December 3, 1999

Legislative & Political Week in Review

• A push to expand the number of charter schools in the 2000–01 school year is running out of time. The House Republican leadership this week managed to muster just 49 votes for a compromise version of House Bill 4706 that would have increased the number of charter schools by 50 in 2000 and by 25 in subsequent years while establishing a board to oversee all charter schools. Given the unlikelihood of gaining the two-thirds vote necessary for immediate effect, Republicans must pass necessary legislation next week, or a charter school expansion will not be enacted until at least April 2000, too late for new charter schools to get up and running by September. This week, Republicans resorted to a parliamentary maneuver—placing charter school language into a bill that had already passed the House and is now in the Senate—to overcome built-in legislative delays.
• Remember the adage that the two things one never wants to see made are sausage and laws. Although some Democratic lawmakers express a willingness to support charter school expansion, they are linking the issue to amendments that would water down Senate Bill 198, a bill prohibiting residency requirements for municipal employees. At the same time, some Republican lawmakers indicate that they may withdraw their support for the charter school expansion if SB 198 is gutted. Governor Engler has made charter school expansion a priority and may throw his weight behind a deal that would sacrifice the wishes of the police and firefighter unions who support SB 198, but any such deal probably will have to wait until next year.
• The House has approved a slimmed-down version of Senate Bill 663, which would prohibit public school principals from unionizing. The House version of the bill, which would apply only to districts that have a school reform board in place, are in financial receivership, or have declared a financial emergency—currently, Detroit, Benton Harbor, and Inkster fit the bill—garnered the minimum 56 votes needed for passage. Just one Democrat and one Republican crossed the aisle on the nearly straight party-line vote.
• State Treasurer Mark Murray has faith that Michiganians will be willing to pony up sales tax on their Internet purchases. Under Michigan law, all sales—including those made via the Internet—are subject to a 6 percent sales tax, but only businesses with a physical presence in Michigan are required to collect the tax. Thus, Borders.com (based in Ann Arbor) collects the Michigan sales tax, while Amazon.com (based outside Michigan) does not. Murray’s solution is to make people aware of the Michigan law by putting a line for Internet sales taxes on the state income tax form. Taxpayers would have the option of paying 6 percent of actual purchases or an estimated amount based on income.
• It seemed like a sure political winner, but legislation to curb adult-oriented businesses (HBs 4327, 4450 and 5124–34) stalled under heavy opposition this week. Many of the 250 people who crowded a meeting of the House Constitutional Law and Ethics Committee hearing on the legislation blasted the bills, particularly the provisions to prohibit adult-oriented businesses from operating later than 10 P.M. and require dancers to register their address with the state. Allan Rubin, attorney for the Michigan Association of Club Executives, calls the latter provision "an invitation to stalkers." Additionally, Lou Adado, president of the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association, objects to businesses with liquor licenses being subject to the legislation; he states that these businesses already are sufficiently supervised by the state.
• Lawmakers are rushing to pass legislation to prohibit inmates from bringing lawsuits under Michigan’s civil rights or disabilities laws. Following a hearing by the Constitutional Law and Ethics Committee, the House this week approved HBs 4475–6, which would apply retroactively. Supporters of the legislation hope to have it approved by year’s end, in time to stop existing lawsuits. Recent press reports have highlighted sexual abuse and harassment of female prisoners by male guards, which may lead to a class action lawsuit, and opponents of the bills fear that if inmates are prohibited from bringing suit, it will give the green light for corrections officers to abuse inmates without fear of legal retaliation.