Legislation watch
2003 Senate Bill 840
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Tony Stamas (R) on November 12, 2003, to establish an "Office of Small Business Czar" in the new Department of Labor and Economic Growth (LEG), which would "facilitate the creation and retention of small business jobs; implement the department's strategic plan addressing small business creation and retention in the State; coordinate all programs to create and retain small business jobs; assist small business; work to create a business environment that encourages and sustains entrepreneurship; work to empower entrepreneurs to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the market".
- Referred to the Senate Economic Development, Small Business and Regulatory Reform Committee on November 12, 2003.
- Reported in the Senate on November 13, 2003, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on November 13, 2003, to replace the previous version of the bill with one which would place the czar in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, funded by “off budget” Indian casino gambling revenue. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on November 13, 2003.
- Referred to the Senate Economic Development, Small Business and Regulatory Reform Committee on November 12, 2003.
- Passed 22 to 14 in the Senate on December 2, 2003, to establish an "Office of Small Business Czar" in the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, which would "facilitate the creation and retention of small business jobs; implement the department's strategic plan addressing small business creation and retention in the State; coordinate all programs to create and retain small business jobs; assist small business; work to create a business environment that encourages and sustains entrepreneurship; work to empower entrepreneurs to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the market." Funding for the "Czar" would come from “off budget” Indian casino gambling revenue.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on December 2, 2003.
- Referred to the House Commerce Committee on December 2, 2003.
- Reported in the House on December 10, 2003, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Referred to the House Commerce Committee on December 2, 2003.
- Passed 58 to 47 in the House on December 10, 2003.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Vetoed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on December 23, 2003.
- Received in the Senate on March 3, 2004.
Comments
1) Rep. Bieda's "no vote explaination" by Admin003 on December 12, 2003Rep. Bieda, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement:
"Mr. Speaker and members of the House:
I voted against SB 840 because it would add an additional, and I believe unnecessary, layer of bureaucracy to a state government that is struggling with a very contentious and severe budget problem. I believe that the problems that SB 840 intends to address are currently being addressed through the current reorganization of the MEDC and that this legislation would be counter-productive."
Senator Jacobs' statement is as follows:
I rise also in opposition to this bill. At a time when we should be streamlining government and streamlining our departments, instead we're creating another layer of bureaucracy. I think that the Governor and her department heads, in particular Dave Hollister, have done a very fine job of reorganizing government here in Michigan and doing the streamlining that we need.
This is purely government waste. It's window dressing. It's not necessary, and I would urge my colleagues to vote against adding unnecessary bureaucracy to the state at this time.
Senator Schauer's statement is as follows:
Through you to the previous speaker, I would urge that he continue to work with the Michigan Economic Development Corporation and the Department of Labor and Economic Growth, and I'm sure he will hear that they are fully committed to this focus on small business and in the following bill's focus on manufacturing. There's no doubt about that.
We have an outstanding new CEO of the MEDC, Don Jakeway, who has got a tremendous set of priorities in conjunction with David Hollister, so this bill is unnecessary. It's an attempt to micromanage the MEDC, and I doubt we would have seen these bills under the previous administration. I urge a "no" vote.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
