Comstock Public Schools privatized janitorial services with a for-profit company in 2009. Yet Todd Mora, the superintendent of the district, opposed charter public schools in a letter to a newspaper that criticized some charter schools as being  “for profit.”

Charter public schools in Michigan are increasingly under attack for hiring “for-profit” management companies to run their schools.

State Sen. Rebekah Warren, D-Ann Arbor, sponsored a bill that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit public schools from being operated on a for-profit basis or by a for-profit entity.

But some question why conventional public schools can use “for-profit” companies for things such as hiring substitute teachers, janitorial and other services yet attack charter schools for doing the same thing.

“School furniture and textbooks are purchased from for-profit companies. Schools are built by for-profit companies. Classroom supplies come from for-profit companies. School attorneys and auditing firms are for-profit,” said Joe Lehman, president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, in an email. “Is she saying the schools should just not buy any of these things either? Or is she saying that government needs to have its own book factories, furniture factories, construction crews, etc.?”

The Mackinac Center's 2011 school privatization survey found that more than half of Michigan's public school districts (53.6 percent) contract out for custodial, food or transportation services.

Contrary to some media reports, charter schools are “nonprofits,” just like conventional public school districts, according to one state education official.

“There is no such thing as a ‘for-profit’ charter school in Michigan,” said Martin Ackley, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Education, in an email. “Public School Academies are public schools by state law, and state law requires all public schools to be nonprofits. There are, however, for-profit companies that are contracted to operate charters under the oversight and direction of nonprofit Public School Academy boards.”

Eighty percent of the state’s 259 charter schools contract out for instructional or noninstructional services, according to Gary Naeyaert, spokesman for The Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University.

“Ask a traditional school district, ‘Why is okay to contract bus, janitorial and food services but it’s not okay to contract instructional services?' The real answer is the union won’t like it,” Naeyaert said.

Also, the charter schools that hire for-profit management companies aren’t mandated to have teachers join a teacher’s union. Naeyaert said Central Michigan University authorizes 56 charter schools and he’s aware of only one that has unionized teachers.

Legislation to prohibit public school districts from deducting contributions to political action committees (PACs) from employee paychecks appears to be on a fast track in the Michigan House.

House Bills 5085 and 5086 are scheduled to be taken up by the House Redistricting and Elections Committee on Dec. 6. It seems likely the measures will receive committee approval that day and be sent to the House floor. The apparent goal is to have the legislation passed by the House and sent to the Senate before the upcoming end-of-the-year holiday break.

“We think this is good policy,” said House Redistricting and Elections Committee Chair Pete Lund, R-Shelby Township, “The state should not be doing the collecting when people want to pay into PACs.”

Rep. Mike Shirkey, R-Clark Lake, sponsor of HB 5085, told Capitol Confidential the legislation is part of the ongoing effort to prevent government from mixing with partisan political activity.

“Government assets should not be used to provide services for political purposes,” Shirkey said. “These are two more bills on a long list that would separate government from this sort of involvement.”

The second bill in the package, House Bill, 5086, is sponsored by Rep. Paul Opsommer, R-DeWitt. It includes language to allow employees to sue districts that violate the law.

House Education Committee member Rep. Deb Shaughnessy, R-Charlotte, said the bills would address a situation that should have been corrected long ago.

“I applaud Reps. Shirkey and Opsommer for taking the lead on this important legislation that will ensure the practice of public employers using public resources to set up payroll deductions to collect contributions to political special interest groups never happens again,” Shaughnessy said. “This legislation is long overdue and is comprehensive in that it includes all public employee groups, not just certain ones. I look forward to doing everything I can to make sure this legislation passes the House and Senate and is signed by the Governor.

The push to move the bills comes near the end of a year in which the state Supreme Court made two completely opposite rulings regarding PAC deductions from school employee paychecks.

Specifically at issue were political contributions being deducted from employee paychecks by the Gull Lake school district. These deductions were for the Michigan Education Association political action committee.

In late December 2010, just days before the end of some of the justices' terms, the state Supreme Court ruled that a school district could administer a payroll deduction system for purposes of remitting employee contributions to MEAPAC. Part of the argument for this ruling was that schools and the union could agree to the deductions as part of their collective bargaining agreements. 

The case is Michigan Educ. Ass’n v. Secretary of State, No. 137451.

Six months later this ruling was reversed. The current Supreme Court, which had been seated in January after undergoing changes in the 2010 election, granted a motion for a rehearing in the case. On June 30, the high court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled that deductions for union PACs are a violation of the Michigan Campaign Finance Act.

The court’s majority concluded that administrating a payroll deduction that sends contributions to a PAC constitutes a “contribution,” under the state's campaign laws.

Explaining, in part, the court said such deductions are illegal: “because public resources are being used to advance the political objectives of the committee” and are to be considered an expenditure “because public services and facilities in assistance of these same political objectives are being provided.”

In light of the two opposite rulings within less than seven months, House Bills 5085 and 5086 were introduced to lock the court's current interpretation into statute.

“This is just to codify the court's ruling for the future,” Rep. Shirkey explained.