Most Recent Comments

1) Rep. Anderson's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on March 11, 2005]
Rep. Anderson, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on House Bill 4237 because it doesn't appear that it will in fact save the State any money. The State of Michigan already has an exceptional payroll system; in the late 90's the state invested heavily in implementing a coordinated payroll system that serves the payroll needs very well.

In fiscal year 2004, the cost of processing payroll warrants and EFT paper statements was estimated at about $700,000. This amount is apparently so low that a representative from the company ADP (which is a for-profit provider of such services) argued that it was too low and therefore must be in error. They even offered to pay for their own 'independent' investigation of the 'true costs'.

Furthermore, the requirement that the State hire an outside firm to determine the 'true' costs of the payroll is likely to be problematic - not only does it leave the State holding the bag for the costs of the required cost estimate if no outside source can offer us a lower price, it also could be a problem if the company hired to assess these costs is connected in some way to a company seeking to be hired by the State to run the payroll system.

Finally, even if there were cost savings to be had, much of what the state must deal with could create problems if an outside vendor were given the job. The primary area where problems may arise is the ability of a vendor to respond to changes and complexities in collective bargaining agreements on a timely and cost-effective basis. Two recent examples were the concessions that were bargained last year (banked leave time, furlough days, and temporary layoff days) and the deferred retirement option plan that went into effect in June for certain State Police employees. In-house staff was able to implement these changes within a few weeks, with no additional out-of-pocket cost for the state. It is likely that a vendor would charge extra for these types of changes and would be unable to implement them as quickly.

Another major concern I have is with the security issues that come with providing employees personal information to an outside contractor and the increased likelihood that such information might fall into the wrong hands. In a time when identity theft is exploding as a major crime, this is not the time to disseminate personal information, which could put more Michigan citizens at risk."

Reply

2) Rep. Miller's "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on March 11, 2005]
Rep. Miller, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

State government should always look for ways to be more efficient. However, it is my view that privatization of services is not the answer."

Rep. Gonzales, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:

"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I voted no on House Bill 4237 because it doesn't appear that it will in fact save the State any money. The state of Michigan already has an exceptional payroll system; in the late 90's the state invested heavily in implementing a coordinated payroll system that serves very well.

In fiscal year 2004, the cost of processing payroll warrants and EFT paper statements was estimated at about $700,000. This amount is apparently so low that a representative from the company ADP (which is a for-profit provider of such services) argued that it was too low and therefore must be in error. They even offered to pay for their own 'independent' investigation of the 'true costs'.

Furthermore, the requirement that the State hire an outside firm to determine the 'true' costs of the payroll is likely to be problematic - not only does it leave the State holding the bag for the costs of the required cost estimate if no outside source can offer us a lower price, it also could be a problem if the company hired to assess these costs is connected in some way to a company seeking to be hired by the State to run the payroll system.

Finally, even if there were cost savings to be had, much of what the state must deal with could create problems if an outside vendor were given the job. The primary area where problems may arise is the ability of a vendor to respond to changes and complexities in collective bargaining agreements on a timely and cost-effective basis. Two recent examples were the concessions that were bargained last year (banked leave time, furlough days, and temporary layoff days) and the deferred retirement option plan that went into effect in June for certain State Police employees. In-house staff was able to implement these changes within a few weeks, with no additional out-of-pocket cost for the state. It is likely that a vendor would charge extra for these types of changes and would be unable to implement them as quickly."

Reply

3) 2005 House Bill 4237 (Privatize state payroll processing ) [by admin on January 1, 2001]
Introduced in the House on February 8, 2005, to require the state to solicit bids for its employee payroll processing and check printing functions, and if the bids come in at least 5 percent than what the state now pays, to contract these functions out to the private sector

The vote was 58 in favor, 50 opposed and 2 not voting

(House Roll Call 34 at House Journal 20)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

View Full Conversation