STATE OF MICHIGAN
Journal of the Senate
100th Legislature
REGULAR SESSION OF 2020
Senate Chamber, Lansing, Wednesday, June 24,
2020.
10:00
a.m.
The
Senate was called to order by the President, Lieutenant Governor Garlin D. Gilchrist
II.
The
roll was called by the Secretary of the Senate, who announced that a quorum was
present.
Alexander—present Horn—present Outman—present
Ananich—present Irwin—present Polehanki—present
Barrett—present Johnson—present Runestad—present
Bayer—present LaSata—present Santana—present
Bizon—present Lauwers—present Schmidt—present
Brinks—present Lucido—present Shirkey—present
Bullock—excused MacDonald—present Stamas—present
Bumstead—present MacGregor—present Theis—present
Chang—present McBroom—present VanderWall—present
Daley—present McCann—present Victory—present
Geiss—present McMorrow—present Wojno—present
Hertel—present Moss—present Zorn—present
Hollier—present Nesbitt—present
Senator
Ed McBroom of the 38th District offered the following invocation:
Dear
Father, we give You praise that You’ve given us a beautiful day and that You’ve
brought us here to serve the people of Michigan. Help our work today to be
dedicated to You. Help us in all we do and say to reflect on how we work for
You and that each moment of our day should be an act of worship.
Father
I pray that You would guide us today in the work we have before us. That You
would give us the wisdom we need. Father, I pray that You would help us to help
the people of Michigan. That You would make us cognizant of those who are
suffering, those who are in need. Help us to remember the mandate that You put
on us to think of widows, orphans, those who are in poverty, those who are
suffering and are outcast. Father, help our work to make life better and more
acceptable for them. Father, I pray that You bring healing to our nation, to
our state. That You would help each of us to recognize the sin and biases and
problems that we carry and help us to focus on what is true and that You’ve
created all of us. That You seek people to worship You in truth and in spirit.
Help us this day to make it a day dedicated to You in the work that we have
before us.
I pray
this in Jesus’ name. Amen.
The President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist, led the
members of the Senate in recital of the Pledge
of Allegiance.
Motions and Communications
Senators
Schmidt and Ananich entered the Senate Chamber.
Senator
Chang moved that Senator Bullock be excused from today’s session.
The motion prevailed.
The following communication was
received:
Office
of Senator Sylvia Santana
June 16, 2020
Please add my name to the list of
co-sponsors for SJR K. If you have any questions, please reach out to my
office.
Sincerely,
Sylvia
A. Santana
State
Senator
Michigan’s
3rd District
The communication was referred to
the Secretary for record.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the
members serving voting therefor.
Senate Bill No. 897
The motion prevailed, a majority of the
members serving voting therefor.
Messages from the Governor
The
following messages from the Governor were received:
Date: June 23, 2020
Time: 2:33 p.m.
To the President of the Senate:
Sir—I have this day approved and signed
Enrolled Senate Bill No. 278 (Public Act No. 93), being
An act to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled “An act to provide for the
registration, titling, sale, transfer, and regulation of certain vehicles
operated upon the public highways of this state or any other place open to the
general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles and distressed
vehicles; to provide for the licensing of dealers; to provide for the
examination, licensing, and control of operators and chauffeurs; to provide for
the giving of proof of financial responsibility and security by owners and
operators of vehicles; to provide for the imposition, levy, and collection of
specific taxes on vehicles, and the levy and collection of sales and use taxes,
license fees, and permit fees; to provide for the regulation and use of streets
and highways; to create certain funds; to provide penalties and sanctions for a
violation of this act; to provide for civil liability of manufacturers, the
manufacturers of certain devices, the manufacturers of automated technology,
upfitters, owners, and operators of vehicles and service of process on
residents and nonresidents; to regulate the introduction and use of certain
evidence; to regulate and certify the manufacturers of certain devices; to
provide for approval and certification of installers and servicers of certain
devices; to provide for the levy of certain assessments; to provide for the
enforcement of this act; to provide for the creation of and to prescribe the
powers and duties of certain state and local agencies; to impose liability upon
the state or local agencies; to provide appropriations for certain purposes; to
repeal all other acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act or contrary
to this act; and to repeal certain parts of this act on a specific date,” by
amending sections 221 and 310 (MCL 257.221 and 257.310), section 221 as amended
by 1998 PA 64 and section 310 as amended by 2018 PA 177.
(Filed with the Secretary of State on June 23, 2020, at 3:14 p.m.)
Time:
2:35 p.m.
To the
President of the Senate:
Sir—I have this day approved and signed
Enrolled Senate Bill No. 279 (Public Act No.
94), being
An
act to amend 2008 PA 23, entitled “An act to authorize the secretary of state
to issue enhanced driver licenses and state personal identification cards to
United States citizens who reside in Michigan to facilitate travel between the
United States and Canada; to establish certain funds and prescribe duties for
certain officials; and to prohibit certain conduct and prescribe penalties,” by
amending section 5 (MCL 28.305), as amended by 2018 PA 606.
(Filed
with the Secretary of State on June 23, 2020, at 3:16 p.m.)
Respectfully,
Gretchen
Whitmer
Governor
The following messages from the
Governor were received and read:
June 23, 2020
I respectfully submit to the
Senate the following appointments to office pursuant to Public Act 451 of 1994,
MCL 324.501:
Michigan
Natural Resources Commission
Mr. Michael J. Lashbrook of 1703
Cranston Court, East Lansing, Michigan 48823, county of Ingham, succeeding
George Heartwell who was disapproved by the Senate, appointed to represent
Democrats, for a term commencing June 23, 2020 and expiring December 31, 2023.
Mr. James R. “JR” Richardson of
36658 McGuire Road, Ontonagon, Michigan 49953, county of Ontonagon, succeeding
John Walters who has resigned, appointed to represent Republicans, for a term
commencing June 23, 2020 and expiring December 31, 2021.
Ms. Carol M. Rose of 18555
Glacier Trail, Hillman, Michigan 49746, county of Montmorency, succeeding Anna
Mitterling who was disapproved by the Senate, appointed to represent
Independents, for a term commencing June 23, 2020 and expiring December 31,
2023.
June 23, 2020
I respectfully submit to the
Senate the following appointments to office pursuant to Public Act 451 of 1994,
MCL 324.43532b:
Michigan
Wildlife Council
Dr. Jason Garvon of 9483 W.
Shenandoah Avenue, Brimley, Michigan 49715, county of Chippewa, succeeding
James Hammill whose term has expired, appointed to represent individuals who
have purchased hunting or fishing licenses in this state on a regular basis, at
least once during each of the last 3 years, and are nominated by statewide
sportsmen organizations, for a term commencing June 24, 2020 and expiring March
31, 2024.
Mr. Edgar Roy, III of 7140 Logan
Lane, Traverse City, Michigan 49686, county of Grand Traverse, reappointed to
represent individuals who have purchased hunting or fishing licenses in this
state on a regular basis, at least once during each of the last 3 years, and
are nominated by statewide sportsmen organizations, for a term commencing June
24, 2020 and expiring March 31, 2024.
Mr. Thomas Elliot Shafer of 449
Saddle Lane, Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan 48236, county of Wayne, succeeding
Carol Rose who has resigned, appointed to represent an individual with a media
or marketing background who is not an employee of the department, for a term
commencing June 24, 2020 and expiring March 31, 2022.
Respectfully,
Gretchen
Whitmer
Governor
The appointments were referred to
the Committee on Advice and Consent.
By
unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Motions and Communications
The motion
prevailed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
By
unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of
Messages from the House
A bill
to amend 1984 PA 431, entitled “The management and budget act,” by amending
section 365 (MCL 18.1365), as added by 2019 PA 160.
The
House of Representatives has passed the bill, ordered that it be given
immediate effect and pursuant to Joint Rule 20, inserted the full title.
The
Senate agreed to the full title.
The
bill was referred to the Secretary for enrollment printing and presentation to
the Governor.
Recess
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The
motion prevailed, the time being 10:06 a.m.
The
Senate was called to order by the President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist.
By
unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of
General Orders
The
motion prevailed, and the President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist, designated
Senator McCann as Chairperson.
After
some time spent therein, the Committee arose; and the President, Lieutenant
Governor Gilchrist, having resumed the Chair, the Committee reported back to
the Senate, favorably and without amendment, the following bills:
House Bill No. 4390, entitled
A bill
to amend 1966 PA 291, entitled “Firefighters training council act,” by amending
sections 2 and 9 (MCL 29.362 and 29.369), as amended by 2017 PA 144, and by
adding section 9c.
Senate Bill No. 897, entitled
A bill
to amend 1998 PA 58, entitled “Michigan liquor control code of 1998,” by
amending section 536 (MCL 436.1536), as amended by 2019 PA 131.
The
bills were placed on the order of Third Reading of Bills.
House Bill No. 4391, entitled
A bill
to amend 1974 PA 154, entitled “Michigan occupational safety and health act,”
by amending section 14 (MCL 408.1014), as amended by 2012 PA 415, and by
adding section 14r.
Substitute
(S-1)
By
unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
House Bill No. 5781
The
motion prevailed.
The
following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5781, entitled
A bill to amend 1998 PA 58, entitled “Michigan
liquor control code of 1998,” by amending section 1021 (MCL 436.2021), as
amended by 2013 PA 235, and by adding section 551.
The
question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor,
as follows:
Roll Call No.
225 Yeas—36
Alexander Geiss MacDonald Santana
Ananich Hertel MacGregor Schmidt
Barrett Hollier McCann Shirkey
Bayer Horn McMorrow Stamas
Bizon Irwin Moss Theis
Brinks Johnson Nesbitt VanderWall
Bumstead LaSata Outman Victory
Chang Lauwers Polehanki Wojno
Daley Lucido Runestad Zorn
Nays—1
McBroom
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of
the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to create a commission for the control
of the alcoholic beverage traffic within this state, and to prescribe its
powers, duties, and limitations; to provide for powers and duties for certain
state departments and agencies; to impose certain taxes for certain purposes;
to provide for the control of the alcoholic liquor traffic within this state
and to provide for the power to establish state liquor stores; to prohibit the
use of certain devices for the dispensing of alcoholic vapor; to provide for the
care and treatment of alcoholics; to provide for the incorporation of farmer
cooperative wineries and the granting of certain rights and privileges to those
cooperatives; to provide for the licensing and taxation of activities regulated
under this act and the disposition of the money received under this act; to
prescribe liability for retail licensees under certain circumstances and to
require security for that liability; to provide procedures, defenses, and
remedies regarding violations of this act; to provide for the enforcement and
to prescribe penalties for violations of this act; to provide for allocation of
certain funds for certain purposes; to provide for the confiscation and
disposition of property seized under this act; to provide referenda under certain
circumstances; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”.
