Introduced by Sen. John Proos, IV (R) on February 14, 2012, to provide a “template” or “place holder” for the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Department Of Corrections budget. This bill contains no appropriations, but may be amended at a later date to include them.
Referred to the Senate Appropriations Committee on February 14, 2012.
Reported in the Senate on April 17, 2012, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
Substitute offered in the Senate on April 24, 2012. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on April 24, 2012.
Amendment offered by Sen. Glenn Anderson (D) on April 24, 2012, to strip out a provision requiring the department to realize some savings by outsourcing some prison operations, such as food service. The amendment failed 13 to 25 in the Senate on April 24, 2012. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Amendment offered by Sen. Glenn Anderson (D) on April 24, 2012, to increase the procedural barriers to privatizing a prison, or particular functions in a non-privatized prison. Among other things, the department would be prohibited from realizing savings through privatization unless it saves more 10 percent compared to the current cost. The amendment failed 15 to 23 in the Senate on April 24, 2012. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Passed 20 to 18 in the Senate on April 24, 2012, the Senate version of the Department of Corrections budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, 2012. This would appropriate $1.991 billion in gross spending, compared to $1.936 billion, which was the FY 2011-2012 amount enrolled in 2011. Of this, just $8.7 million is federal money, and the rest is from state taxes and fees. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on April 25, 2012.
Referred to the House Appropriations Committee on April 25, 2012.
Substitute offered by Rep. Chuck Moss (R) on May 2, 2012, to strip out all of the appropriations of the Senate-passed version of the bill, leaving it as just a "shell" or "placeholder." This is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 2, 2012.
Passed 63 to 47 in the House on May 2, 2012, to send the bill back to the Senate "stripped" of all actual appropriations. This vote is basically a procedural method of launching negotiations to work out the differences between the House and Senate budgets. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on May 3, 2012.
Failed 0 to 38 in the Senate on May 3, 2012, to concur with a House-passed version of the bill. The vote sends the bill to a House-Senate conference committee to work out the differences. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the Senate on May 30, 2012.
Passed 20 to 16 in the Senate on May 30, 2012, the House-Senate conference report for the Department of Corrections budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, 2012. This would appropriate $2.000 billion in gross spending, compared to $1.936 billion, which was the FY 2011-2012 amount enrolled in 2011. Of this, just $8.7 million is federal money, and the rest is from state taxes and fees. A Senate-passed plan to save money by outsourcing the management of one prison was not agreed to by the House. Note: House Bill 5365 contains an identical version of this conference report. Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No"
Received in the House on May 30, 2012.
Re: 2012 Senate Bill 951 (Appropriations: Department of Corrections ) by Admin003 on May 4, 2012 Senators Hood, Young, Gregory, Whitmer, Smith and Johnson, under their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the passage of Senate Bill No. 951.
Senator Hood moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
The motion prevailed.
Senator Hood’s statement, in which Senators Young, Gregory, Whitmer, Smith and Johnson concurred, is as follows:
I rise today in opposition of this budget bill, and I have a few things written down that I will read to you. This budget bill jeopardizes the success of Michigan prisons working to reenter society and threatens the safety of our communities. By passing an across-the-board 2.7 percent reduction in funding for the Michigan prisoner reentry program, we are placing significant strain on a program designed to help released inmates become contributing members of society upon their reentry. Through helping with employment, housing, mental health, and substance abuse services and by providing risk assessment upon entry, this program also ensures that our communities are kept safe as former prisoners stay employed, healthy, and away from the crimes that put them in prison to begin with. I am strongly opposed to cutting this program.
As we look to privatize and eliminate parole and probation officers, programs such as MPRI are made even more important today. Fewer parole and probation officers to help monitor the transition from prison back into society means less oversight, and it will result in a greater number of former prisoners slipping through the cracks. We are doing Michigan residents a disservice by effectively dismantling this system.
Can you imagine anyone coming out of prison as a parolee or someone who has done their time and then they are released to nothing? Be it they have been in there a month, a year, 10 years, 20 years, whatever the case may be; where family has moved on or family has passed away, and they don’t have anything to come back to. But we are expecting them to be model citizens. But with what? They have been in prison for X amount of time, and to take this program away, I think we are doing them a disservice by not giving them the help they need to become the citizens that we expect them to be. How can we expect that if we leave them handicapped when they come out?
