Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on February 18, 2009

The vote was 34 in favor, 1 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 287 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senators Cropsey and Switalski, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the amendments offered by Senator Prusi to Senate Bill No. 253.

Senator Cropsey moved that the statements he made during the discussion of the amendments be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Cropsey’s first statement, in which Senator Switalski concurred, is as follows:

I understand the purpose of the amendment. We do have a problem with a crime lab that is up in Marquette. The problem is that the landlord of the crime lab is saying they can’t be there anymore. We are looking for a place. We would like to see the crime lab stay open in the Upper Peninsula, and that is why we have a $100 place holder there because the landlord was, evidently, saying that they want their property back. I would not say they are kicking the State Police out, but they are not going along with the lease or going along with the new lease.

I think what the good Senator from the Upper Peninsula is saying is absolutely correct. There should be a crime lab in the Upper Peninsula. I want to see a crime lab in the Upper Peninsula. I think the chairman of the subcommittee wants to see it because it doesn’t make any sense to have the crime lab in Grayling when you have issue that are way over on the western side of the U.P. That’s, what, a 300- or 400-mile drive or whatever. It is a very lengthy drive.

So the time spent by a lab technician having to go to a crime scene way over on the western end of the Upper Peninsula when the nearest crime lab is in the Lower Peninsula, it is a very good point that needs to be made. Our problem is and the State Police’s problem is trying to find a location for that crime lab. If the gentleman from the Upper Peninsula would tell us where we could put the crime lab, I think we would be more than happy to have some of the funds shifted around to have it shifted from the crime lab in Grayling where that work is now being done to have it being done at a new crime lab in the Upper Peninsula.

I would be all for shifting the money around to do that, and that is why we do have a $100 placeholder because, at this point we have not been able to find a location for the crime lab.

 

Senator Cropsey’s second statement, in which Senator Switalski concurred, is as follows:

I can assure the good Senator from the Upper Peninsula that having a crime lab up there is more cost-effective than having a crime lab in the Lower Peninsula trying to serve the Upper Peninsula. We did not zero this out, we do have a $100 placeholder there because we do know that it would be much more cost effective. I do not know what the cost would be for the crime lab in the Upper Peninsula.

So that is why we have it as a $100 placeholder, so as time goes on and this process works, I am hoping that they will be able to come up with a location and give us a budget so that we can put the actual number into the budget. But until then, I think we are being presumptive in saying it is going to be $360,000 or whatever because it may be less than that; it may be more than that.

So, at this point, I would hope that we would turn down the Prusi amendment because I think we have taken care of his problem as far as the money goes. But the real question becomes, where do we locate it?

 

Senators Brown, Patterson, Sanborn, Hunter, Cassis, Richardville, Pappageorge, Kahn and George, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the adoption of the second set of amendments offered by Senator Prusi to Senate Bill No. 253.

Senators Brown, Sanborn, Cassis and Pappageorge moved that the statements they made during the discussion of the amendments be printed as their reasons for voting “no.”

The motion prevailed.

Senator Brown’s statement, in which Senators Patterson, Sanborn, Hunter, Cassis, Richardville, Pappageorge, Kahn and George concurred, is as follows:

Mr. President, I have previously had the privilege to serve as the chairman of the State Police budget in both the House and Senate. I am proud of the close relationship—as many of you do—to have a good relationship with our men and women who wear the State Police uniform.

It is for this reason I offered an amendment earlier on General Orders that will forbid lease payments on the new State Police headquarters nearing completion here in Lansing. This amendment’s legality was confirmed by an Attorney General opinion issued just yesterday that indicates that the state has the right to cancel the lease without penalty should such an amendment be adopted.