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The
following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5811, entitled
A bill to amend 1998 PA 58, entitled “Michigan
liquor control code of 1998,” (MCL 436.1101 to 436.2303) by adding section
537a.
The
question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor,
as follows:
Roll Call No.
226 Yeas—36
Alexander Geiss MacDonald Santana
Ananich Hertel MacGregor Schmidt
Barrett Hollier McCann Shirkey
Bayer Horn McMorrow Stamas
Bizon Irwin Moss Theis
Brinks Johnson Nesbitt VanderWall
Bumstead LaSata Outman Victory
Chang Lauwers Polehanki Wojno
Daley Lucido Runestad Zorn
Nays—1
McBroom
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of
the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to create a commission for the control
of the alcoholic beverage traffic within this state, and to prescribe its
powers, duties, and limitations; to provide for powers and duties for certain
state departments and agencies; to impose certain taxes for certain purposes;
to provide for the control of the alcoholic liquor traffic within this state and
to provide for the power to establish state liquor stores; to prohibit the use
of certain devices for the dispensing of alcoholic vapor; to provide for the
care and treatment of alcoholics; to provide for the incorporation of farmer
cooperative wineries and the granting of certain rights and privileges to those
cooperatives; to provide for the licensing and taxation of activities regulated
under this act and the disposition of the money received under this act; to
prescribe liability for retail licensees under certain circumstances and to
require security for that liability; to provide procedures, defenses, and
remedies regarding violations of this act; to provide for the enforcement and
to prescribe penalties for violations of this act; to provide for allocation of
certain funds for certain purposes; to provide for the confiscation and
disposition of property seized under this act; to provide referenda under
certain circumstances; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,”.
The Senate agreed to the full title.
By
unanimous consent the Senate proceeded to the order of
Introduction and Referral of Bills
A bill to amend 1994 PA 451, entitled “Natural
resources and environmental protection act,” by amending sections 8306 and 8314
(MCL 324.8306 and 324.8314), section 8306 as amended by 2004 PA 24 and section 8314
as amended by 2002 PA 418.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and
referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Senators MacGregor, Stamas, Shirkey,
VanderWall and Schmidt introduced
A bill to amend 1994 PA 204, entitled “The children’s
ombudsman act,” by amending section 3 (MCL 722.923), as amended by 2004 PA 560.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and
referred to the Committee on Families, Seniors, and Veterans.
Senators Hollier, Geiss, Santana, Wojno,
Alexander, Moss, Hertel and Brinks introduced
A bill to make, supplement, and adjust appropriations
for various state departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2020; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations.
The bill was read a first and second time by title and
referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
By unanimous
consent the Senate returned to the order of
Resolutions
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following
resolution:
Senate Resolution No. 129
The
motion prevailed.
Senator
Bizon offered the following resolution:
Senate Resolution No. 129.
A
resolution to urge the United States Department of Defense to establish a
policy to review, and change as necessary, the names of military installations
and ships every 20 years.
Whereas,
The United States military has over 400 military installations in the U.S. and
more than 490 ships, many named after individuals; and
Whereas,
Military installations and ships are often named after people who can serve as
an inspiration to other military personnel. The U.S. Army’s current naming
policy, for instance, provides that army bases should be named after
individuals who have distinguished themselves and can serve as inspirations to
many different people including officers, engineers, soldiers, and others; and
Whereas,
How a person’s individual achievements are viewed can evolve over time. A name
that is appropriate for a specific military installation or ship at one time,
may not be appropriate in years to come. Establishing a policy to review names
on a regular basis and suggest new honors provides the military flexibility to
ensure that a military installation or ship bears the name of the most
appropriate individual, while offering regular opportunities to honor other
worthy people; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate, That we
urge the United States Department of Defense to establish a policy to review,
and change as necessary, the names of military installations and ships every 20
years; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this
resolution be transmitted to United States Secretary of Defense.
Senator
MacGregor moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the
members serving voting therefor.
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following
resolution:
Senate Resolution No. 130
The
motion prevailed.
Senator
MacDonald offered the following resolution:
Senate Resolution No. 130.
A
resolution to memorialize the Congress of the United States to explore further
avenues of relief for businesses affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Whereas, The COVID-19 Pandemic
has dramatically affected Michigan and the United States. The first cases in
Michigan were reported on March 10, 2020, and since these initial reports more
than 56,000 cases have been confirmed and more than 5,000 Michiganders have
lost their lives to the novel coronavirus. Nationally, there have been more than
1.7 million cases and 100,000 deaths; and
Whereas, Mitigating the spread of
the virus has required extraordinary public health measures. Governor Gretchen
Whitmer has issued executive orders prohibiting large gatherings, closing all
primary and secondary schools, and requiring the temporary closure of all
nonessential businesses. At the federal level, the White House Coronavirus Task
Force’s guidelines recommended the closure of places where people gather,
including businesses, where there is evidence of community transmission. While
some industries and regions of the state have begun to partially reopen, it is
unclear how long mitigation measures will be necessary before normal operations
can resume; and
Whereas, These measures have
greatly impacted the livelihoods of business owners across the state and our
nation. With the forced closures, small business owners have been forced to lay
off workers and forgo income for months, while still needing to make payments
for utilities, mortgages and rent, and other expenses. According to a survey by
the Small Business Administration of Michigan, one in seven, or about 14
percent, of small businesses are not confident that they will survive the
Pandemic. Nationally, a survey found that 7.5 million small businesses are at
risk of shutting down; and
Whereas, Federal and state
governments have a responsibility to assist small businesses since government
mitigation measures, while for the greater good, contributed significantly to
the current economic crisis. The economic uncertainty and devastation caused by
the COVID-19 Pandemic and the related mitigation policies are not the fault of
small business owners. It would be unjust to fail to help them and to allow
them to bear an unfair share of the burden of addressing this crisis; and
Whereas, The failure of these
businesses could have wide ranging negative effects for Michigan and the United
States. Since the beginning of the crisis, more than 40 million Americans have
filed for unemployment, including more than 1.7 million in Michigan. If small
businesses are unable to reopen, many of these claimants may not be able to
return to work, magnifying the already devastating economic impact of COVID-19;
and
Whereas, The small business
relief already enacted by Congress is not sufficient to mitigate these effects.
As part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,
Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) to provide loans to
small businesses. Even though additional money was subsequently appropriated to
the program, the PPP has been unable to prove relief to millions of small
businesses that have been affected by the crisis; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate, That we
memorialize the Congress of the United States to explore further avenues of
relief for businesses affected by the COVID-19 Pandemic; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this
resolution be transmitted to the Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives, the President of the United States Senate, and the members of
the Michigan congressional delegation.
Senator
MacGregor moved that the rule be suspended.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members
serving voting therefor.
By
unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator
MacGregor moved that House Bill No. 5781 be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members
serving voting therefor.
Senator
MacGregor moved that House Bill No. 5811 be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members
serving voting therefor.
Recess
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The
motion prevailed, the time being 11:04 a.m.
The
Senate was called to order by the President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist.
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following bill:
Senate Bill No. 956
The
motion prevailed.
The
following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 956, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public
health code,” by amending section 21717 (MCL 333.21717), as amended by 2014 PA
66, and by adding section 5145.
The
question being on the passage of the bill,
Senator Hertel offered the following amendment:
1. Amend
page 2, following line 11, by inserting:
“(2) The plan required under subsection
(1)(b) must provide for all of the following:
(a) That if an individual tests
positive for coronavirus and needs to be transferred to a dedicated facility
described in subsection (1)(b), a physician shall provide, in writing and in a
timeframe and manner determined by the department, that the individual is
medically stable for the transfer to the dedicated facility. The plan must
specify where the individual may reside while awaiting a physician’s
determination.
(b) That the individual be transferred
to a dedicated facility by a paramedic as that term is defined in section
20908.” and
renumbering the remaining subsection.
The
question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator
Chang requested the yeas and nays.
The
yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members
serving not voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No.
227 Yeas—15
Alexander Chang Irwin Polehanki
Ananich Geiss McCann Santana
Bayer Hertel McMorrow Wojno
Brinks Hollier Moss
Nays—22
Barrett LaSata Nesbitt Stamas
Bizon Lauwers Outman Theis
Bumstead Lucido Runestad VanderWall
Daley MacDonald Schmidt Victory
Horn MacGregor Shirkey Zorn
Johnson McBroom
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
Senator Santana offered the following amendment:
1. Amend
page 1, line 1, after “department”
by inserting a comma and “in
consultation with the department of licensing and regulatory affairs,”.
The
amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
Senator Brinks offered the following amendment:
1. Amend
page 2, line 11, after “section.” by
inserting “The plan must provide for all
of the following:
(i)
24 hour notice to the individual, the individual’s family members, or the individual’s
legal representative regarding the transfer of the individual.
(ii)
The ability for an individual described in subparagraph (i) to have a choice in the location of the transfer.
(iii)
The ability for an individual described in subparagraph (i) to appeal a decision regarding the transfer. The department
shall develop an appeals process for purposes of this subparagraph that
includes a timeframe to file an appeal and that designates where the individual
who is the subject of the transfer may reside while the appeal is pending.”.
The
question being on the adoption of the amendment,
Senator
Chang requested the yeas and nays.
The
yeas and nays were ordered, 1/5 of the members present voting therefor.
The amendment was not adopted, a majority of the members
serving not voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No.
228 Yeas—15
Alexander Chang Irwin Polehanki
Ananich Geiss McCann Santana
Bayer Hertel McMorrow Wojno
Brinks Hollier Moss
Nays—22
Barrett LaSata Nesbitt Stamas
Bizon Lauwers Outman Theis
Bumstead Lucido Runestad VanderWall
Daley MacDonald Schmidt Victory
Horn MacGregor Shirkey Zorn
Johnson McBroom
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
Senator Lucido offered the following amendment:
1. Amend
page 2, line 1, after “policy” by
inserting a comma and “based on relevant
and updated guidance issued by the federal Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention,”.
The
amendment was adopted, a majority of the members serving voting therefor.
The
question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor,
as follows:
Roll Call No.
229 Yeas—24
Barrett LaSata Nesbitt Stamas
Bizon Lauwers Outman Theis
Bumstead Lucido Polehanki VanderWall
Daley MacDonald Runestad Victory
Horn MacGregor Schmidt Wojno
Johnson McBroom Shirkey Zorn
Nays—13
Alexander Chang Hollier McMorrow
Ananich Geiss Irwin Moss
Bayer Hertel McCann Santana
Brinks
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
The
Senate agreed to the title of the bill.
Senators
Hertel, Moss, Irwin, Geiss, Hollier, Ananich, Brinks, McMorrow and Chang, under
their constitutional right of protest (Art. 4, Sec. 18), protested against the
passage of Senate Bill No. 956.
Senator
Hertel moved that the statement he made during the discussion of the bill be
printed as his reasons for voting “no.”
