Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2004 Senate Bill 1069 (Appropriations: 2005 school aid budget)

Public Act 351 of 2004

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

Most Recent Comments

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

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I am taking a negative position on our school aid budget because of the implications that Senate Bill 1069 will have on not only the residents of Livingston County, but the People of the State of Michigan, as well. The change in the blended count from a formula of 80/20 to 75/25 will result in yet another devastating blow to the schools of Livingston County. I believe that a cut of well over two-hundred thousand dollars to the families and students of Livingston County occurring partially through the fiscal year is wrong. Indeed, the blended count will save several million dollars, but the pain of cuts is not shared equally throughout the state. Education has and always been an extreme priority and I will continue to fight for the families of this great state."

Reply

Line

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

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

By moving away from the current 80/20 membership count for calculating per pupil funding for local school district, Michigan will be unfairly hurting growing school districts. I have voted no based on this inequity."

Reply

Line

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

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

This statement is intended to clarify my NO vote on SB 1069. I agree with all of the concepts that were presented in the Education Budget bill, except for one - the blended count percentage.

I believe that the correct public policy is to keep in tact the 80/20 blended count percentage. The change to 75/25 directly penalizes the growing districts and areas. The faster a district grows the bigger the hit that district will take. When cuts need to be made to the school aid fund, I believe the cuts should be across the board to every district. It is not our place as legislators to pick winners and losers.

The school districts that I represent are some of the fastest growing districts in the state of Michigan. The blended count issue is not just a budget issue, it is a growth issue and this percentage will shift money away from the growing districts. This vote will effect each and every one of the schools in my district, which will effect each and every child in my district, which will effect each and every family in my district. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience support this bill in its current form."

Reply

Line


View Full Conversation