The Romeo Observer - Romeo, Michigan: Northern Macomb County's weekly newspaper since 1866

Breaking News

DEIRDRE ZENSEN	DOROTHY MOLLON
EDWIN WERDERMAN	ELEANOR SUTTON
JAMES CRANNY	LOLA SHIMSHOCK
MARJORIE RENNY	PAUL UERLING
WITOLD BORONSKI
Browse Full Text...

» Inside

Public Notices
Links
About Us
News Stands
Subscriptions
Editorial Forms
Archives

» Deadlines

Friday, 2 pm
Inserts

Friday, Noon
Retail Display
Editorial

Monday, Noon
Classified Display
Service Directory Display

Monday, 2 pm
Service Directory Liners

Monday, 3 pm
Classified Liners

All Holiday Deadlines are One Full Workday Earlier

You are Viewing an Archived Issue

Posted: 10/31/12

Pros and cons of Michigan's six
statewide ballot proposals

      The following includes the Nov. 6, 2012 statewide proposals with official ballot language and pro and con statements. The information is furnished by the League of Women Voters of Michigan Education Fund.
       Disclaimer: The pro and con statements for the six statewide ballot proposals reflect the views of their major proponents and opponents as expressed on their websites and other supporting documentation referenced. The inclusion of the views of the various groups is solely in the interest of public service. The League of Women Voters takes no responsibility for the views or statements of the groups. All of the following November, 2012 State Ballot Proposals © League of Women Voters of Michigan Education Fund.

       PROPOSAL 12-1
       A referendum on Public Act 4 of 2011 - The Emergency Manager Law
       Public Act 4 of 2011 would:
       Establish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts.
       Authorize Governor to appoint an emergency manager (EM) upon state finding of a financial emergency, and allow the EM to act in place of local government officials.
       Require EM to develop financial and operating plans, which may include modification or termination of contracts, reorganization of government, and determination of expenditures, services, and use of assets until the emergency is resolved.
       Alternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.
       Should this law be approved?
       YES or NO

       PROPOSAL 12-1
       Pro:
       PA4 of 2011 was passed by the majority of the Michigan Legislature and signed by Governor Snyder in order to update the former emergency finance manager law, PA72 of 1990. Per the Michigan Constitution, local governments are creations of and subordinate to the state and thus, the state can pass laws governing their operations.
       Under PA4, emergency managers gained new power to deal with financial emergencies including having authority previously vested in local elected officials and to reject, modify and terminate contracts and collective bargaining agreements. Supporters cite the need for emergency managers to have more powers than under the old law in order to deal with the current financial crisis that impacts local cities and school districts.
       The Governor is responsible for appointing an emergency manager after declaring a financial emergency. A consent agreement is another option. Emergency manager must submit action plan to State Treasurer and hold a public meeting on it.
       Emergency managers are seen as a needed alternative to filing for bankruptcy in order to protect the credit of the state.
       YES vote puts the Emergency Manager Law, PA4 of 2011, into effect. Note: Website not available at this time.
       Con:
       Stand Up for Democracy and others oppose PA4 of 2011 and see it as a power grab by the Governor and Michigan Legislature. Opponents recognize the need to have interventions available when there is a financial crisis, but they argue that locally elected officials should still have power and previously agreed upon contracts should be enforced.
       Some believe PA4 may be unconstitutional, particularly regarding abrogation of contracts and voter disenfranchisement of the local community. Opponents argue that the broad powers given the Emergency Manager such as eliminating the role of locally elected officials, altering contracts, firing employees, suspending collective bargaining agreements, outsourcing, merging cities or school districts, and selling assets go too far.
       Many believe PA72 of 1990, the Emergency Financial Manager law which PA4 replaced, is adequate for dealing with financial crisis and blame reductions in state revenue sharing for causing the crisis. Because of the referendum, Flint, Benton Harbor, Ecorse, Pontiac, Detroit Public Schools and Highland Park Schools, are being operated under PA72 of 1990.
       NO vote repeals the Emergency Manager Law, PA4 of 2011. For more information go to http://standup4democracy.com

