2006 Senate Bill 1026: Ban government discrimination against non-union assisted living facilities

Legislation watch

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

Introduced by Sen. Bill Hardiman (R) on February 2, 2006, to prohibit administrative rules and regulations, or exceptions to them, from being imposed on assisted living facilities, if the rules discriminate by applying different criteria for enforcement based on whether the employees of a facility are unionized. The Granholm administration has begun the process of imposing such a rule, which reportedly was proposed by the American Federal of State, City and Municipal Employers (AFSCME) union. If imposed the rule would impact 5,000 providers of long term care services for the mentally ill and others, many of which are very small facilities (such as residential group homes).
- Referred to the Senate Families and Human Services Committee on February 2, 2006.
  - Reported in the Senate on February 9, 2006, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on February 14, 2006, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that also bans discrimination based on wage levels or fringe benefits provided by a facility. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on February 14, 2006.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Gilda Jacobs (D) on February 14, 2006, to tie-bar the bill to House Bill 5189, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. HB 5189 would to prohibit giving any government contracts to a company that communicates to or holds meetings with employees urging them to vote against unionization. The amendment failed 15 to 22 in the Senate on February 14, 2006.
  Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Passed 22 to 15 in the Senate on February 14, 2006.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on February 14, 2006.
- Referred to the House Government Operations Committee on February 14, 2006.
  - Reported in the House on February 28, 2006, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Passed 56 to 45 in the House on March 2, 2006, to prohibit administrative rules and regulations, or exceptions to them, from being imposed on assisted living facilities, if the rules discriminate by applying different criteria for enforcement based on whether the employees of a facility are unionized. The Granholm administration has begun the process of imposing such a rule, which reportedly was proposed by the American Federal of State, City and Municipal Employers (AFSCME) union. If imposed the rule would impact 5,000 providers of long term care services for the mentally ill and others, many of which are very small facilities (such as residential group homes).
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on March 2, 2006, to give the bill immediate effect. Failed 57 to 44 in the House on March 2, 2006.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Vetoed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on March 23, 2006.

Most Recent Comments

Add Comment

1) Sen. Bishop's "journal statement" by Admin003 on February 18, 2006
Senator Bishop's statement is as follows:

I didn't intend to engage in this conversation, but as the chair of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, I want to rise in support of the good Senator from the 33rd District who referred to the committee as a toothless tiger and agree with him. The committee is set up in a way to provide some oversight on the rulemaking process, but really, indeed, has no authority to reject rules or amend rules as they come through the committee.

In fact, the committee has a limited amount of time to take up the rules, to consider them, and as the good Senator previously said, we do have the authority to submit a bill into each chamber and have those passed rejecting the rule, rescinding it, or extending the time period within which it can go into effect. But let's not forget the rest of the legislative process. Those bills then have to go to the Governor for her signature. It seems to me that we've got those rules in the first place from the administration. I don't necessarily think there is a functional process in place that can address these issues.

Unfortunately, this Legislature has been steamrolled by administrative rules on more than one occasion. The administrative rules process has become a process by which bureaucrats can make an end-run round on the legislative process. They circumvent the Legislature. They supplant state law with the administrative process that is our responsibility as a Legislature to create legislation, and we're being replaced by a process that has gone way wrong.

Having said that, I just feel that we need to have a candid discussion. We hear this talk about how we're confused about the process, that there seems to be something in place. There, in fact, is no process in place right now. We'd like that to be in place. I would call upon this Governor to be a leader and step up and create a process to bring true accountability to this process. In fact, maybe reinstate the rules of JCAR that we once had. That seems to be the consensus agreement today that all of us have discussed and that we, indeed, want accountability in the process.

I want to make that clarification, Mr.President.

Reply

Line

2) Sen. Schauer's "second journal statement" by Admin003 on February 18, 2006
Senator Schauer's second statement is as follows:

This is a great opportunity for all of us to understand the rulemaking process, the authority of JCAR, and the authority of this Legislature. So I appreciate the opportunity. I will read from MCL 24.245a of the Administrative Procedures Act, specifically subsection (3) and this refers to JCAR, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules. It says, "If the committee"--meaning JCAR--"files a notice of objection within the time period prescribed in subsection (1), the committee chair, the alternate chair, or any member of the committee shall cause bills to be introduced in both houses of the legislature simultaneously. Each house shall place the bill or bills directly on its calendar." It means before each body. "The bills shall contain 1 or more of the following: (a) A rescission of a rule upon its effective date"--a rescission; "(b) A repeal of the statutory provision under which the rule was authorized; (c) A bill stating the effective date of the proposed rule for up to 1 year."

So this is very clear, colleagues. We clearly have the ability when it's right, and we don't have rules before us, so this really is a mute point.

Reply

Line

3) Sen. Hardiman's "second journal statement" by Admin003 on February 18, 2006
Senator Hardiman's second statement is as follows:

To the point that this package is a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to an unfinished process and that it's very early in the process, I want to be perfectly clear. The sponsoring of these bills is not a knee-jerk reaction. In fact, I contacted the director of the Department of Human Services at least 10 months ago regarding these rules. I also asked her and sent a letter to her back in April because I heard about these rules, which finally after that, I believe in July, that we actually saw a memo regarding the rules. This is not a knee-jerk reaction. That is not what we are doing. We are reacting to a real situation.

I appreciate the fact that the department is willing to sit down and continue the committee process and come to a consensus. But that was stated at the hearing regarding these bills.

I continue my support of the package, and I ask that this body approve the bills.

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation