Today on the reform government proposal

Transparency (4.00 / 3)

I agree. My reason for fence-sitting is that the proposal seems to only address some of the window dressing issues (decreasing size of legislature and lowering salaries around the board in a grand attempt to save money). It does nothing to address the one issue I feel has lead to apathy and failed leadership in Lansing: a lack of transparency.

Some legislators don't seem to show a strong connection to their constituency, but rather a strong party affiliation. This is because a lot of House and Senate elections seem to be decided not by voters, but by party activists and the few citizens who get around to hearing state-level officials speak. General awareness of state-level legislation seems to be very low, despite the state having a very robust digital interface (michigan.gov and legislature.michigan.gov).

How could this be addressed in proposal reform? Campaign finance law and term limit reform. By restricting the flow of lobbyist/activist dollars into campaigns, politicians in both parties would be more emboldened to their constituencies rather than just the politics of the capitol. A constitutional convention may be one way as well to generate more public interest and awareness as to what goes on in the rooms next to the Rotunda.

However, I would like to conclude with the fact that I'm just one person with rather batty ideas, and that I would like to hear other input.

---

by: TomChoske @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:15:29 PM CDT

Same here (0.00 / 0)

This proposal is simply rearranging the deck chairs on the sinking ship.  You could do it and save a few bucks but it isn't going to accomplish much long-term.

IMO, Michigan government has floundered for several reasons, but especially because of term limits which have, in turn, resulted in decisions being made at the party level.

Combine that with the crappy Michigan economy, the inflexibility and anti-government propaganda of the neo-cons who control the state GOP and the lack of political will to raise the necessary revenue to fund state government and you have a state government that is doomed to fail.

Engler's lasting legacy was selling voters on the corrosive idea that government cannot help solve problems.

---

by: gsbadj @ Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 09:38:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

My take (after my post yesterday on it) (0.00 / 0)

Here's the points that I agree with:

YES: Benefits to be the same as other state employees: Very nice. If they screw the rest of the state employees, they screw themselves.

YES: Annual public disclosure of finances: Sure, works for me.

YES: Bipartisan panel for redistricting

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES: Bureau of Elections nonpartisan, no-reason absentee voting, post-election audits, paper trails, no conflict-of-interest for election officials

NEUTRAL: Reducing the salaries of the assorted branches: I can take or leave it. Some are overpaid, some seem about right already, but it's not a dealbreaker.

NEUTRAL: 2-year lobbying ban: Probably unenforceable in practice, but whatever; it's a start.

NEUTRAL: Monkeying around with the numbers of legislators, Justices and judges: Not sure that this'll accomplish much, but whatever.

Here's the ones I'm very leery of without knowing the exact details involved:

Judicial: "Toughen disciplinary and conflict of interest requirements"

Executive: "Reduce the constitutional cap on the number of state government departments from 20 to 18 and cut hundreds of state boards and commissions"

Election Reform: "Strengthen the ban on illegal aliens' ability to register and vote"

Election Reform: "Enact anti-fraud measures to protect the integrity of Michigan's election process"

---

by: Brainwrap @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 12:30:13 PM CDT

Redistricting Panel Neutral only in Name (4.00 / 1)

The split on the redistricting panel of 4D/4R/1N and a requirement of 6 to win, virtually assures a deadlock.  In that case two plans are drawn up, and then decided by lot.

It is a system ripe for gaming, since it pushes both sides to maximalist positions on the theory they have a 50-50 chance of winning big.  

The additional flaw in the RMGN thinking is that Dems will win both redistricting matches, 2010 and 2012.  But the math says its a 25 percent chance.  That means there is a 75 chance that at least one plan in the next four years would be problematic for Dems.    

---

by: Harris @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 13:46:20 PM CDT

Vote No (4.00 / 3)

on this foolishness.

It is nothing more than a Supreme Court power grab rolled up in poll tested "reforms" without any consideration of the impact of these issues.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 16:48:12 PM CDT

Smokescreen? (0.00 / 0)

I'm still kind of convinced that my first thoughts on this were right, this is sleight of hand.  If the Court keeps it off the ballot, the Dems can use the issue to turn Cliff Taylor into a household dirty word and should have a real shot at defeating him. And honestly I can't think of another way to make people care about a SC case or race.

And if it gets on the ballot it will likely pass.  The GOP and its candidates can't bash it too much, because the idea of "rolling back politicians wages" (as the petition's circulators I kept running into called out to people) is misguidedly popular.  And the Dems running for office don't have to come out for it.  Both parties get to blame Michigan's voters.    

---

by: DocHopper @ Wed Jul 23, 2008 at 22:20:27 PM CDT

Deliberate Error? (0.00 / 0)

In that case, was the reference to a nonexistent section a deliberate error, designed to increase its chances of being thrown out? With all the financial backing this proposal has, it is hard to believe they would not review the language enough to catch that.

---

by: boehmianrhapsody @ Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 06:07:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but... (0.00 / 0)

You're right.  There is absolutely no evidence to support the fact that the reference to a non-existent section was added to get the thing thrown out by the Michigan Supreme Court so that the state Dems could run ads saying that Cliff Taylor threw out a ballot initiative that would have lowered legislative pay.  So, to subscribe to that would be engaging in crackpot conspiracy theories.

However, my eyebrow is raised in suspicion.

Among the Trees

---

by: Eric B. @ Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 08:59:47 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting... (0.00 / 0)

I was impressed with the ballot initiative because, for once, it showed the Democrats capable of engaging in cut throat tactics the Republicans have been using for years...

But on the other hand...it is a tactic used by Republicans for years!

End and means...end and means!

I am also concerned with setting the precedence of doing ballot initiatives in secret, without clearing them first with the petitions board.

If things are bad enough with scumballs like Drolet operating in an environment where we know he's collecting signatures...how difficult does it get when they do this in secret?

This is not a precedent I want to set...and the legislature should change the rules to not allow this in the future.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 11:26:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]