Democracy Tree
Watchdog Commentary on All Three Branches of Government

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?

This photo was taken at a local Democratic caucus meeting in Michigan this month. Yes, the crowd can barely be called a “crowd”, but that’s not what is of concern. There’s something else that’s even more worrisome for the Democratic Party.

See the guy in the front row, to the right, plaid shirt? His name is Kevin, he’s 35 years old, and he’s the youngest person in the room — by decades. Indeed, all of the others are old enough to be his parents or grandparents, and possibly a great-grandparent or two among them.

Nothing against the old guard, each having certainly fought the good fight over the years, and they all remember where they were when JFK and MLK were assassinated (I’m among that age group myself). These good people have borne witness to the tragedies and triumphs of the civil rights movement and to the end of the Vietnam War. They are true champions of of democracy – but they’re just not young anymore.

Four years ago, we saw a glimmer of youthful “hope” in the 2008 presidential election –a spark of fresh new enthusiasm, making the old feel young again. Possibility was in the air. But it was all swiftly and tragically snuffed-out in an early and unnecessary death brought on by the very leader that had ignited it.

In one of the greatest political miscalculations in history, President Obama squandered an enormous mandate — a great opportunity to re-chart our nation’s course.  The new president’s desire for bi-partisan cooperation trumped his commitment to campaign promises. His desperate attempt to move to the center in an effort to build political consensus was admirable, yet naive.  Our new president alienated his base with neck-snapping speed.

Younger voters in particular had little patience for the bullshit and excuses which became the new mantra of the Obama administration. 

Republicans, fueled and buoyed by tea party mania, took great pleasure in capitalizing on the president’s naivete, and thus helped crush any remaining youthful enthusiasm for the president’s leadership. (Sure, we still find the occasional Obama apologist, and you may be one of them, making the usual sympathetic noises – “The congress prevented him from making good on his campaign promises…he had no choice…he really has gotten a lot done…”).

Let’s face the truth: It is precisely because he squandered a very real mandate Dems lost the mid-terms in 2010. Sure, it wasn’t the president’s fault alone — but, as their chosen leader, he dropped the ball and fumbled nearly every play — to the utter astonishment of his supporters.

The alienation of the progressive youth vote, and their new disdain for the electoral process altogether, is best illustrated by the Occupy movement. For all the talk about the 99% being representative of a broad and all-inclusive demographic and psychographic spectrum, those that “occupy” are pretty much the same young people, but now they are pissed off. They are disgusted with the two-party system and the political process as it stands. The way they see it, the presidential candidate they turned-out in droves to support betrayed them when he capitulated.

And they are correct.

They’re also not alone. There are plenty among the old guard feeling the political slight and disappointment with Democratic Party leadership. The Obama capitulation set the stage for an epidemic of spinelessness on the left.

There’s plenty to be pissed about.

In Wisconsin, the DNC is maintaining a tight grip on its purse strings and not spending any money on the Scott Walker recall campaign, while Republicans are pouring cash into the effort to keep the governorship. Wisconsin Dems are furious. As they should be. They know this battle is winnable, and if they lose, it will be directly due to the DNC turning its back on them.

In Michigan, we find leaders begging Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate constitutional and civil rights questions swirling around the Emergency Manager Law. U.S. Rep. John Conyers requested intervention six months ago. At the time, Holder claimed he already had a legal team working on it. How long does it take for a review of the law? Again, just this month, State Sen. Bert Johnson made the same plea for help.  Do the people of Michigan have to wait another six months, or longer, while the Obama administration remains silent on this blatant attack on democracy in that state?

It is no secret that the Democratic Party has little interest in recalls and referendums. Last summer, as the campaign for a referendum to repeal the Emergency Manager Law was launched, Mark Brewer, Chair of the Michigan Dems, was making the rounds to local parties trying to throw water on the ballot initiative. He stood up at the Benzie County annual Democratic picnic and urged them not to circulate referendum petitions. He said they should remain focused on the 2012 election cycle instead. Needless to say, this did not sit well with the rank and file.

For the Democratic Party to survive, there will have to be some serious changes. They will surely suffer the fate of dinosaurs if they don’t find a way to energize youth. And that doesn’t just mean just inviting them in, it means that the old guard must loosen their bony death-grip on leadership, from local executive boards to the top tier — it’s time for them to give up the keys.

They must fully embrace the concerns of the Occupy movement — although they can not own it, nor control it, they better understand it and support it. This means adopting new strategies for affecting public policy. It means not turning a blind eye to illegal police oppression and brutality.

Democratic leadership must stop alienating unions. This needs no elaboration — it’s a no-brainer.

They must also stop thinking of the electoral process as the be-all and end-all for political change. This means working on and supporting legitimate recalls and referendums. Republicans have no problem taking a stand, why are the Dems so squeamish?

Democrats could learn a thing or two about effective use of social media from the rest of the world and the Occupy movement. The official DNC site is positively comma-inducing. The Republicans don’t fare much better here, so this is an opportunity for the DNC, if they take it.

There’s plenty to be done right now. It doesn’t mean a wholesale retrofitting, but Democratcs sure could use a retooling, and a reminder of what they stand for.

Amy Kerr Hardin

URGENT: Press Release from Stand up for Democracy on whistleblower in Snyder Addministrtion Corruption Scandal in Michigan

From Stand Up for Democracy:

STAND UP FOR DEMOCRACY SALUTES WHISTLEBLOWER IN SECRETARY OF STATE SCAM OVER BOGUS EMERGENCY MANAGER REPEAL PETITION FONT SIZE ISSUE

Courageous professor at Michigan State University blows whistle on scam concocted to paint the picture that something was wrong with the petitions when in fact, nothing was wrong. Emails leave trail of deceit.

Detroit – Members of the Stand Up for Democracy coalition are saluting aMichiganStateUniversity professor for blowing the whistle on state elections officials in the wake of the unfolding scandal involving bogus claims about font size on the petition to repeal the emergency manager law.

   “This smells just like theMississippiof old,” said Rev. Dr. Wendell Anthony, president of the Detroit Branch NAACP and member of the Stand Up for Democracy coalition. “Michiganis rapidly becoming the new version of the old south.  The report by the professor is key today just like eyewitnesses to criminal lynchings were key back in the day.  Shame on the State for permitting Democracy to be sacrificed on the scaffold of political expediency and slain on the foundation of the principals of freedom and justice!”

  The State Board of Canvassers split 2-2 along party lines and was unable to reach agreement that the emergency manager repeal petition met the legal requirement of a 14 point font size for the headline. At the time the staff for the Michigan Secretary of State knew in advance that the font size was in fact correct before the hearing began. They knew this because recently released emails show they asked for an independent analysis of the font size from Chris Corneal, Associate Professor of Graphic Design in the Department of Art, Art History and Design atMichiganStateUniversity. Mr. Corneal analyzed the petition, confirmed that the font size was correct, transmitted his findings to the state at their request and promptly had his findings ignored in the final report to the board.