Senator
Hertel’s statement, in which Senators Moss, Irwin, Geiss, Hollier, Ananich,
Brinks, McMorrow and Chang concurred, is as follows:
I rise
to give my “no” vote explanation.
I would
like to vote “yes” on these bills. I think that it’s a reasonable discussion
that we should have about a review of what policies happened in the past. I
think it’s an important part and I would have like to have voted “yes” on that.
I think it’s important to review policies moving forward to make sure that
outside people aren’t being moved into nursing homes. That’s a reasonable
discussion as well.
I
cannot vote for a bill that violates an individual’s basic civil rights. And
that’s exactly what this bill does. The moment that someone tests positive, you
remove all choice from them, their family, and their doctor. We are saying on
the floor of the Michigan Senate that we are taking those rights away from them
based on them testing positive for a disease. I think there is about a zero
percent chance that any court in the nation will not read this bill and reject
it because of those exact things. But I am not going to sit here and vote
against a doctor being involved in the process, vote against that person’s
individual right to decide where they live, and vote against a family—we weren’t
even asking for family to have permission to say whether they would go
someplace or not—but we just voted “no” on basic notification to a family. That
we’re going to take somebody out of where they live, transfer them God knows
how far away and we’re not even going to give the family enough respect to let
them know that we’re transferring their resident.
I
understand the political process that happens in this body. I understand this
bill being rushed because of some political discussions. But this is not how we
do business. There is an enormous amount of work that has to be done on the
bill, and as currently written, is fatally flawed. I ask that my colleagues
reconsider. I ask that you vote “no” on this bill. And again, I
regretfully am giving my “no” vote explanation. I think that this is an
important issue that we should be discussing. But not like this and not in
violation of peoples’ rights.
Senators
Hertel, Bayer, Lucido, Santana, Brinks, Nesbitt, Runestad and McMorrow asked
and were granted unanimous consent to make statements and moved that the
statements be printed in the Journal.
The
motion prevailed.
Senator
Hertel’s first statement is as follows:
Colleagues
my amendment would require a doctor’s sign-off before a nursing home patient is
transferred under this bill. It also requires, by the way, a licensed paramedic
to do that transport. Study after study shows that the risk of transfers to
someone who is medically frail are real and the results could be deadly.
Transferring frail, older adults to new facilities not only could expose them
to significant health risks, but transfers could also be extremely traumatic
for patients, particularly those with diseases like Alzheimer’s or dementia who
are experiencing memory issues and other cognitive challenges.
Colleagues,
a person doesn’t stop being a person because they test positive for COVID. They
don’t lose their civil liberties because they tested positive. Their
inalienable rights cannot be infringed upon. You don’t lose your right to life
because you have COVID or to decide your own manifest destiny. Your freedom to
make choices of your own healthcare doesn’t end because you have COVID. We’ve
heard a lot about civil rights lately. I’ve heard some people say that making
someone wear a mask is a violation of their civil rights. Or that limiting
public gatherings is a violation of their civil liberties. Or the ability to
not get a haircut is a violation of their civil liberties. This right here—if
we don’t adopt this amendment—will be the biggest affront to civil liberties
ever passed by this body. The idea that we would say to somebody—regardless of
what your doctor says, regardless of anything—you have no right to decide where
you live. You have no right to decide you don’t want to get into that
ambulance. The moment you test positive, there is zero review, period. That is
a direct violation to our founding documents. It is a direct violation of your
right to life. It is a direct violation of your right to liberty.
It is
reasonable to ask that if someone is going to be transferred—and in some cases
in our larger regions like the Upper Peninsula where people will be transferred
likely hundreds of miles to these facilities—that a doctor at least review that
patient. But make sure that they are medically able to do so. Otherwise there
is a high likelihood that we will be causing peoples’ deaths through this bill.
That makes zero sense to not at least allow for a medical determination if they
are safe to transfer. We do not get to play God here. The idea that we are
choosing one person’s life over another and saying one is more important
because they tested positive or not is not our role in state government. It’s a
direct violation of our Constitution. It’s a direct violation of our civil
rights. It’s a direct violation of our founding documents. All I ask is that we
reasonably say that a physician reviews a person’s health to make sure that
they are safe for transfer before we put them in an ambulance and transfer
over.
By the
way, under the current writing of the bill there is no requirement that the person
is even transferred in an ambulance. No requirement that a paramedic is there.
We care about the rest of the residents We have to care about that person as
well. I agree with lots of points of this bill but this point right here is
ridiculous. I ask that you pass my amendment and solve this problem inside the
bill.
Senator
Bayer’s first statement is as follows:
Just a
few short remarks from me to highlight my colleague’s comments on this
amendment and on this bill. My mom has tested positive for COVID-19. She has
been asymptomatic for one month. The day she tested positive a person in her
complex—her senior living nursing home complex—was sick. They tested the
complex. My mother was found positive. They shuffled her off to another
location. So my mother is on the edge of dementia. She is getting older. She is
very flaky. This rush to put her in another place totally threw her off whack.
She has gone, within a month, from a little flaky to full-blown dementia. We
have got to treat our seniors—our parents—like the people they are and give
them all their rights. This bill—as much as I know there are things we need to
do better to take care of our seniors—this bill needs more work. We’ve got to
stop rushing things through. We need to do it correctly and not put our family
members at risk.
Senator
Lucido’s first statement is as follows:
Colleagues,
I can appreciate the hard work and the words allocuted by the State Senators
from the other side of the aisle. If you look at the amendment that’s being
offered, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines must be
followed. There is no reason or in rhyme that if a patient is too ill to be
discharged from a hospital why they should not be admitted. In addition, if a
patient has to be stated in a nursing home because of nursing care that they
need, it is up to the doctor’s orders, it’s not up to us. We don’t mandate what’s
going on in hospitals nor do we mandate what’s going in in nursing care
facilities. We leave that to the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs
and we leave that to the Department of Health and Human Services. In addition,
you’ll find that the policies that the guidelines need to be based on are the
relevant, updated guidelines by the CDC. And therefore, let the experts do the expert
policies and protocol, not us as legislators.
Senator
Hertel’s second statement is as follows:
Just to
be clear, the CDC’s guidelines—one, we have no control over. Two, only say that
a doctor will be notified. It does not say that a doctor has the final say on
whether someone can be transferred or not. That is not in the CDC guidelines,
period. And for the previous speaker, with all due respect, when you say that
we shouldn’t be setting this policy, that’s exactly what you’re doing in this
bill. We are saying directly in this legislation that nobody—not the doctor,
not the family, not the resident, not LARA, not the CDC—anyone has any say
whether that person can be in a nursing home any longer except for this body.
We are making the medical decision here on the floor of the Michigan State
Senate.
So to
be clear again, if you do not want people who test positive to be placed in an
ambulance without their families notice, without a doctor actually being
involved in the decision, and transported to God knows where, you have to
support this amendment. Period. If not, you are saying that the doctor has no
say in this process. And that it is a legal requirement—not a request, a
requirement—that they be removed from the nursing home. No timeline given in the
bill by the way either. So they need to automatically immediately be removed
regardless of what the doctor’s actual recommendations are. It makes no sense.
In fact under this bill if a doctor recommends they stay in the nursing home,
they can’t. So this requires us to violate the doctor’s notice as well. The
Michigan Senate doesn’t have that power. It is a ridiculous read of the
Constitution to think that we do. So again, I ask you to pass a very simple
amendment that says that a doctor has the ability to review a patient and make
sure they are okay to transfer. It is a reasonable request and I ask for a “yes”
vote on my amendment.
Senator
Santana’s statement is as follows:
My
amendment is simple. It requires the Department of Health and Human Services to
work in consultation with the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs in
conducting the regional hub evaluation and developing a plan for safely
cohorting residents. Given that LARA is the regulatory agency that licenses and
inspects nursing homes, it only makes sense that they would also be at the
table.
In
hearings before the Senate Oversight Committee on executive orders related to
nursing homes, both Director Gordon as well as Director Hawks commented on the
collaborative nature of their relationship as it relates to improving
conditions in nursing homes. While we have a long way to go as a state in
addressing the safety of our nursing home population, the two departments have
made several improvements to date as a result of this partnership, such as
mandatory testing, a clearer executive order—Executive Order No. 2020‑123—more
robust collection of nursing home data, and increased compliance with case
reporting. They should continue these collaborative efforts going forward.
I ask
for your support.
Senator
Brinks’ statement is as follows:
My
amendment would require that the department, as part of their plan, notify a
resident, their family, or their representative if they are going be
transferred to another facility. This amendment would also give the resident
and their family a say in the matter of which facility they are transferred to,
and require that an appeals process be established for those residents.
Informed
consent is an integral part of patient care. If a facility wants to transfer a
patient, the patient and their family should be given the opportunity to make
an informed decision about whether or not the transfer is in the best interest
of their loved one. The patient and their loved ones should be given the chance
to be apprised of all the risks facing the patient, including the risks
attributed to a transfer as addressed in the Hertel amendment.
Let’s
also not forget that these facilities are the homes of these residents, and
according to AARP, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the
Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, transfer trauma is a very real
problem in the nursing home community. The idea of shipping residents to
different facilities without their consent is frankly dehumanizing. It presents
the potential to define a person simply by their COVID-19-positive status and
it can have dangerous consequences.
For
most of these patients, COVID-19 is not their only health issue. This is why
they’re in nursing homes to begin with. They need help—they need help with
daily living, they need help with daily care, they have other emerging mental
health and physical health issues, and those things need to be considered and
they need to have family members and their caregivers consulted in any decision
related to their care.
While I
appreciate the intent of this legislation to put the health of nursing homes
and residents first and to prevent unnecessary exposure to COVID-19 in healthy
patients, we simply cannot do what this bill is attempting to do with wanton
disregard for the health and well-being and the rights of these patients who do
test positive for COVID-19.
I ask
you to join me in supporting this common-sense amendment that protects the
rights of nursing home residents.
Senator
Lucido’s second statement is as follows:
Members
of this body, I’ve said it and I’ll keep on saying it: that we have a CDC and
we update those guidelines. I’ve had the privilege of having my daughter work
in Atlanta, Georgia for the CDC and in addition she’s now at the World Health
Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. These policies are what these states are
following—not just ours, but every one. And they are on a continuous rolling
pattern as time goes on. And there’s a reason we don’t know much about COVID.
That’s why I supported Senator Santana’s amendment because when LARA and MDHHS
are working in tandem and in consideration of the licensee and the policies,
the best outcomes will happen. I ask for your support on my amendment.
Senator
Nesbitt’s statement is as follows:
I rise
today in strong support of Senate Bill No. 956. I rise to support the
still-unknown number of Michigan families who have lost loved ones to COVID-19
in nursing homes and long-term care facilities here in this state
unnecessarily.
Mr.
