Passed 62 to 46 in the House on May 12, 2011, to "adopt" a version of this budget, but in fact replace all the appropriations with $100 "placeholders." This is essentially a means for sending the budget to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences.
View All of Senate Bill 171: History, Amendments & Comments
The vote was 62 in favor, 46 against, and 2 not voting.
(House Roll Call 107)
Appropriations: 2011-2012 Community Colleges
|Agema (R)||Bolger (R)||Bumstead (R)||Callton (R)||Cotter (R)|
|Crawford (R)||Daley (R)||Damrow (R)||Denby (R)||Farrington (R)|
|Forlini (R)||Foster (R)||Franz (R)||Genetski (R)||Gilbert (R)|
|Glardon (R)||Goike (R)||Haines (R)||Haveman (R)||Heise (R)|
|Hooker (R)||Horn (R)||Hughes (R)||Huuki (R)||Jacobsen (R)|
|Jenkins (R)||Johnson (R)||Knollenberg (R)||Kowall (R)||Kurtz (R)|
|LaFontaine (R)||Lund (R)||Lyons (R)||MacGregor (R)||MacMaster (R)|
|McBroom (R)||McMillin (R)||Moss (R)||Muxlow (R)||Nesbitt (R)|
|O'Brien (R)||Olson (R)||Opsommer (R)||Ouimet (R)||Outman (R)|
|Pettalia (R)||Poleski (R)||Potvin (R)||Price (R)||Pscholka (R)|
|Rendon (R)||Rogers (R)||Schmidt, W. (R)||Scott (R)||Shaughnessy (R)|
|Shirkey (R)||Somerville (R)||Stamas (R)||Tyler (R)||Walsh (R)|
|Yonker (R)||Zorn (R)|
|Ananich (D)||Barnett (D)||Bauer (D)||Bledsoe (D)||Brown (D)|
|Brunner (D)||Byrum (D)||Cavanagh (D)||Clemente (D)||Constan (D)|
|Darany (D)||Dillon (D)||Durhal (D)||Geiss (D)||Hammel (D)|
|Hobbs (D)||Hovey-Wright (D)||Howze (D)||Irwin (D)||Jackson (D)|
|Kandrevas (D)||Lane (D)||LeBlanc (D)||Lindberg (D)||Lipton (D)|
|Liss (D)||McCann (D)||Meadows (D)||Melton (D)||Nathan (D)|
|Oakes (D)||Olumba (D)||Rutledge (D)||Santana (D)||Schmidt, R. (D)|
|Segal (D)||Slavens (D)||Smiley (D)||Stallworth (D)||Stanley (D)|
|Stapleton (D)||Switalski (D)||Talabi (D)||Tlaib (D)||Townsend (D)|
HOUSE LEGISLATORS WHO DID NOT VOTE
|Haugh (D)||Lori (R)|
HOUSE LEGISLATORS ALL VOTES
|Y Agema (R)||n Ananich (D)||n Barnett (D)||n Bauer (D)||n Bledsoe (D)|
|Y Bolger (R)||n Brown (D)||n Brunner (D)||Y Bumstead (R)||n Byrum (D)|
|Y Callton (R)||n Cavanagh (D)||n Clemente (D)||n Constan (D)||Y Cotter (R)|
|Y Crawford (R)||Y Daley (R)||Y Damrow (R)||n Darany (D)||Y Denby (R)|
|n Dillon (D)||n Durhal (D)||Y Farrington (R)||Y Forlini (R)||Y Foster (R)|
|Y Franz (R)||n Geiss (D)||Y Genetski (R)||Y Gilbert (R)||Y Glardon (R)|
|Y Goike (R)||Y Haines (R)||n Hammel (D)||- Haugh (D)||Y Haveman (R)|
|Y Heise (R)||n Hobbs (D)||Y Hooker (R)||Y Horn (R)||n Hovey-Wright (D)|
|n Howze (D)||Y Hughes (R)||Y Huuki (R)||n Irwin (D)||n Jackson (D)|
|Y Jacobsen (R)||Y Jenkins (R)||Y Johnson (R)||n Kandrevas (D)||Y Knollenberg (R)|
|Y Kowall (R)||Y Kurtz (R)||Y LaFontaine (R)||n Lane (D)||n LeBlanc (D)|
|n Lindberg (D)||n Lipton (D)||n Liss (D)||- Lori (R)||Y Lund (R)|
|Y Lyons (R)||Y MacGregor (R)||Y MacMaster (R)||Y McBroom (R)||n McCann (D)|
|Y McMillin (R)||n Meadows (D)||n Melton (D)||Y Moss (R)||Y Muxlow (R)|
|n Nathan (D)||Y Nesbitt (R)||Y O'Brien (R)||n Oakes (D)||Y Olson (R)|
|n Olumba (D)||Y Opsommer (R)||Y Ouimet (R)||Y Outman (R)||Y Pettalia (R)|
|Y Poleski (R)||Y Potvin (R)||Y Price (R)||Y Pscholka (R)||Y Rendon (R)|
|Y Rogers (R)||n Rutledge (D)||n Santana (D)||n Schmidt, R. (D)||Y Schmidt, W. (R)|
|Y Scott (R)||n Segal (D)||Y Shaughnessy (R)||Y Shirkey (R)||n Slavens (D)|
|n Smiley (D)||Y Somerville (R)||n Stallworth (D)||Y Stamas (R)||n Stanley (D)|
|n Stapleton (D)||n Switalski (D)||n Talabi (D)||n Tlaib (D)||n Townsend (D)|
|Y Tyler (R)||Y Walsh (R)||n Womack (D)||Y Yonker (R)||Y Zorn (R)|
House Roll Call 107 on 2011 Senate Bill 171
Senator Booher asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that a statement be printed
in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Booher’s statement is as follows:
There are two things which I look at. In my lifetime, I’ve hired hundreds of people. In the end in education, it is the
job which we are all trying to educate our kids to do—a job. I’ve been to 22 of the 28 community colleges. This year, I
will graduate my 14th child from Evart Public Schools. I have five grandchildren in the public school system. No one has
more interest in education than I do. Ten of those children are from ten different countries. I’ve got an opportunity to see
