Category Archives: general

Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Federal Workforce Bill

Posted on by

The Senate passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, H.R. 803 by a margin of 95-3, sending the bill back to the House for action as soon as the next week. WIOA reauthorizes the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 by retaining many positive aspects of the program, while updating and streamlining others in a positive way.

The bill maintains and enhances the role of local elected officials in their local workforce development programs and guarantees funding for the program for the next six years. In addition, the new components ensure the effectiveness of local one stop centers, by requiring a full range of partner organizations to locate in the one stop including unemployment insurance, veteran’s employment, adult education, welfare and other services. It also allows for the creation of regional workforce development areas based on labor markets rather than political jurisdictions, but only with the agreement of local elected officials.

Both Senators Stabenow and Levin supported the bill. The League will keep you updated on action on this issue in the House.

Summer Minnick is the Director of Policy Initiatives and Federal Affairs. She can be reached at 517-908-0301 or sminnick@mml.org.

 

 

How can this make sense?

Posted on by

One good thing about working in local government is just when you think that you have seen it all…surprise!  The latest “you have to be kidding moment” comes courtesy of the federal government.  They are proposing to make municipal bonds taxable as one of the ways to plug the holes in their budget.  The same municipal bonds that help local government to build critical infrastructure.

What’s especially interesting about this idea is it doesn’t just mean that investors pay more in taxes.  It has the added effect of raising the cost of every local infrastructure project in the United States of America!  That’s the same US of A that has identified so many deficiencies in local infrastructure that most consider it to ba a crisis, is now considering a way to make projects less viable and more costly.  Municipal bonds are currently funding over $3.7 trillion worth of essential infrastructure across the country. Ninety (90) percent of this amount went to improve schools, hospitals, water and sewer facilities, public power utilities, roads and public transit.

I recognize that the federal government has budget issues that are almost beyond definition, but this “solution” takes money away from local projects and throws it into the federal abyss.  Every dollar the feds will take in taxes, is one less dollar we have to maintain our communities. Is this really a step forward?

Mark me down as a no.

It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year

Posted on by

Can you feel it?  It’s the time of the year when Jack Frost starts to nip at our nose and we all dream of what could be.  No not the holidays silly.  The lame duck legislative session.  Every lame duck session is packed with action.  Lets be honest, its a time in the legislature when issues that have been debated at length, but languished because they are tough votes tend to move.  It’s part of the process.  What lame duck shouldn’t be used for is ramming through major policy changes that have not had the benefit of debate and our best collective thinking.  Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening with personal property tax(PPT) reform.

Just to be clear, I am not in favor of the PPT.  It’s a bad tax. It’s tough to administer and can be a disincentive to business investment.  That said, the reality is the PPT provides critical funding to vital local services like police, fire, parks and the like and they are already drastically underfunded. This means any reform must provide guaranteed replacement revenue.  The plan that is on the table attempts to provide replacement revenue but requires a statewide vote, potential local referendums, new levels of government,added bureaucracy, and the possibility of zero replacement revenue if votes fail.   Oh by the way, at this point we only have a plan outline.  We don’t even have bills to read.  So what we have on the table is a plan with more questions than answers.

So my question is what’s the rush?  If we all agree reform is necessary, why hurry such important tax policy changes without making it the best system we can?  We have toiled for years under a cobbled together tax system and that hasn’t exactly been working out so well.  There is too much at stake, and no reason to do this in the next two weeks.  Let’s start a new trend and focus on getting it right, not just getting it done.

With Liberty and Justice for All

Posted on by

The American model of democracy is the envy of the entire world.  One person, one vote, the pursuit of happiness, free speech, you know that sort of thing.  Here we have the chance to vote on issues that matter without fear that money or greed would influence our system, we can always rely on truthful information from all sides and gold at the end of every rainbow.

Well at least we have some of those things.

With the election rapidly approaching, I feel compelled to weigh in on Proposals 5 and 6. In my view, the impact of a yes vote would be devastating.   In case you have elected, no pun intended, to tune out to the messaging surrounding the proposals let me give a quick overview.  Proposal 5 would permit a minority in the legislature to prevent any change in taxes no matter the need or reason.  Proposal 6 would ensure that the only viable international trade crossing between Southeast Michigan and Canada is privately controlled held by a single individual.  Frankly one needs only follow the money to figure out who benefits and who doesn’t.

Proposal 5 is simply put the let minority rule proposal.  It boils down to this, even if 135 members of the Legislature voted in favor of closing a tax loophole, ending a special interest tax break, or raising or lowering a tax, just 13 senators could block it.  How hard do you think it would be for a billionaire to control the votes of just 13 state senators?  Sadly not very.  Imagine the power well funded special interests could wield if just 13 legislators could block a policy supported by the other 135 members of the House and Senate.  Scary stuff!  Not exactly what the founding fathers had in mind.