President, our Governor, her administration, and some of my colleagues across
the aisle insist that questions about the tragic policy of sending
COVID-19-positive patients to nursing homes are somehow second-guessing. But it’s
their policy that sent them there, and we’re getting blamed? It’s ridiculous.
The Department of Health and Human Services director brushed off questions by
saying hindsight is 20/20. Our Governor said she wishes she had a time machine
now that she knows more. Mr. President, nobody needed 20/20 hindsight or a
DeLorean to go back in time to understand that COVID-19 preys on the elderly
and those with pre-existing conditions. And where do a lot of elderly with
pre-existing conditions live?
All
they needed to do was read their mail. Just days after COVID-19 arrived in
Michigan, nursing home experts here in Michigan warned our Governor against
bringing recovering patients back to their facilities. She ignored them, and we
still don’t know how many paid the ultimate price because of these policies.
I pray
for their families and I urge support for this bill to ensure it never happens
again.
Senator
Bayer’s second statement is as follows:
I just
want to say, as a person who is going through this my family is shredded right
now as we’re watching our mom and the damage to her—the trauma that she went
through, this stuff that just happened to her without any notification—just all
of a sudden yanked and moved somewhere else and not understanding what’s going
on and see her decay over the last few weeks, we don’t have to do it this way.
I do agree that we need to fix some things. Why don’t we take the time to do it
correctly? We don’t have to hurt the people who are there. I know we need to
fix some stuff, but come on. These are our families we’re talking about. Let’s
take another minute and do this the right way. I urge you to vote “no.”
Senator
Lucido’s third statement is as follows:
This
bill is for the benefit of those who cannot be admitted into a hospital. These
are the ones who don’t meet the threshold for a hospital. Those individuals
this bill is aimed to protect, it’s both in nursing homes, we want to protect
them too and we want to save lives. I wish they could speak for themselves,
then they wouldn’t need a legislator to speak for them here on the Senate
floor. I truly wish that their families could do the speaking for them, but
unfortunately they’re barred from even visiting them face-to-face in a nursing
home. So, our job today is to go ahead and do what we need to do as legislators
and be proactive to a policy that has failed.
First
of all, from the earliest days of this pandemic, we learned about the virus and
the effects on the elderly. Nobody can deny that. Even before our Governor
issued the executive order to put COVID-19 patients in the nursing home
facilities, there were objections and warnings that were clearly made by all of
us in here, especially the Health Care Association of Michigan which represents
over 350 nursing homes and rehabilitation facilities in the state. If I’m going
to take advice from somebody, I’m going to take advice from the people who
actually are doing the jobs for those with boots on the ground in the nursing
homes. Those are the individuals I care about. HCAM sent a letter to our
Governor and her esteemed health care team on March 13, clearly asking the
Governor to specifically locate COVID-19 positive nursing home patients in
vacant or new facilities to prevent the spread of the virus in existing
facilities. That advice should have been taken by our Governor and her entire
team, but the Governor ignored the recommendations of the nursing home
professionals and issued her executive orders anyway.
Now,
for some yet-unknown reason, state officials made these decisions to bring
COVID-19 patients into the facilities with disastrous results. I don’t even
know how to begin to tell you that as you consider the escalation of the
numbers, no one took the time to say, stop, enough. Cease, desist. No, that
didn’t happen, but it happened in other states. They stopped it. Despite the
inherent risk to the elderly population, the state gave these facilities an
extra $5,000 for each approved bed made available for COVID-19 patients, as
well as $200 per day for any of the occupied beds. We gave incentives. This was
on top of the additional funding that the hubs received for patient care, then
on top of that, we gave immunity from COVID-19-related lawsuits. I don’t
understand how these orders—because I don’t see any science and data that can
correct this.
Despite
the risk to health and life, the state of Michigan went even further. They
incentivized bringing COVID-19 patients into nursing homes. They sweetened the
deal. Well, what happened? More than one‑third of the Michigan
COVID-19-related deaths occurred at the nursing homes, and to date I really don’t
even know if that’s the number because we weren’t provided with any science or
data on those numbers. You know, the elderly are the most vulnerable people and
in the nursing homes they go because they need to be nursed to care, to be
taken care of. By the state’s own admission, that’s exactly what happened—the
deaths were caused as a result of the spread of COVID-19.
Read
the news. You’ll hear the stories of so many families who have lost vulnerable,
elderly loved ones because of the Governor’s decision and apathy. We also heard
similar stories from families during the committee testimony on this bill.
I can
tell you this—as of today, I’m still appalled that this has happened
Senator
Runestad’s statement is as follows:
I just
wanted to also rise and just relate some of the same concerns that the sponsor
has with this deadly situation, this deadly disease, that was made by the
Governor, and a real contrast to what occurred in Michigan is what occurred in
the state of Florida.
Florida
has about 150,000 nursing home patients; Michigan has about 38,000. So they
have vastly more patients and what happened with the death rate in Florida
versus Michigan? In Florida, they had 1,637 deaths; Michigan with way less
patients—about one-fourth—had 1,947 deaths. On top of that, Florida counts
other facilities like assisted living in their numbers. We don’t. On top of
that, the health department in Detroit said it’s probably an undercount, our
numbers, here in Michigan. We’ve had the toughest time even getting accurate
numbers. So, Florida with a vastly-higher number of patients and a better
count—a larger count including assisted living—had less deaths than the state
of Michigan.
How did
it happen? What did they do differently? They did just as Senator Lucido
described. They had facilities set aside—either facilities that were closed or
unutilized—and all the infected patients went to those facilities, so they were
not putting infected patients in with non-affected patients like the state of
Michigan did. It was a deadly decision here in the state of Michigan for our
most vulnerably, infirm individuals here in the state of Michigan. The nursing
homes in Michigan asked for this to be done and it was denied by the Governor.
This is
a bill that absolutely has to be passed right now to save and help protect
these seniors.
Senator
McMorrow’s statement is as follows:
I rise
to speak on this bill, particularly in the wake of my colleague referencing
Florida. As we look around at the COVID-19 situation in the state of Michigan,
it’s hard for some of us to remember what March felt like, when we saw photos
of bodies piled up in hospitals in Detroit, and when we had stories from our
residents about the devastating situations of losing family members. A friend
of mine lost both of his parents over the past week and a half to COVID-19. It’s
jarring to me that we would hold Florida up as an example because right now,
Michigan is leading the country in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Florida’s
cases are skyrocketing. This is a challenging situation, and I think we all
need to take the time to work together to figure out how we protect the most
vulnerable among us, but to call out a state like Florida as an example, I think,
is reckless and dangerous.
By
unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
General Orders
The
motion prevailed, and the President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist, designated
Senator McCann as Chairperson.
After
some time spent therein, the Committee arose; and the President, Lieutenant
Governor Gilchrist, having resumed the Chair, the Committee reported back to
the Senate, favorably and with a substitute therefor, the following bill:
House Bill No. 4217, entitled
A bill
to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public health code,” by amending sections 7333,
16221, 16221b, 16226, 17744, 17751, and 17754 (MCL 333.7333, 333.16221,
333.16221b, 333.16226, 333.17744, 333.17751, and 333.17754), section 7333 as
amended by 2018 PA 34, sections 16221 and 16226 as amended by 2018 PA 463,
section 16221b as added by 2017 PA 249, section 17744 as added by 2012 PA 209,
section 17751 as amended by 2017 PA 165, and section 17754 as amended by
2014 PA 525, and by adding section 17754a.
Substitute
(S-4)
House Bill No. 4546, entitled
A bill
to amend 2000 PA 258, entitled “Career and technical preparation act,” by
amending sections 3 and 4 (MCL 388.1903 and 388.1904), section 3 as amended by
2012 PA 132 and section 4 as amended by 2012 PA 133.
Substitute
(S-1)
The following are the amendments to the substitute recommended by the
Committee of the Whole:
1. Amend
page 5, line 21, after “by” by striking
out “his or her” and inserting “the”.
2. Amend
page 5, line 22, after “district” by
inserting “or state approved nonpublic
school in which he or she is enrolled”.
House Bill No. 4547, entitled
A bill
to amend 1996 PA 160, entitled “Postsecondary enrollment options act,” by
amending sections 3 and 4 (MCL 388.513 and 388.514), section 3 as amended by
2018 PA 11 and section 4 as amended by 2012 PA 134.
Substitute
(S-1)
The following are the amendments to the substitute recommended by the
Committee of the Whole:
1. Amend
page 3, line 11, after “in” by
striking out “a” and inserting “an eligible”.
2. Amend
page 3, line 15, after “by” by
striking out “his or her” and
inserting “the”.
3. Amend
page 3, line 16, after “district” by
inserting “or state approved nonpublic school
in which he or she is enrolled”.
4. Amend
page 6, line 19, after the first “student”
by inserting “and is not subject to the
limitation described in the immediately preceding sentence”.
5. Amend
page 6, line 20, after “by” by
striking out “his or her” and
inserting “the”.
6. Amend
page 6, line 20, after “district” by
inserting “or state approved nonpublic
school in which he or she is enrolled”.
By
unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Motions and Communications
House Bill No. 4217
House Bill No. 4546
House Bill No. 4547
The motion prevailed, a majority of the
members serving voting therefor.
By
unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following
bills:
House Bill No. 4217
House Bill No. 4546
House Bill No. 4547
The
motion prevailed.
The
following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4217, entitled
A bill to amend 1978 PA 368, entitled “Public
health code,” by amending section 17754 (MCL 333.17754), as amended by 2014 PA
525, and by adding section 17754a.
The
question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor,
as follows:
Roll Call No.
230 Yeas—35
Alexander Hertel MacGregor Schmidt
Ananich Hollier McBroom Shirkey
Barrett Horn McCann Stamas
Bayer Irwin McMorrow Theis
Bizon Johnson Moss VanderWall
Brinks LaSata Nesbitt Victory
Bumstead Lauwers Outman Wojno
Chang Lucido Polehanki Zorn
Daley MacDonald Runestad
Nays—0
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—2
Geiss Santana
In The
Chair: President
The
question being on concurring in the committee recommendation to give the bill
immediate effect,
The recommendation was concurred in, 2/3 of
the members serving voting therefor.
Senator
MacGregor moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed.
The motion prevailed, a majority of the members
serving voting therefor.
The question being on the
passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor,
as follows:
Roll Call No.
