz, Miller, Dunaskiss and Posthumus entered the Senate Chamber.

 

By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of

 

 

Senator DeGrow moved that the following bills be placed at the head of the Third Reading of Bills calendar:

House Bill No. 4306

House Bill No. 4307

House Bill No. 4308

House Bill No. 4310

The motion prevailed.

 

 

The following bill was read a third time:

House Bill No. 4306, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the department of community health and certain state purposes related to mental health, public health, and medical services for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998; to provide for the expenditure of such appropriations; to create funds; to provide for reports; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain local and state agencies and departments; and to provide for disposition of fees and other income received by the various state agencies.

The question being on the passage of the bill,

Senator Byrum offered the following amendment:

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

Senator DeGrow moved that further consideration of the bill be postponed temporarily.

The motion prevailed.

 

 

The following bill was read a third time:

House Bill No. 4307, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the department of corrections and certain state purposes related to corrections for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998; to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations; to provide for reports; to provide for the creation of certain advisory committees and boards; to prescribe certain powers and duties of the department of corrections, certain other state officers and agencies, and certain advisory committees and boards; to provide for the collection of certain funds; and to provide for the disposition of fees and other income received by certain state agencies.

The question being on the passage of the bill,

Senator Cisky offered the following amendments:

The amendments were adopted, a majority of the members serving having voted therefor.

The question being on the passage of the bill,

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The question being on concurring in the committee recommendation to give the bill immediate effect,

The recommendation was concurred in, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.

 

By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of

 

 

Senator DeGrow moved that the Senate resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole for consideration of the General Orders calendar.

The motion prevailed, and the President pro tempore, Senator Schwarz, designated Senator Rogers as Chairperson.

After some time spent therein, the Committee arose; and, the President, Lieutenant Governor Binsfeld, having assumed the Chair, the Committee reported back to the Senate, favorably and with a substitute therefor, the following bill:

House Bill No. 4309, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the state institutions of higher education and certain state purposes related to education for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998; to provide for the expenditures of those appropriations; and to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state departments, institutions, agencies, employees, and officers.

Substitute (S-1).

The following are the amendments to the substitute recommended by the Committee of the Whole:

Sec. 425. It is legislative intent that state funded medical schools require medical students to take pain treatment management coursework and that encouragement be given to medical doctors to take continuing education courses in pain treatment management.".

The Senate agreed to the substitute, as amended, recommended by the Committee of the Whole and the bill as substituted was placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.

 

By unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of

 

 

By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to consideration of the following bill:

House Bill No. 4308, entitled

A bill to make appropriations for the department of education and certain other purposes relating to education for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998; to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state departments, school districts, and other governmental bodies; and to provide for the disposition of fees and other income received by certain legal entities and state agencies.

The above bill was read a third time.

The question being on the passage of the bill,

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The question being on concurring in the committee recommendation to give the bill immediate effect,

The recommendation was concurred in, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

The Senate agreed to the title of the bill.

 

Senator DeGrow moved that Senator Dunaskiss be temporarily excused from the balance of today's session.

The motion prevailed.

 

Senator DeGrow moved that Senator Bouchard be excused from the balance of today's session.

The motion prevailed.

 

Senator V. Smith moved that Senator Miller be temporarily excused from the balance of today's session.

The motion prevailed.

 

Senator Dunaskiss entered the Senate Chamber.

 

 

The following bill was read a third time:

House Bill No. 4310, entitled

A bill to amend 1979 PA 94, entitled "The state school aid act of 1979," by amending sections 3, 6, 6a, 11, 13, 17b, 20, 20c, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31a, 36, 39, 41, 51a, 52, 53a, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61a, 62, 74, 81, 94, 99, 101, 104a, 107, 111, 124, 147, 151, 167, and 169a (MCL 388.1603, 388.1606, 388.1606a, 388.1611, 388.1613, 388.1617b, 388.1620, 388.1620c, 388.1623, 388.1624, 388.1625, 388.1626, 388.1631a, 388.1636, 388.1639, 388.1641, 388.1651a, 388.1652, 388.1653a, 388.1654, 388.1656, 388.1657, 388.1658, 388.1661a, 388.1662, 388.1674, 388.1681, 388.1694, 388.1699, 388.1701, 388.1704a, 388.1707, 388.1711, 388.1724, 388.1747, 388.1751, 388.1767, and 388.1769a), sections 3, 6, 11, 13, 17b, 20, 20c, 23, 24, 31a, 36, 39, 41, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61a, 62, 74, 81, 94, 99, 101, 104a, 111, 147, and 167 as amended and sections 25, 51a, 53a, 107, and 169a as added by 1996 PA 300, sections 6a, 124, and 151 as amended by 1995 PA 130, and section 26 as amended by 1994 PA 283, and by adding sections 12, 20j, 20k, 26a, 31b, 67, 68, 93, 105a, and 112; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.