Proposal 6 seems so simple, let the “people” decide.  In reality this is the billionaire full employment act or the international free trade restriction proposal. The “people” in this case are a single family that have made a fortune controlling this international crossing. In a post 911 world, how can we rely on the whims of a single family to manage this critical trade route, which by the way was built 83 years ago?  More importantly the economic impact that would be provided by an additional crossing would be extraordinarily positive for southeast Michigan, just not for the ruling monarchy.  This region stands to benefit greatly from expanded import/export capacity in the form of jobs and investment.  There is only one beneficiary from not building an additional crossing, and it’s not you.

I think the choice is abundantly clear.  VOTE NO on Proposals 5 & 6

 

Fish can’t climb trees!

Posted on by

So if you’re like me, half your friends on Facebook post uplifting pics, sarcastic pics, stupid pics, people I would like to punch in the throat pics (okay I do like that one).  Most of the time I either ignore, chuckle, or shake my head as appropriate and move on to bigger and better things.  This one however resonated with me.

“Everybody is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid”  This made me wonder to myself, how many tree climbing fish do I know?  Or more importantly, how many fish am I trying to get to climb a tree?

How much energy might we be wasting trying to get conformity, or trying to get people to do something they are not wired to do?  The answer to that question might be scary.  Are the right people not on the bus, or are we putting them in the wrong seats?  As leaders we need to leverage our resources to maximize our output.  That is not going to be achieved with an extensive tree climbing training program for our fish, and I certainly don’t want to be judged by my ability to teach fish to climb.

Now if there isn’t a roll for fish in our organization, that is a different problem.  But we need to let the monkeys climb and let the fish swim. In other words, let people do what they do best. Leverage their skill sets to your mutual advantage. I regularly see marketing people struggle to produce a spreadsheet, and it falls short of the mark anyway.  If they had asked anyone in the finance department it would have been done in minutes, and done better.  Conversely, I can try and make an accountant artistic, or maybe I could let them do accounting.   Different skill sets, different roles perhaps?

Justin Verlander isn’t judged by his ability to play shortstop or hit a ball.  Barry Sanders wasn’t kept out of the hall of fame because he never kicked a field goal.  Are we judging our fish on their tree climbing?  I think that Big Al might be on to something.

 

Get by with a little help from your friends

Posted on by

I applaud the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan for making everyone a winner with the Belle Isle lease agreement.  The deal for the state to lease Belle Isle relieves the city of the substantial cost of maintaining the park, and opens the door for significant improvements to this tarnished gem making it an even greater asset to the city.  Residents and visitors to Detroit alike should be thrilled with this announcement as everyone stands to benefit.  So what lessons can we all take a way from this historic agreement?

Lesson one:  Put your good sense ahead of your pride.  It sounds easy, but that can be tough to do and takes a fair amount of courage.  This decision was not a slam dunk.  Not because it didn’t make sense, but because many felt that if the city doesn’t directly manage the park, then it must be a loss for the city. It wouldn’t have been a loss of money, improvements or access, those all improve.  None of that made the decision any less difficult.  Fortunately all involved had the vision to see that allowing the state to be a partner with the city improves Belle Isle for everyone.

Lesson two: Do what you do best.  Belle Isle is a major park that requires a huge continuing investment. Even though it is utilized by many folks outside the city, Detroit bore the full financial burden. In short Detroit was not set up to succeed on this one. The State has more resources, manages large parks, and is actually pretty good at it. The city is far better served by focusing their energy and financial wherewithal on other areas of the city’s operation. They can now put added emphasis on neighborhood parks, public safety or other key areas.

Lesson three:  The Stockdale paradox – Confront the brutal truth of the situation, yet at the same time never give up hope.  Like so many municipalities in Michigan, the City of Detroit is faced with some very difficult financial circumstances.  It serves no one’s purposes, especially your residents, to ignore the reality that we all face.  Confront it and utilize all the resources at your disposal to craft a plan that keeps your community moving forward.

My father always told me, “don’t cut off your nose to spite your face”, and it seems appropriate in this circumstance.  To have let this opportunity pass would have served no one.  We should all learn from the leadership shown here to be open to new ideas, even if that idea stings a little at first.  Maybe that idea is in the form of a partnership, or even a hand off.  If in the end our residents are better served, then we have done our job. Kudos all around!

The Big Disconnect

Posted on by

Once upon a time in a land far, far, away….Oh wait wrong fairly tale.  What am I talking about? The fact that not too long ago the provision ofr services in Michigan used to be a shared responsibility between state government and local government.  But, over the past decade or more what we have seen is a devolving of those responsibilities to primarily locals as the state has used nearly $5 billion meant for locals to fill its own budget hole.  As a result we’ve seen locals layoff police and fire personnel, close parks and libraries, and put off much need upgrades to important infrastructure such as local streets and sewers. At the same time, getting state government (governors and legislators) to come together on the need for additional revenues has been virtually impossible.  Take additional revenues to help fix our roads and bridges and support transit alternatives.  Even with federal dollars at stake, the legislature can’t seem to find a way to agree to something…anything that would bring such areas into the 21st century.

