Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 503 (Transfer Department of History, Arts, and Libraries programs )  by Admin003 on August 28, 2009 

 

Senator Clark-Coleman’s statement is as follows:

It has been presented to us that moving this department intact to the Secretary of State would somehow be in the best interests of the History, Arts, and Libraries communities. I am sorry I cannot be as eloquent in my words as my colleague from the 1st District. However, I must say, this body can better demonstrate its commitment to those communities through its funding actions. For example, the Governor recommended funding state aid to libraries at $10 million for ’10. This body reduced that funding by 25 percent. As the HAL budget was being debated, I offered an amendment to restore funding to the Governor’s recommendation of $10 million, which was defeated by many of the very same people who are proponents—so-called—of rejecting the Governor’s executive order today, under the guise that this is somehow best for Michigan’s History, Arts, and Libraries interests.

Moving the pieces of HAL to the Secretary of the State, or anywhere else in state government, is an empty gesture without adequate funding. To say that you are acting in the best interests of these communities is disingenuous given your recent budgetary actions.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this package of bills, and I am going to urge my colleagues to also vote "no."

Reply

2) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 503 (Transfer Department of History, Arts, and Libraries programs )  by Admin003 on August 28, 2009 

 

Senators Whitmer and Clark-Coleman moved that the statements they made during the discussion of Senate Bill No. 503 be printed as their reasons for voting "no."

The motion prevailed.

Senator Whitmer’s statement, in which Senator Gleason concurred, is as follows:

I rise to speak against the whole package of these bills, and at the risk of sounding like my colleague from Canton, I dare remind my dear colleagues that we all have taken an oath of office, an oath to uphold the Constitution. Further, taking a page out of the aforementioned colleague’s book, I think I’ll read to you from the State Constitution itself. Article 5, Section 1. Executive Power: "The executive power is vested in the governor."

The Constitution goes on to say, specifically, Article 5, paragraph 2: "Subsequent to the initial allocation, the governor may make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units which he"—this Constitution was drafted last a while ago; or she—"considers necessary for efficient administration.

Now, since these bills impact History, Arts, and Libraries, how about a little history lesson. The abilities of the executive office to reorganize departments were robustly debated in the last Constitutional Convention in 1961. The role of the Legislature and how much input that Legislature should have was a well—let’s put that into perspective—that was before the advent of term limits. My point is that a seasoned Legislature that had the benefit of time, relationship, and experience concluded that despite all of those attributes, the framers intended and wisdom still weighed in favor of giving the executive the power to organize government like a business. If you don’t believe me, look up Delegate Arthur J. Madar, a delegate from Detroit. Look up his comments in the Constitutional Convention.

Interestingly, some of the debate even highlighted how important, how critical it was that the executive be nimble in times of economic crisis—sound familiar—how it is important that they be nimble to tighten the reigns on government’s size when the budget shrinks. There was debate on this specifically. It is almost like they were talking about what we are experiencing today. Republican delegate, James Pollock from Ann Arbor, said, "It seems to me, Mr. Chairman that the problem is one of administrative organization and here, it seems to me, the Governor is in a much better position to know what is needed within his (or her) own administrative structure than anybody else." And, again, I reiterate that was before term limits, when they had a lot more experience.

Now I hope this package of bills doesn’t imply that term limits—that the sponsors think that term limits—has rendered the Legislature a wiser body of lawmakers than there were in 1961.

I have three final thoughts. First, the law is pretty clear. The constitutional authority of the executive is clear. Governor Granholm has this authority. It is legal. As a conclusion, we must uphold the action even if we don’t personally 

agree with it. And for the record, I don’t. I totally disagree with the Governor on this, but I take my oath to uphold the Constitution seriously, and so I am going to vote "no" on these bills.

Second, pursuant to my oath of office as well as my duty as an officer of the court, I’m just appalled to see politics cavalierly trumping the law today.

And, third, I would like my comments printed in the Journal as my "no" vote explanation on each and every bill in this impressive, unconstitutional, bipartisan package.

Reply

3) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 503 (Transfer Department of History, Arts, and Libraries programs )  by Admin003 on August 28, 2009 

 

Senators Whitmer, Gleason and Clark-Coleman, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill Nos. 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526 and 527.

Reply

View Full Conversation