  “In other words, the fix was in to make sure the dubious argument that the font size was incorrect would go forward in spite of proof that the state had to the contrary,” said Anthony.

Al Garrett, president, Michigan AFSCME Council 25 and another partner in the coalition agreed.

  “This omission creates a bold-face lie,” said Garrett. “The republican representatives on the board said the font size was incorrect despite their own staff knowing that it was in fact correct. The result makes the board of canvassers hearing nothing more than a scam concocted to paint the picture that something was wrong with the petitions when in fact, nothing was wrong.

(See other related scandal here.)

STAND UP FOR DEMOCRACY Press Release:

Dear Supporters of Democracy in Michigan,

It has come to our attention that right-wing elements in state government are hard at work to make sure the petition to repeal the emergency manager dictator law never makes it to the ballot this November.

As you may know, the State Board of Canvassers split 2-2 along party lines and were unable to reach agreement that the petition met the 14 point font size for the headline. What you do not know is that the staff for the Michigan Secretary of State knew in advance that the font size was in fact correct before the hearing began.

They knew this because they asked for an independent analysis of the font size from a respected professor at Michigan State University. This professor analyzed the petition, confirmed that the font size was correct, transmitted his findings to the state at their request and promptly had his findings ignored in the final report to the board.In other words, the fix was in to make sure the dubious argument that the font size was incorrect would go forward in spite of proof that the state had to the contrary.

This omission creates a bold-face lie. The republican representatives on the board said the font size was incorrect despite their own staff knowing that it was in fact correct.The result makes the board of canvassers hearing nothing more than a scam concocted to paint the picture that something was wrong with the petitions when in fact, nothing was wrong.

Tomorrow, Thursday, May 17, 2012 the Michigan Court of Appeals will hear arguments from attorneys representing the people of Michigan in Stand Up for Democracy. The judges on the panel were given an a sworn statement from Mr. Chris Corneal, Associate Professor of Graphic Design in the Department of Art, Art History and Design at Michigan State University. Mr. Corneal, apparently distressed that the state knew the font size was correct but continued to act as if it was not correct, typed his statement; found a notary public and swore that he was telling the truth about several important facts:

1. He was asked to review the font size of the petition headline that is in dispute.

2. He determined that the font size is correct.

3. He told elections officials the font size is correct before the hearing.

None of Professor Corneal’s findings saw the light of day at the board of canvasser’s meeting. Now his findings will not see their way into the court hearing either because the judges have ruled that neither the professor, his findings nor his testimony will be allowed before the court. Why? Because they were never presented at the board of canvassers’ hearing.And why is that? Because somebody at the Secretary of State’s office made sure that Professor Corneal’s review of the petition would not be included in the final report to the board of canvassers because it is in direct opposition to the right-wing challenge on the font size.The fix is in but we don’t have to let them get away with it.

Join other supporters of democracy today (May 16, 2012) at 4 pm for a press conference at 600 W. Lafayette in downtown Detroit. Let them know they won’t get away with the lie any longer.

Then join Stand Up for Democracy for a prayer rally at 9 am outside the Michigan Court of Appeals in front of the old GM building at W. Grand Blvd. and Second where we will pack the courtroom for the 10 a.m. hearing. Stand together for justice and stand up for democracy.

Sincerely,

Stand Up for Democracy

When you next tune into your favorite National Public Radio broadcast, say… maybe it’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross, you might expect to hear a story like the one aired in 2010 about the billionaire Koch brothers and their ongoing egregious attempts to wholesale purchase our political system. NPR ran this segment well before the Koch brothers became two of the most reviled men in America. Public Broadcasting, unlike commercial news, was able to report the truth and alert the public about these bad boys because it was insulated by law from external political pressure.

And now it seems the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wants to see even more of the Koch brothers on NPR – buying politcal “issue ads” through their super PAC, Americans for Prosperity, that is.

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 provided the American public with 45 years of politically unfettered programing, and now, thanks to a recent ruling from the 9th Circuit out of California, this institution is gravely threatened. The case in question, Minority Television Project v. FCC, was essentially about a public broadcasting station that had run commercial ads which are strictly forbidden by law. The court looked at that provision of this long-standing statute that prohibited advertising and chose to uphold the ban on commercial ads for goods and services, but citing constitutionally protected free speech, they shockingly struck down the portion outlawing political advertisements, including both candidate and issue ads — making this ruling nearly as appalling as that found in the Citizens United case.

Click here to continue reading: A2Politico.com

I’ve filed a complaint with the Michigan State Board of Ethics against the chair of that same body, John D. Pirich.

As with all things legal, let’s start with the definitions:

Ethics: The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.

State of Michigan, Board of Ethics: In accordance with the State Ethics Act, the Board has jurisdiction to determine the ethical conduct of classified or unclassified state employees, and public officers of the executive branch of Michigan state government who are appointed by the Governor or another executive department official.

Okay, now let’s review the facts:

The conservative super PAC, Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility, wished to challenge the validity of the 226,637 petition signatures submitted in February this year by Stand Up for Democracy, a statewide coalition that campaigned to have Michigan’s controversial Emergency Manager Law placed on the November 2012 ballot for a referendum vote.  Since the minimum number of required valid signatures was only 161,305, and the petitioners exceeded that amount by 40 per cent, the task of invalidating enough individual signatures was not a possibility for the challengers.

So, in March of 2012, Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility employed the services of John D. Pirich, an attorney specializing in election and campaign law. They asked him to find some way, any way, to invalidate the petitions and thereby silence the voices of over a quarter million Michigan voters and further erode democracy in Michigan.

Pirich, not wishing to let his client down, decided instead to let his ethics fall by the wayside. He erroneously found the font size of the heading on the petition to be out of compliance with the legal requirement. He claimed it was too small.

Only thing is, it’s not. In fact, it is exactly the correct size — font 14. The law does not state what style font must be used — it could be printed in comic sans and be perfectly legal. Each font style produces a slight variation in overall letter size even though the font number size is the same, as demonstrated here by Eclectablog, and as legally sworn in the printer’s affidavit obtained when the petitions were produced. Mr. Pirich is clearly behaving either incompetently or flat-out unethically.

But, that is not why I filed my complaint.

Indeed, the State Ethics Act does not even address outright lying or the inability to perform one’s job with, at the very least, minimal competency, nor does its tenets speak of redress for the sheer arrogance and hubris necessary to blatantly pull bullshit out of one’s seemingly professional ass to inflict it upon the citizens of Michigan.