And yet, at the local level, residents are passing millage after millage to support any number of services.  As a matter of fact at the August election, 90% of all local millages were approved.  This included 100% of all public transit millage requests!   The story has been the same the past couple of years. In the August 2010 election, 86% of all millages were approved and in May of 2011 more than 80% were adopted.

So what’s the deal in the halls of Lansing or Washington?   Clearly, local voters are more than willing to support additional revenues for items when the case is made for specific services that add to our quality of life.  Lets just be sure that the next time we hear a state legislator say the public is against raising taxes to remind them of the reality.

Can you afford to cut training from your budget?

Posted on by

An all too frequent casualty of tightening budgets are the dollars spent on training.  It seems painless.  There is no immediate manifestation of a service cut, or elimination of a position so it on a relative basis it seems like a good cut to make.  But what is the cost of what you don’t know?  What is the impact of not being aware of innovations that would provide more efficient operations and lessen the budget constraints?  I would suggest that these costs far outweigh the cost of the training.

We are all being asked to do more with less, or as I have heard some folks express recently, to do something with nothing.  How does anyone expect to succeed in this environment without providing themselves the opportunity to train and network with their peers? Elected and appointed officials are tasked with running very complex, multifaceted corporations.  In the case of  elected officials, most begin office with a love for their community but little to no training or experience about the role they are accepting.  That is not a formula for efficiency and innovation, it’s a formula for disaster.

Every successful business understands the fundamental need to train their employees,   but we somehow diminish that same value when it comes to our local operations.  Training and networking are not perks , they are a necessary part of any successful business.  Don’t short change your community by taking a short term solution to a long term problem.  You have a duty to take the necessary steps to be certain you are in a position to succeed. A big part of that is sowing the seeds of innovation and efficiency with appropriate educational and networking opportunities.

Imagine if your community never learned about computers, the internet, or email.  Think about the cost it would take to deliver services without the benefit of these innovations.  Are you up to speed on grants? Economic development laws and practices?  Service delivery models?  Laws pertaining to setting rates and charges?

What’s the future cost of what you don’t know about today?  It might shock you!

Communication Breakdown

Posted on by

I was reading a great post about communication the other day that really resonated with me.  The focus of it centered around the importance of intimacy. No, not that intimacy, that’s a different blog.  It was on the importance of intimacy as it relates to communication.  In short, the greater the distance between leaders and workers, the less likely you are to be aware of new ideas or problems on the front line.  It’s too easy to pull together a big group and declare victory as it relates to your internal communications.  If you are viewed as the person in the ivory tower,with the possible exception of your inner circle,  you can’t expect anyone to give it to you straight.  To be effective, communications need to be more personal and sincere.

They describe four techniques to help have more meaningful conversations:

1. To learn more, listen better.

2. To have a big impact, meet in a small group.

3. To build trust, show trust.

4. To be a better communicator, be who you are.

These are simple but effective ideas to help any leader get closer to their employee group, and improve the intimacy of their communication.   Check out the full Blog post for more information.

Is it as simple as cutting costs?

Posted on by

So much is being made about the need for government to be more efficient. Consolidation and collaboration are the buzz words of the day, and are presented as the cure all for the financial challenges that all local governments are facing. So is it really that simple? Is it true that all we need to do is cut costs to some hypothetical number we can afford?

It occurs to me that the simplest challenge that locals face is matching costs to revenues. It’s something anyone with simple math skills can do. What I am bringing in must exceed or equal what goes out, simple stuff. Why then do so many locals have financial issues? The answer lies in the paradoxical nature of local government services. Every time you cut services you reduce the earning capacity of the city.

So why would service cuts diminish a cities earning capacity? While it is easy to understand that police cost money, in fact a lot of money. It’s harder to understand how cutting costs, a.k.a. services, reduce a cities ability to raise revenue. Think about it like this: what is the cities equivalent of a manufacturing company’s factory? Or to say it another way, how does a city generate revenue? It’s the properties located in that city, and taxes assessed against the “value” associated with those properties. So a simple query: would you pay more for a house in a community with “more” services or “less” services? Great parks or no parks? Good roads or poor roads? Adequate public safety or minimal public safety? I think the answers to all these questions are obvious. Better services equate to better property values, and increased revenue to provide critical services.

Turn around companies make a very handsome living by helping companies be more efficient, and shed themselves of losing components of their business. I am quite certain that as part of that quest for efficiency they would not eliminate the fundamental earning capacity of the company. If the books were balanced by eliminating the manufacturing capacity of the company, then there is no company. The same holds true for cities. Any effort to restructure and reduce costs must preserve the earning capacity of the city. In other words, if our cost cutting only approach leaves a place where people don’t want to live, then we have failed. Herein lays the challenge before us. Increase efficiencies to be sure, but retain the character and fiber of our communities. If not, we have only exacerbated the very problem we set out to solve.