2004 Senate Bill 1064 (Appropriations: 2005 prison budget)

Legislation watch

Public Act 345 of 2004

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Sen. Shirley Johnson (R) on March 3, 2004, to provide the “template” or “place holder” for a Senate Republican version of a Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Department of Corrections budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 3, 2004.
  - Reported in the Senate on March 30, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on March 31, 2004. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on March 31, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Michael Switalski (D) on March 31, 2004, to add $5 million for prisoner academic and vocational programs. The amendment failed in the Senate (16 to 21) on March 31, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Sen. Michael Switalski (D) on March 31, 2004, to add $5.2 million in prisoner drug treatment, for a total of $20 million. The amendment failed in the Senate by voice vote on March 31, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Martha G. Scott (D) on March 31, 2004, to add $5.8 million for prisoner Hepatitis C testing and treatment. The amendment failed in the Senate (16 to 20) on March 31, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
Passed in the Senate (21 to 15) on March 31, 2004, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 Department of Corrections budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is Senate Bill 1037 .) This appropriates $1.801 billion in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $1.721 billion, which was the FY 2003-2004 amount enrolled in 2003. Of this, $1.722 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to $1.609 billion in FY 2003-2004. The Senate version authorizes approximately $20 million less in gross spending than the governor recommended, with less for prisoner education, drug treatment, Hepatitis C health care, travel expenses, and others. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on March 31, 2004.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on March 31, 2004.
  - Reported in the House on June 8, 2004, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 9, 2004, to replace the Senate version of this budget with a House version which expresses policy differences between the bodies on certain spending items. See House-passed version for details. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on June 9, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Chris Kolb (D) on June 9, 2004, to add $250,000 for prisoner substance abuse (drug) testing and treatment. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on June 9, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Triette Reeves (D) on June 9, 2004, to add $1.15 million for prisoner hepatitis C testing and treatment. The amendment passed in the House by voice vote on June 9, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Marsha Cheeks (D) on June 9, 2004, to add $2.5 million for prisoner academic and vocational education programs. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on June 9, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Chris Kolb (D) on June 9, 2004, to add $1.4 million for prison clinics. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on June 9, 2004.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Leon Drolet (R) on June 9, 2004, to cut $9.2 million from prisoner academic and vocational education programs. The amendment failed in the House (38 to 65) on June 9, 2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Rep. Chris Ward (R) on June 9, 2004, to cut $1 million from prisoner substance abuse (drug) testing and treatment. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on June 9, 2004.
Passed in the House (99 to 4) on June 9, 2004, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 Department of Corrections budget. (Note: Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s proposed budget for this department is Senate Bill 1037 .) This appropriates $1.784 billion in adjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars, minus interdepartmental transfers), compared to $1.609 billion in FY 2003-2004. Of this, $1.711 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2003-2004 amount of $1.632 billion. The House version authorizes approximately $37 million less in gross spending than the governor recommended, and adds $8.6 million more than the Senate for prisoner education, drug treatment, and Hepatitis C health care. It does not include the cuts proposed by House Bill 5527. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 10, 2004.
Failed in the Senate (0 to 37) on June 15, 2004, to concur with a House-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 29, 2004.
Passed in the House (89 to 14) on September 9, 2004, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 Department of Corrections budget. This appropriates $1.783 billion in gross spending (including state restricted fund and federal dollars), compared to $1.705 billion in FY 2003-2004. Of this, $1.708 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to $1.609 billion in FY 2003-2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 30, 2004.
Passed in the Senate (33 to 2) on September 8, 2004, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004-2005 Department of Corrections budget. This appropriates $1.783 billion in gross spending (including state restricted fund and federal dollars), compared to $1.705 billion in FY 2003-2004. Of this, $1.708 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to $1.609 billion in FY 2003-2004. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 28, 2004.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Rep. Dennis' "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 11, 2004]
Rep. Dennis, having reserved the right to explain her nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I did not support the Conference Report to Senate Bill 1064, which provides appropriations for the Department of Corrections, because of the projected $12.8 million reduction, elimination, or replacement of staffed gun towers with security technology.

