The government agency in charge of Michigan’s business subsidy programs, the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, has declined an invitation from a free-market think tank to debate in public the validity and effectiveness of the “Pure Michigan” tourism marketing campaign run by the agency.

The debate challenge was triggered by findings from an independent peer-reviewed study of the marketing program by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a longtime critic of taxpayer-funded business subsidies.

Documents obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request reveal internal discussions between MEDC officials and agency vendors about the Mackinac Center’s study prior to its final release. One of the topics: how to “discredit findings” unfavorable to the MEDC and state government spending on tourism ads.

The Pure Michigan campaign is intended to draw enough extra tourism dollars from other states that it pays for itself through larger tax collections from the lodging industry and others that benefit from more visitors. Money for the program comes out of regular state tax revenues and has cost $295 million since 2006. Legislators authorized spending $34 million on the program in the current fiscal year.

The Mackinac Center study released in November found that similar programs in other states do not have an economic payoff. It found instead that “for every $1 million in additional spending by a state on tourism promotion, there was an associated increase of $20,000 in additional economic activity shared by the entire accommodations industry in that state.” That translates into a negative 98 percent return on the money spent.

The Mackinac Center has also accused the MEDC and its paid consultants of all but making up the highly favorable return-on-investment figures it has given to state lawmakers and reporters, using methods “steeped in secrecy.”

In November, the Mackinac study’s two co-authors issued their challenge to MEDC officials to debate the effectiveness of Pure Michigan.

Dave Lorenz, who directs the MEDC bureau that manages the campaign, declined the invitation in a letter to LaFaive and Hicks, saying “there is already an extensive public record on the matter.”

“We stand by our research, which was conducted by an industry leader,” Lorenz wrote, referring to a Canadian company called Longwoods International. The firm has been called out by the Mackinac Center for the return-on-spending figures it generated under no-bid MEDC contracts.

“We are always willing to have an open dialogue and conversations about the Pure Michigan campaign,” Lorenz continued. “But as your letter and previous posts on the topic clearly illustrate, this invitation is not about expanding knowledge, but rather providing a platform to push a specific position and agenda.”

The MEDC discussions about “discrediting” the Mackinac Center’s findings, which took place before the final study was released, appear to have been suggested by another agency vendor, a public relations firm. The topic first appeared in an email sent by MEDC staffer Lori Langone, under the heading “Advice from our public relations firm.” The email was obtained in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

”When the study does come out, see what points we can discredit and proactively talk to the media, create an op-ed and pitch to the media,” reads the June 2015 email.

Langone said one thing to point out was a claim that the state’s unemployment in 2014 would be 13.3 percent instead of 7.3 percent without tourism jobs.

In another email, Langone said Tom Curtis, senior vice president of Longwoods International, advised the MEDC not do anything and “hope that this challenge gets dropped quickly.”

Adam Sacks, president of Tourism Economics, another tourism consulting firm that gets MEDC business, replied to Langone’s email and said “the Mackinac study is spurious,” though he also admitted to not having read it. Speaking of it, he said, “It is simply not possible to estimate the impacts of an ongoing advertising campaign with a statistical (read: econometric) model.”

In contrast to the “very blunt tool used by Mackinac,” he said the Longwoods study had “a bottom up approach.” Writing of work his own firm did, Sacks said, “Our most accurate forecasts still have enough margin of error that disentangling the effect of the state’s marketing campaign from economic effects, new developments, private sector initiatives, and weather (not to mention a dozen other factors) is not possible.”

Speaking of the Mackinac Center study, he wrote, “It is clear to me without even reading it that the study started with its conclusion and worked backwards.”

The Mackinac Center’s study is titled “An Analysis of State-Funded Tourism Promotion.”

The Mackinac Center publishes Michigan Capitol Confidential.

In a video posted on the Dearborn school district’s website, Superintendent Glenn Maleyko discussed the school budget — and the conversation deserves a closer look.

Maleyko talked about the complications involved in school funding as well as the impact that pensions costs have on the budget.

The district’s payments to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System plan increased from $19.4 million in 2011 to $33.0 million in 2016, according to the city’s audited budget.

Maleyko recalled a conversation he had with two of his predecessors, and his remarks implied the school district was getting less than it did 10 to 15 years ago — up to $30 million a year less. But the claim isn’t accurate.

In the video (starting after the 8:09 mark), Maleyko said he was at an event with John Artis and Brian Whiston. Artis, who was superintendent from 2002 to 2008, was replaced by Brian Whiston, who left in 2015 to become state superintendent. Maleyko then took over.

Maleyko said that Artis told him the district’s general fund revenue was $30 million higher in his tenure than it was under Whiston. Further, Artis said, the district under Whiston had 2,000 extra students.

Under Michigan’s school finance system, state funding for districts is based on enrollment. So if a district gains 2,000 students and still gets less money overall, a drop in revenue would imply a significant drop in the amount it gets for each student.

Maleyko’s comment was about the district’s general fund budget, which is a combination of local, state and federal funding that goes to pay for daily operations.

Reports submitted by school districts to the Michigan Department of Education do not claim that the general fund of the Dearborn school district went down by $30 million after Artis left.

According to the department’s Bulletin 1014, Dearborn's general fund budget in 2001-02, when Artis was in his first year as superintendent, was $9,900 per pupil. When he left in 2007-08, it was up to $10,906. In Whiston’s last year, 2014-15, the district’s per pupil money in the general fund was $10,479. That was $427 less than in 2008, the year Artis left.

On a per-pupil basis, the general fund did go down under Whiston. But since the district had 1,838 more students in 2015, it would have, under the state formula, received about $12 million more in general fund revenues — not $30 million less.

Furthermore, Dearborn’s general fund numbers should be put in proper context.

When Whiston left in 2014-15, the district received $10,479 in general fund revenues for each student. That was $1,042 more than the state average.

And while Maleyko’s comments were about the general fund, the school district receives other money as well.

Total funding from the state is about $54 million a year more in 2016-17 than when Artis first took over in the 2001-02 year. That’s in part because the district has 3,254 more students. And despite an occasional reduction in the per-pupil amount, the trend has been upward.

For example, in 2001-02, Dearborn received $5,852 per pupil in state funding, for a total of $101.7 million. This year, Dearborn received $7,876 per pupil, for a total of $162.5 million.

If inflation is factored in, that 2001-02 funding comes out to $7,863 per pupil, which means the district is getting about $13 more per pupil today than it did 15 years ago. Not much, but not a cut, either.

The amount each district gets is based on a complex formula based on the local school tax levels that were in place when the current funding system was created by Proposal A in 1994. Dearborn was one of a small number of districts, all with higher spending and higher local taxes than most, that were excluded from the regular formula. That fact accounts for Dearborn’s current above-average funding. Most but not all Michigan school districts have received substantial dollar-per-student increases since the state's economy began turning around.