Michigan school fear that lawmakers will again missed a deadline for funding those schools, and in the queue are against a group fighting the con-con ballot proposal is Voters, not Politicians.

And we have with US leader Christy McGillivray.

So sit in with us as we get the inside out.

Off the Record.

Production of Off the Record is made possible in par by Bellwether Public Relations, a full servic strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and issue advocacy.

Learn more at bellwetherpr.com.

And now, this edition of Off the Record, with Tim Skubick.

Thank you very much.

Welcome to studio C, a busy, busy Newsweek.

The schools are concerned that for the second year in a row, they may not get their checks on July 1st.

What's going on?

We're just not getting a lot of, information.

And it seems the closer we get to June 30th, the less information we've been getting.

So can you assure the education community they'll have their budget by that magic date of July?

We're certainly working to do what we can.

You got your money last year, you know, so you know.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Calm down.

Last year Michigan school got their K through 12 budget.

On October 3rd, some 95 days after lawmakers missed a July 1st deadline.

Is history about to repeat itself?

That's the concer at the School Board Association.

The delay that we had last year was so detrimental to our schools and staff.

We don't want to put schools in the same place.

So far, the school lobby is in the dark on what the budget is going to look like.

That's because the House Republican chair of the K through 12 budget and his Democratic Senate counterpart are still waiting for the green light from the legislative leaders to begin their negotiations.

Meanwhile, schools know they will be getting at least $10,300 per student.

But Miss Smith argues they can't write a budget because other programs are going.... Well they're not sure where.

Where is the money?

We don't know what we're getting for at risk students.

We don't know what we're getting for English language learners, for school safety, for special ed.

Representative Kelly argues they can write their budget without that additional money, based on the $10,300 figure.

Ultimately, I always tell them that, look, it's not going to go below ten, three, 10,300.

So we'll start building a budget around that.

This may be a false alarm on their part?

On K 12?

Oh my God.

Heaven forbid that the K 12 alliance ever puts out a false alarm.

In this letter to the governor, and the two legislative leaders, the school boards and administrators tell lawmaker to pass the school budget first before they tackle any other complex issues.

They write, quote, the through 12 budget cannot be held hostag to unrelated policy priorities.

Meanwhile.

The clock is ticking.

We have 21 days.

And now it's even less.

What do you make of this, Mauger?

I mean, I think it' really symbolic of the problems that Michigan education have had and has had.

I mean, they don't know how to long term plan anything for these schools.

Wait a minute this is their fault?

The lawmakers.

I'm blaming the lawmakers.

I'm not blaming the schools.

Oh okay.

I going after the lawmakers here.

You know, they act like hey, how can we pass a budget?

Can we not pass a budget?

It's not a big deal if we don't have a budget.

They kind of know a ballpark number.

But it's more than that.

This budget sets the strategy for what the schools should be aiming for.

What are the priorities of the state of Michigan?

The Senate and the House have very different strategies and emphasis, and it's up to, you know, this legislature to come together and set something that maybe could last more than just a year.

Well, wouldn't you think that education is so important to lawmakers that they would move that to the head of the list, or am I just stupid?

I mean, certainly I think that's part of it.

Dont answer that question.

I'm not gonna answer that question, although I think you're very smart, Tim.

Thank you.

But I think that, you know, lawmakers are sort of grappling with the budget as a whole.

I think they're very aware of this issue.

I think that's a big reason that they've striven to get the budget done by July 1st and put that limitation on themselves.

Granted, not necessarily one that they're abiding by, on a regular basis.

But, you know, this kind of tension between the budget cycle legislatively and the school budget cycle has always been there.

This is certainly not the first budget year that schools have faced a lot of uncertainty.

Yeah.

I think Craig brings up a good point that I hadn't really thought about.

I mean, why do we continue to have our our budget year for the state start on October 1st when everybody else starts theirs on July 1st?

And I know that there was a budget quirk that that they did back in the 70s.