       PROPOSAL 12-2
       A proposal to amend the State Constitution regarding collective bargaining
       This proposal would:
       Grant public and private employees the constitutional right to organize and bargain collectively through labor unions.
       Invalidate existing or future state or local laws that limit the ability to join unions and bargain collectively, and to negotiate and enforce collective bargaining agreements, including employees' financial support of their labor unions. Laws may be enacted to prohibit public employees from striking.
       Override state laws that regulate hours and conditions of employment to the extent that those laws conflict with collective bargaining agreements.
       Define "employer" as a person or entity employing one or more employees.
       Should this proposal be approved?
       YES or NO

       PROPOSAL 12-2
       Pro:
       Protect Our Jobs asserts:
       Proposal establishes people's rights to organize, join or assist unions and to bargain collectively with public or private employers regarding wages, hours and other employment conditions.
       It prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for exercising those rights, prohibits state and local governments from interfering with those rights, and prohibits government from blocking agreements respecting employees' financial support to their union. It grants State Civil Service employees' collective bargaining rights while authorizing the State to restrict or prohibit public employee strikes. It protects current laws establishing minimum wages, hours and working conditions.
       The proposal doesn't add any rights workers don't already have. It doesn't force people to join unions. It doesn't require anyone to pay dues. It simply prevents those who want to eliminate worker's rights from being able to do it. Corporate special interests will spend millions to mislead voters about the proposal so they can pass Right to Work legislation prohibiting agreements between unions and employers on membership and dues payment.
       Collective bargaining gives workers a voice at work and a seat at the table with management, protecting Michigan's families and allowing workers to negotiate fair wages and benefits.
       For more information go to http://protectourjobs.com
       Con:
       Protecting Michigan Taxpayers asserts:
       This proposal enshrines the agenda of Washington D.C. union bosses in Michigan's Constitution, resulting in higher taxes, a fundamental lack of fairness and fewer jobs. It would take away local control and eliminate the ability of our elected representatives to make decisions that move Michigan forward.
       Government workers would receive higher pensions and better benefits even during tough economic times, causing lawmakers to roll back recent tax cuts that are fueling Michigan's turn around.
       Nearly 80 laws would be overturned, jeopardizing the state's progress so far. Our ability to remove bad teachers would be gutted, short changing our children's education. It would be difficult to pass laws to further improve education, protect public safety, and strengthen our economy.
       Just as no one should be forbidden from joining a union, workers should not be forced to join a union or pay dues to a political organization they don't support. It's a special interest power play. Don't let them hijack our constitution.
       For more information go to http://protectingmichigantaxpayers.com

       PROPOSAL 12-3
       A proposal to amend the State Constitution to establish a standard for renewable energy
       This proposal would:
       Require electric utilities to provide at least 25% of their annual retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources, which are wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower, by 2025.
       Limit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard.
       Allow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit.
       Require the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.
       Should this proposal be approved?
       YES or NO

       PROPOSAL 12-3
       Pro:
       Utilities are on track to meet the old standard of 10% renewables by 2015. That's no longer good enough as over 30 other states, including the Midwestern states of Ohio, Illinois, Iowa and Minnesota have passed new standards of 25% renewables by 2025. These states have not seen significantly higher energy rates and this proposal limits increases to no more than $1.25 a month. This is a small cost for Michigan energy, Michigan jobs and cleaner air and water.
       This proposal would help us build a clean energy industry by offering stability and commitment to renewable energy growth. The growth will create thousands of jobs for Michigan workers and attract $10 billion in new investments in our state.
       Using more wind and solar energy will reduce pollution and give Michigan cleaner and healthier air and water, protect the Great Lakes, reduce asthma and lung disease, and ultimately save lives.
       The Michigan constitution has granted two mechanisms to create law, our legislature and by popular vote. Our present legislative impasse necessitates going to the people to ensure we don't fall behind.
       For more information, go to www.MiEnergyMiJobs.com.
       Con:
       A ballot proposal to require 25% of all energy to be produced from the sun or wind by 2025 sidesteps our Legislature and the proper way to make laws. It allows millions of dollars' worth of wind turbines and solar generation all over Michigan's landscape, without any proof that such a tremendous investment can be utilized or will even be needed after its installation.
       Current law requires 10% renewables by 2015. That is a more reasonable, affordable and attainable approach than cluttering the Constitution. The marketplace is the most effective way to develop Michigan's renewable energy industry and the legislative process is the most efficient way to set standards. The current law, which was passed after two years of thoughtful debate and with bipartisan support in 2008, should be fully implemented and its benefits fully analyzed and evaluated before any changes are discussed.
       The Michigan Jobs and Energy Coalition, which includes Michigan's major utilities, electrical cooperatives, major business organizations, industrial customers and economic development interests and which helped pass the 2008 renewable energy law, opposes this amendment which decreases flexibility. A special interest group should not be allowed to amend our Constitution.
       For more information, go to www.careformich.com