Not to worry – the veracity of Pirich’s assertion on the font size will soon be tested at the Court of Appeals.

The problem is…Pirich sits on the State Board of Ethics. In fact, Governor Snyder just appointed him as chair of that otherwise august body. (The timing of this appointment coincides rather suspiciously with Pirich’s false font finding, which begs the question of additional ethical problems at a higher level). Nonetheless, Pirich is a public officer of the executive branch and therefore his behavior is subject to the code he is charged with enforcing. Although the ethics board operates only in an advisory capacity, its word still carries considerable weight.

My official beef with this guy can be found in The State Code of Ethics Section 2, Sub-section 4, which reads:  A public officer or employee shall not solicit or accept a gift or loan of money, goods, services, or other thing of value for the benefit of a person or organization, other than the state, which tends to influence the manner in which the public officer or employee or another public officer or employee performs official duties.

The phrase “another public officer” is key to this complaint.

Enter Jeffrey Timmer, a principal of the Sterling Corporation and member of the Board of State Canvassers, the body charged with validation of the petitions. The Sterling Corporation is a significant financial backer of the super PAC, Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility.

Impropriety much?

Timmer needed a reason, no matter how tenuous, to hang his hat on when he voted ”no” on the certification of the petitions. Ditto, his fellow Republican colleague on the board, Norman Shinkle. Both voted against certification, specifically citing Pirich’s font claim. The Board of State Canvassers deadlocked 2 to 2, and the petitions were denied certification and therefore their rightful place on the ballot.

With money laundered through his corporation and then the super PAC, Timmer paid Pirich to render a false finding which he subsequenlty used as the basis for his vote.

Following is the text of my complaint dated May 5, 2012: 

“Complaint:  John D. Pirich, Michigan State Board of Ethics Chair, knowingly and willfully violated Section 2, Subsection 4 of Act 196 of 1973, commonly the “State Ethics Act”.

Pirich accepted compensation for services that benefited Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility, a political action committee, which upon Pirich’s counsel provided flawed evidence of dubious origins (see attachments) that was used to unduly and unethically create bias among members of the Michigan Board of State Canvassers in their April 26, 2012 decision as to the certification of the petition signatures gathered by the ballot question committee Stand Up for Democracy.”

One should rightly ask: Just how insidious is the ethical corrosion in the Snyder Administration? 

This will be an interesting test of the ethics of the Board of Ethics itself. Their seven members would need to have been living under a rock to be unaware of the fact that their colleague, and now newly annoited leader, Mr. Pirich, was the party that asserted the font size falsehoods (or as he likes to call it, “the fatal flaw”) which the Board of Canvassers used as reason to deny certification of the petitions. And, Pirich was not at all shy with the media about his claim — his fake font facts where widely reported by both state and national media, all generously laden with his quotes.

Timing is everything. The State Board of Ethics convenes their next public meeting on May 10th, 2012. My snail-mailed complaint will arrive just hours prior to that meeting, giving them insufficient time to conduct a diligent investigation, as required by law. Their next meeting is scheduled for August of this year — well after the Court of Appeals will have ruled on the font size question.

We shall see…

(Oh, let’s not forget to put Mr. Pirich and Mr. Timmer in The Dog House)

Amy Kerr Hardin

(Author’s Note: Why did I file this complaint? I did it as a demonstration of my right as an individual citizen of the State of Michigan to avail myself of the due process found in the State Ethics Act of 1973. I did it for the 226,637 individuals who signed the petition, and specifically on my mind are those 30,000 upstate voters who signed. I did it for the dozens of petitioners that gathered those signatures working with our grassroots group, Reject Emergency Managers. I did it because I refuse to allow Mr. Pirich’s false claim to impugn the integrity of all those that have worked so hard to follow the rules and act with tranparency and within the law. I did it because we believe that true democracy is citizen-driven.) 

Like to win a cool quarter million dollars?  You may be in luck if you are a socially conservative artist.

ArtPrize, a community art contest founded by Rick DeVos, kicked-off its 2012 call for entries this past week. There are just a few caveats to keep in mind though: you must make something very, very big, totally predictable, and preferrably just a bit more than cheesy.

Last year’s big winner was a 13 foot tall Jesus, on the cross, cleverly titled “Crucifixion”. Its claim to fame was its utter resemblance to about 10,000 similar works produced about 500 years ago. Even adored art critic, Sister Wendy, would likely say: “yawn”. Yet by popular vote, in western Michigan — the bible belt of the state, tall Jesus took the door prize at the biggest church raffle ever.

Previous ArtPrize winners include an over-sized bronze of Gerald R. Ford, native son to this uber-conservative and mostly Calvinist side of Michigan. Most entries have proven to be nothing more than pedestrian pieces whose only notable feature was their ridiculous “god-sized” scale and cheese-based theme.

ArtPrize begs the question: How do we define art?  

My daughter paid me a surprise visit home from college this past weekend. As always, we got caught-up on her latest social and academic adventures, including the bizarre and fantastic things she’d recently found on the internet. Being a dedicated aficionado of Tumblr, she shared images of the world’s cutest and the world’s ugliest bunnies (yes, there really is an ugly bunny), then she showed me a YouTube video which she found hilarious. It was performance art.  (I know, I know, me too…ugh).

In it we find a woman in her mid-twenties, of prodigious girth and indeterminate ethnicity, wearing a seriously ill-advised LBD and stilettos, standing before a five by ten pavement of one-pound butter bricks arranged in a neat square. Queue-up the music. 

(pause…okay, we’ve set the scene…so let’s all just take a moment to close our eyes and try to envision her possible ”performance”…stilettos, cubes of slippery butter, large woman…

…take your time.) 

If you simply can not even imagine what kind of thing could have happened, then you are probably a social conservative.

But if you tend to lean liberal in your social politics, then — hello, yes you guessed it!  She stiletto-stomped the butter as if in a dairy-based small animal snuff flick, only to fall repeatedly in the buttery goo with a resounding Mad Cow thud each time.

Art or waste of dairy product?

Tolerant acceptance versus utter disgust of the butter-dance girl relies on a slippery cognitive scale, rooted deeply in human evolution as demonstrated in our social politics and divergent definitions of what is “art”.

There is plenty of proof that the neurobiology of art and politics are intricately and inescapably woven into our DNA. A study published in Current Biology indicates that social conservatives have larger amygdalas than liberals. This is the part of the brain responsible for fear and primitive emotions. They also possess a smaller anterior cingulate cortex, the section of the brain that provides an individual with courage and optimism.

Further research indicates these attributes are reason for the measurable behavioral differences between social conservatives and social progressives. Liberals tend to to be open to new experiences and ideas, more tolerant of conflict and ambiguity, better prepared to deal with conflicting information, more accurate in their assessments, and highly supportive of scientific innovation. Whereas conservatives prefer a structured approach to life, applying a single-minded model to decisions and thought processes, with a tendency to stubbornly hold opinions beyond their usefulness. Conservatives routinely block-out what they perceive to be “distractions.” In politics those “distractions” often turn-out to be what liberals refer to as “facts.”

Formal scientific study of the conservative mind dates back to the landmark 1950 research of Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford, that examined the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and individual fascist tendencies. Many cried foul at the time insisting that psychological traits can not be directly linked to political views. A more recent meta-analyis conducted by the American Psychological Association, using 88 studies with 22,818 subjects, confirms that conservatism is indeed directly related to specific personality traits. The analysis concluded that the right-wing mind is dogmatic, closed to new experiences, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, structured and orderly, adverse to integrative complexity, resistant to change, and oriented to achieve social dominance. 

These biases are not confined to politics — they permeate every aspect of our lives, including our sense of aesthetic adventure.

The “Painter of Light”, Thomas Kincaid, who died this month, left a legacy of creating a vast marketing empire based on his sickly-sweet sentimental paintings of idealized villages. Claiming to be a born-again Christian, Kincaid capitalized on the archetypical aesthetic that social conservatives are drawn to so readily. His work represented fantastical scenes of a completely imaginary and idealized past, depicting cozy cottages all-aglow with the safety of hearth and home set in villages that could only exist in the dreams of the simple-minded.

Kincaid’s work unapologetically appeals to the values of faith, family and home. They are predictable, non-threatening and purposefully not provocative in the slightest — and Christian conservatives snap them up to the tune of $100 million in sales per year. His art adorns the hearths of the Hummel figurine lined mantles of  five percent of American households. They are willing to pay up to $10,000 for a limited edition lithograph. At its peak his “studio” was churning-out 500 pieces a day.

Kincaid knew he was on to something and marketed himself accordingly. He is quoted as saying: “People who put my paintings on their walls are putting their values on their walls.” As with most artists, his work is now worth more after his death. If there had been a means for Kincaid to take it with him, he certainly would have. He was a capitalist first, and a Christian as a far distant second.

Bad art like Kincaid’s is flying off gallery walls, albeit, “galleries” that are located between The Gap and Bath and Bodyworks at the mall, leaving the quality, one of a kind, artwork to gather dust and for their creators to find day jobs at that mall.  It is tempting to blame the slump in the “real” art market solely on the economy. We all know that the arts are the canary in the coal mine indicative of the health and vibrancy of a culture and its economy, but maybe there’s more to it than money. As conservatism is on the rise, and becoming more stubbornly strident than ever, contempt for innovative and provocative art is also on the rise. Galleries that once sold fine art by skilled artists have now turned to marketing baubles and trinkets to stay afloat.

Conservatives certainly have not cornered the market on bad art. For the most part, they limit themselves to inoffensive kitsch. Many of the worst examples of art hale from the far left. The butter-dance girl “art” is not alone. In fact, it’s mild compared to some of the work that’s intended to offend the viewer. We’ve all seen the much decried art that is annually trotted-out and stamped with a scarlet letter by conservative lawmakers, especially as their budget deadlines loom, declaring them reason enough for a wholesale defunding of the arts. Citing these raunchy pieces is a time-tested tactic of the right. Politicians know that conservatives hold a special contempt and distrust for art. They are hard-wired to be suspicious of anything new or innovative. They simply can not help themselves.

And there is plenty to offend them.

From Damien Hirst’s macabre jewel-encrusted Crystal Skull to Maurizio Cattelan’s La Nona Ora, depicting the Pope being hit by a meteor, there exists a whole array of esoteric crap designed to fit almost anyone’s bad taste or delicate sense of outrage, but all for a price. On the tail of the Vatican’s uproar over La Nona Ora, Cattelan’s piece sold at auction for $3 million. It pays to offend.

Some of these edgy artists have tapped a new market — one which actually satirizes the kitsch so prized by the artistically-challenged conservative collectors. Others have embraced the artistic cheese whiz in its most honest and pure form without the filter of satire. They celebrate tacky art with a condescending affection, all while looking down their noses at its very essence. There’s both a collector’s market and a museum dedicated to these works. 

Bad art is everywhere. Several years ago I attended a juried exhibit at a respected museum in my town. Among the winners were a piece of crumpled tissue stuck to the wall and a work with three small boards nailed together, entitled Three Sisters. The latter took the top prize with a gushing account of its provocative artistry from the juror — not a word of which I understood. On a sad note, the tissue entry experienced a catastrophic installation failure and fell to the floor. The artist was unaware that the white sticky-tack she used simply does not have the adhesive power of the blue variety. She should have asked a teacher. Tragic, really. Although, my daughter would have laughed.

So what is art? 

Don’t ask an art critic, or an artist, nor a collector or a politician. They simply don’t know.

Ask a Neurobiologist.

Amy Kerr Hardin

A brief history of a petition drive:

Stand Up 4 Democracy, the coalition formed to bring the Michigan Emergency Manager Law (PA-4) to a referendum vote, recently submitted 226,637 voter signatures to the State of Michigan for prompt certification, as prescribed by law. They gathered 40 per cent more signatures than constitutionally required – a number impossible to refute — a voter mandate.

These petitions are now under attack from a group called Citizens for Fiscal Responsibility, a conservative super PAC funded by the Sterling Corporation. Jeffrey Timmer is a principal of that corporation and is also a member of the Board of State Canvassers (BOC), the committee responsible for certifying the petitions. Impropriety? Perhaps, but recusal is not an appropriate option for a couple of reasons. The BOC is meant by design to be a partisan political body. Indeed, their chairperson, Julie Matuzak, is the political cooridinator for the the American Federation of Teachers. The BOC has only four members, so recusal of Timmer could also result in a Matuzak recusal on this petition certification and possibly on another petition drive, Protect Our Jobs, a campaign for an amendment to preserve collective bargaining by making it a constitutional right. 

The complaint filed by the super PAC against the Emergency Manager petition drive was submitted by their attorney, John Pirich, who coincidentally is the chairperson of the State Board of Ethics, the committee that advises bodies, such as the BOC, on matters of, you guessed it – ethics.

In this complaint he alleges that the font size is too small on the title of the petition. A claim that is refuted by an affidavit obtained from the printer and accepted by the Bureau of Elections prior to petition circulation. Indeed, the font is size 14, as required by law, and demonstrated clearly by  Eclectablog. It seems that either Mr. Pirich is incompetent as an attorney by not conducting basic due diligence, or he is acting unethically by willfully making a false claim. 

