News Story

School Principal Faces Big Pay Cut If She Wins Seat In Legislature

From $120k plus benefits to around $83k

A story on the Michigan Education Association’s website featured union member Sheryl Kennedy’s decision to run for state representative as a Democrat in the 48th district, in Genesee County. Kennedy is a public school principal.

“I’m not going into politics because it’s the next step for me or because I’m looking to increase my salary or because I’m looking for anything other than the opportunity to serve and lead,” Kennedy told the MEA in its online magazine.

It’s a good thing Kennedy isn’t going into politics for the money, because if she wins the seat, she will take a pay cut. (This would not be the case if Kennedy retired from teaching and added the pension benefits for which she is eligible to the legislator pay.)

Kennedy earned $120,765 as a principal at Walled Lake Consolidated School District in 2016-17 (the most recent year data is available from the state). If she wins the election in November, she’ll earn $71,685 as a state representative while also getting $12,000 a year for expenses. If Kennedy retired, she would collect an estimated $54,344 annual pension.

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.

Commentary

Free Speech or Government Speech?

New bills would increase government oversight

The Michigan Senate may soon debate Senate Bills 703 through 707, which were introduced late last year. These bills would amend current law to increase government oversight of tourism agencies, having the practical effect of ensuring that government speech trumps individual free speech for lodging owners.

State law allows local tourism agencies to impose an assessment (tax) on rooms to fund their activities. One result is that lodging owners may get swept up into a bureau’s tourism advertising efforts against their will. Indeed, such advertising may actually disadvantage small operators when compared to their larger and more influential rivals. The ideal legislation would repeal the ability of local tourism bureaus to impose such assessments rather than increase state oversight.

Instead, the bills impose more government control over the bureaus. That, in turn, will turn the activities funded by the assessments into "government speech," making the assessments immune from free speech challenges. You can't sue if your tax dollars pay for a government official whose policies you don't like, meaning you will be forced to pay for speech you don't want. And if the bills are enacted into law, the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation won't be able to sue to protect the hotel owners' speech, because the assessment will be treated more like a tax, paying for a public official to do his official job.

We have twice litigated for the liberty of lodge-owning clients in northern Michigan on free speech grounds. Commercial speech cannot be compelled. Both cases basically ended in our clients’ favor, though without a formal court decision. One lodge owner sold his business and retired before extricating himself formally, while the other was released from the assessments of the local tourism bureau, with its consent.

It must be emphasized here that the Mackinac Center is not opposed to these bills because they would thwart our ability to sue, but rather because they would suppress the free speech rights of lodging owners who want no part of the local tourism agencies’ advertising efforts. In an age of social media, many business owners are quite comfortable doing their own highly nuanced marketing. These bills, in contrast, would lead to more state government control over local business operations. Furthermore, it would impose a tax on lodging, the costs of which will surely get passed on to tourists and may actually hurt tourism.

We argue that these local tourism bureaus act as part of a ‘good old boys’ network. The large regional lodging players basically control the assessment revenue and the advertising it funds. We are not convinced that these agencies are effective at all, let alone when compared to the efforts made by individual lodging owners.

These business owners should be able to decide how best to operate their lodging. No one should force them to hire a marketing firm against their wishes. But the bills would render the assessments imposed by local tourism agencies immune to many legal challenges. A better alternative is to repeal the state law that permits these unnecessary local tourism assessments and let local lodging owners handle their own advertising.

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.