Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on April 30, 2009

The vote was 21 in favor, 14 opposed and 2 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 417 at Senate Journal 0)

Click here to view bill details.

 

Senator Patterson’s statement is as follows:

Notwithstanding a persistent and nasty head cold, I think that I heard my learned colleague from the 23rd District invoke not my name, but my residence in a very flattering and honorable fashion. It was in the context in relying on the Michigan Constitution for direction; more specifically, Article 5 pertaining to the executive branch, and even more specifically, Section 2, or at least a pertinent part of Section 2.

Perhaps because of my head cold and other infirmities, I am perplexed because my reading of Section 2 continues, rather than stops at a certain point, and reads: "Where these changes require the force of law, they shall be set forth in executive orders and submitted to the legislature. Thereafter the legislature shall have 60 calendar days of a regular session, or a full regular session if of shorter duration, to disapprove each executive order." And it goes on.

I do not see a constitutional conundrum.

 

Senator Brown’s statement is as follows:

To say that this has to do with politics, absolutely not. I taught Michigan history at our local community college. This proposal is about Michigan’s treasures. It’s about our flagship museum. I’m surprised to hear that some members haven’t even been in the museum. Unbelievable. This is our flagship museum, one of the finest in the nation. It houses our Civil War battle flags. Nothing has been said about where those battle flags are going to be placed. Do you know that one of the reasons the Capitol was built was to be a home for our Civil War battle flags. My great-great-grandfather served in the 11th Michigan Infantry, leaving the farm fields of St. Joseph County to serve in the Union cause.

If you’ve ever looked at those battle flags in the museum, they are housed in an environmentally-controlled atmosphere. Where will they go? Are they going to go to the DNR? If you’ve looked at those flags, it’s a poignant, moving experience. I invite members to go over to the museum, tour it, and look at those battle flags. They are symbols of the essence of our heritage and our liberty.

We are State Senators. We are stewards of our state treasures. Now if this proposal of bills isn’t exactly the way you want it, let’s work on it. But the goal is to preserve and protect our heritage for our kids. They come through that museum. They watch us here make fools of ourselves sometimes, but I have to tell you, they go over to the museum and they’re inspired, they’re encouraged, and they’re taught about all things Michigan.

Let’s not lose the crown jewel of Michigan’s museums. I urge members to seriously consider what we’re proposing, the great value of it. It’s void of anything partisan. We’ll work on it, we’ll improve it, but its motives are pure.

 

Senator Allen’s statement is as follows:

These bills transferring the Department of History, Arts, and Libraries to the Department of State are a good compromise. We took two different sets of testimony, 60 days apart, to ensure that we would have appropriate discussion. 

We asked for input. We heard loud and clear from groups like the genealogical community, the library community, and countless others who utilize this wonderful treasure, the Department of History, Arts, and Libraries.

Our ability to have access to the research for our genealogical society and the groups who are doing cultural understanding of how our great state was formed is invaluable. The museum and its assets are a tourist destination and give our children, our parents, and our guests an opportunity to understand why Michigan was the arts oldest democracy, supported the Civil War, and led through many of the labor issues which our society was so involved with a generation ago.

I believe that the Secretary of State and her insights would be a good repository for this facility because she already has several thousand employees working with her, so the additional costs of the additional employees would be incremental. I believe that the $1.7 million which the Governor is asking for to be saved would be seen going over to the Secretary of State.

I also have great reservations about the plan which is being laid out by Michigan State University to set up a center for research and innovation. We need innovation and research, but is it the best utilization of our state library? Moving those facilities over to the Michigan State University campus, how do we maintain control and access to those sites?

We also need to continue to look at the cultural tourism component which we see whether we are in Detroit or in the western UP. We know that there are citizens, and with our Pure Michigan ads, there are people visiting our state all of the time who look at the culture and look at the history as part of the reason why they come to our state. They may start at the Detroit Institute of Arts which has received a grant from the MCCA organization. They may move up to the Sojourner Truth Trail. They may come up to the Mackinac Island State Historic Parks—visiting our great state, spending their resources, and, hopefully, maybe some of these will stay and create jobs and entrepreneurialism for the next generation.

These critical components are why I believe we need to maintain the Department of History, Arts, and Libraries. I ask this chamber’s support of this legislation.

 

Senator George’s statement is as follows:

I think it would be helpful to step back and look at why we are considering this at all today. And, of course, the Governor and the Legislature were trying to look for ways to create a balanced budget to make ends meet. Why is it that this state is so broke that it has to consider transferring its library and museum collections? How did we get ourselves into this pickle? If you asked that question, the answer will lead you to our open-ended social programs. We are adding 15,000 new Medicaid recipients a month to our rolls. We have social programs with no spending constraints, with eligibility requirements that are open-ended. They are not capped. They have unlimited spending potential. In thinking that moving the library or closing it or moving the museum or closing it is somehow going to help us fix that problem, it is incorrect.

Even if we were to save $1.8 million, which is questionable, it may cost us more just to reshuffle the department around. But even if it did, it still would only be a drop in the bucket. The real thing that we need to do, if we are going to fix our budget problems, is address our runaways, social programs for which there is no end in sight. This will not solve that.

I would like to remind the chamber of where the library and the museum came from. Behind us, we have a portrait of Territorial Governor Lewis Cass. They were both created in 1828 before we were a state. They precede our State Legislature in history; they were here before us—our library and museum. They were created when we were a territory. Why was it that the territorial leaders in Michigan chose to create a library and a museum and a historical society? Why did they care to do that even before we were a state? They did because they were trying to show that Michigan was self-aware and that it was civilized and that it would be a good place to come and settle. They did it in the march toward statehood. To become a state, you needed to have 60,000 free residents, and in order to attract people here, Lewis Cass and the territorial Legislature paved the roads with wood to make it easy for travelers—plank roads. They made peace treaties with Native Americans. They established a local government. Out township system of government came into being before we were a state, and they established the Library of Michigan and the state Historical Society.