The BOC will be meeting to discuss the certification of these petitions, along with the faulty complaint about font-size, on Thursday, April 26, 2012 at 10 am in the State Capitol Building, room 102. Public comment is permitted.  

What can you do today to restore democracy to Michigan?

Simply write a quick note to the Board of State Canvassers and to other elected leaders. Below are addresses and links. Here’s a sample note (feel free to use any or all of it in your communication):

The people of Michigan have spoken by submitting 226,637 voter signatures to the state, exercising their constitutional right to a referendum on Public Act 4 of 2011, the Emergency Manager Law. The petitions have come under frivolous, partisan and bogus attacks that are based solely on politics. This is an affront to our cherished democratic principles as protected by law in our constitution. We insist that the Board of State Canvassers act in accordance with the law and certify the petitions for this referendum. To do anything less would be a gross injustice.

Contact the Board of State Canvassers at:

Overnight Delivery:  Board of State Canvassers, Richard H. Austin Bldg., 430 West Allegan, First Floor, Lansing, MI 48918

Regular Mail Delivery:  Board of State Canvassers, c/o Bureau of Elections, P.O. Box 2012, Lansing, MI 48901-0726

Email:  elections@michigan.gov

Also, please write to your elected officials with the same message, urging them to tell the Board of State Canvassers to act in accordance with the law and certify these petitions.

Governor Rick Snyder
Attorney General Bill Schuette
Secretary of State Ruth Johnson
State Representatives
State Senators
Michigan’s Congressional Representation
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Carl Levin

Write a letter, share this link — save democracy.

Amy Kerr Hardin

A big show is going on in the Michigan Legislature – with all the pomp and circumstance of the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show — our elected leaders are being trotted about on the leash in a celebration of their utter stupidity. (Too strong a word? Stupid defined: deficient or dull of understanding; showing lack of reason or judgement; foolish.)

Mind you, just like their canine counterparts, there are various breeds of stupid politicians, each with unique characteristics and levels of incompetence. We recognize them all, but in the Michigan House only one of them can be ”Best in Show”.

Here are the judging categories:

Purebred Stupid: A nationally recognized breed of politicians popularized in recent presidential races by the likes of the not yet paper-trained Sarah Palin, and of course, Herman Cain, with his distinctive bark: Uz-Beki-Beki-Beki-Beki-Stan-Stan!  This special group, being somewhat self-aware of their intellectual deficits, actually flaunts the lack of useful knowledge as an asset.

As simple-minded purists, it is not surprising to find a few of them in the Michigan House. The breed is difficult to identify just by sight — it is only when they open their mouths that their political pedrigree becomes evident. Take Rep. Wayne Schmidt (R). He looks just like any other guy in a nice suit until asked a simple question like this one, when he first ran back in 2008: Is Michigan’s water a product?  Clearly puzzled, with his head turned slightly to the side like a clueless yet adorable Cocker Spaniel, Schmidt replied that he needed time to “review” the issue. Four years later, he’s probably still chewing on that bone. Every subsequent interview has shown him incapable of coherent, independent thought. There are others like him, but few would argue that Schmidt has consistently been the perennial favorite to take Best of Breed in this category. 

Hybrid Stupid: The Labradoodles among our lawmakers. There are two classes of this hybrid. To the untrained-eye they are not easily distinguished from one another. 

First, we have the Willfully Ignorant — not the brightest among those dogpaddling about in the legislative gene pool, having inherited more Lab and less Poodle. They are prepared to lap-up just about anything they’re told to believe. Their owners will chuckle affectionately as they keep pretending to throw that stick, and watch them chase after it every time. House Speaker Jase Bolger (R) earns Best of Breed among this group. Bolger, along with many of his fellow Michigan conservatives, including Dave Camp, Bill Schuette, and Steven Markman, is a proud graduate of a special obedience school called the Student Statemanship Institute (SST). The school was founded by Betsy DeVos and it is funded by the DeVos and Prince families. Their curriculum is limited to one easy to learn topic: the belief that our founding fathers intended for ours to be a strictly Christian nation. They claim that this message has somehow been mysteriously lost from our history books (just like that stick…where did it go?).  SST’s mission is to “educate citizens about their God-given liberties by informing them of the true historical role these values played in the founding of America”.  With his completion certificate in hand, we congratulate Jase — he deserves a treat…such a good boy!

The other sub-class of hybrids is the Pretending to be Ignorant group. (More Poodle, less Lab — a tiny bit smarter, but still operating in the fog of the canine brain.) This fancy breed was featured in Newsweek last November in an article titled The Stupid Party written by Democratic strategist and possible dog-fancier Paul Begala. The author describes this breed’s amazing ability to “play dumb” on command. We all remember the “raise your hands if you don’t believe in evolution“ debate. And how about global warming, anyone? This is that group in action. They are skilled liars of convenience.

Here in the Michigan House we have many that have mastered this particular trick — they tend to operate in unison, like a spirited dog team, pulling any load of crap they’re hitched- to by their handlers. Lawmakers recently demonstrated the highest level of plausible deniability by playing dumb in a 97 to 12 vote passing a law to relieve dead-beat commercial developers of their debt obligations. These obedient representatives did this for no other reason than their being told to do so. The bill was a blatant political favor intended to protect the brother of Republican Party Chairman Bobby Schostak from paying a 2.4 million dollar circuit court judgement against him for debt he owed on a commercial venture gone awry. The Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the ruling, even after Attorney General Bill Schuette filed an amicus brief on Schostak’s behalf. That’s when Schostak’s personal attorney was invited to sit down with lawmakers to draft a law that would excuse his client from his obligations.

The passing of this bill took the concept of “immediate effect” to a whole new level — by making the law retroactive for the sole and specific purpose of relieving the brother Schostak of the burden of paying what he legally owed. Circuit Court Judge Philip Rogers, who’s ruling against Schostak inspired this legislation, was quoted in the Traverse City Record-Eagle saying ”This looks to me like a piece of personal legislation that is benefiting a specific individual.” To not see this, a lawmaker must have been temporarily preoccupied with something, perhaps taking a break to lick themselves or maybe busy sniffing eachother’s butts, so as not draw the obviously straight line from Schostak’s debt to this crooked law.   

New Breeds: This group debuts every two years in Lansing. Due to Michigan’s term-limits, at any given time approximately one third of the House is comprised of freshmen, and the other two thirds have precious little experience themselves. Barely weaned and still wet behind the ears, they’re groomed and pampered by their party like young champion pups, ready to please their masters. Easily recognizable by their shiny new brief cases, waggy-tails and their willingness to vote for anything they haven’t yet read.

