Here’s a story that holds glimmers of hope that things can get better.
Forty-four seats in the Michigan House of Representatives were forced open by term limits for last November’s election. The folks at the Center for Michigan saw the 2008 election as a forerunner of the watershed one coming next November. That‘s when we’ll elect a new governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, 30 new state senators and nearly one-third of the House.
So, last fall, the Center got involved.
Working in partnership with Detroit Public TV (WTVS) they sponsored a program of “Great Debates” between House candidates in SE Michigan. Nearly 65,000 people watched, according to the station. More importantly, the debates focused exclusively on the “common ground agenda for Michigan’s transformation.”
That was a report that emerged from 180 community conversations sponsored by the Michigan’s Defining Moment public engagement campaign, also run by the Center for Michigan.
The detailed agenda was also handed to candidates – both Republicans and Democrats – in 50 one-on-one meetings during the primary season. Among the points stressed by Michigan citizens who participated: How important bipartisanship is in the legislature – and how miserably lacking it has been in recent years.
Following those conversations, the voters spoke. Candidates were elected in November, and come January they were duly sworn into office. And then something remarkable happened. The newly elected freshmen representatives formed themselves into a bipartisan freshman caucus – something unprecedented in Michigan politics!
All the freshmen pledged to work in a bipartisan way to help the state, not just to score partisan debating points off each other. Virtually every newly elected House member joined in.
For a time, their announcement was greeted with the usual Lansing skepticism. Some said the effort would never get off the ground. Others predicted the freshman caucus would be nothing more than a social gathering. Last summer, Lansing pundit Tim Skubick criticized the caucus for lack of action.
But last week, following yet another clumsy failing effort by the legislature to pass a balanced budget, members of the bipartisan caucus introduced a plan to force legislators to finish work on the state spending plan by each July 1 or have their pay docked for each day they miss the deadline.
The legislation would require the legislature to present all general appropriations bills for the succeeding fiscal year to the Governor on or before July 1 of each year.
There are 27 co-sponsors of the bill, 14 Democrats and 13 Republicans. State Representative Bill Rogers (R-Brighton) is the official sponsor. The legislation needs to pass with two-thirds of the votes in both the House and Senate to place the measure on the August 2010 ballot. That may be a long shot, the sponsors know. Still, “I am outraged by what took place this week regarding the budget and, more importantly, by what did not take place,” Rogers told me.
“It’s ridiculous for the Legislature not to finish work on the budget in time for schools and local governments to get a clear idea of what they’ll have to work with rather than have to wait until the middle of the fall,” when spending plans are already in place.
He wasn‘t alone. “After the ordeal we saw in the legislature, it’s crystal clear the budget process is broken and in need of major reform,” Rep. Tim Bledsoe (D-Grosse Pointe) told me.
True, Michigan‘s fiscal year starts Oct. 1. Still, “It’s unconscionable for the legislature to continue to delay their budget duties when local governments and school districts began their fiscal years on July 1,” said Bledsoe. A political scientist, Bledsoe teaches a course in the legislative process at Wayne State University.
Bledsoe thinks there’s a good chance the bill will make it out of the House with the necessary two-thirds majority to get on the ballot. He’s not so sure about the Senate, although he points out that comment from other legislators and the media have been positive. I’d guess if the Senate feels backlash from the public about this year’s late budget, they’ll think seriously about moving the measure.
Rep. Lesia Liss (D-Warren/Center Line) is quoted in the caucus’ press release as saying, “Any other Michigan worker would lose their paycheck if they failed to do their job. It’s time to hold the legislature to that standard.”
Amen to that.
And good luck to all members of the freshman bipartisan caucus. Their work could be the first sign that reform of Michigan’s dysfunctional political system really is possible.
***
Editor’s Note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics and a former chairman of the Michigan chapter of the Nature Conservancy. He is also the founder and president of The Center for Michigan, a bipartisan centrist think-and-do tank which is sponsoring Michigan’s Defining Moment, a public engagement outreach campaign for citizens. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of The Center. He welcomes your comments at ppower@thecenterformichigan.net.
5 Comments
The really sad thing about the Lansing budget fiasco is that is has become a perennial event for Michigan. By avoiding the fundamental issues such as educational costs, and using “stimulus money” to pay the bills, our legislature has guaranteed that the problem will be worse next year.
Also……who do the State Police, teachers, university professors, legislators and other public employees think they are? Everyone I know including myself and my spouse have taken a pay cut, been given unpaid furlough or had their compensation and benefits reduced in some way. When the well is running dry, all those who drink from it must restrain themselves.
This begs the question, do these Freshman really know the intricate details of how the State of Michigan spends it’s money, and the effect on critical services?
On one hand, the term limits are blamed on putting inexperienced people on the job in Lansing. On the other, it’s the newbies that have the right idea. It can’t be both.
The real problem of Michigan’s budget will not be solved by putting a financial gun to the head of legislators, nor is it Constitutional to hold pay ransom for political action. This concept does show just how naive these Freshman legislators are.
I have not seen one of these Freshman bring a completely new idea to Lansing on how to reconcile essential services with revenue, such as Pension Income Tax Exclusion Reform, Property Tax Reform, permanent reduction of State Police, Public Pension Reform, etc.
We wanted new ideas that actually change the way Michigan operates the State with less money long term, not teenage whining from the new kids on the block.
John Hargenrader
Freshmen they may be, but that certainly does not mean they know nothing of politics, many having held other elected offices in the past. They probably each hope for reelection, and for being in the position where they will bear the responsibility for their own lack of pay if they cause the same state-wide chaos we’re seeing now.
I applaud them for doing more than whining: they’re expressing the outrage the rest of us feel with the Kafkaesque processes in the legislature, the rampant posturing for political gain, and closed-door meetings and hidden agendas. I’d vote Yes on such an ammendment any time it’s offered.
I tend to agree that term limits have brought inexperienced people into the legislature, giving lobbyists an unfair influence over them as “experienced advisers”. However, freshmen caucus proposal shows the flip side of the coin, and demonstrates one of the benefits of term-limits.
I must beg to disagree with Mr. Hargenrader about whether term limits are a good or a bad thing. Yes, it can have both pros and cons. Most solutions do, don’t they?
And I have to agree with Mr. Zelinski that we who are (or in my case, were) paid with government funds need to share the pain. But we are. Most government bodies in Michigan, including the state, have instituted one sort of pay reduction or another, including the six unpaid furlough days this summer. I’m not sure if Mr. Zelinski is proposing that all the State Police and prison guards should have been sent home for six days this summer, but I (for one) am glad that didn’t happen. The last thing Michigan needs at this point is “get out of jail free” days or all-crimes-allowed days…
Mr. Laurence Krieg,
Actually your opinion is quite accurate on pro’s and con’s. I don’t have anything against term limits, in fact I favor them, yet I’d like them extended by one term.
My point is that old or new, the budget mess is still the same. Neither career legislators nor freshman have come forward with the tough reforms I listed.
I see people discuss term limits as being responsible for our current crisis. I say term limits are irrelevant to our fisal condition.
John H.
Unfortunately, “leading by example” would also require putting specific solutions to Michigan’s structural budget shortfall on the table.
If this bipartisan group were to sit down and negotiation such solutions, would the Republicans be open to increasing/revising state taxes to build growth into the revenue system? Would the Democrats be open to reducing state services?
Process matters, but the ability to achieve compromise through good working relationships and a pragmatic approach to policy/budget outcomes matters more.