231 Yeas—37
Alexander Hertel MacGregor Santana
Ananich Hollier McBroom Schmidt
Barrett Horn McCann Shirkey
Bayer Irwin McMorrow Stamas
Bizon Johnson Moss Theis
Brinks LaSata Nesbitt VanderWall
Bumstead Lauwers Outman Victory
Chang Lucido Polehanki Wojno
Daley MacDonald Runestad Zorn
Geiss
Nays—0
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of
the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to protect and promote the public
health; to codify, revise, consolidate, classify, and add to the laws relating
to public health; to provide for the prevention and control of diseases and
disabilities; to provide for the classification, administration, regulation,
financing, and maintenance of personal, environmental, and other health
services and activities; to create or continue, and prescribe the powers and
duties of, departments, boards, commissions, councils, committees, task forces,
and other agencies; to prescribe the powers and duties of governmental entities
and officials; to regulate occupations, facilities, and agencies affecting the
public health; to regulate health maintenance organizations and certain third
party administrators and insurers; to provide for the imposition of a
regulatory fee; to provide for the levy of taxes against certain health
facilities or agencies; to promote the efficient and economical delivery of
health care services, to provide for the appropriate utilization of health care
facilities and services, and to provide for the closure of hospitals or
consolidation of hospitals or services; to provide for the collection and use
of data and information; to provide for the transfer of property; to provide
certain immunity from liability; to regulate and prohibit the sale and offering
for sale of drug paraphernalia under certain circumstances; to provide for the
implementation of federal law; to provide for penalties and remedies; to
provide for sanctions for violations of this act and local ordinances; to
provide for an appropriation and supplements; to repeal certain acts and parts
of acts; to repeal certain parts of this act; and to repeal certain parts of
this act on specific dates,”.
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The
following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4546, entitled
A bill to amend 2000 PA 258, entitled “Career
and technical preparation act,” by amending sections 3 and 4 (MCL 388.1903 and
388.1904), section 3 as amended by 2012 PA 132 and section 4 as amended by 2012
PA 133.
The
question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor,
as follows:
Roll Call No.
232 Yeas—37
Alexander Hertel MacGregor Santana
Ananich Hollier McBroom Schmidt
Barrett Horn McCann Shirkey
Bayer Irwin McMorrow Stamas
Bizon Johnson Moss Theis
Brinks LaSata Nesbitt VanderWall
Bumstead Lauwers Outman Victory
Chang Lucido Polehanki Wojno
Daley MacDonald Runestad Zorn
Geiss
Nays—0
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
The
question being on concurring in the committee recommendation to give the bill
immediate effect,
The recommendation was concurred in, 2/3 of
the members serving voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of
the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to establish career and technical
preparation enrollment options for certain students enrolled in Michigan
schools; to prescribe certain duties of public schools, certain nonpublic
schools, and certain postsecondary institutions; to prescribe certain powers
and duties of certain state departments, officials, and agencies; and to repeal
acts and parts of acts,”.
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The
following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 4547, entitled
A bill to amend 1996 PA 160, entitled “Postsecondary
enrollment options act,” by amending sections 3 and 4 (MCL 388.513 and
388.514), section 3 as amended by 2018 PA 11 and section 4 as amended by 2012
PA 134.
The
question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor,
as follows:
Roll Call No.
233 Yeas—37
Alexander Hertel MacGregor Santana
Ananich Hollier McBroom Schmidt
Barrett Horn McCann Shirkey
Bayer Irwin McMorrow Stamas
Bizon Johnson Moss Theis
Brinks LaSata Nesbitt VanderWall
Bumstead Lauwers Outman Victory
Chang Lucido Polehanki Wojno
Daley MacDonald Runestad Zorn
Geiss
Nays—0
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
The
question being on concurring in the committee recommendation to give the bill
immediate effect,
The recommendation was concurred in, 2/3 of
the members serving voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of
the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to establish a postsecondary
enrollment options program for certain students enrolled in Michigan schools;
to prescribe certain duties of public schools, certain nonpublic schools, and
certain postsecondary institutions; to prescribe certain powers and duties of
certain state departments, officials, and agencies; and to repeal acts and
parts of acts,”.
The Senate agreed to the full title.
Recess
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate recess until 2:30 p.m.
The
motion prevailed, the time being 12:35 p.m.
By
unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Messages from the Governor
The
following message from the Governor was received:
Date: June 24, 2020
Time: 10:19 a.m.
To the President of the Senate:
Sir—I have this day approved and signed
Enrolled Senate Bill No. 940 (Public Act No. 96), being
An act to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “An act to provide for the
assessment of rights and interests, including leasehold interests, in property
and the levy and collection of taxes on property, and for the collection of
taxes levied; making those taxes a lien on the property taxed, establishing and
continuing the lien, providing for the sale or forfeiture and conveyance of
property delinquent for taxes, and for the inspection and disposition of lands
bid off to the state and not redeemed or purchased; to provide for the
establishment of a delinquent tax revolving fund and the borrowing of money by
counties and the issuance of notes; to define and limit the jurisdiction of the
courts in proceedings in connection with property delinquent for taxes; to
limit the time within which actions may be brought; to prescribe certain
limitations with respect to rates of taxation; to prescribe certain powers and
duties of certain officers, departments, agencies, and political subdivisions
of this state; to provide for certain reimbursements of certain expenses
incurred by units of local government; to provide penalties for the violation
of this act; and to repeal acts and parts of acts,” by amending section 7cc
(MCL 211.7cc), as amended by 2018 PA 633.
(Filed with the Secretary of State on June 24, 2020, at 11:17 a.m.)
Respectfully,
Gretchen
Whitmer
Governor
The following message from the Governor
was received on June 24, 2020, and read:
EXECUTIVE ORDER
No. 2020-131
Encouraging
the use of electronic signatures and remote notarization,
witnessing,
and visitation during the COVID-19 pandemic
Rescission
of Executive Order 2020-74
The novel coronavirus (COVID-19)
is a respiratory disease that can result in serious illness or death. It is
caused by a new strain of coronavirus not previously identified in humans and
easily spread from person to person. There is currently no approved vaccine or
antiviral treatment for this disease.
On March 10, 2020, the Department
of Health and Human Services identified the first two presumptive-positive
cases of COVID-19 in Michigan. On that same day, I issued Executive Order
2020-4. This order declared a state of emergency across the state of Michigan
under section 1 of article 5 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963, the Emergency
Management Act, 1976 PA 390, as amended (EMA), MCL 30.401 et seq., and the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act of 1945,
1945 PA 302, as amended (EPGA), MCL 10.31 et
seq.
Since then, the virus spread
across Michigan, bringing deaths in the thousands, confirmed cases in the tens
of thousands, and deep disruption to this state’s economy, homes, and
educational, civic, social, and religious institutions. On April 1, 2020, in
response to the widespread and severe health, economic, and social harms posed
by the COVID-19 pandemic, I issued Executive Order 2020-33. This order expanded
on Executive Order 2020-4 and declared both a state of emergency and a state of
disaster across the State of Michigan under section 1 of article 5 of the
Michigan Constitution of 1963, the Emergency Management Act, and the Emergency
Powers of the Governor Act of 1945. And on April 30, 2020, finding that
COVID-19 had created emergency and disaster conditions across the State of
Michigan, I issued Executive Order 2020-67 to continue the emergency
declaration under the EPA, as well as Executive Order 2020-68 to issue new
emergency and disaster declarations under the EMA.
Those
executive orders have been challenged in Michigan
House of Representatives and Michigan Senate v.
Whitmer. On
May 21, 2020, the Court of Claims ruled that Executive Order 2020-67 is a valid
exercise of authority under the Emergency Powers of the Governor Act but that
Executive Order 2020-68 is not a valid exercise of authority under the
Emergency Management Act. Both of those rulings are being challenged on appeal.
On June 18, 2020, I issued
Executive Order 2020-127, again finding that the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes
a disaster and emergency throughout the State of Michigan. That order
constituted a state of emergency declaration under the Emergency Powers of the
Governor Act of 1945. And, to the extent the governor may declare a state of
emergency and a state of disaster under the Emergency Management Act when
emergency and disaster conditions exist yet the legislature had declined to
grant an extension request, that order also constituted a state of emergency
and state of disaster declaration under that act.
The Emergency Powers of the
Governor Act provides a sufficient legal basis for issuing this executive
order. In relevant part, it provides that, after declaring a state of
emergency, “the governor may promulgate reasonable orders, rules, and
regulations as he or she considers necessary to protect life and property or to
bring the emergency situation within the affected area under control.” MCL
10.31(1).
Nevertheless, subject to the
ongoing litigation and the possibility that current rulings may be overturned
or otherwise altered on appeal, I also invoke the Emergency Management Act as a
basis for executive action to combat the spread of COVID-19 and mitigate the
effects of this emergency on the people of Michigan, with the intent to
preserve the rights and protections provided by the EMA. The EMA vests the
governor with broad powers and duties to “cop[e] with dangers to this state or
the people of this state presented by a disaster or emergency,” which the
governor may implement through “executive orders, proclamations, and directives
having the force and effect of law.” MCL 30.403(1)–(2). This executive order
falls within the scope of those powers and duties, and to the extent the
governor may declare a state of emergency and a state of disaster under the
Emergency Management Act when emergency and disaster conditions exist yet the
legislature has not granted an extension request, they too provide a sufficient
legal basis for this order.
To mitigate the spread of
COVID-19, protect the public health, and provide essential protections to
vulnerable Michiganders, it is crucial that all Michiganders limit in-person
contact to the fullest extent possible. This includes social distancing and
minimizing in-person work and interaction to only that which is strictly
necessary. To that end, it is reasonable and necessary to provide limited and
temporary relief from certain rules and requirements so as to enable and
encourage the use of electronic signatures, remote notarizations, remote
witness attestations and acknowledgments, and remote visitations. This will
help ensure that necessary transactions and interactions may continue to occur
during this time of crisis without unduly compromising the health and safety of
this state and its residents.
Executive Order 2020-41 provided
that relief, and Executive Order 2020-74 extended and expanded it. This order
further extends that relief because it remains reasonable and necessary in
light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. With this order, Executive Order
2020-74 is rescinded.
Acting under the Michigan
Constitution of 1963 and Michigan law, I order the following:
1. Strict
compliance with rules and procedures under the Uniform Electronic Transactions
Act (“UETA”), 2000 PA 305, as amended, MCL 450.831 et seq., and the Uniform Real Property Electronic Recording Act (“URPERA”),
2010 PA 123, as amended, MCL 565.841 et
seq., is temporarily suspended to the extent necessary to permit the use of
an electronic signature for a transaction whenever a signature is required
under Michigan law, unless the law specifically mandates a physical signature.
As provided in section 7 of the UETA, MCL 450.837, a signature will not be
denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form
and if a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.
2. Strict
compliance with rules and procedures under section 18 of the UETA, MCL 450.848,
is temporarily suspended so as to permit each state department to send and
accept electronic records and electronic signatures to and from other persons
without a determination from or approval by the Department of Technology,
Management and Budget.
3. Strict
compliance the Michigan Law on Notarial Acts, 2003 PA 238, as amended, MCL
55.261 et seq., is temporarily
suspended, to the extent it requires a notary to be in the physical presence of
an individual seeking the notary’s services or of any required witnesses.