Former Rep. Jack Hoogendyk (R), who termed-out in 2008, remains a strong proponent of the term-limit revolving door of ignorance found in Michigan and wants it to go national. Jack wants the old dogs out. He’s now running against U.S. Rep Fred Upton (for the second time), after having failed in his bid to unseat Sen. Carl Levin in 2008. Hoogendyk was recently quoted at a quasi-Tea Party rally in his support saying ” We don’t need committee chairs — for the most part we don’t need committees. “  He’s not alone in questionaing why we need all that tiresome wisdom found in the institutional memory that can only be gained through real experience. To Hoogendyk’s thinking, there simply couldn’t be any other valid reason to unseat Upton other than his tenure. That’s his campaign platform — get rid of Upton ‘cuz he’s been there too long. Gee, wonder why Hoogendyk keeps losing…. 

These young pups are especially numerous in the Michigan House. Some of their most recent shenanigans include ignoring House rules on roll call votes, possibly because most of them didn’t even know the rules existed in the first place. Again, who needs all those experienced old dogs around to show them the ropes? It was doggie daycare playtime on the floor of the House, as Republicans gaveled-through into “immediate effect” one law after another. Democrats watched with barely a yelp as the Republicans stole all their toys. It took them only a full year to figure out they could and should do something about the problem. No worries, right? What harm could have possibly been done in the meantime?

So who among these pups will take home the big trophy?

The winner is…..

Best in Show: The highest honor goes to underdog Rep. John Walsh (R), House Speaker Pro Tem, for smartly denying a roll call vote and gaveling-through a law with “immediate effect” as seen ’round the world in a viral video (or at least on The Maddow Show). Walsh demonstrated savant-like counting skills — the Rain Man of the House. His prowess is compounded by his stealth. Maddow inadvertently led viewers to believe it was the Speaker himself, Jase Bolger, at the podium. Excellent work Walsh –subtle, yet classy –impressive the way you nosed-out your boss for the big one, enjoy your trophy.

Honorable Senate Mentions:  We mustn’t ignore those smarty-pants Senators — they too desreve our praise. Just because they are generally not as stupid as their counterparts in the House doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be duly recognized for their work. Therefore, (hold on to your hats dear Dems, it’s your turn) we honor Senate Minority Leader, Gretchen Whitmer (D) and Sen. Tupac Hunter (D) for blindly sponsoring the Schostak bill, and then, after realizing their mistake, quietly having their names removed as sponsors, but still voting “yes” because they had already brokered…er, agreed to do so. It is important to (kinda) honor those who (kinda) learn from their mistakes.

But truly, all are award winners –from those that doggedly follow the party line, by occassionally eating their own barf or thinking they smell just great after rolling in a dead fish, to those that genuinely haven’t a clue, but merely wanted to run with the big dogs.

Blue Ribbons all around.

Amy Kerr Hardin, (with sincere apologies to dogs)  

Ahhh, This One is Just Right!

If you are reading this, you probably have a facebook page, and hopefully have a job too. Or, thanks to Wall Street’s greed and corruption, you may be among the millions in search of employment. Either way, you likely find yourself recently thinking about tweaking your social media image to fit into the “Goldilocks Zone”.

Borrowed from the astronomical term for that narrow slice of space which is conducive to planetary life — not too hot, not too cold, the right mixture of elements, a breathable atmosphere, throw in a little bit of water, and “poof” we have the potential for life — same goes for your social media presence, only it’s a job and regular paycheck, not extraterrestrial life we’re talking about. 

Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr….they’ve become ubiquitous to modern life. (Apologies dear MySpace users for leaving you out, but in truth, just having a MySpace account is likely grounds for termination of employment). In fact, to not have a social media presence is actually a sign of being behind the times to potential employers — it’s yesterday’s equivalent to saying “I don’t have a cell phone”. Claims that you don’t use social media will appear either disingenuous or eccentric to employers.

Savvy employers are also suspicious if a prospective employee maintains what appears to be a “sanitized” internet presence, especially if it has a very short history. While they know that it’s not uncommon for people to maintain both public and private internet lives, through two separate accounts, they do expect to find at least some on-going cyber life that is open to the public. They want to see that prospective employees have a history of appropriate social media interaction — it’s like a credit report on one’s character and communication skills.

Peek-a-Boo, We See You

Sure, the temptation is great to casually troll through other people’s social media — we all do it, but where and when is it good sense for a company to do so, or for them to even consider making it part of their written policy?

Less than half of employers track social media at all – 39 percent of them admit to following the online activity of job applicants on occasion, with only 9 percent of them snooping on a regular basis. Given all the recent brouhaha in the media about employers demanding facebook passwords, one would think it’s a widespread practice.

Since it’s so easy to do, why are so few companies engaging in internet voyeurism?

There’s a Law for That

They tread lightly in social cyber space for good reason.

The law is simply not on their side. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically prohibits certain forms of discrimination. As required under the guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, employers are compelled to adhere to the following:

“As a rule, the information obtained and requested through the pre-employment process should be limited to those essential for determining if a person is qualified for the job…inquiries about organizations, clubs, societies, and lodges of which the applicant may be a member or any other questions, which may indicate the applicant’s race, sex, national origin, disability, status, age, religion, color or ancestry if answered should generally be avoided…employers should not ask for a photograph of an applicant”. 

National labor law specialist, Larry LaSusa, asserts that, between our Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we currently have all the necessary tools to deter and prosecute employer abuses of improper social media snooping without enacting new laws. He is not alone in this view. Most of his colleagues believe that it is not productive to attempt to legislate-away the problem because, as technology continues to evolve in new and unexpected manners, lawmakers simply can not anticipate, nor keep pace with, the changes as they occur. LaSusa says “Litigation deals with concrete issues, its not like legislating in the abstract.” He objects to the various quick-fix initiatives currently working their way through state legislatures across the nation as being nothing more than a solution looking for a problem. LaSusa, who has clients in 38 states, says he has yet to hear from one of them on this specific issue. 

However, when litigation does occur, most lawyers generally prefer to cite an established body of case law, and there’s not a lot of it out there yet where it comes to social media and employment. Rare is the attorney who will take-on a plaintiff with a unique situation that has not previously been successfully argued elsewhere. So, looking to legal counsel for protection is not always an option for wronged individuals no matter how much the law is on their side — legal expenses aside, hired counsel may be hard to find. Attorneys don’t like sailing uncharted waters — legal pioneers, they are not.

One precedent on the social media issue is the 2009 case of Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group in which two employees were fired after complaining about management on a password-protected MySpace page. The employer pressured a third employee to divulge her password which gave them access to the disparaging remarks. The employees sued and won their case by jury trial, citing the Stored Communications Act, which prohibits third parties from accessing electronically stored communications, such as found in email and social media, without proper authorization. 