The question being on the passage of the bill,

Senator Dingell offered the following amendments:

(A) PAY HIMSELF OR HERSELF ANY COMPENSATION OTHER THAN A SALARY ESTABLISHED IN THE CONTRACT UNDER SUBSECTION (5) AND APPROVED BY THE STATE BOARD.

(B) AUTHORIZE OR HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION, REMODELING, OR RENOVATION OF SCHOOL BUILDINGS BY THE DISTRICT OR IN ANY CONTRACT, BONDS, OR FINANCING RELATED TO THAT CONSTRUCTION, REMODELING, OR RENOVATION.

(C) AUTHORIZE BONDS, NOTES, OR OTHER DEBT OF THE DISTRICT.

(D) AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURE OF DISTRICT FUNDS OR DIRECT THE GOVERNING BOARD OR DISTRICT EMPLOYEES TO EXPEND DISTRICT FUNDS. THE STATE TRUSTEE MAY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GOVERNING BOARD CONCERNING EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT EXPENDITURE OF DISTRICT FUNDS.

(E) AUTHORIZE OR ENTER INTO ON BEHALF OF THE DISTRICT ANY CONTRACT FOR GOODS OR SERVICES. THE STATE TRUSTEE MAY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE GOVERNING BOARD CONCERNING EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT CONTRACTING.

(F) ACCRUE ANY PERSONAL BENEFIT THROUGH APPROVAL OF ANY CONTRACT." and renumbering the remaining subsection.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor.

Senator V. Smith requested the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator A. Smith offered the following amendment:

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

Senator V. Smith requested the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator Byrum offered the following amendments:

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

Senator V. Smith requested the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator Dingell offered the following amendments:

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

Senator V. Smith requested the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator V. Smith offered the following amendments:

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

Senator V. Smith requested the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator A. Smith offered the following amendments:

(A) THE NUMBER OF MILLS THE DISTRICT LEVIED IN 1993 FOR SCHOOL OPERATING PURPOSES IN THE 1993-94 SCHOOL YEAR WAS LESS THAN THE NUMBER OF MILLS THE DISTRICT LEVIED IN 1992 FOR SCHOOL OPERATING PURPOSES IN THE 1992-93 SCHOOL YEAR.

(B) THE DISTRICT LEVIED MILLS UNDER SECTION 1211C OF THE REVISED SCHOOL CODE, MCL 380.1211C, IN 1996 FOR SCHOOL OPERATING PURPOSES IN THE 1996-97 SCHOOL YEAR.

(2) THE AMOUNT OF THE PAYMENT TO A DISTRICT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE THE DISTRICT RECEIVED FROM THE MILLAGE LEVIED BY THE DISTRICT UNDER SECTION 1211C OF THE REVISED SCHOOL CODE, MCL 380.1211C, IN 1996 FOR SCHOOL OPERATING PURPOSES IN THE 1996-97 SCHOOL YEAR." and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The question being on the adoption of the amendments,

Senator A. Smith requested the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

The amendments were not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator DeGrow offered the following amendment:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator A. Smith offered the following amendments:

The amendments were adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Senator Koivisto offered the following amendment:

(2) IF A DISTRICT OR INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT EXPENDS FUNDS IN VIOLATION OF SUBSECTION (1), THE DEPARTMENT SHALL DEDUCT FROM THE TOTAL STATE SCHOOL AID FOR THAT DISTRICT OR INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO $50.00 FULL-TIME EQUATED EMPLOYEE.

(3) EACH DISTRICT OR INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT IS DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY NEGOTIATE THROUGH THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCESS FOR THE ELIMINATION OF HEALTH CARE COVERAGE FOR ABORTION SERVICES OTHER THAN FOR SPONTANEOUS ABORTION OR TO PREVENT THE DEATH OF THE WOMAN UPON WHOM THE ABORTION IS PERFORMED. AT LEAST TWICE EACH FISCAL YEAR, EACH DISTRICT OR INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT SHALL NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN WRITING OF THE STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS DESCRIBED IN THIS SUBSECTION.".