By now, everyone in this chamber should be familiar with the new headquarters being built just down the street. It has become a symbol of state government’s mismanagement and misuse of taxpayers’ dollars—Michigan’s bridge to nowhere. At a time when our state is facing a budget crisis, we are poised to move the State Police from a facility leased for only $1 per year to one that will cost over $3 million next year and as much as $5 million in future years. This is a new building, mind you, that by all accounts does not sufficiently meet the needs of the department. Most egregiously, this move to a lavish new headquarters comes at a time when 100 state troopers are poised to lose their jobs due to budget cuts.

What kind of message about priorities does this send to our troopers and to the people of Michigan? A new headquarters can’t respond to a severe accident on the highway. It can’t respond if a child is abducted. It can’t respond if there is a shooting, an airplane accident, or a terrorist threat. We need troopers on the road in order to respond to these kinds of emergencies, but there will be far fewer of them if we allow valuable resources to be wasted on the new palace being built just down the street.

I am proud, Mr. President, that this chamber stood up on General Orders and sent the message that we are putting public safety, our men and women in blue, and fiscal responsibility before a building that is not needed, not wanted, and one we simply cannot afford.

I ask that members not approve Amendment No. 4 before us.

 

Senator Sanborn’s statement is as follows:

I would like to supplement this to some degree. You know, I worked as a probation officer for 20 years, and often I would see where the county would build new buildings and the lay people off. The expression was in our contract talks that it was because they cared more about bricks and mortar than they did the people. I think that is what we are seeing here. I know that may make some people angry to hear, but it makes no sense to me to be building this Taj Majal building and laying off 100 troopers.

That is why I will be voting a “no” on this amendment

 

Senator Cassis’ statement is as follows:

I would like supplement that as well by saying that from time to time, we all talk about waste in government and wasteful spending, and today we have a chance to vote to remove wasteful spending. It was not by chance or by accident that in December 2007, I offered a resolution—Senate Resolution No. 129—that had bipartisan support in this body, and it was very clear at that time that the intent was to put the developers on notice. We, Senators, urged the developers in good faith to discontinue the project in light of Michigan’s struggling economy and limited revenues. It was true in December 2007 and it is even truer today on June 18, 2009: “and be if further, Resolved, That it is the intent of the Senate not to appropriate any money for the lease after the state of Michigan takes possession of the building.”

You might have said we had some foresight, at least, we did get the language right. We knew that the discontinuation of the lease would have to occur after possession of the building took place. Now we have that substantiated by our Assistant Attorney General.

So, again, before we vote on the Prusi amendment, I urge all of you on behalf of the taxpayers and citizens who you all represent, to vote “no” on the Prusi amendment, as I will also do.

 

Senator Pappageorge’s statement is as follows:

I wanted to add something to the history of this thing that may have been forgotten. Originally, Governor Engler proposed a building that would fit everybody into it. Subsequently, our Governor downsized the building, and the building was downsized by leaving a lot of people in the old building. Then the joint committee that heard this was not told that everybody could not fit in the building. So, naturally, the price was lower.

I was one of two people who voted “no” because they did not price the thing out correctly. So that is the story when you hear about the Governor downsizing the building. They forgot to tell that in doing so, they still left a lot of people in the MSU building and then claimed they were emptying it.

 

Senator Whitmer, under her constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 253.

Senator Whitmer’s statement is as follows:

I voted “no” because there were massive cuts in the State Police budget to troopers still. Despite a lot of our discussion about saving the troopers and ensuring that our trooper levels remained static, we are unable to ensure that. This bill did not ensure that, and that is the reason for my “no” vote.

I did want to take a moment to say that my colleague from mid-Michigan, the Majority Floor Leader, he and I do not agree on everything—far from it. I have a great amount of respect for him. He has integrity, and I just wanted to say that and have my remarks printed in the Journal.

 

Senator Cropsey’s third statement is as follows:

I would hope that we would adopt this amendment. When this came out of the full committee, it did not have the amendment that was adopted on General Orders. The real issue is, the State Police came to the Legislature and came to the Governor years ago when it was Governor Engler. Obviously, a new headquarters was planned at that time. A new Governor comes into office and puts those plans on hold while the new Governor takes a look at that issue. The new Governor came to that same conclusion as the previous Governor—previous Republican Governor—that a new headquarters was needed.