The Stored Communications Act of 1986 is a law designed in particular to accommodate and keep-up with changing technology. It is meant to dovetail with fourth amendment right to privacy protections as they apply to modern times.  In the successfully argued Pietrylo case it gave the plaintiffs a law to hang their hat on, and to bolster the confidence of their legal counsel – because it addresses the issue with some specificity.

Liability Grab Bag

Unless an employer has been living under a rock, or possibly in North Korea, they can reasonably expect to find, on facebook and other social media sites, a photograph of the job-applicant/employee, along with their date of birth, religious and political affiliations, “relationship” status, sexual orientation, and group memberships and affiliations. When employers intentionally set-out to poke around on the internet, they don’t know the specifics of what they may find, but they do know what categories of information they will encounter. Thus they run the risk of learning things employers are prohibited from seeking under Title VII protections. Most labor law attorneys, including LaSusa, advise clients that social media snooping is not a good employment practice — it’s an invitation to unnecessary liability exposure. Additionally, it creates an atmosphere of distrust between management and employees.

There is a special warning for employers in the public sector — they can run a-foul of Section 7 of the Labor Relations Act, which protects employees’ rights to participate in labor organizations. Social media plays a siginificant a role in union activities, communications, and organization. Public employers trolling the cyber lives of their employees, many of whom are union members, are just asking for trouble. Additionally, imposing policy restrictions on their personal (not at work) media usage, as a condition of employment, could be argued as an attempt to curtail the communications of organized labor.

The Purloined Letter

The mainstream media has narrowly focused on what happens when employers demand passwords. Dozens of recent over-simplified stories have been written about this topic which all run through the same scenario over and over, ad nauseum…shocked job applicants refused to turn-over their passwords [gasp!]….and lawmakers across the nation are feverishly writing much-needed laws to protect the public from this gross intrusion on personal privacy…”.

Let’s slow down a minute to examine this with an informed perspective. There is another compelling reason employers are shying-away from your cyber life….

Competent labor law specialists would never recommend for their clients to snoop on their current or potential employees’ private email sent through their personal computers, nor ask for their email passwords. Truly, that’s a no-brainer — these kinds of communications are strictly off-limits, and in a court of law, juries would severly punish that kind of intrusion.

Enter the facebook “message” function — a private person-to-person communication similar to email, but with one important difference — facebook messaging is intended to be even more private than traditional email. Email can be forwarded, and often is without permission of the original sender. But facebook messages do not have that forwarding capacity. The only way they may be shared electronically is through “copy and paste”, a method which removes the element of legitimacy from their content and authorship. Simply put, they are not designed to be shared.

Therefore, when an employer asks for a facebook password it becomes tantamount to a much more intursive illegal request for access to private communications — a law suit waiting to happen.

What can we expect moving forward?

Individual state legislatures are scrambling to shore-up their respective bodies of compiled law to accomodate social media issues as they relate to employment, all while employees themselves react to, in various states of panic, an over-estimated employer surveillance problem. It is not surprising that we are now seeing state lawmakers across the nation taking a pro-active stance, especially given the knowledge that litigators are often as timid as church mice, and simply may not be counted-on to individually initiate a legal action that is in the public’s best interest — one which already enjoys full protection found in existing legal cannon, some of these laws being as old as the hills. 

Trial lawyers, as a whole, prefer specific mandates to act in the scary and changing world of information technology. They too, suffer from the Goldilocks syndrome – wanting everything to be “just right”, and easily winnable.

It appears we don’t need new laws, we simply need better lawyers.

Amy Kerr Hardin

Just who is that annoying guy in the backseat yelling “merge, merge, merge”?

It’s Governor Rick Snyder.

Michigan’s smallest units of government don’t want him looking over their shoulders telling them how to run their townships, especially since his unwelcome directions are of little or no value. But Snyder can’t seem to keep his eyes off their dashboards and his hands off their controls.

Michigan townships are model units of government. They are as fiscally sound now as they have ever been, carrying healthy general funds, and doing an excellent job of allocating resources to provide for the specific services needed in their individual communities.

Recently, some big city politicians discovered that townships were being run so well that they pushed for the state to tap into those township rainy-day funds.  Luckily, those politicians are having trouble finding a sneaky way to get their paws on all that local cash — and, as yet, townships remain unmolested. The only way these general funds can be put at risk is through some legislative shenanigans. Don’t count that possibility out.

So, why aren’t townships in the same trouble that many Michigan cities and towns find themselves? What’s made the difference is township budgets are not significantly reliant on state revenue sharing – it’s a very small part of their budgets, if they get any at all. Only 34 of Michigan’s 1242 townships receive any significant revenue sharing from the state.

There are two types of revenue sharing, constitutional and statutory. Shy of amending the constitution, the first may not be tampered with, however the latter can be leveraged by the governor to hobble and shove smaller units of government down a state-mandated policy path.

Governor Snyder, seizing the opportunity like a true business tycoon, designed a policy plan he calls the Economic Vitality Incentive Program (EVIP). Much like his failing one-size-fits-all scheme cooked-up for schools , this policy boondoggle is designed to force all local units of government to adopt policies that are wrongfully presumed to be somehow advantageous.

Snyder, the classic school yard bully, understood that he first had to strip these cities, towns, and schools of their funding, then he dangled it just beyond their reach demanding they do his bidding before he agreed to return their money, and then at mere pennies on the dollar, kept the lion’s share to pay for his $1.8 billion dollar corporate tax give-away.

It’s doubtful that upon implementation of EVIP Snyder’s appointed fiscal policy goons had the slightest inkling that they weren’t ensnaring townships in their clever financial drag-net, as they had successfully snagged larger governmental bodies and school districts. Their grasp of fiscal budgeting is just that weak. And since, first and foremost, the real impetus behind EVIP is a blatant money-grab designed to pay for those corporate tax cuts, it behoves townships to keep a wary eye on the Governor’s office.

Luckily, Snyder can’t sieze control of the steering wheel, yet.

But, Snyder’s ill-conceived policies may yet have a deleterious ripple effect on Michigan’s smallest units of government. First, there are real-life Hunger Games going-on between counties and townships — a fiscal fight to the death. Counties feel the need to tap those township general funds to make-up for the shortfalls they face under Snyder’s budgetary tomfoolery.   Additionally, townships are always vulnerable to the legislative whims of state lawmakers.

In EVIP, we find provisions that are considerably less than the nuggets of economic wisdom the Snyder administration imagines them to be. In particular, a mandate to “collaborate” with other units of government on services to save taxpayer dollars, through consolidation and mergers of departments.

Sounds reasonable, right?

Yup, you can’t swing a dead cat by its tail without smacking a dozen or so well-intentioned people who believe that bit of economic rubbish.  (Apologies to those who have just been dead-cat-smacked — kindly read on).

