2011

Memo

To: MAPO Board members

From: Jim Curran

Date: 3/2/2011

Re: Governor Snyder budget proposal and introduced legislation

First off, the Governor’s budget proposal:

REVENUE SHARING:

He is proposing a cut of $100 million to cities from statutory revenue sharing.

On top of that, he is putting the remaining $200 million into a pool to be distributed to cities that meet new performance criteria in the following three areas:

  1. Accountability and Transparency

  2. Employee Compensation

  3. Service sharing and consolidation

Additionally, the Governor talked about the importance of looking at employee pension costs and retirement health care for long-term savings.

The other item of concern is the proposal to tax pension benefits. There is some question as to whether the Michigan Constitution allows for the taxation of public pensions. The Governor is claiming it is allowable and will be moving forward. The taxing of private and public pension benefits will generate in excess of $1 billion for the Michigan General Fund.

 

 

February 8, 2011, Introduced by Reps. Haveman, Moss, Bumstead, Opsommer, McMillin, Price, Lund, Lori and Yonker and referred to the Committee on Government Operations.

A bill to amend 1945 PA 327, entitled

"Aeronautics code of the state of Michigan,"

by amending section 119 (MCL 259.119), as added by 2002 PA 90.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:

Sec. 119. (1) For employees who elect to transfer to the

authority under subsection (2) and who are covered by the terms of

a collective bargaining agreement with the local government that

owns an airport over which operational jurisdiction will be

transferred, the authority shall assume and be bound by those

existing collective bargaining agreements for the remainder of the

term of the agreement. A representative of the employees or a group

of employees in the local government who represents or is entitled

to represent the employees or a group of employees of the local

government, pursuant to 1947 PA 336, MCL 423.201 to 423.217, shall

 

This is a list of legislation that has been introduced in Lansing that affects you and your family. This list will be updated weekly as additional legislation in entered that affects all of us as well. An H before the number designates it as a House bill. An S before the number means that it is introduced in the Senate.

H 4052- Prohibits the use of taxpayer-funded equipment, supplies and facilities for union/political activities.

H 4054 – Creates the process for establishing right-to-work zones by local units of government.

Michigan Voters Show “No Love” for a Mandatory

State Government-Run Health Plan



LANSING - Michigan voters by a wide margin of 56 percent to 30 percent oppose a mandatory state government-run public employee health insurance plan according to a recent statewide survey conducted by Marketing Resource Group (MRG).

The survey of 600 likely voters was conducted from January 24-27 on behalf of Citizens for Accountability in Reform. The survey has an error margin of + 4 percent.

Voters show no affection for a proposal that would create a mandatory public employee state-government run health plan; similar to ex-Speaker Dillon’s plan in House Bill 5345 of 2009. Of voters who are opposed, 40 percent said they were “strongly” opposed after hearing arguments both for and against the legislation (only 18 percent “strongly” favor the measure). Self described Republicans and Ticket Splitters were especially cool to a resurrected Dillon plan. Among Republicans, 63 percent are opposed and 56 percent of Ticket Splitters are opposed.

“As we have seen in previous polls, voters continue to oppose a plan to create a government-run health plan for public employees. Weighing heaviest on their minds is the financial risk and potential cost to taxpayers, local governments and school districts, “ said Paul King, Director of Research Services at MRG. “Additionally, perceptions of the so-called Obamacare plan seem to be driving voter opposition against this proposal.”

fred

When did we become public enemy number one? Since when are law enforcement officers responsible for the economic ills that have befallen our State and local communities? Someone please tell me.

This current State legislature has continually attacked our health care benefits, pensions and restricted our right to collect retroactivity. What is more shocking to me is the vote on all of these issues are along party lines with the Republicans voting for this legislation with the Democrats voting against. Many of our members are Republicans and have supported GOP candidates in the past. Is this our thanks?

Act 63 of 2011 reduced our defined benefit pensions. This bill was buried in the series of bills in the Governor's budget and appropriations bills. This bill limits our multiplier to 1.5%. We can go to 2.0% if we are not in Social Security. Seventy-two percent of police and fire in this state are not in Social Security. Decades ago many communities opted out of Social Security for their police and firefighters in an effort to save money. At that time Social Security laws permitted public employers to do so. Now this legislature wants to trim our pensions even further by reducing our multipliers.

Act 63 also puts limitations on what can be included in average final compensation. I guess it wasn't enough to tax our pensions.

Act 54 is another piece of legislation that wounded police officers in the pocket book. Retroactivity is now illegal. We cannot bargain it, and Act 312 arbitrators cannot award it. Additionally, Act 54 mandates that police officers have to pay 100% of any increases in health care that may arise between the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement and the effective date of the new agreement. Act 54 bars any step increases in payer longevity that may occur during this period as well.

MAP believes this to be punitive in nature. The amount of savings to the communities from this law is negligible. The effect upon our take home pay is major.

Act 152, sometimes referred to as the 80/20 health care laws, was passed in September of 2011. This law mandates public employers to pay no more than 80% of the total health care costs, including premium, deductibles, co-insurance and health reimbursements, or the Employer may choose to pay no more than the hard cap provisions of the law. Those rates are as follows: 15,000 dollars per year for a family plan, 11,000 dollars per year for a two person plan, and 5,500 dollars per year for a single person. Again, these rates must include deductibles, co-insurance, prescription drugs, health savings or reimbursements. The Employee must pay anything over or above these rates.

On the bright side, the State Treasurer based upon the medical inflation rate adjusts these rates annually in October. The first increase is due October of 2012.

Act 152 along with the other two were passed strictly along party lines with the Democrats voting against while the GOP voted in favor of passage.

Just exactly who are our friends and who are our enemies? I believe that it is time for all of our members to carefully consider their choices when they go to the polls this November to vote for their State Representative. The entire Michigan House of Representatives is up for re-election.

When casting your ballot this November, stop and think about who or what you are voting for, your wages and benefits may depend on it.

Fred Timpner, Executive Director, MAP