It was downsized, so it is not the palace that was proposed under the previous administration, if indeed it is a palace. I would say no it is not a palace. Many of you can take a look at your county sheriff’s offices and you realize that the county sheriff’s offices in most counties is newer than the State Police headquarters.

State Police, once again came into my office, and they talked to me. The head of the State Police said that they needed the new headquarters. So, for that reason, I think, and for whatever reason, the Governor said that they needed a new headquarters. Other members of the Legislature said that they needed a new headquarters, so new headquarters were contracted for.

And, as the previous speaker just said, it is almost built. Well, it is almost built. Now how does this look to say that the state has contracted for a new State Police headquarters is almost built, but we are going to—as soon as it’s built we are going to take possession of it, and a month later, we will turn it down because we have the right to do so and say we are not going to use it. Is there something that is fatally flawed in the new State Police headquarters that we did not know about before that we now know about? I think everybody who has taken a look at this issue has gone into it with their eyes wide open.

I just don’t think it is right to have a building built, and then at the end of that time period, tell the contractor saying, “We are sorry, but we are not going to use it now.” I just think that that is wrong, and I think the state ought to hold to what every body knows is supposed to be a State Police headquarters.

I often -- even most of the time -- disagree with positions Senator Cropsey takes, but we definitely agree on the issue of the State Policde headquareters building.

 

Rep. Meltzer, under Rule 31, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I did not vote on Roll Call No. 449 because of a possible conflict of interest.”

 

Rep. Genetski, 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 respectfully vote against this budget as it did not go through the proper vetting process. The taxpayers of Michigan rightfully so expect budgets to pass through sub-committees, the full appropriations committee and the full House. This budget did not pass through the subcommittee nor the full appropriations committee. Therefore, I must disagree with it. Sincerely, Bob Genetski”

 

Rep. Agema, 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:

Although I support many programs in this budget, I voted against it because it includes funding for a new $100 million headquarters. I cannot justify spending this amount of money at a time when the state $1.7 billion budget shortfall and the governor recently laid off 100 state troopers to save money.

In my view, it is extremely irresponsible to spend taxpayer dollars on a new state police headquarters when the governor is letting out prisoners early and just fired 100 state troopers to save money.

Leasing the new headquarters will cost the state more than $100 million over the next 25 years. The lease on the current MSP headquarters only costs $1 per year and doesn’t expire until 2030.

The current headquarters, while in need of repair, is fully functional and structurally sound. Michigan State University has even considered moving its own police force into the building if the state decides to vacate.

In addition to cost concerns, the site of the new headquarters has also been criticized for being too small. The site does not have room for an emergency operations center, garage space to warehouse vehicles, or a helipad. It is also partially located in a floodplain.

Michigan’s attorney general recently ruled that the contract as written allows the state to get out of the lease if the Legislature does not appropriate funding for it.

My goal is to balance the state budget without raising taxes while still providing enough funds to protect essential services. Nowhere in that equation is there room for a new $100 million building that we do not need and cannot afford.

For these reasons, I cannot support this bill at this time.”

I wholeheartedly agree with all of Rep. Agema's reasons for non-support.   The construction of this building was an insane project.  If the developer has any conscience at all, he should sell this building to someone else, and have some pride in his state and it's economy.  What does it take for people to do the RIGHT thing?  I do not understand the sense of stripping funds for law enforcement and paying millions for a building that is not needed and was constructed with many faults.

 I support everything accept the new building. At this point in our State's history, we must side on sensibility and not with the next biggest think that catches our fancy. I vote yes on this bill with the ammendment to exclude language of the 100 million dollar new MSP Headquarters. We can use that extra money to further equip of men and women who go to work to protect Michigan everyday.

Ed Spillers

Clawson, MI