costs and expenses on affected local municipalities and school districts to get out of financial distress without provid
S T A T E W I D E
BALLOT PROPOSALS MICHIGAN 2012
DEAR VOTER : On November 6, you will have a chance to play an important role in establishing Michigan public policy. Not only will you have the opportunity to select candidates, but six statewide ballot proposals will also be presented for your consideration. This newsletter contains information to help familiarize you with the pros and cons of these six proposals. Included is the actual language that will appear on the ballot along with brief analyses of the important issues at hand. The analyses do not necessarily reflect my views. The intent is to bring you the strongest arguments for and against each proposal so you can make an informed decision on these issues. Keep in mind, depending on where you live, there may be other local or regional ballot questions as well. Please do not hesitate to call or write my office if I can be of further service to you. Sincerely,
S TAT E S E N AT O R
PHIL PAVLOV P.O. Box 30036 | Lansing, MI 48909-7536 TOLL FREE 866.305.2125 E-MAIL
[email protected] VISIT www.SenatorPhilPavlov.com
PROPOSAL 12-1 A REFERENDUM ON PUBLIC ACT 4 OF 2011 – THE EMERGENCY MANAGER LAW Public Act 4 of 2011 would: •E stablish criteria to assess the financial condition of local government units, including school districts. •A uthorize 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. •R equire 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. •A lternatively, authorize state-appointed review team to enter into a local government approved consent decree.
Should this law be approved? People voting YES say: • A “YES” vote would uphold PA 4. This law ensures the state’s ability to offer early financial intervention and assistance to schools and local governments that are struggling financially before they reach a crisis. •R epealing the law would impede the ability of the state to provide important tools necessary to address immediate financial crises and will put state taxpayers on the hook for these locally incurred bad debts. • L ocal governments and schools currently being helped by this law could be adversely affected by its repeal, since the emergency managers could be forced to step down resulting in a reversal of financial stability.
q YES
q NO
People voting NO say: •A “NO” vote would repeal PA 4. This law would give too much power and oversight to the unelected emergency managers and would undercut the authority of local elected officials. • T he law could impose substantial costs and expenses on affected local municipalities and school districts to get out of financial distress without providing new revenues. • T he law would give the emergency manager wide discretion to invalidate contracts and impede existing collective bargaining agreements.
PROPOSAL 12-2 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING This proposal would: •G rant 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. •O verride 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? People voting YES say:
q YES
q NO
People voting NO say:
•P rotection of collective bargaining should be a constitutional right for workers to assist employees in negotiating a fair contract and to protect their rights.
• T his amendment would limit or eliminate the state’s ability to regulate labor activities for both public and private employees.
•C ollective bargaining should not just be a right provided to certain employees but should be extended to all employees regardless of their employer.
• T his proposal would repeal an unidentified number of existing laws affecting both employees and job providers and would have an unknown impact on this vital relationship.
• T his proposal would protect public and private employee’s jobs, wages, and benefits by making collective bargaining a constitutional right.
• It is unwise to lock this proposal in the Michigan Constitution as it will make it difficult in the future for elected leaders to adapt to changing conditions.
PROPOSAL 12-3 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A STANDARD FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY
This proposal would: •R equire 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. • L imit to not more than 1% per year electric utility rate increases charged to consumers only to achieve compliance with the renewable energy standard. •A llow annual extensions of the deadline to meet the 25% standard in order to prevent rate increases over the 1% limit. •R equire the legislature to enact additional laws to encourage the use of Michigan made equipment and employment of Michigan residents.
Should this proposal be approved? People voting YES say: • The amendment will require electricity providers to make major investments in Michigan, which will benefit the economy and create green jobs to promote clean energy. • The proposal protects consumers in the short term by capping rate increases caused by renewable energy regulations at 1% per year. • Using clean, renewable energy will help reduce pollution and protect Michigan’s air, water, and land and help make Michigan more energy independent.
q YES
q NO
People voting NO say: •M ichigan consumers already pay the highest electricity rates in the Midwest and, despite the 1% annual cap on rate increases, consumers will experience long-term rate inflation until the renewable energy investments are paid off. •M ichigan’s current energy mandate of 10% of electricity to be derived from renewable energy sources by 2015 still has not been achieved. • It is unwise to lock this proposal in the Michigan Constitution as it will make it difficult in the future to adapt to changing conditions and technology.
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: •A llow 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. •R equire 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. •P reserve patients’ rights to hire in-home care workers who are not referred from the MQHCC registry who are bargaining unit members. •A uthorize the MQHCC to set minimum compensation standards and terms and conditions of employment.
Should this proposal be approved? People voting YES say: • T he proposal would provide in-home care workers a constitutional right to collective bargaining. • T he Michigan Quality Home Care Council would provide training, background checks and a registry of in-home care workers which elderly and disabled persons may choose to hire for daily living assistance. •W ould protect the authority, duties and obligations of the current Michigan Quality Community Care Council to provide access to well-trained in-home care workers.
q YES
q NO
People voting NO say: • T hese services are already available and could force terms of employment, such as joining a union and paying union dues, on in-home care workers, including relatives of the patient. •W hile all in-home care workers are directly employed by the elderly and disabled persons in need of services, they would be treated as public employees for the sole purpose of unionization. • It is unwise to lock this proposal in the Michigan Constitution as it will make it difficult in the future to update its provision to address changing conditions.
PROPOSAL 12-5 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT
This proposal would: •R equire 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. • T his section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.
Should this proposal be approved? People voting YES say:
q YES
q NO
People voting NO say:
• This proposal would require a 2/3 majority vote of both the House and Senate or statewide vote of the people to enact tax increases.
• T his proposal would limit the Legislature’s ability to balance the state budget; and could result in funding cuts to education, public safety, or infrastructure projects.
• The higher threshold for raising taxes would make it harder to impose new or additional taxes, expand the tax base, or increase tax rates.
• T his proposal would have no impact on current tax rates and could impede future tax reform for individuals and job providers.
• The two most recent tax increases in Michigan were passed with support from only a slim majority of the Legislature. Had this proposal been in place, it is likely that neither of these increases could have been passed by the Legislature.
• It is unwise to lock this proposal in the Michigan Constitution as it will make it difficult in the future to update its provision to address changing conditions.
PROPOSAL 12-6 A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF INTERNATIONAL BRIDGES AND TUNNELS
This proposal would: •R equire 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. •C reate 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? People voting YES say: • Citizens should have the right to decide if the State should undertake major international bridges or tunnel projects for motor vehicles due to the possibility of ongoing taxpayer-funded expenses. • It is unclear if there is sufficient traffic to support the building of a second international bridge in Southeast Michigan and the State should not be in competition with a private entity. • This proposal may put the current Michigan-Canadian bridge project before the Michigan voters for their approval or rejection.
q YES
q NO
People voting NO say: •G iven the traffic volume in Southeast Michigan, a second international bridge is critical for economic development and job creation in our state and will be paid for by Canadian funds and not state tax dollars. • T he international bridge project agreement between Michigan and Canada may be exempt from the restrictions of this proposal. • It is unwise to lock this proposal in the Michigan Constitution as it will make it difficult in the future for elected leaders to adapt to changing conditions.