They changed the fiscal year.

Why did they change the fiscal in order to balance the books and get over the hump.

Isnt it a gimmick?

Yeah, it was a gimmick back in the days.

And and you got to wonder, can we just roll that back?

I mean, can't we just have our regular fiscal year at the state start the same time everybody else so they can feel the same budget crunch as the schools face right now so they can feel what the cities and municipal leaders are going through because they don't really know.

I mean, they get the phone calls and they're like, yeah, okay, whatever.

But I mean, they really don't really feel the, the angst and the anxiety.

And meanwhile, what happens is what happens every year is that the legislature and the governor both have priorities, and they're using the cloc as leverage against the other.

Whether that clock is September 30th, or it's July 1st or whatever the clock date is, they use the clock as political leverage.

And that's exactly what's going on here.

The speaker's got a few things that he would like, like that property tax cut.

We've talked about at nauseam on this program.

But the governor is concerned long term about the fiscal stability, about Medicaid.

And she doesn't believe that the legislature is serious about some type of long term fix, whether it's a vaping tax or whatever it is.

The legislature just wants to fly by the seat of their pants every year, and she's tired of it, and she wants to set some kind of legacy.

So until they can come t some kind of agreement on that.

And that just happens to be the disagreement does.

You're right.

Now we're going to be playing this same tape every year.

You know, one other advantage in a year like this year of getting that July 1st day, it would be that lawmakers want to be out campaigning.

Right now.

You've got the house up, you've got the Senate up.

You know, it's a difficult time politically to keep them trapped at the Capitol for too much longer.

Well, part of the problem is when you go back home, the superintendents in school districts have a lot of power with the community.

Do we all agree on that?

Yeah.

So you go home and say, well, you know, we missed that deadline, but it's okay.

I mean, how do you explain that?

I mean, they didn't really explain it last year.

They kind of just said, hey.

Well they've had a year to practice.

Yeah.

Speaker Hall yesterday was floating like a four month Band-Aid budget for the first time instead of doing a full.

Just do what we'd been doing for four months.

And get rid of this governor and bring somebody else in.

Queue up the next people.

And maybe we can do a two month mandate next time.

I don't know, but, I mean, the Kyle brings up a great point.

The timing of these documents doesn't make sense.

The fact that every year they're rethinkin the entire strategy of education in this state and renegotiating it doesn't make sense.

Last year, with small class sizes, now it's third grade reading.

And every single year we have to debate whether we should still give everyone a free lunch or not.

I mean, it's it does not make sense that it's a waste of an incredible amount of time that could be put in to solving other problems and at least not reshuffling the dec for the schools every 12 months.

Yeah, it shouldn' be really that big of a mystery how much the school should be getting.

It should almost be automatic at this point, shouldn't it?

I mean, I know that there's a focu now on literacy and dyslexia and and trying to make sure that kids read.

But I think everybody's on the same page on basically everything when it comes to the K through 12 budget.

I mean, there's there's nuances on how much we should give at risk and how much we should give special ed.

But, I mean, these are things that can be worked out fairly quickly.

And I think that, the Tim, Representative Kelly and Senator Camilleri have shown that they can do that.

It's just these big ticket items at the top that always that that slows everything down.

It's a it's a bottleneck at the top right now.

It's not the details at the bottom.

I have a solution.

The next governor of the state of Michigan, in the state of the state delivers the school aid budget and says, folks, we got two months.

Let's go to work and get this puppy done.

Anybody like that?

I don't see how that would have a negative impact on schools like I am.

I'm not endorsing your plan, Tim, but I don't see no, I don't see what the drawback of that would be, because there is no draw against the schools time to plan.

And ultimately that's what they need.

You know, every couple of months throwing out something they've got to implement in the next month that is taking away from the idea of focusing on teaching these kids and improving an education system that is struggling in the state of Michigan.

You don't like that idea?

No, I don't have a problem with it.

Okay.

I think its fine.

I was looking for a positive feedback.

Made so much sense.

I get it.

No it makes so much sense.

I don't know how you can disagree.

There you go.

Very good.

Because ultimately, I mean, this is the other thing that we should mention for viewers is why they don't do this is because the education budget is the bargaining chi that keeps everyone coming back.

Which is exactly the reaso to get it out of the way first.

Well it should be.

It should be, but they don't do that because they want to keep the drama going.

You guys want to talk about this?

What is it?

The Gordie Howe, what was his name?

What news?

What we're not a hockey fan.

Oh, yeah.

I am.

We had to lobby to ge this story on the agenda today, but not hard.

I know I'm a soft touch, so go for it.

This is a. Call me when you're done.

A major political story in the state of Michigan playing out this week on whether or not the Gordie Howe International Bridge that's sitting there and built.

And Governor Whitmer told reporters on Thursday, it's done.

It's ready, and it will not be opened, possibly for weeks, she said, because of no negotiations between the President Trump administration and the Canadian government.

So that's what's goin on.

We're caught in the middle.

Donald Trump kicked this off in February when he, tweeted about it and essentially said he wanted a better deal out of the Canadians.

There's kind of a question.

More shekels.

Well I mean, Canadians have already given quit a few, shekels to this bridge.

They paid for the bridge.

Exactly.

They're getting the tolls from the bridge to pay themselves back for paying for the bridge.

And I do think that we're in sort of a position where it's hard to ask for more because we've already got arguably, you know, 100% financing.

I agree with Emily.

I mean, I just don't understand what Trump thinks he's going to get out of negotiate on the bridge.

We didn't do anything.

You think people give two hoots about this story.

Well, I don't know, but.

Well, they should.

I mean, we've got a major international bridge that's just sitting there, and we're not opening it because Trump thinks he can extract something more of the Canadians.

The Canadians already built the thing for us.

I mean, what more can we get out of this thing?

We've got a bridge for free.

It points to kind of just the amazing division that can obstruct things from happening.

I mean, this is a bridge that was built and is ready to be open.

It will be a major trade corridor for the state of Michigan.

It was negotiated already.

It was negotiated during Rick Snyder's administration.

It's sitting there ready, and now it's being blocked by disagreements.

And there are larger things a play here between US and Canada.

Relations and trade overall.

This is another bargaining chip that's been thrown in there.

It is a story to watch though, because if this deteriorates even further, that could be a major problem for the state of Michigan.

Gary Peters for MSU presidency Kyle?

They're talking about it, at least in the interim anyway.

And it makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways.

For one, you get in somebody who, would appeal, I think, to, the academics because he's got several advanced degrees, including one from MSU.

Got five degrees from MSU.

Well, I think only one from MSU doesnt he?

Somebody told me was five.

All right, well, he does hav five degrees, that's for sure.

Yeah.

And so anyway he has at least, one from MSU.

We know that for sure.

And, he's a statesman.

He's, Democrat.

The board at MSU is 7 to 1.

He's got a record of being able to work with people on both sides of the aisle, building consensus, not in a bombastic way, but in a way that can get things accomplished.

And he could be the type of personality that can kind of smooth the the MSU trustees and get them to work together, not create more divisions.

And, plus he's got the gravitas of being a senator.

And if he were to step down, which is the added bonus the governor gets.

Bingo.

An appointment, this is.

This drives that story That's going to be part of it.

That does.

Because if he leaves, then there's a vacancy.

She appoint whoever wins the August primary.

Right?

Yes.

I have not thought about this, but this is quite a theory.

You're.

My mind is blown, right.

Well, I might have to leave.

Whoever wins the August primary for U.S.

Senate gets appointed to the Senate and then runs as an incumbent.

And they get seniority two or younger, and they can campaign.

I'm your U.S.

senator, and I'm in there working for you.

Let me I mean, here's I'm not I have no idea if this will happen or not.

I mean, it's definitely something that's floating around in the ether.

But to to potentia push back to this, the last time MSU had a politically linke president, it did not go well.

Yeah.

And two, we're hearing from everyone we've got to depoliticize this university operation.

And we're going to do that b putting a longtime politician.

Gary Peters is not John Engler.

He's not John Engle is a walking lightning rod okay.

Is he not?

I think that one advantage and I mean, that is a compliment.

Yeah.

I mean, I think that one advantage that Gary Peters would have is that this is a super high profile public high criticism position.

And he's used to that.

He's a U.S.

senator.

I think he's used to all eyes on him.

I think he's used to kind of the pressure that would come with a position like this.

And frankly, navigating Congress is, you know, I don't know if it's easier or harder than navigating the MSU board at this point, but, he'd have some advantages.

I can't prove this because he's not talking, but I think he definitely would be interested.

I think what the sense we're getting has is that he is interested.

If you check out his Facebook profile picture, he is wearing a Michigan state sweatshirt at the moment.

I'm just saying, There you go.

You pick up on everything, don't you?

Alright lets call in our guest.

Christy, are you there?

There you are.

It's good to see you.

And thank you for doing Off the Record.

Alright so.

You guys what do you got against con con?

What's wron with rewriting the Constitution?

It's really the process that we're worried about.

So a con con would allow 148 delegates who would be selected through a process that is actually currently somewhat undecided, to rewrite our constitution behind closed doors at voters, not politicians.

We have worked hand-in-glove with our constitutional rules on actually changin and amending our Constitution.

It works.

It Michiganders have high trust in it because we have shaped it.

And this is not the time and it's not the right process for making changes to our foundational document.

So we want everyone to vote no in November like they have the past three time that it has been on the ballot.

Well, do you think a bunch of crazy people are going to come in her and just throw everything out?

We don't know what would happen.

And right now, with the kind of political turmoil that we're seeing, you know, the conversation that you all were just having about the, heated debates about the education budget, the really intense political divisions, we're seeing the opening of a bridge that's already built, turned into a political football.

All of these are indicators that now is not the political moment to rewrite our foundational document behind closed doors, because we don't know what would happen.

And right now, our Constitution works.

Christy, if we were to have a constitutional convention, it's very possible the very issue that you all were established on, which is the redistricting commission, could go away.

Yeah, it's entirely possible.

And, we don't like that.

We think that the changes that we have fought for in our Constitution that were overwhelmingly approved by voters have proven to support the actual needs of Michiganders.

And throwing that ou because 148 people disappeared behind a closed doo to make a decision on their own.

Is not it' not the choice that we support.

So urging everyone to vote no.

Help me understand.

Do you.

Your group obviously was behind the citizen led, redrawing of the districts and did a lot of work to take the politics out of that process.

Couldn't a group of citizens come up with a better constitution for us, or no?

We don't know if it would be a group of citizens.

And what we want to see is the kind of public debates that we had for our citize led ballot initiative process.

The main issue with the con con is that it would be happening behind closed doors, and we don't know who would be participating in it because that's still undecided.

So we support public processes with citizen involvement.

Our motto is grounded in our state's Constitution's opening line.

All political power is inherent in the people.

In order to keep it that way, we want to make sure that folks vote no in November so that we keep debating our Constitution in public with public participation, the same way that it has been debated since it was adopted in the early 1960s.

What do you thin of these proposals to overhaul the university boards?

How attorney generals and secretary of states are nominated?

I mean, they're talking abou changing the university boards from something that's voted on by the voters and letting a politician, the governor, pick who's on these boards.

Do you all like that?

You know, Craig, I have not had a chat with my policy committee about these proposals yet.

We've had our hands full pushing back on voter suppression, making sure everyone knows to vote no on the con con and a few other projects.

So, I'll have a chance to review those when we get a minute to sit down with our policy committee at our members and talk it through.

Generally speaking, we support as much public participation as possible in our decision making processes.

And I'll let you know if we take a formal position on the proposed changes.

Yeah.

Bu when you go into that meeting, what is your personal view?

Do you think people should vote for the university board's?

I think that our system right now, where folks get a chance to vote directly on university boards, in November, has, you know, potentially some flaws.

We'll see.

And, I'll get back with you with a formal position when our committee decides on it.

As you all are preparing for November, how do you all thin about how these ballot proposals potentially play with each other?

I mean, this is always an issue here.

There might be a campaign vote no on all of these.

I mean, you all are very supportive of the money Michiganders from money out of politics proposal that would limit utility spending, basically block utility spending in our elections and major government contractors.

That could be proposal two on the ballot.

The con con could be proposal one.

University boards.

If that gets through the legislature, that could be three.

Have you all thought about this, and is it going to b a tough message to tell people?

Vote no on one, but vote yes on two?

Yeah one thing that I've learned working at voters, not politicians, is tha putting faith in Michigan voters is never misplaced.

So yeah, we might wind up in a situation where we're asking people to vote no on proposals like voting no on con con, which Michiganders should definitely vote no on con-con.

And we may be in a positio where we're asking them to vote yes on other really important ballot measures like the ballot measure to get, conflicting, corrupting dar money out of Michigan politics.

And just like in 2018, folks said that voters were going to be too confused by gerrymandering to understand it.

We proved them wrong.

We are going to prove folks wrong again.

If they're suggesting that Michigan voters, can't tell the difference between different ballot initiatives and make an informed choice.

So we'll be working around the clock to make sure everyone knows exactly what ballot these ballot initiatives do.

We'll be urging everyone to vote no for sure on prop one, because we know that's going to be on the ballot, and we have faith in Michiganders to take up complicated political, questions and make the right choice.

We've seen them do it over and over again, and I think they're goin to do it again.

This November.

Christy voters, not politicians, obviously, like I said before, it was established, because you guys wanted to create a new system in redistricting.

And the redistricting commission was created as a result.

Since then, you all have been able to keep the bal rolling for now, like six years.

What has been like uniting mission behind your group and to to continue to keep going, even though your original purpose has already been established?

You know, I' so glad you asked that question.

I'm a newer executive director to voters, not politicians.

So I'm inheriting the amazin work that citizens led in 2018 and what everyone did in 2018 was about making structura reform to improve our democracy.

Gerrymandering was the topic that citizens came together to, to push back on.

They won.

But we still have some structural problems with our democracy right now.

And far too many instances, voters are not the primary concern for elected officials for a host of reasons.

And we're seeing our hard fought victories here in Michigan, pushed back on.

Right.

So we are seeing direct attacks on voting rights at every level.

Across the country, we're seeing an explosion of gerrymandering in order to guarantee certain political outcomes.

So the attacks on the structural pillars of our democracy have only increased.

And as a result, voter out, politicians commitment to making sure, as a nonpartisan, pro-democracy organization, we push back on that and fight for improvements has just increased in kind.

So the problems haven't gone away.

We're still working on them.

As you watched, the process unfold of the redistricting.

And let's be generous here, there was some internal squabbling, some would say just nastiness that unfolded as you watched all that happened.

What went through your mind?

Woof.

This is not what we intended?

I think the maps prove that the final outcome is exactly what voters wanted.

And we're really proud of that.

And that squabblin that you're talking about, Tim, that internal division, that is exactly what we want to avoid by making sure that everyone votes no on a con con in November, things are too chaotic right now.

Our Constitution works.

The power is with the people, and we want to make sure that we keep it that way so that everyone vote no In November, on the con con.

Your group has had some success, in ballot initiatives.

And, you know, you'r weighing in on those the cycle.

You've also sort of taken a tactic of, going to the legislature for some things.

I remember when the, the fir reforms came up a few years ago.

But there's no politicians was pretty involved.

You've not some ballot successes.

Have you notched successes with this legislature in terms of advancing transparency and other goals?