Gun towers serve important functions within prisons facilities. All facilities with security classifications above Level III have gun towers. These facilities house the most dangerous of offenders in Michigan's correctional system. According to the Michigan Corrections Officers (MCO) organization, gun towers have been instrumental in breaking up or gaining control of inmate melees. In addition, these towers assist in controlling inmates and protecting the lives of officers and staff who risk their lives every day in our prisons. At some facilities, gun towers were added because officers were subject to attacks by inmates.

Beyond prison facilities, gun towers serve important functions by protecting the public from potential prisoner escapes. Officers who staff gun towers serve as 'lookouts' by observing prisoner movement and activities from a vantage point far better than those of officers on the ground and can also take into account suspicious activity outside the walls. Hence, staffed gun towers have been instrumental in deterring and preventing prisoner escapes.

I am not convinced that the Department has made a prudent decision to allow the efficiency of technology to sufficiently replace our corrections officers. Further, I am not convinced that the projected $12.8 million in savings outweighs the many benefits of gun towers.

Without gun towers, everyone is at-risk. Therefore, I chose not support this conference report."

Reply

Line

2) Rep. Brown's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 11, 2004]
Rep. Brown, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I did not support the Conference Report to Senate Bill 1064, which provides appropriations for the Department of Corrections, because of the projected $12.8 million reduction, elimination, or replacement of staffed gun towers with security technology.

Gun towers serve important functions within prisons facilities. All facilities with security classifications above Level III have gun towers. These facilities house the most dangerous of offenders in Michigan's correctional system. According to the Michigan Corrections Officers (MCO) organization, gun towers have been instrumental in breaking up or gaining control of inmate melees. In addition, these towers assist in controlling inmates and protecting the lives of officers and staff who risk their lives every day in our prisons. At some facilities, gun towers were added because officers were subject to attacks by inmates.

Beyond prison facilities, gun towers serve important functions by protecting the public from potential prisoner escapes. Officers who staff gun towers serve as 'lookouts' by observing prisoner movement and activities from a vantage point far better than those of officers on the ground and can also take into account suspicious activity outside the walls. Hence, staffed gun towers have been instrumental in deterring and preventing prisoner escapes.

I am not convinced that the Department has made a prudent decision to allow the efficiency of technology to sufficiently replace our corrections officers. Further, I am not convinced that the projected $12.8 million in savings outweighs the many benefits of gun towers.

Without gun towers, everyone is at-risk. Therefore, I chose not support this conference report."

Reply

Line

3) Rep. Adamini's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on September 11, 2004]
Rep. Adamini, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I did not support the Conference Report to Senate Bill 1064, which provides appropriations for the Department of Corrections, because of the projected $12.8 million reduction, elimination, or replacement of staffed gun towers with security technology.

Gun towers serve important functions within prisons facilities. All facilities with security classifications above Level III have gun towers. These facilities house the most dangerous of offenders in Michigan's correctional system. According to the Michigan Corrections Officers (MCO) organization, gun towers have been instrumental in breaking up or gaining control of inmate melees. In addition, these towers assist in controlling inmates and protecting the lives of officers and staff who risk their lives every day in our prisons. At some facilities, gun towers were added because officers were subject to attacks by inmates.

Beyond prison facilities, gun towers serve important functions by protecting the public from potential prisoner escapes. Officers who staff gun towers serve as 'lookouts' by observing prisoner movement and activities from a vantage point far better than those of officers on the ground and can also take into account suspicious activity outside the walls. Hence, staffed gun towers have been instrumental in deterring and preventing prisoner escapes.

I am not convinced that the Department has made a prudent decision to allow the efficiency of technology to sufficiently replace our corrections officers. Further, I am not convinced that the projected $12.8 million in savings outweighs the many benefits of gun towers.

Without gun towers, everyone is at-risk. Therefore, I chose not support this conference report."

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation