Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 13, 2008, the Senate version of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2008-2009 Department of Corrections budget. This would appropriate $2.052 billion in gross spending, compared to $2.078 billion, which was the FY 2007-2008 amount enrolled in 2007. Of this, $1.978 billion will come from the general fund (funded by actual state tax revenues), compared to the FY 2007-2008 amount of $1.996 billion. The budget would be $9 million higher, except that to signal its displeasure with the department’s failure to make required reports to the legislature and to implement a “prisoner re-entry” initiative, this amount was removed from the central administration funding

The vote was 38 in favor, 0 opposed and 0 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 206 at Senate Journal 32)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Cropsey asked and was granted unanimous consent to make a statement and moved that the statement be printed in the Journal. The motion prevailed. Senator Cropsey’s statement is as follows: I will be voting for Senate Bill No. 1095, but I do want the body to realize that there are certain concerns that I do have. We as a Legislature don’t have the luxury of making up budgets based on nonexistent policies or nonexistent revenues. We have to report a balanced budget. Despite my private advice to the administration for last year’s budget, we were given a budget with a $93 million hole based on nonexistent policies that even the Governor’s own party refused to introduce. This year, despite my repeated private and public advice to base the budget on existing policies, we were again given a budget with a significant hole of $23 million in it. Also despite agreed-to boilerplate that telephone fees for prisoners’ families would be reduced, the proposed budget broke that budget law, leaving another $10.8 million hole, so now we have to find almost $34 million to make up. Despite clear boilerplate on reports that the department itself insisted be in the budget, we still haven’t received nine reports. Despite clear boilerplate on evidence-based programming that changes offender attitudes toward communities, victims, and crime, I have yet to see any implementation of such programming within the Michigan Department of Corrections. Despite five years of being told that the Michigan Prison Reentry Initiative would start the day prisoners entering the system, this apparently is not happening. Worse, I hear from inside the wire that “due to budget constraints,” MPRI programming for prisoners granted parole is being reduced. And so the budget in front of us requires in boilerplate that the department start performing all three phases of MPRI. I hope this boilerplate provision will not be violated. The department talks about running out of bed space. I have a Senate Fiscal Agency chart on my desk here showing 13 years of history of their population projections versus actual population. The latest projection issued just last month is not only off by 216 prisoners after one month, four tenths of one percent, or a rate of being off by about 5 percent per year. Some things never change. We have been told that the sky is falling for at least 13 years. It never has. Instead, the administration keeps insisting that felons be kept locally. I also have here a department-generated chart showing that during the past 35 years, the number of convicted felons going to prison has dropped from an average of about 38 per 100, which, incidentally, is about the current national average of 40 per 100, down to 23 per 100, or about half the current national average. That’s a one-third drop in eligible convicted felons going to prison, and yet, the administration insists that even more felons not be sent to prison, without providing the appropriate programming and social safety net. The bottom line is the administration needs to start focusing on rehabilitation and better programming utilizing outside groups who will work with the offender once released. I don’t have words to express how dismayed I was to receive from the administration a proposal to change boot camps—to finally, after five years, actually attempt to implement MPRI while the prisoner is still in boot camp. We have been led to believe that MPRI is being implemented, and now the department says it’s serious about starting it in boot camp. I can only hope so. Most dismaying of all, I have been very public in insisting that the administration not fill the budget hole by going after custody staff or field agents. And what do I get? I received a proposal to fill the telephone fee hole by reducing training to replace custody staff, a reduction in field operations, and a reduction in education programming. I refuse to go along with that. For five years, the administration has felt comfortable ignoring key demands of this Legislature. They have refused to fully implement MPRI. They have not focused as much on rehabilitation as they should have. I have not been given a balanced budget. They have not submitted required reports, and now they are announcing the closing of the Scott facility. While the administration has the prerogative of closing any prison they choose, in real life they are closing a men’s facility and putting bed space into a guaranteed crisis mode next year. The budget in front of us gives increases to local providers to assist in diversions and rehabilitation. Community corrections haven’t had an increase in over a decade. That must change. There is an interdepartmental grant to the Legislature to reinstate the corrections ombudsman. The administration persists in attempting to break the promises that I was part of in the 1990s when we passed sentencing guidelines. Let me be clear, the County Jail Reimbursement Program was the price the state of Michigan agreed to pay the counties in exchange for the current sentencing guidelines that divert significant numbers of felons from prison. I intend to keep that promise, and the budget in front of us fully funds the CJRP. The administration took the training grant to help divert persons with mental illnesses, moved it to the judiciary budget, and changed in its purpose. That training grant is being reinstated in this budget with its original purpose to fulfill what we started in this year’s budget. And to fund all of this, I am doing what I publicly stated that I would do, and that is go after the Lansing bureaucracy. The purely Lansing operations of over $43 million is being cut by $9.7 million to pay for provider increases, mental health training, and the broken law that would reduce telephone fees to prisoners’ families. Given the persistent MDOC flouting of budget law, I am committed to cutting the Lansing budget in conference committee. If Michigan is to reduce the victimization of law-abiding citizens, the focus must change in actuality and not just in press releases or Governor’s speeches. Prisoners should be mandated to go into programming. Education should in the prisons and should no longer be gutted. Local stakeholders must be a part of the process. We will focus on reducing victimization by increasing rehabilitation efforts. And just so the administration hears me yet once again, if I am given another unbalanced budget next year, the local stakeholders, the rehabilitation programming, and the security personnel will not be the scapegoat. The Lansing bureaucracy will make up the shortfall.

