Welfare, Medicaid and Social Services

Error corrected

MichiganVotes.org Editor — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:36:44 GMT

Note to commenters: MichiganVotes apologizes for the error that appeared in one of the vote descriptions on this bill, as noted in previous comments. The bill applies to state employees only, not school employees.

correction

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:44:18 GMT

Should have said "teachers' pensions are NOT from civil service."

mileading info?

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:21:07 GMT

Should have said "are NOT from civil service."

misleading info?

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 12:20:05 GMT

The line pension benefits suspended "while an individual worked for a school" is misleading. This only applies if the retirent's retirement benefits are under ACT 240, the civil service retirement system. HB 4800 AMENDS that ACT. A teacher may return to work for a school while drawing a pension since teachers' pensions are from civil service employment.

in that case.

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 20:43:06 GMT

let's fire all the teachers, especially the UNION ones, and hire them back under those circumstances. no health care, no benefits, no nothing, just a teacher's job. any takers??? it sure would SAVE US SOME MONEY.

Save money let them work

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:07:36 GMT

School systems save alot of money when they hire for less money excellent proven staff, No health care pay in,no retirement pay in and the ability to keep or let go these teachers as needed. What is the problem?

Teacher

Anonymous Citizen — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 02:56:33 GMT

Retired teachers have many skills they have learned over the course of their teaching careers. A retired teacher who could help a school district to increase test scores and student learning should be hired to help a school attain AYP or increase student learning. It is not fair to think that retired teachers who have skills should not be paid or compensated for the work they provide. Their pensions should not be touched in anyway as a punishment for using their acquired expertise in helping student performance and achievement. In business and the law profession consultants are called up to share their expertise in their specific areas. They are compensated for their services and their retirement pensions are not affected. What is our legislation trying to do to teachers who have worked in a career for numerous years? Do they really know what they are trying to do? And the last question would be-"Why are they even thinking of creating such a plan? Perhaps our legislators should state their "hidden" agenda in creating such a bill.

Teacher

Anonymous Citizen — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 02:56:23 GMT

Unanticipated consequences??

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 31 May 2007 20:56:59 GMT

Among other issues,I wonders if anyone has researched the following situation: All community colleges, some universities, and most public school districts rely on retired teachers to fill part-time positions as instructors and substitutes. They are a source of relatively cheap labor (hourly versus salary wages, no benefits, etc.), to fill thousands of slots for which there is no full-time teacher available. These institutions are required to provide instructors at specific certification and skill levels. They can't just hire someone off the street. Hiring full-time staff to fill the slots currently occupied by retirees would be prohibitively expensive.

no vote explanation of

Admin003 — Fri, 25 May 2007 16:17:50 GMT

Rep. Nofs, under Rule 31, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not vote on Roll Call No. 165 because of a possible conflict of interest." Rep. Meadows, under Rule 31, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not vote on Roll Call No. 165 because of a possible conflict of interest." Rep. Alma Smith, under Rule 31, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not vote on Roll Call No. 165 because of a possible conflict of interest." Rep. Clack, under Rule 31, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not vote on Roll Call No. 165 because of a possible conflict of interest." Rep. Lindberg, under Rule 31, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not vote on Roll Call No. 165 because of a possible conflict of interest." Rep. Brown, under Rule 31, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not vote on Roll Call No. 165 because of a possible conflict of interest." Rep. Caswell, under Rule 31, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not vote on Roll Call No. 165 because of a possible conflict of interest." Rep. Caul, under Rule 31, made the following statement: "Mr. Speaker and members of the House: I did not vote on Roll Call No. 165 because of a possible conflict of interest."

Rep. Elsenheimer's "no vote explanation"

Admin003 — Fri, 25 May 2007 16:16:38 GMT

Rep. Elsenheimer, 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 must vote no for this bill as it is tie-barred to an income tax increase, and would have untold consequences. It has been rushed through and was not fully vetted. It is a mistake for the legislature to move legislation like this without fully investigating the consequences - both intended and unintended."

Rep. Hoogendyk's "no vote explanation"

Admin003 — Fri, 25 May 2007 16:15:57 GMT

Rep. Hoogendyk, 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: this bill is tie-barred to a whopping increase in the income tax to all wage earners in the state. I am not going to vote for this bill for that reason."

WCTaxpayers

Anonymous Citizen — Thu, 24 May 2007 18:23:17 GMT

This bill should have passed on its own merit and not have been tie barred to an increase in the income tax. Keep it up and I'll need my walking shoes.

2007 House Bill 4800 (Repeal dual state employee pension/salary loophole )

admin — Mon, 01 Jan 2001 05:00:00 GMT

Introduced in the House on May 17, 2007, pension law that allows an employee to “retire,” start collecting a pension, and then return to work for state either directly or through a contractual arrangement with a third party, collecting a wage or salary while simultaneously collecting pension benefits. The bill would suspend pension payments while an individual worked for the state, directly or indirectly. The bill was amended to "tie bar" it to House Bill 4500, to increase the income tax from 3.9 percent to 4.6 percent. This means the pension reform could not take place unless the tax hike also did. Note: Reps. Brown, Caswell, Caul, Clack, Cushingberry, Lindberg, Meadows, Nofs and Alma Smith all abstained because of a possible conflict of interest. They either currently receive or are vested in a government pension plan

The vote was 61 in favor, 39 opposed and 10 not voting

(House Roll Call 165 at House Journal 51)

Click here to view bill details.