With five potential changes to Michigan's Constitution and one referendum on the November ballot, some proposals are bound to impact others.
The best example is how Proposal 2 impacts Proposal 1, if both issues pass. Proposal 2, which elevates union collective bargaining agreements over state law, will hinder the essential issue in Proposal 1: the powers given to emergency managers.
Proposal 1, the emergency manager referendum, asks voters to approve or reject Public Act 4 of 2011, the state’s emergency manager law. The vote has nothing to do with whether or not the state has the power to appoint a manager to control a local government facing crisis, however. Voting “no” on this bill does nothing for local control since it would reinstate the state’s older emergency financial manager law.
This older law was expanded upon in Public Act 4. One of the most material changes to the old law was the ability of an emergency manager to amend the local government’s collective bargaining agreements unilaterally, given a series of conditions and approval by the state Department of Treasury. While this provision has only been exercised in only three governments, it’s also saved those governments over $100 million annually, substantial savings for governments struggling to pay their bills.
Proposal 2, however, would strip emergency managers of their ability to amend these agreements. By giving authority to union collective bargaining agreements over state laws like Public Act 4, it is likely that emergency managers will be unable to amend these agreements.
While each local government is a little bit different, most local governments spend the majority of their expenses on labor costs. In Michigan, where 55 percent of the government sector is unionized, this means that collective bargaining agreements are major expenses.
In addition to the considerable expense of the labor contracts themselves, there's another factor that leads local governments to look at these agreements last when fiscal troubles arise. There’s a concentrated effort from unions to get their people elected to school boards, city councils, and county commissions.
There are a number of new powers offered to emergency managers in Public Act 4. But Proposal 2 would eliminate one of those new powers that resolve fiscal problems in struggling governments.
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
Want to support our work?
Help us tell the free market, limited government side of the story. Support Capitol Confidential today
Does Prop 2 render National Popular Vote unconstitutional in Michigan?
Trump administration sues Michigan over climate litigation against oil and gas companies
Michigan parents ask U.S. Supreme Court to strike down ban on aid to private education
Do Teachers Really Need More 'Protection?'
In its October newsletter, the Michigan Education Association wrote that Proposal 2 “…goes beyond just protecting collective bargaining. It protects the middle class and working families, giving them a chance to negotiate for fair wages and benefits and the ability to support themselves.”
Frankly, after reviewing teacher collective bargaining contracts and recent Teacher Tenure Commission decisions, it is astonishing that the MEA thinks that more protection is needed.
It is already very difficult to fire inadequate, bad or even criminal teachers. State laws specify and limit termination, and district-level collective bargaining agreements can place further limitations on teacher termination.
In June, for example, MLive reported that a teacher arraigned in Eaton County District Court for allegedly engaging in sexual conduct with male students was still employed by Grand Ledge Public Schools.
The Michigan Teacher Tenure Commission has protected a teacher who tested positive at work for marijuana and had documented cases of failing to teach (Stoico v. DPS, 2003); allowed a teacher to be reinstated though she had been found to be mentally unfit to teach (Clark v. Swartz Creek, 2009); and has protected a teacher who slapped a second-grade student and who had a documented history of using corporal punishment on other students (Okoro v. DPS, 2012).
In addition to those cases, the following limitations on teacher review and termination are disheartening — if you consider the purpose of public education to be the education of students.
At Orchard View Schools, student academic performance on tests cannot be used to judge whether a teacher should continue teaching. The agreement between the district and its MEA affiliate states:
The Ferndale school district has a similar provision in its bargaining agreement with its MEA affiliate. Its collective bargaining agreement states that “State test scores, ratings, or other standardized test results shall not be used in the formal evaluation of teachers.”
Certainly, a teacher’s performance cannot be evaluated on test scores alone. But a complete ban on using test scores seems to have little to do with ensuring that students are being taught by effective teachers.
In the LakeVille Community School District, evidence of “a teacher’s ability, performance, or personal characteristics that are not the result of an official evaluation or disciplinary action” cannot be included in a teacher’s personnel file.
The Berkley School District actually prohibits teachers from participating in the evaluation of other teachers. From the contract:
Berkley’s provision seems designed to both limit struggling teachers from receiving helpful feedback and to protect teachers who shouldn’t be protected.
At some point, those of us not employed by a public school district have to ask, “How much more protection do you need?” In the private sector, the vast majority of employees are at-will, with the understanding that violence, drug use and incompetence are grounds for dismissal.
Teachers serve as educators and as role models for students. As such, it should be a mark of pride and professionalism to be held to a high standard. In a more professional work environment, high-performing teachers would be rewarded with more than just a single, additional dollar in pay, and on-the-job drug use and violence would be considered grounds for automatic dismissal.
Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.
More From CapCon