       PROPOSAL 12-4
       A proposal to amend the State Constitution to establish the Michigan Quality Home Care Council and provide collective bargaining for in-home care workers
       This proposal would:
       Allow in-home care workers to bargain collectively with the Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC). Continue the current exclusive representative of in-home care workers until modified in accordance with labor laws.
       Require MQHCC to provide training for in-home care workers, create a registry of workers who pass background checks, and provide financial services to patients to manage the cost of in-home care.
       Preserve patients' rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members.
       Authorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.
       Should this proposal be approved?
       YES or NO

       PROPOSAL 12-4
       Pro:
       Citizens for Affordable Quality Home Care, a bipartisan coalition of senior advocates, disability rights groups, veterans, clergy, law enforcement officials and community leaders, supports the Keep Home Care Safe proposal to establish Michigan Quality Home Care Council (MQHCC).
       An eleven-member council appointed by the Governor will establish a registry to help eligible recipients obtain Home Help services. The registry will pre-screen workers, do background checks and provide critical job training so workers can better care for those needing assistance. The home care workers will have collective bargaining rights, but are not State employees. Medicaid pays workers, but patients are responsible for hiring and firing the home care workers.
       MQHCC enables seniors and people with disabilities to choose safe, quality care in their own homes as an alternative to expensive institutional care. According to the Anderson Economic Group report, Michigan saves $47,000 annually for each person using home services rather than being in a nursing facility. A similar Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) established in 2004 was eliminated by the Governor and Michigan Legislature in 2012. By monitoring unemployment claims by service providers, MQC3 saved the state $1,100,000 in unemployment benefits over four years.
       For more information go to www.keephomecaresafe.org
       Con:
       This proposal would amend the Michigan Constitution to allow the unionization of home-based caregivers as state employees. If passed the Constitutional amendment would override Public Act 76 of 2012. PA76 amended the Public Employees Relations Act (PERA) to exclude in the definition of "public employees" persons who receive a government subsidy in their private employment and prohibit the recognition of a bargaining unit of individuals who are not public employees.
       Elected officials passed PA76 to eliminate the Michigan Quality Community Care Council and stop collecting dues for the Service Employees International Union on behalf of home care workers. Citizens Protecting Michigan's Constitution (CPMC) opposes Proposal 4 arguing that home care workers are not employed by the state but by their clients, and, therefore, should not have collective bargaining rights and pay union dues.
       CPMC states that the federal Home Help Program is already in existence to allow seniors and disabled people to receive care at home instead of at a nursing facility. Most seniors in the program use family members to provide the services. CPMC argues that this proposal would hijack the Michigan Constitution to allow unionization of caregivers as state employees.
       For more information go to www.handsoffourconstitution.com

       PROPOSAL 12-5
       A proposal to amend the State Constitution to limit the enactment of new taxes by state government
       This proposal would:
       Require a 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate, or a statewide vote of the people at a November election, in order for the State of Michigan to impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation.
       This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.
       Should this proposal be approved?
       YES or NO