To make a POINT , lets Eliminate the People who Actually do work in Corrections- THE Business Office Staff. Lay them all off. and Centralize. Lets not Reduce any of the Management People who make 6 figure digit incomes, and don't really do any work, they are just figure heads. And lets not do an " Early Out Retirement", No , Lets just disrupt the " little People" After all, they are not important. It's very important to save the high paying jobs of our friends!!!!!

Reps. Meekhof and Meltzer, having reserved the right to explain their protest against the passage of the bill, made the following statement: “Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I voted against Senate Bill 1095 because Democrat leaders violated rules of the House and trampled the rights of the minority party when considering this bill. Republicans were denied the opportunity to debate this bill on the floor. Properly offered amendments were blatantly ignored, in violation of House rules. Democrats continued to violate House rules by refusing to allow properly offered points-of-order. Democrats then used the office of the Clerk of the House to avoid issuing a ruling from the chair. By abusing their power in this way, Democrats are corrupting the impartiality and non-partisan nature of the Clerk’s office. For these reasons, I cannot support these bills at this time.”

Senator Cropsey, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against concurring in the House substitute for Senate Bill No. 1095 and moved that the statements he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.” The motion prevailed. Senator Cropsey’s first statement is as follows: This budget that came back from the House is assuming 1,600 fewer prisoners in our prisons. At this point, I have not received from the Department of Corrections or from the House of Representatives the 1,600 prisoners who would be released. It assumes $40 million in savings that is nonexistent. It also is opposed by all of the major local stakeholders, so I would hope that we would turn down this budget. Senator Cropsey’s second statement is as follows: I mentioned that the local stakeholders were opposed to the House version of this bill. The county jail reimbursement budget was significantly cut, significantly changed. This was a program that was put into place about ten years ago when the sentencing guidelines reforms went through, which, if those reforms had not been made, the Department of Corrections believes that our current prison population would be about 70,000 prisoners and we currently have about 50,000 prisoners. This is about $10 million that we put into this program, and that is $10 million that is very well spent. It was part of an agreement that was made at that time. For us to be keeping 20,000 people out of prisons for $10 million is a very good deal indeed, and I am appalled, frankly, that the House of Representatives has reneged on the commitment that the state made to keep these people out of prison. So for this reason and the previous reasons I stated, I voted against the bill as it came back from the House of Representatives.

This needs to be repealed right away. They are making money off of us doubly. First by use paying taxes to house inmates then by the same taxpayers who send money to inmates so they can buy stuff from the store. Democrats loving raising taxes!

>Democrats loving raising taxes!< Probably not. Neither I nor anyone I know have known, has met or seen a public official of any stripe who loves to raise taxes. Some public officials, though, are realists. They are the ones who vote for tax increases that are necessary to keep government solvent. This usually is done to the tune of abusive howling by idiots who expect government services but don’t want to pay for them. Many of the howling idiots, it turns out, happen to be Republicans, although they don’t have an exclusive on that kind of stupid behavior.

about "spreading the wealth around". Sure seems like this is going to require him to steal from the productive and give to the non productive. Oh, I forgot, he's not a dem he's a socialist.

American workers are said to be among the world's most productive. However, their level of compensation remains relatively modest, as compared to the upper crust "owner-manager" class, although their tax burden is relatively high in dollars. Taxation policies that place a heavier percentage burden on the higher income -- more generously compensated -- members of American society do not redistribute wealth by handing it off to non-productive members of society. But such policies do provide a measure of relief for the highly productive working class segment by helping modest wages stretch farther in paying for life's necessities and a few of life's pleasures.

any public officials talking about CUTTING expenses, or, heaven forbid, actually doing something about it. i'm sure that there is SOME pet program or other that could be done away with without the earth coming to an end.

For a starter we could cut back the state's incarceration program.

cut out the parts of the police academy training that turns policemen into revenue agents? THAT should save a few million dollars. how about we cut out keeping heinous killers alive for sixty years at many thousands a year? maybe we can cut out the salaries of those who are costing the state jobs and business tax revenue.

hogyas 43jkdfs hjkfdshjkfdh sjkfhkjdsh fjkdsh fjkdhsfkd hsjfdpodgka pfmb