Public Act 110 of 2010
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Ron Jelinek (R) on February 24, 2010, to provide the “template” or “place holder” for the Fiscal Year 2010-2011 school aid 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 24, 2010.
- Reported in the Senate on March 23, 2010, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on March 24, 2010, 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 March 24, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Sen. Michael Switalski (D) on March 24, 2010, to tie-bar the bill to Senate Bill 1148, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. SB 1148 would prohibit school districts from paying teachers more than state legislators are paid (currently $79,650 per year) and prohibit district superintendent compensation that is more than 75 percent of what the governor gets paid. The amendment failed 12 to 25 in the Senate on March 24, 2010.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Sen. Michael Switalski (D) on March 24, 2010, to tie-bar the bill to Senate Bill 1073, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. SB 1073 would prohibit a school district with more than 1,000 students from allocating more than 28 percent of its general fund spending for “support services,” including “instructional support”. The amendment failed 14 to 23 in the Senate on March 24, 2010.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Sen. Michael Switalski (D) on March 24, 2010, to tie-bar the bill to Senate Bill 888, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. SB 888 would require all elections in the state to be held on either the August or November election days. The amendment failed 10 to 27 in the Senate on March 24, 2010.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Amendment offered by Sen. Gretchen Whitmer (D) on March 24, 2010, to tie-bar the bill to Senate Bill 84, meaning this bill cannot become law unless that one does also. SB 94 would allow school districts to use “sinking fund” taxes for a wider variety of purposes. Under current law, sinking funds are permanent funds that may be used only for the purchase of land, or construction and (major) repair of school buildings. Regular school bonds may be used to fund a much wider array of activities. The amendment failed 16 to 21 in the Senate on March 24, 2010.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
- Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 24, 2010.
- Passed 20 to 17 in the Senate on March 24, 2010, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 school aid budget. This would appropriate $12.656 billion, compared to $12.823 billion for FY 2009-2010, and $12.863 billion recommended by Gov. Granholm (contingent on a $557 million tax increase). The bill would reduce the per-pupil foundation grant by $118, but this would not happen if the additional school employee pension contributions proposed by Senate Bill 1227 are adopted. It would also add-back half of the "Section 20j" money for districts especially impacted by Proposal A vetoed in 2009 by Gov. Granholm.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on March 24, 2010.
- Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on March 24, 2010.
- Motion by Rep. Kathy Angerer (D) on May 11, 2010, to discharge the bill from committee and bring it directly before the full House.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Terry Brown (D) on May 26, 2010, 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. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Lisa Brown (D) on May 26, 2010, to increase the cap on extra payments to certain "out of formula" districts, referring to the Proposal A funding formula. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tim Melton (D) on May 26, 2010, to increase the cap on extra payments to certain "out of formula" districts, referring to the Proposal A funding formula. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tim Melton (D) on May 26, 2010, to reduce proposed funding for on-line courses by $250,000, from $1.68 million to $1.43 million. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Kenneth Kurtz (R) on May 26, 2010, to increase funding for school bus inspections. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tom McMillin (R) on May 26, 2010, to require schools to post on the internet detailed information on spending, including a chart of personnel expenses including salaries, benefits costs, and retirement benefits costs; employee contracts and health care benefits plan; the amount spent on instruction, support services, administration, operations and maintenance; and the amount spent on lobbying. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Terry Brown (D) on May 26, 2010, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that restores the previous substitute's provisions by wiping out the amendments that had been adopted up to this point. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tim Melton (D) on May 26, 2010, to reduce proposed funding for on-line courses by $250,000, from $1.68 million to $1.43 million. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tim Melton (D) on May 26, 2010, to increase the cap on extra payments to certain "out of formula" districts, referring to the Proposal A funding formula. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Tom McMillin (R) on May 26, 2010, to revise the requirement that schools post on the internet detailed information on spending, including personnel expenses, benefits, and retirement benefits; employee contracts and health care benefits plan; the amount spent on instruction, support services, administration, operations and maintenance; and the amount spent on lobbying. The amendment lowers from $100,000 to $90,000 a reporting threshold on high-salary employees. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Kenneth Kurtz (R) on May 26, 2010, to increase funding for school bus inspections. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 26, 2010.
- Passed 64 to 42 in the House on May 26, 2010, the House version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010-2011 school aid budget. This would appropriate $12.948 billion, compared to $12.823 billion for FY 2009-2010, and $12.863 billion recommended by Gov. Granholm (contingent on a $557 million tax increase). The bill would increase the per-pupil foundation grant by $65 compared to the current year amount (following an "executive order" reduction in Oct. 2009. It would also add-back half of the "Section 20j" money for districts especially impacted by Proposal A vetoed in 2009 by Gov. Granholm.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on June 1, 2010.
- Failed 15 to 21 in the Senate on June 1, 2010, 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" - Received in the Senate on July 1, 2010.
- Passed 37 to 1 in the Senate on July 1, 2010, to adopt a compromise version of 2010-2011 school aid budget reported by a House-Senate conference committee. This would appropriate $12.846 billion, compared to $12.823 billion for 2009-2010. The bill would increase the per-pupil foundation allowance by $11, retroactive to include the 2009-2010 school year.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on July 1, 2010.
- Passed 98 to 6 in the House on July 1, 2010, to adopt a compromise version of 2010-2011 school aid budget reported by a House-Senate conference committee. This would appropriate $12.846 billion, compared to $12.823 billion for 2009-2010. The bill would increase the per-pupil foundation allowance by $11, retroactive to include the 2009-2010 school year.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed with line-item veto by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 7, 2010.
Comments
1) Re: 2010 Senate Bill 1163 (Appropriations: 2010-2011 school aid budget ) by Admin003 on March 24, 20106
Senator Switalski's second statement is as follows: It is true, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Once again, I have been borrowing the brilliant ideas from my colleagues from across the aisle and offering them as my own in these amendments, but I give them full credit. These are very good ideas. This amendment tie-bars a substitute to a Birkholz bill that would restrict administrative costs to no more than 28 percent. This is part of the Republican package of reforms. I think it is a very legitimate reform. We have to drive resources into the classroom, and this is a way to do that. I hope that all members will support this. It is the type of thing that we should be doing when we are looking at reforms. Senator Switalski's third statement is as follows: This one is actually one of my own bills. I have to take credit for this one. It is a tie-bar to an election consolidation bill that would restrict elections to August and November. Let me add that my two worthy colleagues- -great minds think alike--Senators McManus and Brown have offered similar legislation to consolidate elections. I commend them for these ideas. We all are thinking along the same lines, that schools are wasting resources and government is wasting resources by holding duplicative, low-turnout elections. We should consolidate them to August and November. This tie-bar would do that. I hope members will vote for more efficient government and support my amendment.
5
Senator Switalski asked and was granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Switalski's first statement is as follows: This amendment will tie-bar the budget bill to a substitute to a brilliant Senator Patterson bill that places a cap on superintendent wages. We all know how shy and retiring Senator Patterson is, and he doesn't want to get up and speak about his own bill, but I think it is so good and I like it so much that I want to tie-bar this budget bill to it. We have to do a lot of reforms, and we've got to make some cuts. I think this is a very reasonable thing to do. The cuts should be felt all the way through education. I hope members will support this tie-bar that will require a cap on superintendent wages.
4
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