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

Senator V. Smith requested the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator Stille offered the following amendments:

The amendments were adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Senators Dunaskiss, A. Smith, Bullard, Bouchard and Shugars offered the following amendments:

The amendments were adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Senator Stille offered the following amendment:

(2) TO RECEIVE FUNDS UNDER THIS SECTION, A PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY SHALL MEET THE CRITERIA SPECIFIED IN THIS SECTION, SHALL APPLY TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE FORM AND MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE DEPARTMENT, AND SHALL AGREE TO USE THE FUNDS FOR JOB SKILLS TRAINING." and adjusting the totals in section 11 and enacting section 1 accordingly.

The amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.

Senator Byrum offered the following amendment:

(A) THE AMOUNT OF THE GRANT.

(B) THE SOURCE OF THE GRANT.

(C) THE PURPOSES FOR THE GRANT AND THE CRITERIA FOR THE AWARDING OF THE GRANT.

(D) A DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AMOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPENDED FROM THE GRANT PROCEEDS AND OF THE PURPOSE OF EACH EXPENDITURE.

(E) A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE GRANT AND THE EXPENDITURES OF GRANT PROCEEDS HAVE SATISFIED THE STATED PURPOSES OF THE GRANT AND HAVE FURTHERED THE EDUCATIONAL GOALS OF THE DISTRICT AS DEFINED BY ITS BOARD OR AS STATED IN THE CONTRACT ISSUED BY THE AUTHORIZING BODY FOR A PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMY.

(2) A DISTRICT THAT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SUBSECTION (1) FORFEITS FROM THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF STATE SCHOOL AID DUE TO THE DISTRICT UNDER THIS ACT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR IN WHICH THE VIOLATION OCCURS AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 10% OF THAT TOTAL AMOUNT.".

Senator Miller entered the Senate Chamber.

 

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

Senator V. Smith requested the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senator A. Smith offered the following amendment:

"Enacting section 4. Section 12 of the state school aid act of 1979, 1979 PA 94, as added by this amendatory act, does not take effect unless all of the following bills of the 89th Legislature are enacted into law:

(a) Senate Bill No. 308.

(b) Senate Bill No. 310.

(c) Senate Bill No. 311.".

The question being on the adoption of the amendment,

Senator V. Smith requested the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.

The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The question being on the passage of the bill,

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The question being on concurring in the committee recommendation to give the bill immediate effect,

The recommendation was concurred in, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.

Senator DeGrow offered to amend the title to read as follows:

A bill to amend 1979 PA 94, entitled "An act to make appropriations to aid in the support of the public schools and the intermediate school districts of the state; to make appropriations for certain other purposes relating to education; to provide for the disbursement of the appropriations; to supplement the school aid fund by the levy and collection of certain taxes; to prescribe the powers and duties of certain state departments, the state board of education, and certain other boards and officials; to prescribe penalties; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts," by amending sections 3, 6, 6a, 11, 13, 17b, 20, 20c, 23, 24, 25, 26, 31a, 36, 39, 41, 51a, 52, 53a, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61a, 62, 74, 81, 94, 99, 101, 107, 111, 124, 147, 151, 167, and 169a (MCL 388.1603, 388.1606, 388.1606a, 388.1611, 388.1613, 388.1617b, 388.1620, 388.1620c, 388.1623, 388.1624, 388.1625, 388.1626, 388.1631a, 388.1636, 388.1639, 388.1641, 388.1651a, 388.1652, 388.1653a, 388.1654, 388.1656, 388.1657, 388.1658, 388.1661a, 388.1662, 388.1674, 388.1681, 388.1694, 388.1699, 388.1701, 388.1707, 388.1711, 388.1724, 388.1747, 388.1751, 388.1767, and 388.1769a), sections 3, 6, 11, 13, 17b, 20, 20c, 23, 24, 31a, 36, 39, 41, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61a, 62, 74, 81, 94, 99, 101, 111, 147, and 167 as amended and sections 25, 51a, 53a, 107, and 169a as added by 1996 PA 300, sections 6a, 124, and 151 as amended by 1995 PA 130, and section 26 as amended by 1994 PA 283, and by adding sections 10, 12, 20k, 26a, 31b, 67, 68, 69, 93, 105a, 112, and 166d; and to repeal acts and parts of acts.

The amendment to the title was adopted.