I think this program is a very, very important program because paying your debt to society, which they have done in whatever form or fashion, and to come out and we say, “You must abide by the law; you must get a job,” and we don’t provide them with the services that they need. What is going to happen? I ask you: What is going to happen? I encourage a “no” vote on this legislation.
Senators Anderson and Proos asked and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the statements be printed in the Journal.
The motion prevailed.
Senator Anderson’s first statement is as follows:
This budget encourages the privatization of services at the expense and the safety and welfare of Michigan residents. From schools to local governments to state services to our prisons, it seems that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will leave no stone unturned in their quest to hand our state government over to corporate interests.
My amendment would put an end to privatization of food preparation, prison store employees, and most concerning, the privatization of 1,750 beds. This means 1,750 beds whose security is now the responsibility of a corporation if this bill passes. It is driven by profit and quarterly statements instead of state government that is constitutionally required to protect its residents.
My amendment would delete the privatization requirements and restore funding for any savings that were anticipated as a result of privatization in this budget. I believe we must draw the line. Selling the safety and welfare of Michigan residents to help boost corporate profits is borderline criminal. I encourage your support for my amendment and that we get a much better bill in front of us.
Senator Anderson’s second statement is as follows:
I rise to offer an amendment that I expect will gain support across the aisle and this entire chamber. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the Governor often trumpet the concept of metrics. They say that we must inform Michigan residents of the successes and failures of their government. I agree. I fully support providing complete transparency, which is why I was so surprised to see that this budget is sorely lacking in the accountability that metrics would provide.
Not only does this budget hand the safety of our communities and the security of our prisons over to corporate CEOs through privatization of services, it provides no means for analyzing whether this privatization actually saves our state money. Where are the metrics in this legislation? What dashboard tells Michigan residents about the savings they earned by selling out their safety and security?
My amendment would require a 10 percent savings if privatization efforts are sought, would also ensure that comparable prison populations and staffing and overtime policies are compared, and that all of the costs are, in fact, being accurately analyzed, including costs for oversight and maintenance and transitioning costs.
I encourage and look forward to your support.
Senator Proos’ statement is as follows:
I rise in opposition to the amendments before us for a couple distinct reasons that my colleagues ought to pay attention to. The first was if we were going to intend to discuss a bipartisan amendment about transparency, I would think that the minority vice chair would speak to the chairman about it and have an opportunity to discuss bipartisan efforts like this. Unfortunately, this does nothing about bipartisanship at all and, in fact, is likely unconstitutional given the civil service requirements and rules that currently exist.
We ought to be discussing ways to keep the department in line with their expenditures when compared to the other Midwest states, something that is not happening in the Department of Corrections. The budget provides you with that opportunity to begin the effort to get these costs in line with other Midwest states as opposed to trying to change the constitutional requirements of the civil service system.
I would like to add one more point. When you look at this particular budget and any effort that may, in fact, happen because of competitive bidding, if we are to see competitive bidding become an opportunity for private industry to provide that service, it would happen under the civil service requirements that demand there be at least a 5 percent savings. In fact, bills that are pending before the House of Representatives right now on the number of prison beds that may be competitively bid requires that there be a 10 percent savings. We have built in benchmarks that increase the savings to the taxpayers of Michigan, the taxpayers who provide the funding for a $2 billion budget. It is too much for public safety to be maintained at the level that it is when compared to other states in the nation and other states in the Midwest.
2012 Senate Bill 951 (Appropriations: Department of Corrections ) by admin on May 4, 2012 Introduced in the Senate on February 14, 2012, the Senate version of the Department of Corrections budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, 2012. This would appropriate $1.991 billion in gross spending, compared to $1.936 billion, which was the FY 2011-2012 amount enrolled in 2011. Of this, just $8.7 million is federal money, and the rest is from state taxes and fees
The vote was 20 in favor, 18 opposed and 0 not voting