4. To
minimize in-person interaction and facilitate remote work during the declared
states of emergency and disaster:
(a) Governmental
agencies and officials of this state are encouraged to use or permit the use of
electronic records and electronic signatures for transaction of business,
processing of applications, and recognition of the validity of legal
instruments, and, when a notarized signature is mandated by law, to use a
remote electronic notary pursuant to the Michigan Law on Notarial Acts, MCL
55.261 et seq.
(b) Persons
and entities engaged in transactions are encouraged to use electronic records
and electronic signatures and, when a notarized signature is mandated by law,
to use a remote electronic notary pursuant to the Michigan Law on Notarial
Acts, MCL 55.261 et seq.
5. In
addition to other means available by law, any notarial act that is required
under Michigan law may be performed by a notary who currently holds a valid
notarial commission in this state (“notary”) utilizing two-way real-time
audiovisual technology, provided that all of the following conditions are met:
(a) The
two-way real-time audiovisual technology must allow direct interaction between
the individual seeking the notary’s services, any witnesses, and the notary,
wherein each can communicate simultaneously by sight and sound through an
electronic device or process at the time of the notarization.
(b) The
two-way real-time audiovisual technology must be capable of creating an audio
and visual recording of the complete notarial act and such recording must be
made and retained as a notarial record in accordance with sections 26b(7) to
26b(9) of the Michigan Law on Notarial Acts, MCL 55.286b(7) to 55.286b(9).
(c) The
individual seeking the notary’s services and any required witnesses, if not
personally known to the notary, must present satisfactory evidence of identity
(e.g., a valid state-issued photo identification) to the notary during the
video conference, not merely transmit it prior to or after the transaction, to
satisfy the requirements of the Michigan Law on Notarial Acts, MCL 55.261 et seq., and any other applicable law.
(d) The
individual seeking the notary’s services must affirmatively represent either that
the individual is physically situated in this state, or that the individual is
physically located outside the geographic boundaries of this state and that
either:
(1) The document is intended for filing with or
relates to a matter before a court, governmental entity, public official, or
other entity subject to the jurisdiction of this state; or
(2) The document involves property located in the
territorial jurisdiction of this state or a transaction substantially connected
to this state.
If an individual is physically
located outside of the geographic boundaries of this state, the notary must
have no actual knowledge that the individual’s act of making the statement or
signing the document is prohibited by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the
individual is physically located.
(e) The
individual seeking the notary’s services, any required witnesses, and the
notary must be able to affix their signatures to the document in a manner that
renders any subsequent change or modification of the remote online notarial act
to be tamper evident.
(f) The
individual seeking the notary’s services or the individual’s designee must
transmit by fax, mail, or electronic means a legible copy of the entire signed
document directly to the notary on the same date it was signed. This
requirement shall apply regardless of the manner in which the document is
signed.
(g) Once
the notary has received a legible copy of the document with all necessary
signatures, the notary may notarize the document and transmit the notarized document
back to the individual seeking the notary’s services.
(h) The
official date and time of the notarization shall be the date and time when the
notary witnesses the signature via two-way real-time audiovisual technology as
required under this section.
6. Any
requirement under Michigan law that an in-person witness attest to or
acknowledge an instrument, document, or deed may be satisfied by the use of
two-way real-time audiovisual technology, provided that all of the following
conditions are met:
(a) The
two-way real-time audiovisual technology must allow direct, contemporaneous
interaction by sight and sound between the individual signing the document (the
“signatory”) and the witness(es).
(b) The
interaction between the signatory and the witness(es) must be recorded and
preserved by the signatory or the signatory’s designee for a period of at least
three years, unless a law of this state requires a different period of
retention.
(c) The
signatory must affirmatively represent either that the signatory is physically
situated in this state, or that the signatory is physically located outside the
geographic boundaries of this state and that either of the following apply:
(1) The document is intended for filing with or
relates to a matter before a court, governmental entity, public official, or
other entity subject to the jurisdiction of this state; or
(2) The document involves property located in the
territorial jurisdiction of this state or a transaction substantially connected
to this state.
(d) The
signatory must affirmatively state during their interaction with the
witness(es) on the two-way real-time audiovisual technology what document they
are executing.
(e) Each
title page and signature page of the document being witnessed must be shown to
the witness(es) on the two-way real-time audiovisual technology in a manner
clearly legible to the witness(es), and every page of the document must be
numbered to reflect both the page number of the document and the total number
of pages of the document.
(f) Each
act of signing the document must be captured sufficiently up close on the
two-way real-time audiovisual technology for the witness(es) to observe.
(g) The
signatory or the signatory’s designee must transmit by fax, mail, or electronic
means a legible copy of the entire signed document directly to the witness(es)
within 72 hours of when it is executed.
(h) Within
72 hours of receipt, the witness(es) must sign the transmitted copy of the
document as a witness and return the signed copy of the document to the
signatory or the signatory’s designee by fax, mail, or electronic means.
7. Notwithstanding
any law or regulation of this state to the contrary, absent an express
prohibition in the document against signing in counterparts, any document signed
under this order may be signed in counterparts.
8. A
guardian, guardian ad litem, or visitor may satisfy any requirement concerning
a visit with a person, including but not limited to a visit in the physical
presence of a person under the Estates and Protected Individuals Code, 1998 PA
386, as amended, MCL 700.1101 et seq.,
by instead conferring with that person via two-way real-time audiovisual
technology that allows direct, contemporaneous interaction by sight and sound
between the person being visited and the guardian, guardian ad litem, or
visitor.
9. Any
law of this state requiring an individual to appear personally before or be in
the presence of either a notary at the time of a notarization or a witness at
the time of attestation or acknowledgment shall be satisfied if the individual,
the witness(es), and/or the notary are not in the physical presence of each
other but can communicate simultaneously by sight and sound via two-way
real-time audiovisual technology at the time of the notarization, attestation,
or acknowledgment.
10. For
the duration of this order and any order that may follow from it, financial
institutions and registers of deeds must not refuse to record a tangible copy
of an electronic record on the ground that it does not bear the original
signature of a person, witness, or notary, if the notary before whom it was
executed certifies that the tangible copy is an accurate copy of the electronic
record.
11. Strict
compliance with section 9(2) of the Michigan Law on Notarial Acts, as amended,
MCL 55.269(2), is temporarily suspended to the extent necessary to extend until
July 31, 2020 the validity of a notarial commission that expired or is set to
expire between March 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020.
12. For
purposes of the “verified user agreement” requirement of section 4 of the
URPERA, MCL 565.844(4), a county recording office must deem all financial
institutions and all licensed title insurers or their employed or contracted
settlement agents as covered by a verified user agreement for the duration of
this order and any order that may follow from it. The recorder may ask the
financial institution or title insurance company for verification of a notary’s
employment or contractual association.
13. As
used in this order:
(a) “Electronic,”
“electronic record,” “electronic signature,” “governmental agency,” “person,”
and “transaction” mean those terms as defined under section 2 of the UETA, MCL
450.832.
(b) “Financial
institution” means that term as defined in section 4(c) of the Michigan Strategic
Fund Act, 1984 PA 270, as amended, MCL 125.2004(c).
14. This
order is effective immediately and continues through July 31, 2020 at 11:59
p.m.
Given under my hand and the Great
Seal of the State of Michigan.
Date: June 24, 2020
Time: 1:18 p.m.
Gretchen
Whitmer
[SEAL] Governor
By
the Governor:
Jocelyn
Benson
Secretary
of State
The executive order was referred to the
Committee on Government Operations.
By
unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Motions and Communications
House Bill No. 5761
House Bill No. 5810
Senate Bill No. 943
The motion prevailed, a majority of the
members serving voting therefor.
By unanimous consent the Senate
returned to the order of
General
Orders
The
motion prevailed, and the President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist, designated
Senator McCann as Chairperson.
After
some time spent therein, the Committee arose; and the President, Lieutenant
Governor Gilchrist, having resumed the Chair, the Committee reported back to
the Senate, favorably and with a substitute therefor, the following bill:
House Bill No. 5761, entitled
A bill
to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” by amending
section 78a (MCL 211.78a), as amended by 2014 PA 499, and by adding section
44e.
Substitute
(S-1)
House Bill No. 5810, entitled
A bill
to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” (MCL 211.1 to
211.155) by adding section 44f.
Substitute
(S-1)
Senate Bill No. 943, entitled
A bill
to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” by amending
section 78a (MCL 211.78a), as amended by 2014 PA 499, and by adding section
44e.
Substitute
(S-1)
Recess
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate recess subject to the call of the Chair.
The
motion prevailed, the time being 2:43 p.m.
The
Senate was called to order by the President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist.
By
unanimous consent the Senate returned to the order of
Motions and Communications
House Bill No. 5761
House Bill No. 5810
Senate Bill No. 943
The motion prevailed, a majority of the
members serving voting therefor.
By unanimous
consent the Senate returned to the order of
Third Reading of Bills
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate proceed to consideration of the following
bills:
House Bill No. 5761
House Bill No. 5810
Senate Bill No. 943
The
motion prevailed.
The
following bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5761, entitled
A bill to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The
general property tax act,” by amending section 78a (MCL 211.78a), as amended by
2014 PA 499, and by adding section 44e.
The
question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor,
as follows:
Roll Call No.
234 Yeas—33
Alexander Irwin McCann Schmidt
Barrett Johnson McMorrow Shirkey
Bayer LaSata Moss Stamas
Bizon Lauwers Nesbitt Theis
Brinks Lucido Outman VanderWall
Bumstead MacDonald Polehanki Victory
Daley MacGregor Runestad Wojno
Geiss McBroom Santana Zorn
Horn
Nays—4
Ananich Chang Hertel Hollier
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
Senator
MacGregor moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members
serving voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of
the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to provide for the assessment of
rights and interests, including leasehold interests, in property and the levy
and collection of taxes on property, and for the collection of taxes levied;
making those taxes a lien on the property taxed, establishing and continuing
the lien, providing for the sale or forfeiture and conveyance of property
delinquent for taxes, and for the inspection and disposition of lands bid off
to the state and not redeemed or purchased; to provide for the establishment of
a delinquent tax revolving fund and the borrowing of money by counties and the
issuance of notes; to define and limit the jurisdiction of the courts in
proceedings in connection with property delinquent for taxes; to limit the time
within which actions may be brought; to prescribe certain limitations with
respect to rates of taxation; to prescribe certain powers and duties of certain
officers, departments, agencies, and political subdivisions of this state; to
provide for certain reimbursements of certain expenses incurred by units of
local government; to provide penalties for the violation of this act; and to
repeal acts and parts of acts,”.
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The following
bill was read a third time:
House Bill No. 5810, entitled
A bill to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The
general property tax act,” (MCL 211.1 to 211.155) by adding section 44f.
The
question being on the passage of the bill,
The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor,
as follows:
Roll Call No.
