Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on November 29, 2001, to exempt the Detroit area regional transportation authority proposed by House Bill 5467 from the provisions of the state Motor bus transportation act

The vote was 69 in favor, 21 opposed and 19 not voting

(House Roll Call 897 at House Journal 88)

Click here to view bill details.

Senator Cherry, under his constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of House Bill
No. 5468.
Senator Cherry’s statement is as follows:
House Bill No. 5468 is a very technical bill in it’s own right; it’s not of great controversy. However, it does
implement the next bill on the calendar. It’s seems to me, Mr. President, by taking up item number 41, House Bill
No. 5468, before the main bill, we’re really putting the cart before the horse. There are, in fact, concerns with the main
bill, and for me personally, Mr. President, I didn’t feel comfortable voting for House Bill No. 5468 until I see the
outcome of the main bill.
That was my reason for voting “no” on the bill.

Senator Cherry's statement is as follows:
I share the impression that the good Senator from the 27th District, the Majority Leader, has about how it's worked
that the schools are better now, but I do not share his support for this amendment. If, in fact, there has been an
improvement, then the voters of Detroit can make that assessment, and that was the purpose of the selection to put this
system in place. Allow it to operate, and allow the citizens of Detroit to make a determination as to whether the new
reform system works. That is what we are about to undo"their opportunity to make that assessment.
At some point, Mr. President, we have to learn to trust democracy, and that is basically what our system is all about;
that ultimately state government"whether it is state government or, in this case, the local governing of the school
system. How these institutions get their credibility ultimately and their legitimacy is through a public vote by the
people, the citizens. In this case, it's the citizens of Detroit. If, in fact, the school system is better, the citizens of
Detroit will recognize it by allowing a vote to occur. As initially put forth in statute, we give this system credibility.
Perhaps one of the reasons that you see the sensationalism with the negative stuff is because we haven’t allowed the
credibility to come by a public vote. This system has now had a chance to operate without interference, and it’s
produced results. Let's allow the citizens of Detroit to measure these results by the vote that we had previously
scheduled. I would urge that we reject this amendment and that we put some faith in democracy and put some
recognition that the people who live in the largest city of this state enjoy the same democratic rights as the people in
every other community in this state. I would urge a "no" vote on this amendment.

Senator Smith's first statement is as follows:
I rise to oppose the amendment. I've been asked if this isn't about politics, and what's it doing in the DARTA bill?
You know, there are many of us over here on this side of the aisle who were prepared and more than delighted to vote
for DARTA. Along comes an amendment that is totally irrelevant to the bill before us that would put an issue in front
of us that will cause a number of us to vote "no" on the bill that we were supporting and that we were arguing for, that
we see is a great advantage for the metropolitan area of Detroit. If this isn't about politics, I don't want it's about. Let's
put on an amendment that will force the Detroit delegation in the House to negotiate on yet another issue. If this isn't
about politics, then where is the study that shows that we have made academic and educational progress for the students
in the city of Detroit? Where is the study that shows us that we have improved grades and lessened the drop-out rate?
Where is the study that shows us that the reform board doesn't do the same kind of business practices that the old board
did?
Let's look at the fairgrounds purchase"that aborted process that was just an anathema to using the dollars that
people worked hard to put in place so that they could have decent schools in their district. This is about politics. This
is a Trent Lott amendment, and this is despicable. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

Senator Smith's second statement is as follows:
You know the reason the provision was put in place. One of the reasons the provision was put in place was to allow
the citizens to vote on whether or not the reform board was working for their children; to make the reform board prove
that it had indeed made significant changes and significant improvements to education, to the process of spending
money, and administering the largest school district in the state of Michigan. There has not been a study conducted that
would show that improvements have been made on any of those levels. We are getting the same story on the Detroit
reform board that we have gotten on charter schools. Let's lift the cap because it is wonderful. It's made great academic
progress when report after report after report from nonengaged and engaged universities show that the charter schools
have not been effective in an overall change of academic performance in the state of Michigan.
We are supposed to buy this amendment. This Legislature had the opportunity to put many incremental steps in place
before it took away the power of a community to control its school district, but we chose to strip the people of the
opportunity that every other school district has. That is, to elect and dis-elect its school board.
Is this about academic performance? Yes it is, and we have studies that show that where parents are involved and
parents are engaged is where students do better. When they feel disenfranchised and not a part of the process, they
don't participate and their children are not stimulated to learn as much as they would be if they had an active
engagement of the parents in the schools.
Let's just take one more step to alienate a community from its school district; one more step to alienate a community
from the electoral process; and one more step to alienate a community from government. This is a great step if this is
what you want to accomplish. I urge my colleagues to vote "no."

