2005 Senate Bill 280 (Appropriations: 2005-2006 State Police budget )

Legislation watch

Public Act 159 of 2005

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

Introduced by Sen. Hansen Clarke (D) on March 2, 2005, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 state police budget. This appropriates $544.0 million in unadjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars), compared to $443.0 million, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $238.9 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $244.3 million, and $107.9 million will come from state restricted funds. Much more information on Michigan’s budget is available at Hot Topics: Michigan’s Budget Challenge at www.mackinac.org/4964.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 2, 2005.
  - Reported in the Senate on June 14, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-2) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on June 15, 2005, to replace the executive proposal for this budget with one that expresses policy differences between the Republican-majority in the Senate and Governor Jennifer Granholm on certain spending items and funding sources. For much more detail see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency”>analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on June 15, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Michael Prusi (D) on June 15, 2005, to shift money appropriated for other purposes to keep the State Police post in Iron River open. Gov. Jennifer Granholm has proposed closing this post, and this budget concurs. The amendment failed in the Senate (19 to 19) on June 15, 2005. [Vote Details and Comments]
- Amendment offered by Sen. Deborah Cherry (D) and Sen. Michael Prusi (D) on June 15, 2005, to shift money appropriated for other purposes to keep open State Police posts that Gov. Jennifer Granholm has proposed closing. These are posts in Grand Haven, Groveland Township in Oakland County, and Iron River . The amendment failed in the Senate by voice vote on June 15, 2005.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Deborah Cherry (D) and Sen. Michael Prusi (D) on June 15, 2005, to shift money appropriated for other purposes to keep open State Police posts that Gov. Jennifer Granholm has proposed closing. These are posts in Grand Haven, Groveland Township in Oakland County, and Iron River . The amendment failed in the Senate by voice vote on June 15, 2005.
Passed in the Senate (34 to 4) on June 15, 2005, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 state police budget. This appropriates $543.5 million in unadjusted gross spending (funded from all sources, including special state restricted fund and federal pass-through dollars), compared to $443.0 million, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $234.0 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $244.3 million, and $107.9 million will come from state restricted funds. The budget concurs with Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s to close posts in Grand Haven, Groveland Township in Oakland County, and Iron River. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on June 16, 2005.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on June 16, 2005.
  - Reported in the House on June 28, 2005, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 28, 2005, to replace the Senate-passed version of this budget with one that “strips” all actual appropriations. See House-passed version for explanation. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on June 28, 2005.
Passed in the House (106 to 0) on June 28, 2005, to send the bill back to the Senate "stripped" of all actual appropriations, leaving it in its original form as a "template" or "placeholder." This vote is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 29, 2005.
Failed in the Senate (0 to 35) on June 30, 2005, 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 Senate on September 13, 2005.
Failed in the Senate (0 to 37) on September 28, 2005. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on September 13, 2005.
Passed in the House (64 to 41) on September 28, 2005, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 state police budget. This appropriates $550.8 million in gross spending, compared to $443.0 million, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $234.0 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $225.3 million, and $106.2 million will come from state restricted funds. The budget concurs with Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s executive budget recommendation to close posts in Grand Haven, Groveland Township in Oakland County, and Iron River. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on September 28, 2005.
Passed in the Senate (21 to 17) on September 28, 2005, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-2006 state police budget. This appropriates $550.8 million in gross spending, compared to $443.0 million, which was the FY 2004-2005 amount enrolled in 2004. Of this, $234.0 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2004-2005 amount of $225.3 million, and $106.2 million will come from state restricted funds. The budget concurs with Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s executive budget recommendation to close posts in Grand Haven, Groveland Township in Oakland County, and Iron River. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on September 30, 2005.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Sen. Johnson's "second journal statement" [by Admin003 on September 29, 2005]
Senator Johnson's second statement is as follows:

First and foremost, it was the Governor of this state who met with her administration and the heads of her departments on a retreat to become acquainted with the Price of Government. And, indeed, she embraced it. Remember?

Secondly, with regard to a time frame, we have been working on this budget since it was first introduced. Subcommittees have been meeting, haggling things out. We got down to conference committee and suddenly there is an interest in re-establishing the three buildings. They're buildings-- they are not state troopers. I would like you to ask the state troopers union whether they prefer the buildings or the employees?

I'd also like to recommend to those of you who are running for re-election: I hope you are listening Senator and Lieutenant Governor, go ahead and vote "no". Shut down the State Police statewide and you'll live to regret it.

Reply

Line

2) Sen. Cropsey's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on September 29, 2005]
Senator Cropsey's statement is as follows:

First of all, I think it's unseemly to make partisan attacks in this body when we almost have this budget wrapped up. I'm not even going to go there. But I think it's important to remember that now all of a sudden when we start talking about the closing of these three State Police posts, the Governor went through the Price of Government process also with her staff, and their recommendation was closing down these three posts. This is not a partisan issue; this was the Governor's proposal.

Are there public safety concerns? You better believe there are public safety concerns. When I did the Corrections budget, we had major public safety concerns about closing down prisons. We found money to keep the punk prison up in Baldwin open, if the Governor chooses to keep that punk prison open, so that we have enough beds. I mean even with that prison open, we're still going to be short maybe a thousand beds next year according the Department of Corrections. It's going to be interesting to see what the Governor does with that and see how much she really does care about public safety.

If we reject the report, Saturday the State Police are not funded. Now I don't want to go into a situation where this coming Saturday that I have voted to not fund the State Police. The first line of defense, that's where the funding comes through for the war on terror for homeland security, and I don't want to leave this state naked because of three State Police posts out of 60; but three of them that the Governor has recommended be closed.

Do we need the police? I think we need the police. Why do I think we need the police? Why do we need the personnel? Because we know we have 45,000 fugitive felons out there. We have 275,000 misdemeanant felons out there. In other words, we have almost one-third of a million people out there who are criminals on the run. We need to make sure that we keep the men in blue and the women in blue going. And if we have to close down a building or two or three in order to keep the personnel there, we need to keep the personnel.

I would just like to commend the subcommittee chairman from the 16th District for the terrific who are work that he did on this issue to try and save as many personnel as we can to keep them out going after the bad people. And that's really what we're talking about. Is it going to be bricks and mortar, or is it going to be people who are out apprehending the criminal element in society? I hope that this body will say we will keep the police going.

I would hate to see this body turn it down because you know what, we can't suspend the Constitution. The five-day rule is in the Constitution, and we can't suspend it. If you vote against this, you're making a conscious decision to de-fund the State Police as of Saturday morning.

Reply

Line

3) Sen. Johnson's "journal statement" [by Admin003 on September 29, 2005]
Senator Johnson's first statement is as follows:

Through you to the members on the other side of the aisle, I ask you a simple question: Does this administration, that by the way recommended the closure of these three posts as opposed to eliminating state troopers, want you to vote "no" on this budget? Does the Governor of this state want to run for re-election after having shut down the entire State Police at midnight on September 30th? Do you honestly and pettily want to do that for three buildings? We're talking about three buildings, and we're talking about protecting the first line of our defense should anything tragic happen in this state. We have 90 of our state troopers down in Louisiana right now. How foolish can you be for three buildings? That's like pork--pork, pork, pork--and I bet you the Governor would urge you real quick to vote "yes."

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation