Michigan Proposal 5, Public Education Inflation-Adjusted Funding Increase Initiative (2006)

Michigan Proposal 5
Election date November 7, 2006
Topic Higher education funding and Public education funding
Status Defeated
Type Indirect initiated state statute	Origin Citizens

Michigan Proposal 5 was on the ballot as an indirect initiated state statute in Michigan on November 7, 2006. It was defeated.

A “yes” vote supported this ballot initiative to: increase state funding for public education by approximately $565 million and require annual funding increases tied to inflation for public schools, community colleges, and higher education institutions; require the state to cover funding shortfalls from the General Fund; cap retirement fund contributions paid by schools and colleges, with the state covering remaining costs; reduce the funding difference between districts receiving the basic and maximum per-pupil foundation allowance.

A “no" vote opposed increasing the funding for public schools and revise provisions relating to public school funding.

Election results

Michigan Proposal 5
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,366,355	37.69%
No		2,259,247	62.31%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposal 5 was as follows:

“

PROPOSAL 06-5 A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO ESTABLISH MANDATORY SCHOOL FUNDING LEVELS The proposed law would:  Increase current funding by approximately $565 million and require State to provide annual funding increases equal to the rate of inflation for public schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges, and higher education (includes state universities and financial aid/grant programs). Require State to fund any deficiencies from General Fund. Base funding for school districts with a declining enrollment on three-year student enrollment average. Reduce and cap retirement fund contribution paid by public schools, community colleges and state universities; shift remaining portion to state. Reduce funding gap between school districts receiving basic per-pupil foundation allowance and those receiving maximum foundation allowance. Should this proposed law be approved? Yes No

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Support

The Michigan Education Association, the proponents of the bill

Dexter Community Schools released a document supporting the measure:

• Any pension requirements above 14.87% will be paid by the state, saving the district $465,000 a year
• An increase of by-pupil funding
• For schools with declining enrollment, a three year average will be used
• If there are deficiencies to pay for the mandatory increase, it will be covered by the State's General Fund
• If this is not passed the budget must be cut by $3 million through employee layoffs and program eliminations

Opposition

Michigan Catholic Conference

The Michigan Catholic Conference opposes Proposal 5 due to its "potentially devastating effect on state programs and services that assist Michigan's poor and vulnerable population, as well as its failure to address the real needs of public school students."
Other arguments the group noted include:

1. The requirement to either raise taxes or cut other state programs
2. Alleges the only intention is to increase pension benefits.

• No accountability on how the money is spent
• Only monetary requirement written in the initiative is $380 million for pension programs
• Would require 3/4 majority vote by both the House and Senate to change the amount of funding if the bill passed.

Political Community

The Mackinac Center for Public Policy wrote a report that concluded that the initiative would be harmful to state policy and budget. Some of the conclusions of the report included:

1. Proposal 5 would leave lawmakers with less flexibility during future declines in state revenue growth.
2. Proposal 5 would provide lawmakers an incentive to cut state spending on certain primary and secondary education programs, such as adult and vocational education, by an estimated $141.7 million in fiscal 2007.
3. Tax increases could also be used to raise some or all of the first-year spending required by Proposal 5.
4. Economist Richard Vedder recently found no association between state spending on higher education and economic growth, and therefore no support for increasing education cost.
5. Proposal 5 could produce unintended educational effects. Granting additional money to districts with declining enrollment could insulate poorly performing districts from the financial consequences of their failures.

Other Community Opposition

Citizens for Equity, Michigan Chamber of Commerce, Michigan County Social Services Organization, Michigan Health and Hospital Association, Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Osteopathic Association, Michigan Professional Firefighters Union, Michigan Restaurant Association, Michigan Sheriff's Association, Michigan's State Police Command Officers Association, Michigan State Police Troopers Association, Michigan Townships Association, Police Offers Association of Michigan, Small Business Association of Michigan, Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, Healthcare Association of Michigan, Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police, Michigan Association of Community Mental Health Boards, Michigan Association of Counties, Michigan Association of Fire Chiefs, Michigan Association of Health Plans, Michigan Association of Local Public Health, Michigan Business and .

Opposing Schools

Professional Association, Community College Association, President's Council of the State Universities of Michigan, Traverse City Area Public Schools

Fiscal Statement

Would cost the state between $566.6 million and $1.1 billion during the first year, according to the Michigan Board of Canvassers.

Campaign funding

Below is information on the amount of funds raised for and against Proposal 5:

Contributor	Total
Citizens for Education (For)	$4,502,532
Stop K 16 Coalition (Against)	$2,015,670

Path to the ballot

See also: Signature requirements for ballot measures in Michigan

An indirect initiated state statute is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that amends state statute. There are nine (9) states that allow citizens to initiate indirect state statutes.

While a direct initiative is placed on the ballot once supporters file the required number of valid signatures, an indirect initiative is first presented to the state legislature. Legislators have a certain number of days, depending on the state, to adopt the initiative into law. Should legislators take no action or reject the initiative, the initiative is put on the ballot for voters to decide.

In Michigan, the number of signatures required for an indirect initiated state statute is equal to 8% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election. As an indirect process, the Legislature has 40 days to adopt the initiative after signatures are certified. Otherwise, a simple majority vote is required for voter approval.

See also

2006 Measures

• 2006 Measures
• Higher education funding on the ballot
• Public education funding on the ballot
• Public school teachers and staff on the ballot
• Public employee retirement funds on the ballot
• 2006 legislative sessions

Michigan

• Michigan ballot measures
• Michigan ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Michigan Department of State, "Initiatives and Referendums Under the Constitution of the State of Michigan of 1963," December 5, 2008