The Senate agreed to the title as amended.

 

 

 

 

Senators Dingell, Stallings, Cherry, Berryman, A. Smith and Byrum, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. IV, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill No. 4310.

Senator Dingell moved that the statements he made during the discussion of the amendments he offered and the amendment offered by Senator V. Smith be used as his reasons for voting "no."

The motion prevailed.

Senator Dingell's first statement, in which Senator Stallings concurred, is as follows:

This amendment is prompted by some of the ill experiences of a city in the district I represent with court-appointed receivers. It didn't get a lot of play in the press, but the receiver did a lot of things that are highly obnoxious to anybody with any principles. If you watch TV in the Detroit area during the three years that Mr. Schimmel served as Judicial Receiver for Ecorse, he was regularly on TV. When he appeared on TV or radio or did interviews with the press, he paid himself 180 bucks an hour, and he made himself freely available. It's my feeling that if he wishes to engage in a lot of self-promotion and pay himself at such an extraordinary rate, then perhaps he ought to go practice law with Jeffrey Fieger and leave the people's business to somebody who's much more reasonable.

Also three city school districts that are eligible for such a receivership are getting ready to build schools. Each of those school districts' voters have given their okay to raising money for that purpose. All three of these school districts are financially solvent. I see no reason to even tempt such a receiver with such moneys. I'd like to leave control of those moneys in the hands of the people's representatives. This is what this amendment does. I recommend it to my colleagues.

 

Senator Dingell's second statement, in which Senator Stallings concurred, is as follows:

I discussed this amendment yesterday. The people who opposed it didn't discuss it. They just said they didn't like it. What this amendment does is, as with the previous Dingell amendment, induce a little bit of rationality into the process of establishing a receiver for educational purposes. The bill as it is now does not require the receiver to take any input from anybody. Now, that doesn't seem quite rational to me. I don't think he's the fount of all wisdom on educational purposes any more than we are. The bill as it is now also does not require him to make public any plans he has, except sometime during his tenure. That could be the absolute last minute he's a receiver. I think he should, as his first order of business, draw up a plan based on input from the community and others as to what he is going to do for each and every one of the schools. I don't see it as being any derogation of his powers to do just that.

Also I think we ought to do away with the power of summarily dismissing people and require him to act in compliance with the law. The Michigan Constitution does not give anybody, including the Michigan Legislature, the power to act in this fashion. We don't have the power to do so. If you look at the Michigan Constitution, it says that any enactment that we pass if it interferes with an existing contract, the entire enactment is void--not just the provision that interferes with the contract, but the entire enactment. This language in the Michigan Constitution is not fuzzy; it's very clear. This language was borrowed from the U.S. Constitution. Again, today we'll probably hear, "Well, let's just vote this down." But you won't see any defense of this kind of language.

I recommend the Dingell amendment to my colleagues.

Senator Dingell's third statement, in which Senator Stallings concurred, is as follows:

A long time ago, when another prominent member of the Republic Party was told he couldn't do something under the U.S. Constitution, his response was, "Don't destroy the beauty of the thing with legalities." It's hard to read the silence from the other side of the Chamber in the face of constitutional objections as saying anything else.

Let me again read to you the U.S. Constitution and state constitutional provisions, "No state shall...pass any...law impairing the obligation of contracts." That is what these provisions that we are trying to remove do. In the Michigan Constitution, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law or law impairing the obligation of contract shall be enacted." It is very clearly on point.

The Legislature probably does have the authority to empower the trustee to reassign those persons to other duties, but the Legislature does not have the power to summarily dismiss those persons. Once upon a time in ancient Athens, the assembly of the people thought it monstrous that their constitution prevented them from doing just anything they wanted to. They decided not to be bound by it. That day marked the decline of ancient Athens.

 

Senator Cherry's statement, in which Senators Berryman and A. Smith concurred, is as follows:

I voted "no" for two very specific reasons. I do think that the members of the subcommittee and members of the Appropriations Committee by and large did a very good job with this bill, but there are a couple of aspects of the bill that give me a great deal of personal difficulty and caused me to vote "no" on the bill in its entirety.

One is an issue that I think Senator Dingell raised very clearly in debate on this bill in terms of its impairment of the existing contracts and the effect that constitutional language has on the entire bill, not just the provision dealing with a take-over--although that is my second problem, the provisions for this receivership--but it seems to me that Senator Dingell raised a very important constitutional point that puts the entire K-12 appropriations in jeopardy should that provision be successfully challenged under the impairment of contracts language in the Constitution. I think it's certainly very vulnerable for that challenge.