how they come over here and how important education is to them. Four of them are back in the United States living today.
I have been, as I said, on 22 of the campuses. Maybe I’m getting old, but every one of those some 450,000 kids in
those community colleges are kids. Those are those same kids you are talking about in the K-12 system. They have come
through there and they are out there. Guess what we found out in testimony? The Senator from the 6th District knows
that 70 percent of the testimony in Jackson, when we were taking testimony in the joint hearing, had to have remedial
training. So I accept the fact that maybe because some of them were 30 and 40 years old and they had to have remedial
But I asked my own local community college to send me the graduates from last year’s local schools. Guess what the
numbers were when I got those? Last year’s graduates who entered my local community college, 76 percent had to have
remedial training and reading. As high as 80 percent had to have remedial training in math.
Now for six years, I fought against taking any money and putting it into community colleges. That day has changed.
We have to change, and this is why I support it. This is our kids in our community colleges and our universities as well.
So I ask for your support for passage of this bill.
Senator Anderson, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill
No. 171 and moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Anderson’s statement is as follows:
First of all, I’d like to thank the chair of the Community Colleges budget and the subcommittee of Appropriations for
his willingness to hear my concerns and take them into consideration and, in a few cases, even include a couple of them
in the budget. However, we must consider a budget in its totality. Therefore, I rise today to voice my opposition to the
Community Colleges budget before us.
This is one area that I agree with the Governor that community colleges should be held harmless. Unfortunately, this
budget does not live up to that proposal. Decreasing property taxes and increasing student populations have already
created difficult financial situations for our community colleges. While I appreciate that our committee didn’t make as
deep a cut as the House committee did, an additional $10 million from the operational cut will make it very difficult to
provide the quality education community colleges deserve.
As we all know, community colleges have seen their enrollments increase tremendously in the last few years. Community
colleges provide educational opportunities and specialized training not just to recent high school graduates, but also for
displaced workers who now need to retrain for the 21st century job market. Michigan’s economic future is tied closely
to the courses offered at these schools. While I support the proposal to hold community colleges harmless, I believe this
should be done with General Fund dollars and not by raiding the School Aid Fund. Even with the $10 million cut, we
can still do that.
The transfer of funds from the School Aid Fund may be currently allowed under the Constitution, according to some,
but that doesn’t make it right. Sacrificing the educational opportunities of children to plug a General Fund deficit created
by business tax breaks is not fair. If students are to succeed in our community colleges and universities, they must first
have a strong educational foundation. How can we go back to our districts and tell teachers and parents that even though
there is a school aid surplus, we have to cut the K-12 budget anyway because we need that money elsewhere? I don’t
know what you’ve heard from your school districts and your parents and teachers, but I’ve heard they expect that money
to be used for K-12.
My Democratic colleagues and I held town halls all across this state to hear from voters what they want our priorities
to be as we make budgeting decisions. They sent us back to Lansing with a clear message. Yes, we all know times are
tough, and, yes, we are all prepared to chip in if it truly means shared sacrifice. But we’re not willing to raise pension taxes,
slash school funding, and jeopardize educational opportunities to pay for a $2 billion tax cut for big corporations.
I will be voting “no” on this budget, and I hope my colleagues will do the same.