Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 851 (Temporarily eliminate one Oakland County circuit judgeship )  by Admin003 on October 29, 2009 

 

Senator Sanborn’s second statement is as follows:

I would like to respond to the comments of the good Senator from the 10th District who has pointed out that the unions support this effort. Well, of course, they support this effort. It verifies my point. They are getting rid of nonunion jobs. The union jobs are going to be saved. They support it because they are not going to be losing any union jobs. You just proved my point.

Again I will reiterate about the savings being illusory. I am amazed that you would want people who can’t pay bail to be incarcerated even longer. I will remind you that it is going to fall on the wallet of the taxpayer. You will be paying for their extended stays.

He also points out who knows better, the budget director or the Board of Commissioners? I say the chief judge knows better. You see, the chief judge in Oakland County supports these cuts. The chief judge in Macomb County points out that these will be devastating. Judge Rick Carretti strongly opposes these cuts.

I have a little bit of experience in the judiciary as well—having worked for the court system for 20 years and having served on the Judiciary Committee for 12 years. So I put my 32 years experience of knowing how the court system works weighing on my decision to strongly oppose the Switalski substitute.

Reply

2) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 851 (Temporarily eliminate one Oakland County circuit judgeship )  by Admin003 on October 29, 2009 

 

Senator Switalski’s second statement is as follows:

I just want to respond to a couple of points. I know that it is very hard to cut government. I know that when we have less revenue—12 percent less revenue—coming in to the state; when we have to cut revenue sharing to the counties; and when the property tax values go down, they have less money coming in, and they have to address a $15 million deficit in Macomb County. I know how hard it is to cut government. I appreciate the people who do the hard work of doing that. Sometimes people even know better that they’ve got to cut, but they take an easy vote and vote not to cut because they know others will carry the bill. I have been at fault at that myself on occasion.

I also appreciate my colleague from Macomb County trying to protect union jobs. That is something that I try to do too, but in many cases, you have to make cuts and the union in Macomb County supports this approach. The central question is: Who gets to say what the savings is? Are the savings illusory? Does Lansing know better than Macomb County, the Board of Commissioners, the finance director who is in charge of paying the bills, and the judges themselves? Do we want to substitute our judgment for whether savings are there over the guy who actually does the budget for Macomb County? He says that it is a savings of $1.8 million for the county and helps them to get to the $15 million that they’ve got to get. I’ve got to believe him.

To substitute our judgment and take away their ability to deal with their deficit—at a time when we are cutting their revenue sharing and they are losing property taxes—really doesn’t help them solve their problems. I hope members will give Macomb the same opportunity that we are rightfully giving to Oakland and we should give to any other county and court that wants to do this.

Reply

3) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 851 (Temporarily eliminate one Oakland County circuit judgeship )  by Admin003 on October 29, 2009 

 

Senator Sanborn’s first statement is as follows:

You know, Senator Pappageorge has actually put up a good bill here, but Oakland County is very different from Macomb County. We listened to testimony from the administrator in Oakland County who had indicated that they don’t even have a backlog of cases in Oakland County. They didn’t expect long bail hearings. They said the jobs are nonunion jobs so the tax savings are not illusory. They are a real savings of $1.8 million.

However, in Macomb County, it is a very different situation. We have the worst backlog of cases in the entire state of Michigan in Macomb County. These jobs that the county Board of Commissioners is talking about—you’ll eliminate five jobs from each judge—that’s just not true. You see, in Macomb County, these jobs are union jobs. These workers who are displaced from the circuit court will simply be reassigned. You are not eliminating their jobs. You are eliminating one judge from an already backlog with one secretary; then a second judge with a second secretary. Those are the only non-union jobs. The ten other jobs they are talking about are simply going to be reassigned. So what we are hearing are funny numbers. These savings are illusory.

The diminished savings will completely disappear with prolonged bail hearings. Haven’t thought this through, Macomb County Board of Commissioners. You see, what will happen is since you already have a backlog of cases, you are now going to have inmates sit in jail longer. They can’t make bail. They are sitting in jail—at whose dime? According to the Oakland County administrator, he said, “Senator Sanborn, it is the taxpayer who is going to foot the bill.” This is a poorly thought-out plan. It is irresponsible, and it is going to go on the backs of the Macomb County taxpayers. There will not be a cost savings. It will cost the taxpayers more. The savings are illusory. This plan is not well thought-out.

The chief judge of the Macomb County circuit court strongly opposes this. The State Court Administrative Office says that Macomb County is short five judges. You see, in Oakland County they have nineteen judges. We only have thirteen in Macomb, already the most backlogged caseload there is. Senator Basham said in committee just the other day the he had a matter appear before the circuit court and it took him four years to get his case heard. Now you want to eliminate more judges? This is outrageous, this miscarriage of justice to eliminate more judges.

Other areas of the state were talking about cutting salaries by ten percent. We have cut our own salaries ten percent, we have downsized our own budgets, and we are cutting everybody else. But, no, we don’t want to talk about cutting salaries for these judges who are already making twice as much and even more than most state employees.

No, this is a wrong-minded approach. The Board of Commissioners has not thought this through, and furthermore, only the chief justice of the court can lobby the legislature on this issue. So any other judges who have done so have betrayed the Canon of Ethics on top—I would call to their attention. No, I would ask that you vote “no” on this wrong-minded approach that will cost taxpayers more.

Reply

View Full Conversation