Legislation watch
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
Capitol Building

2009 Senate Bill 247: Appropriations: 2009-2010 History, Arts And Libraries
  1. Introduced by Sen. Tom George (R) on February 18, 2009, to provide a “template” or “place holder” for the Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Department of History, Arts And Libraries budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them.
    • Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 18, 2009.
      • Reported in the Senate on April 1, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the Senate on April 1, 2009, to adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Republican-majority in the Senate on various spending items and programs. For details see analysis from the non-partisan Senate Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on April 1, 2009.
    • Amendment offered by Sen. Samuel B. Thomas, III (D) on April 1, 2009, to remove $22,400 for a "Michigan history day" grant to the Historical Society of Michigan. The amendment failed 16 to 21 in the Senate on April 1, 2009.
      Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  2. Passed 21 to 16 in the Senate on April 1, 2009, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 Department of History, Arts and Libraries budget. This would appropriate $40.8 million in gross spending, compared to $49.5 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $28.1 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $39.2 million. The budget includes $3.5 million for arts and cultural grants, which the Governor had recommended eliminating.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  3. Received in the House on April 1, 2009.
    • Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on April 1, 2009.
      • Reported in the House on June 25, 2009, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
    • Substitute offered in the House on June 25, 2009, to adopt a version of this budget that expresses the fiscal and policy preferences of the Democratic-majority in the House on various spending items and programs. For details see analysis from the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency">analysis from the non-partisan House Fiscal Agency. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on June 25, 2009.
  4. Passed 107 to 2 in the House on June 25, 2009, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009-2010 Department of History, Arts and Libraries budget. This would appropriate $39.7 million in gross spending, compared to $49.5 million, which was the FY 2008-2009 amount enrolled in 2008. Of this, $26.9 million will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2008-2009 amount of $39.2 million. The budget includes $6.1 million for arts and cultural grants, which the Governor had recommended eliminating.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  5. Received in the Senate on June 25, 2009.
  6. Failed 0 to 34 in the Senate on June 25, 2009, 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.
    Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"

  7. Received in the House on July 15, 2009.

Comments

Re: 2009 Senate Bill 247 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 History, Arts And Libraries )  by Admin003 on April 2, 2009 

 


Senator Gleason’s statement is as follows:


I concur with the previous speaker about these drastic cuts. There are two particular concerns I have with this budget. The first is the slashing of our state libraries. We just went through Reading Month here in the state of Michigan. We all celebrated it. Many of us went around to our local school districts and read to the kids emphasizing the great need to read and have the books accessible.


Schools are only open, typically, about 180-some days a year, but the libraries are open most of the time. I always try to encourage the young folks in my district that the most important time to read is during the summer when they don’t have a more scheduled regiment for learning, reading, and increasing their vocabulary; that they have access to their local library.


In the last few months we’ve encouraged our residents, particularly those who were laid off, to go get online; to have access to the unemployment services of this state at their local libraries. It’s just one other way they can get their unemployment compensation and keep their families intact and their budget somewhat in order.


Another disturbing aspect of this budget is the book distribution centers. I think there would be few programs in the state that have met with such success. We have organizations in the Upper Penninsula and down here below which offer thousands of books—thousands of books—to our young readers across this state. Maybe not enough of us know about this book distribution center which we utilize annually. We’re talking about spending less than $350,000 on a program that offers millions and millions in dollars in resources to our young readers across this state.


So that is my “no” vote explanation, and I hope that we put a premium on year-round education at our local libraries and to reward those who have offered many resources such as the book distribution centers in both the Upper Peninsula and down here below.



Re: 2009 Senate Bill 247 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 History, Arts And Libraries )  by Admin003 on April 2, 2009 

 


Senator Switalski’s statement, in which Senator Jacobs concurred, is as follows:


I appreciate the fiscally responsible approach that members have taken in adding the substitute that cuts the budget by 10 percent, but I think when we are cutting, we should use the scalpel rather than the meat cleaver. If we cut everything by 10 percent, on me, that is my head. Some of you might favor that approach with me, but I would rather take my left hand, as painful as that would be. To take my head would kill me. The same way if you have a rose bush and cut off all of the flowers, you would kill the bush. But if you choose a few well-placed stems and take those out, the whole bush can recover and survive.


So I think that when we are looking at libraries and the important work that they do, we risk losing that institution, rather than going in and restructuring and rethinking. Let’s adjust the entire budget, rather than across-the-board 10 percent cuts.



Re: 2009 Senate Bill 247 (Appropriations: 2009-2010 History, Arts And Libraries )  by Admin003 on April 2, 2009 

 


Senator Clark-Coleman’s statement is as follows:


I rise today to issue my “no” vote explanation primarily because of the elimination of the book distribution program and the reduction of library funding. What they did with the library funding was rob Peter to pay Paul. They took away $1.5 million from the library funding and gave it to the arts. We know that the arts need more money, but it is important that libraries are fully funded so they fulfill the promise of their creation.


A society with limited access to books is a damaged society. From the earliest bedtime stories to the access of computers; from story hours to study material; from picture books to practical guides; from daily newspapers to research projects—the doors of the future are open to those who can read. The main entry to that future is through the doors of our public libraries. In this time of economic woes, let’s not cut a resource that is so vital to citizens, such as income tax preparation and job resume and application preparation for laid-off workers.


Some neighborhoods, families, and children will be forced to forego library use because of limited operation hours and resources. For many, this is the only access to Internet or training programs or the only chance that a child may have to meet his favorite author. We cannot afford to constrict one of our greatest resources when we need it the most at this time of economic struggles.



View More pre-2013 Comments.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.