You know, there's some really important reforms that did make it through during the last session.

Right now, with the divided state House and state Senate, it's harder to get things through one particular piece of legislation that we supported that I think we need to expand on is the disclosure of artificial intelligence and political campaigning.

We have a lot more work to do.

And right now what we're focused on is making sure everyone votes no in November and that we make sure that everyone knows our elections here in Michigan are safe and secure.

We're working on election protection.

And obviously, we are potentially supporting another ballot initiative should the Board of State Canvassers approve it.

Do you think the legislature will ever subject themselves to FOIA, or does that take a ballot initiative in the future?

I think the state legislature will respond to the pressures tha they experience most intensely.

And when we succeed i getting money out of politics, I think we'll see legislators freed up to spend more time thinking about their constituents and the people that directly vote for them, instead of other considerations that they may be taking on.

And that kind of political power that rests with the people is exactly why our Constitution starts with the phrase all political power is inherent with the people.

So we want to make sur that we keep building on that.

And that' why everyone needs to vote no.

On the con con in November.

What do you all want to do on AI ads that we haven't already done?

I mean, there has been just a bevy of made up artificial ads being posted on social media.

I mean, I don't know if they qualify as ads because people are just creating them and putting them out on X. I mean, is that something that concerns you?

What can be done here?

I think that, that is a question that we need to take very seriously.

It is exactly why we need to make sure that elected officials have the time and the space to prioritize questions tha the public wants them to tackle.

Right now, in our, our state constitution and the proces by which we actually make laws and we go through that process, I think that we're going to be able to have a really robust public debate about how we need to actually regulate tech.

So in order to make sure that we can have that ongoing debate that centers voters, we need to make sure that we don't change our state's foundational document.

The questions that you're raising correct are really important.

And that's exactly the kind of thing that we need to be focusing on and debating, instead of ushering in the chaos that would go along with opening up our state constitution right now.

I think that making sure that everyone votes know i November is a way to guarantee that we are having the debate about artificial intelligence that you just raised, instead of having a debat about our Constitution itself.

Everywhere.

So peopl I don't know, sorry.

Go ahead.

Tim, excuse me.

Everywhere you go, people say we want more bipartisan cooperation in the legislature from the governor.

What kind of grades do you give those three folks on that issue?

I think that the bipartisan support in this coalition, to make sure that we don't open up our Constitution to all sorts of chaos, is an indication of that wasn't my question to the state legislature.

Why question.

I'm asking you to rate the bipartisan cooperation of the House, the Senate and the governor.

I've been entirely focused this year on making sure that we ar working on election protection.

We've been pushing back hard on some legislation that would suppress the votes and actually undo really important voter expansion.

Very excited to see that hasn't moved.

Is there a particular reason why you won't answer that question?

Honestly, Tim, I haven't been paying that much attention to the ins and outs of exactly wha the state legislature is doing, because the work that we have in November to make sure that everyone votes no on the con con and make sure that everyone knows the potential threats to vote suppression are at top of mind.

And we think that's what citizens should be prioritizing right now.

The structural attacks tha we're seeing on our democracy, I think, warrant a hyper focus on doing everything that we can to protect it, which means voting no.

So I don't I truly haven't been paying enough attention to the drama in Lansing.

I've been directly talking to voters to make sure that we protec the foundations of our democracy and what's happening in Lansing right now, to me, doesn't indicate that everyone in Lansing has the same kind of focus.

Okay, you stayed on message.

You're good points for that.

Good to see you.

Thanks for being on the program.

Also our thanks to our great panel.

The bridge was an important story.

I didn't mean to demean you guys.

Okay, see you next week for more Off the Record guys.

Production of Off the Record is made possible in par by Bellwether public relations, a full servic strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and issue advocacy.

Learn more at bellwetherpr.com.

For more Off the Record, visit wkar.org.

Michigan Public Television stations have contributed to the production costs of Off the Record.