235 Yeas—33
Alexander Irwin McCann Schmidt
Barrett Johnson McMorrow Shirkey
Bayer LaSata Moss Stamas
Bizon Lauwers Nesbitt Theis
Brinks Lucido Outman VanderWall
Bumstead MacDonald Polehanki Victory
Daley MacGregor Runestad Wojno
Geiss McBroom Santana Zorn
Horn
Nays—4
Ananich Chang Hertel Hollier
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—0
In The
Chair: President
Senator
MacGregor moved that the bill be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members
serving voting therefor.
Pursuant to Joint Rule 20, the full title of
the act shall be inserted to read as follows:
“An act to provide for the assessment of
rights and interests, including leasehold interests, in property and the levy
and collection of taxes on property, and for the collection of taxes levied;
making those taxes a lien on the property taxed, establishing and continuing
the lien, providing for the sale or forfeiture and conveyance of property
delinquent for taxes, and for the inspection and disposition of lands bid off
to the state and not redeemed or purchased; to provide for the establishment of
a delinquent tax revolving fund and the borrowing of money by counties and the
issuance of notes; to define and limit the jurisdiction of the courts in
proceedings in connection with property delinquent for taxes; to limit the time
within which actions may be brought; to prescribe certain limitations with
respect to rates of taxation; to prescribe certain powers and duties of certain
officers, departments, agencies, and political subdivisions of this state; to
provide for certain reimbursements of certain expenses incurred by units of
local government; to provide penalties for the violation of this act; and to
repeal acts and parts of acts,”.
The Senate agreed to the full title.
The
following bill was read a third time:
Senate Bill No. 943, entitled
A bill to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The
general property tax act,” by amending section 78a (MCL 211.78a), as amended by
2014 PA 499, and by adding sections 44e and 44f.
The
question being on the passage of the bill,
The
bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Roll Call No. 236 Yeas—33
Alexander Irwin McCann Schmidt
Barrett Johnson McMorrow Shirkey
Bayer LaSata Moss Stamas
Bizon Lauwers Nesbitt Theis
Brinks Lucido Outman VanderWall
Bumstead MacDonald Polehanki Victory
Daley MacGregor Runestad Wojno
Geiss McBroom Santana Zorn
Horn
Nays—4
Ananich Chang Hertel Hollier
Excused—1
Bullock
Not
Voting—0
In The Chair: President
Senator MacGregor moved that the bill
be given immediate effect.
The motion prevailed, 2/3 of the members serving voting therefor.
The Senate agreed to the title of the
bill.
By unanimous consent the Senate
proceeded to the order of
Statements
The motion prevailed.
Senator
McMorrow’s statement is as follows:
We are
nearing the end of June. June is widely recognized as Pride Month, a month when
we recognize and celebrate the members of the LGBTQ community. It has been
disappointing to say the least that my colleague, Senator Jeremy Moss, has
introduced a resolution to recognize June as Pride Month six years in a row and
that that hasn’t been adopted.
I want
to share a story that a friend shared with me recently out of the state of
Montana where my friends live and though he and his wife are a straight couple,
they hung a pride flag on their house this year. He posted a picture and story
of the note that was left on his house by somebody who said that as a queer
resident in a community in a very conservative community in Montana, how moving
it was to see a pride flag in their community and that for the first time in
their life, this resident—not knowing my friends—felt welcome and seen. My
friends responded and posted the picture online and said, if the person who
posted this note sees this, you’re welcome anytime for a beer. And that’s how
community starts.
By
refusing to adopt this resolution for the sixth year in a row, it sends a
message from the state of Michigan that you’re not welcome and you’re not seen.
And as my colleague pointed out earlier, we recognize Craft Beer Week and Dairy
Foods Day. We’ve even recognized private companies here in this chamber. We’ve
recognized McDonald’s and Biggby for their contributions to the state, but for
six years running, we haven’t recognized the thousands of members of the LGBTQ
community who are Michiganders who are our friends and neighbors and family
members who just want to feel seen and acknowledged and heard.
My hope
before we leave here this week is that we will adopt this resolution and send
the message to all of our friends and neighbors and family members—even those
who we may not know are members of the LGBTQ community—that we see you and we
love you and you are welcome.
Senator
Polehanki’s statement is as follows:
Today I
have a greenback on my desk available for co-sponsorship. This concurrent
resolution urges the United States Department of Education to waive the federal
mandates for standardized tests for the 2020‑2021 school year. Our
resolution requests waivers for the M-STEP test given to students in grades K‑8
and the 8th grade PSAT test. Last week Republican Governor Brian Kemp requested
a similar waiver for the state of Georgia.
Standardized
tests are already grueling and time-consuming. After a long hiatus of in-person
instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic, parents are yearning for their kids
to have meaningful facetime with their teachers and as much precious in-person
instructional time as possible in order to recapture lost learning and move
forward to new learning. However, social distancing in schools may require
mitigation strategies like staggered scheduling or significantly reduced
capacity in testing rooms and computer labs. This will double or can even
quadruple the amount of time needed to administer state or federally-mandated
standardized tests.
Instead, schools need flexibility to serve the needs of
students that a strict and onerous testing regimen does not
allow for. The M-STEP is a federally-mandated summative test that captures
student learning at one point in time. It does nothing to drive instruction and
monitor progress in real time like a formative or benchmark test would do. And
unfortunately connectivity issues and academic integrity issues make
standardized testing from home currently untenable. Moreover, using test data
for accountability purpose during the massive disruption that this pandemic has
caused is unfair to students and educators.
Finally,
in a time of budget uncertainty, the millions of tax dollars spent on
standardized tests could be reprioritized to support the unique needs of
students in this unprecedented time. I listened to the Speaker of the Michigan
House tell a local news reporter yesterday
We need to empower our local
school officials to make some of these decisions themselves. [W]hen we do that
and allow for that local flexibility, that’s when education will be at its
finest; not when every and answer and dictate is coming from Lansing. This may
be a surprise, but government doesn’t always have the answer, we need to trust
our local officials.
I
couldn’t agree more with the Speaker that our local school officials need for
us in Lansing to be flexible when it comes to state and federally mandated
standardized tests during a pandemic and that’s why I ask my colleagues to
co-sponsor this resolution.
Senator
Moss’ statement is as follows:
I’ve
got five more minutes this month to talk about this, and I’m begging for
respect in the chamber here. I want to share a true story from this weekend
that I’m still trying to digest. Like most of us, I’ve been finding respite
from this health crisis in the many walks I’ve been taking around my
neighborhood and this past Sunday was no different. I think about if I had left
my house five minutes sooner or five minutes later or if the walk had been five
minutes longer or five minutes shorter, I would not have any incident to report
but that’s not what happened. Really, the timing was remarkable. As I was
walking up the side of my home on my way back inside, a guy around my age was
pushing a toddler in a stroller walking right in front of my house, talking
loudly on his cell phone and right as I passed him to go up to my porch, he
blasted the person he was talking to saying, ‘I don’t want your kids to be
faggots.’ And he repeated it again about those faggot kids.
Got
your attention. There’s a lot to unpack there. Am I a victim? No, not really.
But am I aggrieved? Demoralized? Dehumanized? Yes. On my front lawn at my home
in my neighborhood in my city which itself just declared LGBT Pride Month in
the city for the first time. Moments like these, which every LGBTQ person
experiences, present a fight-or-flight moment. We all know that if we defend
ourselves against this type of language, the grievance will always be
flipped—it’s going to be us who are shoving homosexuality in their face. And if
we confront hateful language, we do face the very real risk of being victims of
hateful actions.
So I
didn’t do anything, and I’ve been sick in torture about it for three days. I
think about the kids. I have no idea what the other end of the phone call was
about, but these kids have been disparaged by an adult, that being gay is a bad
thing, so bad that they should be slurred for it. I feel bad for the toddler in
the stroller who has had no concept of what’s going on, but is being exposed to
homophobia right from the very beginning. This is a learned behavior, a learned
behavior that this Senate refuses to take a stand on. I wasn’t able to confront
this man, but I will use this platform to confront this institution.
I think
about my first personal experience of the Legislature promoting homophobia. I
was a legislative staffer in the House in 2011. The Civil Service Commission
had just granted same-sex partner benefits to state employees and the
Republican majority in the House quickly moved to strip the commission of its
authority. Many of you were there. One of the speeches on the floor is seared
into my memory nine years later. A Republican House member gave long remarks
that blasted the decision as attacking children. The infant mortality rate was
infused into his speech. I was 24 years old and that House member, along with
the vote of the House, sent a message that people like me were harming kids,
never mind the fact that homophobic neighbors that exist both now and then are
harming kids. I still carry that moment with me, how damaging it was to our
community for the Michigan Legislature to send that message. I vowed then and
there to make sure that our community had a voice in this institution, and
interestingly enough here I am now serving with that Republican House member in
this body today.
And I
will continue to push, just as I push every year, to declare June as LGBTQ
Pride Month and every year it’s rejected. Rejecting these resolutions is not
just the absence of recognition, it is an intentional act of injustice. We have
one more session day this month to declare June 2020 as LGBTQ Pride Month.
There’s no way to retroactively do it after tomorrow. It’s done; it’s gone. I’ve
spent this month talking about my community’s history of struggle, our value to
the state of Michigan, and our progress as we gain acceptance. If this
resolution does not pass, accept the fact—because I will—that you intentionally
reject it and sanction this type of behavior on my lawn and in neighborhoods
across the state for yet one more year. Don’t be silent. Pass Senate Resolution
No. 123.
Senator
Hollier’s statement is as follows:
Colleagues,
I just wanted to speak in support of my dear friend Senator Moss because he
called me this week and said he was reminded to speak and encouraged to do so
after I recounted a time when I was confronted by racism as an adult. And I
thought about my own role in this thing and my role as a father and my role as
a person and said I grew up doing the wrong thing. Too often people like me
stand and talk about what we should be doing better but we fail to talk about
what we’ve done wrong. I grew up wrong. When I grew up, it was perfectly
acceptable as little kids instead of saying something was bad or not cool, to
call it gay. I was a college student before I realized the error of my ways.
But I learned and I think the people in this chamber are generally good people
who want to do the right thing and want to take care of our constituents and
the residents of Michigan.
As my
colleague told me this story—this heartfelt story about how he was feeling—he
was like should he talk about it, how do you talk about it. How do you say this
is a problem without making people feel like you’re saying you’re the problem.
I can say I’m the problem. I don’t have to say you are. I am the problem in
this regard because I’m not stepping up to make sure that Jeremy doesn’t have
to—that we don’t have to have people stepping up to say that it’s unacceptable
to go off on each other. I’m raising a child and, God willing, another one
soon. As we talk about those kinds of things, we talk about what are we sewing
into our children. What are we raising? What are we doing? And this
week—tomorrow—we have an opportunity to say that we see you. I can’t tell you
how much that means to me. I had a conversation with one of my colleagues who I
share military service with and when I told him how much it meant to me that he
was willing to talk about Juneteenth on the Senate floor and that he was
probably the first Republican in the Senate to ever talk about what freedom
meant for Black people in the South post slavery in this chamber, it meant a
lot. And so I know resolutions don’t seem like a lot when they do not affect
your community. But sometimes they do and they mean so much to people who have
never gotten this kind of thing.