The early focus of the Historical Society, by the way, since was formed in territorial times, wasn’t the history of the white settlers; it was the history of the Native Americans. That was the interest of the Historical Society and the museum. In fact, the Historical Society had a special membership category for Indian chieftains. It just shows that our forefathers placed value in the history of their adopted home.

Now it is threatened by runaway social spending, and the answer is not to break up the department and to transfer the collections away. The best answer is what we have done: Reject the executive order and instead transfer these facilities to the Office of the Secretary of the State.

 

Senator Switalski’s statement is as follows:

I hate to interrupt this important debate on this important package of bills, but it is the last day for an intern in my office, Katie Proux, who is a senior at the University of Michigan. I know you hold the University of Michigan in great regard, Mr. President. She is preparing to enter into law school, and she’s done a fantastic job for me.

She did a lot of work on preliminary exams, looking at those and looking for efficiencies there. She has a great interest in dogs and cats, and she did a lot of work on legislation on puppy mills and looking at what other states have done. Then

her favorite was working on tax expenditures, which is just a mind-boggling array of things in the law that she brought some sense to for me. It was a great help to me.

I must say, I usually bring my interns in for one day of session, and sometimes we do a bunch of routine matters. But I think she’s gotten a great education today because this has been a great debate about government reorganization, and I think it’s been very beneficial for her to be here today.

So I just wanted to thank her for her work and wish her well and hope the chamber will acknowledge her.

She has applied to many law schools and is waiting to make her choice when she sees how many of them see how beneficial it would be to have her as one of their students.

 

Senators Whitmer, Gleason and Clark-Coleman, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill Nos. 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526 and 527.

 

Senators Whitmer and Clark-Coleman moved that the statements they made during the discussion of Senate Bill No. 503 be printed as their reasons for voting "no."

The motion prevailed.

Senator Whitmer’s statement, in which Senator Gleason concurred, is as follows:

I rise to speak against the whole package of these bills, and at the risk of sounding like my colleague from Canton, I dare remind my dear colleagues that we all have taken an oath of office, an oath to uphold the Constitution. Further, taking a page out of the aforementioned colleague’s book, I think I’ll read to you from the State Constitution itself. Article 5, Section 1. Executive Power: "The executive power is vested in the governor."

The Constitution goes on to say, specifically, Article 5, paragraph 2: "Subsequent to the initial allocation, the governor may make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units which he"—this Constitution was drafted last a while ago; or she—"considers necessary for efficient administration.

Now, since these bills impact History, Arts, and Libraries, how about a little history lesson. The abilities of the executive office to reorganize departments were robustly debated in the last Constitutional Convention in 1961. The role of the Legislature and how much input that Legislature should have was a well—let’s put that into perspective—that was before the advent of term limits. My point is that a seasoned Legislature that had the benefit of time, relationship, and experience concluded that despite all of those attributes, the framers intended and wisdom still weighed in favor of giving the executive the power to organize government like a business. If you don’t believe me, look up Delegate Arthur J. Madar, a delegate from Detroit. Look up his comments in the Constitutional Convention.

Interestingly, some of the debate even highlighted how important, how critical it was that the executive be nimble in times of economic crisis—sound familiar—how it is important that they be nimble to tighten the reigns on government’s size when the budget shrinks. There was debate on this specifically. It is almost like they were talking about what we are experiencing today. Republican delegate, James Pollock from Ann Arbor, said, "It seems to me, Mr. Chairman that the problem is one of administrative organization and here, it seems to me, the Governor is in a much better position to know what is needed within his (or her) own administrative structure than anybody else." And, again, I reiterate that was before term limits, when they had a lot more experience.

Now I hope this package of bills doesn’t imply that term limits—that the sponsors think that term limits—has rendered the Legislature a wiser body of lawmakers than there were in 1961.

I have three final thoughts. First, the law is pretty clear. The constitutional authority of the executive is clear. Governor Granholm has this authority. It is legal. As a conclusion, we must uphold the action even if we don’t personally 

agree with it. And for the record, I don’t. I totally disagree with the Governor on this, but I take my oath to uphold the Constitution seriously, and so I am going to vote "no" on these bills.

Second, pursuant to my oath of office as well as my duty as an officer of the court, I’m just appalled to see politics cavalierly trumping the law today.

And, third, I would like my comments printed in the Journal as my "no" vote explanation on each and every bill in this impressive, unconstitutional, bipartisan package.

 

Senator Clark-Coleman’s statement is as follows:

It has been presented to us that moving this department intact to the Secretary of State would somehow be in the best interests of the History, Arts, and Libraries communities. I am sorry I cannot be as eloquent in my words as my colleague from the 1st District. However, I must say, this body can better demonstrate its commitment to those communities through its funding actions. For example, the Governor recommended funding state aid to libraries at $10 million for ’10. This body reduced that funding by 25 percent. As the HAL budget was being debated, I offered an amendment to restore funding to the Governor’s recommendation of $10 million, which was defeated by many of the very same people who are proponents—so-called—of rejecting the Governor’s executive order today, under the guise that this is somehow best for Michigan’s History, Arts, and Libraries interests.

Moving the pieces of HAL to the Secretary of the State, or anywhere else in state government, is an empty gesture without adequate funding. To say that you are acting in the best interests of these communities is disingenuous given your recent budgetary actions.

Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against this package of bills, and I am going to urge my colleagues to also vote "no."