Senator Young's statement is as follows:
I rise to oppose this amendment, and I will tell you why. We are forgetting, I think, the important significance of the
information that should be gathered before we even attempt to begin to solve problems. Now I have heard a whole lot
about whether the system is better or not. Well I will tell you I am in and out of the schools and the system is not better.
What we have actually done here is we have said that we will give you a different model without correcting the
problems of past models. So those errors have been brought forth to the new models, and the system is not working
any better. Now we are also beginning to complicate this with not giving parents, concerned ones and guardians and
trustees the ability to demonstrate to these young people the connection between what school means, what productive life means, and what full employment means because they are taking it away. We are coming forward with the old
adage of if you have a problem in your household, don't you fix it; someone else will. I say to you how do children
learn how to begin to take care of their own problems if it is always being interfered with and others are seeming to
want to come to their rescue? Again, I say to you, it probably wouldn’t be bad if the rescue was working, but the rescue
is not working.
Now I think we also have to understand a little bit of the history of why this is such a major issue in the city of
Detroit. The city of Detroit is comprised of a lot of individuals who came from the South because they were seeking
freedom; they were seeking education; they were seeking the opportunity to read something they could not do just
because they were in the South at that time. Now I am a 1950s baby, and I remember my dad saying to me that he left
the South to go to the military to come to Detroit because Detroit had the only free adult education program of which
he could put forth and provide to us a better standard of living. None of these ingredients have been put into the so
called solutions that we are trying to attempt here to legislate. I contend to you what we are doing is the connection
between the legislation. I believe that the goodheartedness is to solve the problem, but the connection between the
legislation and those who need to benefit from the legislation is nonexistent, and that creates a major, major problem.
In looking at this, I think it is important to say what the ingredients are for success. I have heard many here talk
about it because they are key buzz words, and many of them are getting old. They are referred to as partnerships; they
are referred to as stakeholders; and they involve those in decision- making so they will feel that they share a sense of
pride and also ownership. Well, ladies and gentlemen, today we are taking away that with this amendment"the
ownership. We are taking away the ability to hold parents, guardians, trustees, and other individuals"teachers and
administrators"in the system accountable for doing what it is that I believe we actually want them to do, and that is
to present young people with an opportunity to be productive and constructive citizens in their future.
You don't do that by taking away the ownership, and you don't do that by making a situation where people can no
longer control their destiny. You certainly don’t do it by restricting their freedom. Out of all the history that we have
seen and read regardless of what country, what race, or where people thrive on their ability to be free to take care of
themselves, their friends, their loved ones, and their community, I would ask that you think about this because I've seen
it in the schools. I've seen the disconnection. I've seen those who want to do good in the schools saying that they can't
do good because they don't control the system. Then we confuse them with words like "empowerment" and confuse
them with saying that they should be empowered when, in fact, they aren't empowered when, in fact, they don't have
the ability like many of us have. I do with my grandchildren now"before my children"where I believe I go to the
schools, and I tell the schools what the product I want delivered, not what they think they should deliver.
In doing this, we are also taking away that connection where parents feel empowered. They have the ability to say
what they want for their children, and that is not taking place. The question does not just become whether the system
is working; the question becomes how do we achieve the ownership in the system where people have pride and take
responsibility where we can hold each stakeholder and partner in that accountable to make sure that our children learn
and that they have a future to pass on to their own children, as many of us have done with our children. That becomes
the question.
So I would hope we would think of this in this perspective, forget about the politics, and look at whether or not this
legislation makes a connection because I firmly believe we do want to do the right thing. But it’s the connection we
are missing, and legislation has got to start helping those we legislate for. I would hope we would oppose this. There
needs to be a different approach. We have to have ownership. We have to have true stakeholders, and we have to have
true partnerships if we want the children to learn in any system because as we debate this, believe me, with the diverse
district that I have"from the rich to the middle class to the poor"there are a lot of systems not working.

Senator Leland's first statement is as follows:
My colleague just stated that this amendment is just simple. This amendment is not just simple. What happened when
we passed the school reform package in 1999 is it that created a new reform board, but we also gave the people of
Detroit the ability to go back to the ballot five years in November 1999 to decide if the reform was working and if they
wanted to keep the reform board. I believe that many of the members in 1999 who passed this legislation did so because
it made it acceptable with the possibility of a referendum in 2004. I just don't think that it is fair to come back a few
years later and undo what was in the legislation. I think the people of Detroit want to decide if this board is acceptable,
and they should have the opportunity to keep it or throw them out. I would hope that you would reject this amendment.
It really isn't fair, and it doesn't belong here. I hope we vote "no" on this.