       PROPOSAL 12-5
       Pro:
       The Michigan Alliance for Prosperity (MAP) proposed this constitutional amendment to make it harder to raise taxes in Michigan by requiring two-thirds of the Legislature or the voters of Michigan to approve them. Eighteen other states have similar requirements. Sponsors believe the amendment will enhance consensus between political parties, control spending and lower taxes.
       Currently in Michigan the sales tax cannot be increased without a vote of citizens and educational property taxes (6 mills) require a three-fourths majority vote of the Legislature to raise them. However, property taxes, income taxes, and use taxes can be increased by a majority vote of the Legislature.
       MAP wants to make tax increases the last resort for politicians by demanding broad-based support. If there are urgent circumstances that truly require increasing taxes on Michigan families and businesses, the two-thirds requirement means politicians have to make a broadly compelling case to the public.
       Proposal supporters believe tax increases can have far-reaching and long term impact on the state's taxpayers and economy. Therefore, a more stringent legislative requirement than a simple majority vote should be needed to add a new tax, expand the tax base or increase the tax rate.
       For more information go to http://miprosperity.com/.
       Con:
       Defend Michigan Democracy (DMD) opposes the proposal to amend Michigan's Constitution to require a super majority vote of the Legislature or a vote of Michigan citizens to raise taxes. DMD argues this proposal would allow a minority of Legislators to thwart the majority of elected officials and will make it more difficult to fund public services such as roads, schools and state police.
       Opponents note that the proposal will make it more difficult to eliminate tax expenditures (loopholes) in order to make the tax system more equitable. Additionally, opponents note the proposal will lock the state into a tax system that may not meet the future needs of Michigan. For example, had this requirement been in effect in 2010 it would have prevented replacing the Michigan Business Tax with the Corporate Income Tax.
       A coalition of Michigan Republicans, Democrats, businesses, workers, healthcare providers, educators, universities, human service providers, mayors, police officers and firefighters argue that lobbyists and billionaires controlling a minority of 13 State Senators could create gridlock. States with super majority requirements are the poorest (Mississippi), have highest unemployment (Nevada) and exhibit dysfunctional government (California). Majority rule has been the foundation of our democracy.
       For more information go to http://defendmidemocracy.com/

       PROPOSAL 12-6
       A proposal to amend the State Constitution regarding construction of international bridges and tunnels
       This proposal would:
       Require the approval of a majority of voters at a statewide election and in each municipality where "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" are to be located before the State of Michigan may expend state funds or resources for acquiring land, designing, soliciting bids for, constructing, financing, or promoting new international bridges or tunnels.
       Create a definition of "new international bridges or tunnels for motor vehicles" that means, "any bridge or tunnel which is not open to the public and serving traffic as of January 1, 2012."
       Should this proposal be approved? YES___NO __

       PROPOSAL 12-6
       Pro:
       People Should Decide asserts that Michigan taxpayers could end up footing the bill for a multi-billion dollar new bridge to Canada, at a time when we need to be investing in jobs and schools. Proposal 6 will give the people a voice in how public money is spent on international crossings by requiring a vote at a statewide election and in each municipality in which there would be a new international bridge before state funds or resources could be used.
       The Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC) has offered to build a privately-funded second span adjacent to the Ambassador Bridge which it owns. The New International Trade Crossing (NITC) bridge in another location will draw substantial traffic from the Blue Water Bridge, Detroit-Windsor Tunnel, and Ambassador Bridge. Truck traffic volumes in 2010 for all Michigan to Canada links were down since their peak in 2005, not up as projected.
       People Should Decide posits that the NITC project is economically unviable and risky for Michigan taxpayers as cost and volume forecasts are uncertain. A joint authority will oversee design, construction, and operation and source of American materials and labor is not guaranteed.
       For more information go to www.thepeopleshoulddecide.com.
       Con:
       Taxpayers Against Monopolies which opposes Proposal 6 notes that this amendment is funded by Ambassador Bridge's owner. The amendment would impact future crossings.
       Michigan and Canadian officials signed an agreement in June to build the New International Trade Crossing (NITC). One-quarter of all U.S.-Canada trade (world's largest two-way relationship) crosses the Ambassador Bridge each year. NITC supporters point to a projected doubling of truck traffic between Detroit and Windsor by 2035.
       The second bridge two miles downriver will provide a direct highway-to-highway connection between the U.S. and Canada and provide much needed redundancy critical to national and economic security. U.S. and Canadian environmental clearances have been received. Estimates are 10,000 Michigan construction workers would be hired for Michigan side and completed bridge would support 25,000 more Michigan jobs.
       The agreement states: "The Michigan Parties are NOT obligated to pay any of the costs of the new International Crossing." Private investors will fund the bridge. Canada will pay $550 million for Michigan's share of custom's plaza, I-75 connection, and toll plaza. U.S. will pay balance of custom's plaza cost. Canada and private investors will be repaid by tolls collected. Canada has responsibility for any shortfall.
       For more information go to http://buildthedricnow.com

       Sources of Nonpartisan Information regarding Proposals
       Facts provided in proposal advertisements can be checked at: www.michigantruthsquad.com (a project of the nonpartisan Center For Michigan)
       Detailed analysis of the six proposals by the nonpartisan Citizens Research Council of Michigan is available at www.election.crcmich.org