On Sept. 18, House Democrats announced legislation that would place a moratorium on opening any additional charter public schools in Michigan. While House Bill 5852 isn’t expected to move in the waning days of this session, the press conference announcing it gave the lawmakers who support the moratorium a chance to make their case.

The opportunity to directly respond to such rhetoric seldom occurs. At the press conference however, Capitol Confidential was able to ask questions. The following is one of those questions and the response to it, followed by a rebuttal to that response by Michael Van Beek, director of research at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

Capitol Confidential: “You talk about for-profit charter companies, but conventional school districts have been spending millions of dollars and some of them have had failing schools for years and are still operating, why are you holding charters to a different standard?”

Rep. Sarah Roberts, D-St. Clair Shores: “I wouldn’t say we’re holding them to a different standard and I’d love to hear Rep. Lipton’s comment on this. We’re working to address all forms of education here in Michigan, but what has been found and reported in the (Detroit) Free Press and with the superintendent calling on the Legislature to address charter schools, that’s what we’re doing and taking this first step with the moratorium.”

Rep. Ellen Cogen Lipton, D-Huntington Woods: “What our task force found was that is exactly not the case. We do know that public dollars are being spent with our community-based public schools. We know because the meetings are being held publicly because any parent can go and find out where the money is being spent; we know how the money is being spent. Now, people may question how it is being spent, they might not agree with it, and that of course is the basis of democracy, right?

“In an open school board meeting and challenging the community members that are governing the schools . . . the problem is that charter schools are operating on a completely different set of standards,” Rep. Lipton continued. “There are charter schools that do hold meetings out of state, not even in the state which they are operating. So the likelihood that a parent is going to actually really know how the money is being spent in that school is sort of next to nothing; they’re not going to travel out of state. The likelihood of them traveling out of state and questioning the board on how that money is being spent is virtually nonexistent. So, your question is interesting but it actually goes to the heart of forming a task force . . . that charter schools are operating on a completely different set of principles.”

Michael Van Beek’s response: “Charter public schools have to comply with the exact same financial transparency requirements as regular public schools. Their boards must comply with the Open Meetings Act and Freedom of Information Act, just like regular school districts. And charter school boards also make their policies, agendas and minutes available online.

“In addition to this board-related transparency and reporting, charter schools must and do provide financial transparency for parents and the public,” Van Beek continued. “One can find information about the school’s budget, which provides data on how much the school allocates for basic instruction, special education, instructional support, administration and much more. Charters are also required to post their operating expenditures online, which show what was actually spent on these same items in the previous fiscal year. And, unlike regular public school districts, charter schools have to post detailed information about employee compensation, including the minimum, average and maximum salaries of superintendents, teachers and principals.

“Finally, charter schools have to report their finances to the state just like every other public school. And so you can find additional fiscal information about charter schools in publicly available reports like the Michigan Department of Education’s Bulletin 1014, which provides per-pupil revenue and spending data.

“All told, it doesn’t take much more than 15 or 20 minutes of time online to find a lot of financial information about an individual charter public school. Based on this, it seems that the recent charge to hold charter schools to a new transparency standard is a ‘solution’ in search of a problem.”

In the event that the Democrats gain control of the Michigan House on Nov. 4, it is likely that the next Speaker of the House will be current House Democratic Leader Tim Greimel, D-Auburn Hills. If the Republicans retain control of the House, however, the next Speaker will almost certainly be either Rep. Kevin Cotter, R-Mt. Pleasant, or Rep. Al Pscholka, R-Stevensville.

Current Speaker and Republican House Leader Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, will be term-limited out at the end of December. His replacement as House Republican Leader will be elected by the incoming House GOP caucus. Traditionally such inner-caucus elections take place behind closed doors a few hours or days after the conclusion of the November general election.

Another tradition is that candidates vying for caucus leadership positions emphasize winning or keeping control of the House and downplay inner-caucus rivalries until the general election is over. This year is no exception; Reps. Cotter and Pscholka are clearly adhering to that longstanding rule of thumb.

“Right now, I’m focusing on keeping the majority in the House and making it a stronger majority,” Rep. Pscholka told Capitol Confidential. “We need to get as many seats as possible as we look ahead to 2015-16.”

Rep. Cotter made basically the same point.

“It is true that I am seeking to be caucus leader and the race has been unfolding for some months and will continue up to when the general election is over,” he said. “We need to be careful to make sure our first priority is winning as many seats as possible so that we keep our majority in the House. It is only if we do retain the majority that our leadership race will determine who will be the next Speaker and it would be a great honor to be elected to that post by my colleagues.”

As a rule, candidates for caucus leader team up with floor leader candidates, which become more or less their running mates. Rep. Cotter is teamed up with Rep. Tom Leonard, R- Lansing; and Rep. Pscholka is teamed up with Rep. Lisa Posthumus Lyons, R-Alto.

Among Lansing insiders, Reps. Pscholka and Lyons are generally considered to lean more toward the “establishment” than Reps. Cotter and Leonard. It is difficult to tell, however, whether that assessment is accurate or primarily superficial.

A key difference is on the Obamacare Medicaid expansion which Reps. Pscholka and Lyons voted for and Reps. Cotter and Leonard voted against. On the so-called internet tax, Rep. Cotter and Rep. Lyons voted for it in committee. Neither Rep. Pscholka nor Rep. Leonard were members of the committee in which the vote was taken on the Internet tax.

Full information on the votes taken by these leadership candidates is available at www.MichiganVotes.org. But it should be noted that history indicates a lawmaker’s voting pattern can, but does not necessarily, serve as a barometer to how they will perform in a leadership role.

Voting records of those running in caucus leadership races are only one of many considerations members take into account when deciding which candidate they’ll back. Other factors include: individual political ambitions, the kind of working relationship a member has with each candidate, which candidate is perceived to have better overall leadership qualities and which candidate the members believe would do a better job of protecting the caucus.

An issue that could have a significant impact on this year’s House GOP leadership race is the so-called Hastert Rule, under which a House Speaker pledges not to allow any measure to pass that doesn’t have the support of a majority of the members of his own caucus. In 2013, Medicaid expansion was passed by the House with the Democrats supplying most of the “yes” votes along with slightly less than a majority of the Republicans.

The Hastert Rule was named for former Republican U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Although the Republican members who opposed Medicaid expansion put up little resistance on the House floor, the idea of legislation passing in this manner didn’t sit well with some of them. Certain incoming House Republicans are said to be withholding their votes from both Rep. Cotter and Rep. Pscholka, until one of these candidates agrees to adhere to the Hastert Rule pledge.

Members are not required to reveal the leadership candidates they supported to the public because such votes are internal caucus matters. In close leadership elections, new members coming in to serve their first term can often play a pivotal role in determining the outcome.

There is a chance that a new candidate could belatedly and unexpectedly jump into either the House Republican or House Democratic leadership races. But that possibility appears to be a remote one.