Senator Leland's second statement is as follows:
What bothers me mostly about this amendment is it’s very antagonistic to Detroiters, and it's very offensive. We went
through this a few years ago. If you can remember what happened in the Capitol, we had a lot of people from Detroit
come in here. The Gallery was filled, and the halls were filled. They came up in buses, and they felt that this violated their Voting Rights Act. It brought out some real ugly issues. It just didn't make Detroiters feel real good about what we do to them in the Capitol. I don't know why we have to raise this ugly issue again. We did it three years ago, and
we antagonized many of my constituents. I don't think that they have ever been as energized and angry about
something in the years I've been in Lansing as they were over that school reform bill.
their Voting Rights Act. It brought out some real ugly issues. It just didn't make Detroiters feel real good about what
we do to them in the Capitol. I don't know why we have to raise this ugly issue again. We did it three years ago, and
we antagonized many of my constituents. I don't think that they have ever been as energized and angry about
something in the years I've been in Lansing as they were over that school reform bill.
As my leader said, if the people in Detroit want to keep the system as it is, then they will go and make that decision.
Why not give them the opportunity to decide if they want to keep the reform board or if they want to replace the board?
It should be up to Detroit. It shouldn’t be up to us here in Lansing. Again, I really would hope that we would reject
this very anti-Detroit, very antagonist to my constituents amendment.

Senator Leland's second statement is as follows:
What bothers me mostly about this amendment is it’s very antagonistic to Detroiters, and it's very offensive. We went
through this a few years ago. If you can remember what happened in the Capitol, we had a lot of people from Detroit
come in here. The Gallery was filled, and the halls were filled. They came up in buses, and they felt that this violated their Voting Rights Act. It brought out some real ugly issues. It just didn't make Detroiters feel real good about what we do to them in the Capitol. I don't know why we have to raise this ugly issue again. We did it three years ago, and
we antagonized many of my constituents. I don't think that they have ever been as energized and angry about
something in the years I've been in Lansing as they were over that school reform bill.
their Voting Rights Act. It brought out some real ugly issues. It just didn't make Detroiters feel real good about what
we do to them in the Capitol. I don't know why we have to raise this ugly issue again. We did it three years ago, and
we antagonized many of my constituents. I don't think that they have ever been as energized and angry about
something in the years I've been in Lansing as they were over that school reform bill.
As my leader said, if the people in Detroit want to keep the system as it is, then they will go and make that decision.
Why not give them the opportunity to decide if they want to keep the reform board or if they want to replace the board?
It should be up to Detroit. It shouldn't be up to us here in Lansing. Again, I really would hope that we would reject
this very anti-Detroit, very antagonist to my constituents amendment.

Senator Scott's statement is as follows:
I also rise to ask my colleagues to vote "no" on this amendment. I just want to reiterate what my colleague from
Detroit said. We went round and round for many weeks on this. It was stated that we would be able to come back and
that Detroiters would be able to vote on this as to whether or not this was working. I think you know that it’s not
working, and that's why you are using this DARTA bill to do this. This is irresponsible for us to do this at this time
with this bill. It was just last week that I called Haveman in the Community Health Department telling him what I had
read in the newspaper. It was an article that Bill Johnson had wrote about how our schools were just deplorable; how
children were living in these schools with an infestation of bugs and things in the schools that they have not dealt with;
and that these schools are old, and they have not done the job they said they were going to do. I think this is just
terrible, so I ask my colleagues to vote this amendment down. This is unfair. Everything that you have done recently
for Detroit, you are reneging on it. This is wrong, Mr. President.

Senator Young's statement, in which Senator Scott concurred, is as follows:
It’s obvious that the traditional approach in solving problems to not solving problems at all. We had a piece of
legislation of which many of us had been fighting for mass transportation for the poor, for the disabled, and for those
for many, many, many years. In an effort to get that legislation was to amend it again not only give those people an
opportunity to have mass transportation to find employment away from their home, but it was used as a way of taking
away the ability of those to elect their own school board members to be empowered and to be in trust stakeholders in
a public system. Now what we are trying to create is system by which people will not really have true mass
transportation because, obviously, those from the outside want to continue to manipulate that as an indication of the
amendment that takes away forever, the right of people to be true stakeholders; to be true missionaries; and to be true
individuals for their own piece of legislation and for their children's education. For that reason, I voted "no."

Senator Smith's statement, in which Senator Scott concurred, is as follows:
I voted "no" on the DARTA bill not because I objected to the provisions of a regional transportation authority and
the goals that it hoped to achieve, but because we had a reprehensible amendment attached to that bill that made it
impossible for me to support it.

Senator Leland's statement is as follows:
I also voted "no" against House Bill No. 5468, the DARTA bill because the amendment that was slapped on that
would have prevented my constituents from the ability to have an election in November 2004.