To the merits of the issue that receivership part of this bill gives me a great deal of personal difficulty. I think the language is a bit severe. What we're not talking about is a financial bankruptcy, but rather educational bankruptcy. I think that the language and the powers given to the receiver go far beyond what is necessary to deal with districts that are having problems.

There is, I think, a bit of confusion, too, over the criteria that would describe such a district that is subject to this receivership. Clearly the question over how districts performed in terms of test scores is pretty apparent. But that's really a two-test criteria. Not only is it based upon how a district performed on tests, but who took the test, how many took the test or who didn't take the test.

On that basis, Madam President, I think there's probably one school district in my Senate district that might become subject to or eligible for take-over. They've clearly not expressed any desire on their part to me to be subject to such a provision. I don't think that such a provision will benefit them in their efforts to improve their educational offerings in their particular district. On that basis, Madam President, I voted "no" on the bill.

 

Senator Berryman's statement, in which Senator A. Smith concurred, is as follows:

Although there are some very, very good elements of this bill, I find the contradictions in the debate very, very unsettling. One of the questions that we've talked about today was interpreting the people of the state of Michigan on the referendum on taxpayer funded abortions and how you expanded that into other areas. If I'm not mistaken, when the Governor talked about a state take-over of the public school systems, there was a public outcry against the state take-over of public schools. So, on one hand you're saying we're listening to what the people said, and on this particular case, you heard what the people said, and the majority of people said they don't want anything to do with the state take-over of schools. Yet you come back in legislation and do that very thing. Again, I can be corrected, but I think the area that we're looking at very seriously is the Benton Harbor school district. If that is the school district that this state plans on taking over, my recollection is that the school district was very adamant about not wanting the state to come in and take them over.

I guess we only use what the public says when it's in our own philosophical best interest and not consistent to what they are always saying. I think because of that great inconsistency and the overwhelming outcry of the public, that state take-over of public schools is not the best idea and not the right idea, I voted against this bill and would hope that if you're going to continue on with these other amendments on these other budget bills to invoke again the public's wishes, I wish you'd remember your discussion on this bill.

In countering what the public has said, we said, "We know better here in the state of Michigan, big government, state government. We can do a better job than you at the local level." That's how serious this is. With the language that you passed, they have the authority, that individual has the authority to come in and suspend the duties of a duly elected school board, locally elected school board, and it says that automatically the superintendent, principals, assistant principals, can be terminated. That's very serious stuff. You all just gave approval to do that--for big government, Lansing, Lansing knows better than those local school boards that were duly elected by the people of that school district. I think you've bitten off a little more than what those people are willing to let you chew.

Senator Stallings' statement is as follows:

Aside from the constitutional issue that the Senator from the 7th District raised and enforceability of contracts under contract law, there is an issue of certainly the Executive branch of the government, Executive Office, exercising an unwarranted executive privilege of taking over a school district. Ordinarily, I probably would simply have voted "yes" because on its face it appeared to be in the best interest of those students who are relying on the school boards in those various districts who were empowered and elected by the people to operate the school in the most reasonable method possible, and to spend those funds that would benefit the students who are in those public school districts.

I readily recognize that this is a bill and perhaps even a vile attempt for the Executive Branch of the government to take over a school district that is domicile in the heart of my Senate district. For that reason I am concerned when state government, as the Senator from the 7th District has indicated, think that they can do a better job than those officials who are duly elected by the constituents in my district and empowered with the responsibility of governance of that school district and expending of those funds and providing educational programs that are a betterment to the students in that geographic area. I am concerned when state government feels that they can do a better job than the board that is elected by my constituents empowered to run the school. For that reason, and those reasons I said earlier, is why I voted "no."

 

Senator Byrum's statement is as follows:

I voted "no" because I am concerned about the receivership portion and the interference with the employee contracts, the lack of oversight in grant making and the transfer of power from the State Board of Education to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Although I can agree with large portions of the school aid bill, I think that it needs to go to conference committee and that it needs some additional work. It's my hope that the conferees can do that additional work and bring us forth a budget that is more satisfactory.

 

Senator Koivisto asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.

The motion prevailed.

