Legislation watch
- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
2007 House Bill 4346: Appropriations: 2007-2008 Education Department budget
Public Act 119 of 2007
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. Matthew Gillard (D) on February 28, 2007, the executive recommendation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2007-2008 Department of Education budget. This appropriates $93.1 million in gross spending, compared to $90.665 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. Of this, $6.58 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $6.66 million. Note: Gov. Jenifer Granholm’s executive budget recommendations are premised on the legislature adopting a 2 percent tax on services which along with other tax increases and a proposed reduction in business taxes represents a net tax hike of approximately $1 billion.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on February 28, 2007.
- Reported in the House on August 22, 2007, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on August 22, 2007, to replace the executive proposal for this budget with one that expresses the preferences of the House majority on various spending items and funding sources. For more see the House-passed version, and for detail see analysis from the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on August 22, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Fran Amos (R) and Rep. Jacob Hoogendyk, Jr. (R) on August 22, 2007, to require the Department of Education to post on its web site all expenditures it makes, including the purpose for which each is made. The amendment failed 51 to 58 in the House on August 22, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on February 28, 2007.
- Passed 59 to 50 in the House on August 22, 2007, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) Department of Education budget. This appropriates $97.794 million in gross spending, compared to $90.665 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. Of this, $8.187 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $6.66 million. (Much of that increase is due to the transfer of career and technical education operations from the Department of Labor and Economic Development.) Another $7.236 million comes from state “restricted fund” revenue that is generated by various fees and other levies. Note: As with all House Budgets, this one authorizes spending well in excess of projected revenues, and is based on the presumption of a substantial tax increase.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on August 30, 2007.
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 30, 2007.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on September 6, 2007, to adopt a version of the bill that essentially strips out all of the appropriations of the House-passed version, which is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on September 6, 2007.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Hansen Clarke (D) on September 6, 2007, to require the Department of Education to conduct a comprehensive performance audit of the Detroit public schools. The amendment passed 37 to 1 in the Senate on September 6, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Passed 25 to 13 in the Senate on September 6, 2007, to send the Department of Education budget back to the House "stripped" of all actual appropriations, and $100 “placeholders” in their place. These and some changes in the remaining “boilerplate” language prescribing policies the department must follow establish “points of difference” with the Senate version, the presence of which makes them subjects for negotiation between the bodies. This vote is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on September 6, 2007, to concur with a Senate-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. Failed 0 to 107 in the House on September 6, 2007.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on September 11, 2007.
- Passed 93 to 16 in the House on October 30, 2007, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) Department of Education budget. This appropriates $96.4 million in gross spending, compared to $90.665 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. (Much of that increase is due to the transfer of career and technical education operations from the Department of Labor and Economic Development.) Of this, $7.08 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $6.66 million. Another $7.036 million comes from state “restricted fund” revenue that is generated by various fees and other levies.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on September 12, 2007.
- Passed 37 to 1 in the Senate on October 30, 2007, the House-Senate conference report for the Fiscal Year (FY) Department of Education budget. This appropriates $96.4 million in gross spending, compared to $90.665 million, which was the FY 2006-2007 amount enrolled in 2006. (Much of that increase is due to the transfer of career and technical education operations from the Department of Labor and Economic Development.) Of this, $7.08 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2006-2007 amount of $6.66 million. Another $7.036 million comes from state “restricted fund” revenue that is generated by various fees and other levies.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on October 31, 2007.
Most Recent Comments
1) Rep. Sheen's "no vote explanation" by Admin003 on October 31, 2007Rep. Sheen, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I cannot vote for these budgets as they are based on increased fees, an income tax increases, and the expansion of sales tax on services on top of all the other taxes. Government deficits are spending problems, not revenue problems. I cannot balance the budget on the backs of Michigan citizens and job providers that are barely hanging on and making ends meet.
Holding government harmless is elitist, disingenuous, and wrong. I was not sent to Lansing to preserve government spending to the detriment of its citizens and its job providers. The Income tax increase of 12% (from 3.9% to 4.35%) and spreading a 6 % sales tax on many services and business-to-business transactions on top of all the other taxes will in no way benefit the state's economy or its citizens. However, it will take more money out of people's paychecks and increase the cost of living, which is a double hit to the consumer. It will drive up the cost of doing business and drive out more employers, increasing unemployment and further exacerbating Michigan's plight. We might as well put a red flashing light at the state line warning businesses not to come here.
I could not vote to increase taxes on Michigan's citizens or job providers at a time when so many have either lost jobs, faced failing businesses and otherwise tightened their belts and made cuts in their own budgets. Why should government be held at a different standard than everyone else in the state?"
Reply
Senator Clarke asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Clarke's statement is as follows:
This amendment would require the state to conduct a performance audit of the Detroit Public Schools. That school district currently performs its own audit--a financial audit--that compares its financial transactions to how it reports them in its budget. I'm talking about an audit that does something much more than just look at numbers and whether those numbers are reported correctly. I'm asking the state to look at how well that school district is performing; how well the school district is spending its money. The reason why I believe the state has the obligation to do so is because several years ago, this state took over that school district when it had a $90 million surplus. That school district ended in a multimillion-dollar deficit, which it continues to have.
The allegations of misspending have been well documented, and if they are true, they are gross and egregious and possibly criminal. The reason why I believe that we should conduct a performance audit with the Detroit Public Schools initially is because out of the school aid budget this state spends more money in the Detroit school district than we do in any other. Also, as a Senator from Detroit--as a person who graduated from the Detroit Public Schools--I was appalled by the districts decision to close scores of school buildings because many of those buildings, I believe, were structurally sound, and to keep those buildings open would mean smaller class sizes for students who are being raised in the most challenging environments.
The bottom line is this--the amendment would require a performance audit that would look at two things in the Detroit Public Schools: how well that district is spending the money and how efficiently it is spending the money. I believe that that audit could come up with recommendations that could save the district and this state millions of dollars, but also this audit would look at how effectively the school district is spending the money and make recommendations on how we can better spend the money we appropriate to Detroit schools, so that our young people can get the best education possible. I urge your support.
Reply
Rep. Agema, having reserved the right to explain his nay vote, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
No time to read the bill."
Reply
View Full Conversation