One of
my daughter’s daycare instructors watches Facebook Lives and he’s like ‘Man, I really
appreciate you talking about this.’ This is someone who takes care of my
daughter on a daily basis and I had no idea he was a member of the LGBTQ
community. But that day he heard me talking about it, he felt seen. He felt
taken care of. He felt appreciated. And I know that’s what we’re all here to
do. We’re all here to make sure that the people we see are taken care of. That
we take care of them. And this is an opportunity to say to one of our
colleagues, ‘I see you. I care about you and I want to make sure that you’re
valued in this community.’ That’s all it is. It doesn’t change how you feel
politically. It doesn’t change many other things. It says we see you and we
value you. And I hope that you all will be able to do that. Because I know how
much it meant to me when you did the same thing talking about Juneteenth. I
know how much it means to my constituents and to my community when we come
together as a body and say, ‘I see you. I value you and I respect who you are
as a person.’ We don’t have to caveat it with, ‘I agree or disagree with your
life decisions.’ We don’t have to caveat it with so many other things. All we
have to do is say, ‘I value you.’
And so,
Senator Moss, I value you and I know many of the members in this body do as
well. And whether we pass a resolution or not, I wanted to be on the record
that we value you. That we hear, we see, and we continue to support the work
that you’re doing. And as long as I’m here, I will continue to stand with you
on this regard, because as a cis-gender, heterosexual man that’s Black, it’s
very rare that I am in the position of power; that I am not in that space. And
in every moment that I have to do so, I will do the same. And I think that
that’s what being a legislator is about. It’s about recognizing the positions
that you have power over and doing everything you can to take care of the
people who don’t
Senator
Geiss’ statement is as follows:
It’s
really sad that we are at this moment here and I really feel the connection and
the intersectionality between the issues that Senator Moss is addressing, the
long-term denial of recognizing LGBTQ Month in the state of Michigan.
I feel
that in the same way that I feel the denial of this body to address the
incident that happened two months ago today. I want to reiterate what Jeremy
said. Moments like these that every LGBTQ person experiences present a
flight-or-fight moment—if we defend ourselves, it will be us who are shoving
homosexuality in their face; if we confront hateful language, we face a risk of
being a victim of hateful actions. I’m repeating that verbatim because I want
that to resonate. I want everyone to understand that when it comes to issues of
civil rights and human rights, we are in lockstep with one another because—as I’ve
experienced in this body and some of us others have experienced in this body—the
exact same thing can be said when we bring up issues of racism.
When we
bring up issues of racism and needing to address systemic, institutional
racism, we are then called the racists. When we want to bring up the issues of
the injustices of people who have been denied justice, of people who have been
ignored, we get significant pushback, which is so sad in this body where we are
charged to serve all the people of Michigan. It’s a slap in the face when we
who bring up issues of injustices continue to be ignored and denied. It is so
disrespectful. It’s an intentional denial of people’s human rights and civil
rights, the very things that we are charged with upholding of members of this
body, a body that allegedly serves everybody, not just the ones who look like
you or worship like you or love like you.
We have
an opportunity right here, right now, to do the right thing on many fronts,
seek our inner angels, and take up this resolution.
Senator
Brinks’ statement is as follows:
I will
keep it very brief and keep it very simple. You’ve heard moving stories and
anecdotes from my colleagues here today, particularly Senator Moss. I’ve been
in this Legislature just a couple of years longer than him and had a similar
experience of watching as this resolution gets introduced and referred to a
committee never to be seen again.
So, I
rise today just to express my support for Senator Moss and his bravery in
continuing to bring this before an unreceptive body of colleagues with whom we
all have to work every day and with whom we establish friendships and
relationships and hopefully are able to do some good work to serve the people
of Michigan.
I am
expressing my support not just for him as my friend here today but also because
we all have family members, neighbors, loved ones, community members, and
constituents who are members of the LGBTQ community and it is our
responsibility to ensure that every single Michigander is respected and every
single Michigander has the basic human rights that we expect to be afforded
ourselves by our fellow citizens. I guess I just want to urge each of you
to think about what you can do to ensure that every single person in Michigan
is valued and respected and treated with dignity and the integrity of this body
in assuring them of that.
It is a
very simple ask that we put before you today and that Senator Moss is
requesting of us—to move this resolution. We’re not asking you to pay for
anything, we’re not asking you to change the laws, we’re asking you simply to
say that this community has value and it is important and that we are willing
to stand up for them. I urge you to bring up Senate Resolution No. 123 and to
pass it.
Announcements of Printing and Enrollment
The
Secretary announced the enrollment printing and presentation to the Governor on
Tuesday, June 23 for her approval the following bill:
Enrolled Senate Bill No. 690 at 12:17
p.m.
The
Secretary announced that the following bills and resolutions were printed and
filed on Tuesday, June 23, and are available on the Michigan Legislature
website:
Senate
Bill Nos. 979 980 981
Senate
Concurrent Resolution No. 28
Senate
Resolution No. 128
House
Bills Nos. 5876 5877 5878 5879 5880 5881 5882 5883 5884 5885 5886 5887 5888 5889 5890 5891 5892 5893 5894 5895 5896 5897 5898
Committee Reports
The
Committee on Regulatory Reform reported
Senate
Bill No. 820, entitled
A bill
to amend 1998 PA 58, entitled “Michigan liquor control code of 1998,” by amending
section 517a (MCL 436.1517a), as amended by 2018 PA 472.
With
the recommendation that the bill pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Aric
Nesbitt
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Nesbitt, Theis, Johnson, Lauwers, VanderWall, Zorn, Moss, Polehanki
and Wojno
Nays:
None
The
bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Regulatory Reform reported
Senate
Bill No. 897, entitled
A bill
to amend 1998 PA 58, entitled “Michigan liquor control code of 1998,” by
amending section 536 (MCL 436.1536), as amended by 2019 PA 131.
With
the recommendation that the bill pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Aric
Nesbitt
Chairperson
To Report
Out:
Yeas:
Senators Nesbitt, Theis, Johnson, Lauwers, VanderWall, Zorn, Moss, Polehanki
and Wojno
Nays:
None
The
bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Regulatory Reform reported
House
Bill No. 5134, entitled
A bill
to amend 1966 PA 225, entitled “Carnival-amusement safety act of 1966,” by
amending section 10 (MCL 408.660), as amended by 2014 PA 163.
With
the recommendation that the bill pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Aric
Nesbitt
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Nesbitt, Theis, Johnson, Lauwers, VanderWall, Zorn, Moss, Polehanki
and Wojno
Nays:
None
The
bill was referred to the Committee of the Whole.
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The
Committee on Regulatory Reform submitted the following:
Meeting
held on Tuesday, June 23, 2020, at 3:00 p.m., Harry T. Gast Appropriations Room,
3rd Floor, Capitol Building
Present:
Senators Nesbitt (C), Theis, Johnson, Lauwers, VanderWall, Zorn, Moss,
Polehanki and Wojno
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
Senate
Bill No. 943, entitled
A bill
to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” by amending
section 78a (MCL 211.78a), as amended by 2014 PA 499, and by adding section
44e.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
House
Bill No. 5761, entitled
A bill
to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” by amending
section 78a (MCL 211.78a), as amended by 2014 PA 499, and by adding section
44e.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
The
Committee on Appropriations reported
House
Bill No. 5810, entitled
A bill
to amend 1893 PA 206, entitled “The general property tax act,” (MCL 211.1 to
211.155) by adding section 44f.
With
the recommendation that the substitute (S-1) be adopted and that the bill then
pass.
The
committee further recommends that the bill be given immediate effect.
Jim
Stamas
Chairperson
To
Report Out:
Yeas:
Senators Stamas, Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt and Victory
Nays:
None
The
bill and the substitute recommended by the committee were referred to the
Committee of the Whole.
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The
Committee on Appropriations submitted the following:
Meeting
held on Wednesday, June 24, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., Senate Hearing Room, Ground
Floor, Boji Tower
Present:
Senators Stamas (C), Bumstead, Barrett, Bizon, LaSata, MacDonald, MacGregor,
Nesbitt, Outman, Runestad, Schmidt, Victory, Hertel, Bayer, Hollier, Irwin,
McCann and Santana
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The
Committee on Education and Career Readiness submitted the following:
Meeting
held on Tuesday, June 23, 2020, at 12:00 noon, Room 403, 4th Floor, Capitol
Building
Present:
Senators Theis (C), Horn, Bumstead, Runestad, Daley, Polehanki and Geiss
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The
Committee on Energy and Technology submitted the following:
Joint
meeting held on Tuesday, June 23, 2020, at 1:00 p.m., Senate Hearing Room,
Ground Floor, Boji Tower
Present:
Senators Lauwers (C), Horn, LaSata, Nesbitt, Barrett, Bumstead, Outman, McCann,
Brinks and McMorrow
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The
Committee on Environmental Quality submitted the following:
Joint
meeting held on Tuesday, June 23, 2020, at 1:00 p.m., Senate Hearing Room,
Ground Floor, Boji Tower
Present:
Senators Outman (C), Daley, Johnson, VanderWall, McBroom, Bayer and Brinks
COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE REPORT
The
Committee on Oversight submitted the following:
Meeting
held on Tuesday, June 23, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., Room 403, 4th Floor, Capitol
Building
Present:
Senators McBroom (C), Lucido, Theis, MacDonald and Irwin
Scheduled Meetings
Advice
and Consent -
Thursday, June 25, 12:00 noon, Room 403, 4th Floor, Capitol Building (517) 373‑5312
Agriculture - Thursday, June 25, 8:30 a.m.,
Room 403, 4th Floor, Capitol Building (517) 373-1721
Energy
and Technology -
Wednesday, July 22, 3:00 p.m., Harry T. Gast Appropriations Room, 3rd Floor,
Capitol Building (517) 373-1721
Government
Operations -
Thursday, June 25, 9:00 a.m., Harry T. Gast Appropriations Room, 3rd Floor,
Capitol Building (517) 373-5307
Local
Government -
Thursday, June 25, 1:00 p.m., Harry T. Gast Appropriations Room, 3rd Floor,
Capitol Building (517) 373-5314
Senator
MacGregor moved that the Senate adjourn.
The
motion prevailed, the time being 3:19 p.m.
The
President, Lieutenant Governor Gilchrist, declared the Senate adjourned until
Thursday, June 25, 2020, at 10:00 a.m.
MARGARET O’BRIEN
Secretary of the Senate