Senator Koivisto's statement is as follows:

This goes back to the amendment that was put on by Senator Shugars regarding abortion and collective bargaining. What my amendment would do would be make changes in what was done by Senator Shugars. It's a pro-life amendment, but I would say pro-life will not support the amendment, and the reason is because it makes changes in the amendment that he put forward. It's a different version than what was in the House. It creates a point of difference and it would have to be discussed in conference. That's the reason they don't support it. It's not that what I'm proposing is against what pro-life would wish to see happen. It does make the change, however.

I want to be careful in explaining that so no one is misled. Anytime we get into this kind of vote, everybody has the right to be able to clearly understand what we're talking about. When we were considering this, perhaps if you analyzed what we did maybe it is something that should be looked at in conference, something that should be discussed in conference, not something that should be buried and tossed aside, but something that should be fine-tuned. The second part of what we did with the amendment that we adopted that was put forward by Senator Shugars was definitely to impact on what happens in the collective bargaining process. That's why I got involved in this. That's why I put forward this amendment. Because labor is concerned with what we did, with the precedent we did regarding interfering with collective bargaining. What I would do is make this subject to collective bargaining. Let them hash that issue out in collective bargaining and put in punitive damages to the districts if they do not do so.

With that, I will continue to vote along the pro-life line. That's not where I'm coming from. I'm coming from trying to help labor on this particular issue. Hopefully, some of you will see fit to do the same. With that, I intend on voting for the bill, so I can't request that my explanation of the amendment be used as my "no" vote explanation, because ultimately in the end I will vote for the K-12 bill.

 

By unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of

 

 

Senators Van Regenmorter, North and Rogers introduced

Senate Bill No. 553, entitled

A bill to amend 1965 PA 203, entitled "Michigan law enforcement officers training council act of 1965," by amending the title and sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 (MCL 28.601, 28.602, 28.603, 28.604, 28.605, 28.606, 28.607, 28.608, 28.609, 28.610, 28.611, 28.612, 28.614, and 28.615), section 2 as amended by 1995 PA 204, section 3 as amended by 1996 PA 545, section 9 as amended by 1994 PA 155, and section 11 as amended by 1985 PA 15, and by adding sections 9a, 9b, 9c, and 9d.

The bill was read a first and second time by title and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the recommendation that the following amendment be adopted and that the joint resolution then be adopted:

"The director of the state transportation department shall be ELECTED FOR A FOUR-YEAR TERM AT THE GENERAL ELECTION IN EACH ALTERNATIVE EVEN NUMBERED YEAR and shall be the principal executive officer of the state transportation department.".

Yeas: Senators Cisky, DeGrow, Hoffman, Schwarz, Steil, Conroy, Koivisto, A. Smith and Vaughn

Nays: Senators Gast, Geake and McManus

The joint resolution and the amendment recommended by the committee were referred to the Committee of the Whole.

 

 

The Committee on Appropriations reported

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 32.

A concurrent resolution to increase the total project cost of the Wayne State University Undergraduate Library project.

(For text of resolution, see Senate Journal No. 43, p. 691.)

With the recommendation that the concurrent resolution be adopted.

Yeas: Senators Gast, Geake, Cisky, DeGrow, Hoffman, McManus, Schwarz, Steil, Conroy, Koivisto, A. Smith and Vaughn

Nays: None

The concurrent resolution was placed on the order of Resolutions.

 

 

The Committee on Appropriations reported

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 33.

A concurrent resolution approving the conveyance of property to the State Building Authority and approving a lease between the State of Michigan and the State Building Authority relative to the Department of Corrections Jackson Parole Camp.

(For text of resolution, see Senate Journal No. 43, p. 691.)

With the recommendation that the concurrent resolution be adopted.

Yeas: Senators Gast, Geake, Cisky, DeGrow, Hoffman, McManus, Schwarz, Steil, Conroy, Koivisto, A. Smith and Vaughn

Nays: None

The concurrent resolution was placed on the order of Resolutions.

 

 

The Committee on Appropriations reported

Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 34.

A concurrent resolution approving the conveyance of property to the State Building Authority and approving a lease between the State of Michigan and the State Building Authority relative to the Department of Corrections State Prison of Southern Michigan Reorganization (Phase I).

(For text of resolution, see Senate Journal No. 43, p. 692.)

With the recommendation that the concurrent resolution be adopted.

Yeas: Senators Gast, Geake, Cisky, DeGrow, Hoffman, McManus, Schwarz, Steil, Conroy, Koivisto, A. Smith and Vaughn

Nays: None

The concurrent resolution was placed on the order of Resolutions.