Backseat Driver Rant #1  — Local Units of Government Don’t Understand the Value of Collaboration

Governor Snyder was the keynote speaker at the recent Michigan Township Association (MTA) Confernece held late last January. While generally praising the hard work and dedication of local elected officials he slipped this little dagger between the ribs in his address: “One thing I’m happy about is a program we created with $5 million to encourage innovation, collaboration and services sharing between jurisdictions.”  He did not go on to explain why this would be of any real value to the effected communities — no, instead he continued with the theme that local units of government have grown too negative and are unwilling to work cooperatively.

Bull shit.

The MTA isn’t buying that load of crap. In the March issue of Michigan Township News, their Executive Director, Larry Merrill, had plenty to say about the consolidation myth:

“Not so long ago, a conservative legislature agenda would have supported strong local control. Limiting state government meant empowering counties, cities, villages, and townships to prevent the state from intruding on matters that are purely local or personal. Nonetheless, the current policy environment includes an unprecedented scrutiny of local government — what they do, how they do it, how many there are, and who decides what. All of this is driven by the assumption that Michigan local government is antiquated and unnecessarily costly — just like state government……Advocates of centralizing government power argue we need to ration local democracy through local government consolidation or eliminating public officials accountable to voters…..Lansing lawmakers have varying degrees of understanding of local government. What some lawmakers see as redundancy and duplication is actually cooperation or a system of checks and balances.”

In the MTA report on Reforming Michigan’s Local Government it is clearly stated that the implementation of policies forcing townships to merge services would “consume more time, attention and resources than the small benefits such programs would produce.” They go on to make a strong case for why forced consolidation would actually drive costs up, citing an MSU study in which it was found that transfering township services to operate collaboratively under their respective county’s umbrella actually increased costs by 10 percent.

The only case in which local units can save money through collaboration is where they are joining together to seek bids on an already privatized service, but this is no reason to jump on the “let’s save money by privatizing” bandwagon. Private companies enjoy a cushy profit margin, and that is where the savings are squeezed from. Public bodies operate “at cost”, so they remain the better bargain from the get-go.

These townships have healthy budgets because they have known when to, and when not to collaborate. They have already been engaged in service-sharing arrangements for decades — but only where actual savings can be realized.

Backseat Driver Rant #2 — Michigan Townships are Hoarding Cash

Tim Dolehanty, an Isabella County Administrator, was recently quoted in the on-line magazine Bridge saying “I started looking at [township] fund balances and was astounded at what I was seeing”. He, among other county officials throughout the state, are simply panting to get their hands on what they erroneously percieve to be a pot of gold at the end of the township rainbow.

Not so fast — there are no leprechauns. 

What Tim saw was only a snapshot of the the real picture. He looked at township general funds immediately after the collection of taxes, but before the allocation of those funds, as if looking at your bank account balance on pay day before you pay the bills. It is true that townships generally carry a higher balance in their general funds than counties, but unlike larger units of government, they operate on a cash basis — capital expenditures are nearly all “out-of-pocket” — so they must maintain a bigger piggy bank relative to revenues than a county or city.

Backseat Driver Rant #3 — Consolidation Saves Money

Michigan has just recently started flirting with the idea of consolidation, but other states have long ago forced various municipalities into shotgun weddings — and if saving money was their goal, they’re all in failed marriages. 

Back in the 1950′s, the city of Philadelphia merged with it’s surrounding county. They eliminated all smaller units of government within their new boundary, yet the city still found itself in the same fiscal difficulties as other public bodies.

And after Louisville merged with Jefferson County, an extensive evaluation was conducted two years later finding the grand total savings turned-out to be one-half of one percent…..numerically expressed…. 0.05%.  Economists would call that amount  so meaningless that it’s just statistical noise — a variation so minor that it is to be ignored.

Why aren’t they saving money?

Merging public bodies means negotiating pay scales from two, or more, existing units of government. The newer and larger government must default to paying its workers at the highest prevailing wage, and with good reason. It’s simply an economy of scale — a model as prevalent in the private sector as in the public. Employees of a larger institution generally earn more, and enjoy better compensation, than those working for a smaller body.

Another key reason for lack of savings is that proponents of consolidation have a weak understanding of the economics of FTEs (Full Time Equivalencies: number of 40 hour employees, or part-time equivalents needed to accomplish the work). Merger advocates tend to grossly over-estimate the savings to be had through cutting personnel — FTEs. A single large consolidated government requires roughly the same number of FTEs as smaller units do, and any minor savings found there are cancelled-out by the higher pay scales. 

Backseat Drive Rant #4 — Money Issues Aside, Consolidation Just Makes Good Sense

The Michigan Truth Squad’s analysis on governmental consolidation among the state’s cities found that about half of their budgets are consumed by police and fire protection costs. A whole lotta scratch to be sure.

Are there benefits to collaboration? Faster response time, better equipment or training….? 

Consolidation of those departments is hampered by Public Act 312 which requires the governmental units to engage in binding arbitration in lieu of allowing a strike so as to protect public safety during negotiations. But, in his continued union-busting spirit, Governor Snyder moved to amend PA 312 so local units of government may shred the existing contracts of public safety workers, thus allowing the newly consolidated body to hire fire fighters and police officers at the lowest prevailing rate with virtually no benefits.

Who wants underpaid public servants charged with saving their lives? Not this writer.

A University of Michigan study found that 72 percent of Michigan’s local units of government are already acting collaboratively, but only through mutual consent and for measurably meaningful reasons — primarily related to quality of service.

Fire departments in rural areas have embraced the collaborative spirit to the tune of 57 percent statewide. But they know that forcing a merger where it just doesn’t make sense remains a very real danger –to lives.

Case Study: The Citizens for Township Consolidation, Roscommon County

A citizens group in Roscommon County has taken-up Snyder’s call for consolidation in the name of fiscal prudence. They are currently working on a petition drive to consolidate Denton, Lake, Markey, and Roscommon townships into one big happy and efficient family to be named Houghton Lake Township. These residents envision a rosey future of streamlined services and tax savings through their plan. Local services will surely improve when all are put under one roof, right?

Problem is, the future Houghton Lake Township seems to have a great-big-fat-round lake smack-dab-center in the middle of their imagined utopia — the largest inland body of water in Michigan.

So, on what side of the lake do they propose to place the fire hall and police department? (Ouch, splat! One can actually feel and hear the dead-cat impact among Houghton Lake residents). 

It seems Michigan must learn her lessons the hard way, so heed these warnings….

Michigan residents, don’t get hit by a dead cat — it’s not pretty or productive.

Michigan townships, ignore that guy in the backseat, he doesn’t know what he’s ranting about .

Amy Kerr Hardin