The Bailey Blog

Everyone knows the line about a “spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down.” Well in the case of the leaders in Lansing proposing tax increases and budget cuts to the public, effective communication is the spoonful of sugar.

The people of Michigan will be more supportive of spending cuts and tax increases if they understand the proposals and their impact – and the consequences if nothing happens.

The governor is a tremendous communicator and needs to explain to voters how dire Michigan’s budget situation is. It will help tremendously if the voters see the governor and Legislature working for a common purpose together rather than for a chosen political ideology.

In particular, business owners in the service industries like public relations, law, accounting and advertising will be a key audience because of the proposed new tax on services.

With such thin profit margins already, there’s the potential for job losses or companies changing locations or billing practices to avoid paying a new Michigan tax. We all need to be willing to look at it because we need to consider all the options if we are going to put the economic health of Michigan first.

Michigan’s budget situation requires a sense of urgency or the state will continue to flounder. Outside of Lansing, there is an apparent apathy – or perhaps a lack of empathy – from the public regarding government budget problems. A recent poll published in the Detroit Free Press said 64 percent of Michiganders would prefer spending cuts to solve the state’s budget problems.

All of Michigan’s elected leaders need to embrace technology to communicate with voters, using Web sites, e-mail, blogs and pod casts. The governor knows from her successful town hall meetings four years ago that two-way communication is always more productive and effective. She can revisit this tactic to communicate her plan and budget. She could even do a 30 to 40 minute movie of her presentation to communicate with community and business groups, cable channels, church groups, etc.

[Poll=6]

A recent story in the Oakland Business Review caught the eye of many of us here at JB&A. In the January 18 issue, “Sending the Message - In-house marketing catches on, saves money”, Duane Ramsey reported on a local company that has done just that.

As a long-time agency public relations counselor, and having worked in a corporate communications team setting as well, I understand both sides of the argument.

One point of view that wasn’t included in the story is the added value that agencies of all types (public relations, marketing, graphic design, advertising and others) bring to their clients. Agencies function in several capacities on behalf of clients. Our clients view us as a strategic partner, executive trainer, creative director, event planner, media relations manager, writer, marketer, internal communications counselor, spokesperson, crisis communications manager, extra staff, meeting coordinators … the list goes on.

We also provide clients with access to senior communications professionals, with experience that companies otherwise could not afford to hire in-house. For example, our management team at John Bailey & Associates Public Relations has more than 100 years of combined experience in a number of different industries, from automotive, retail, professional services, government, higher education, chemicals, and technology, among others. Our team of 30 offers clients a wealth of diverse experience that would be unmatched in most corporate communications team.

Agencies also operate in an environment of extreme flexibility, where we can provide one, six, 12 or 20 people to meet client needs at any time, in order to provide support for projects and programs. The depth of our team allows us to call upon our most experienced professionals in a particular practice area or industry based on client need.

While some companies do well to hire some of their talent in-house, in today’s business environment, it makes sense to evaluate all options before ruling agencies out.

That’s what the state of Michigan will likely be asking taxpayers as the governor and Legislature struggle with the gap between expected revenues and actual revenues for this year.

Public relations and carefully communicating with the media always play a role in what politicians say. Sometimes, what people are not saying is just as important as what they are saying. No one in charge in Lansing is saying yes to taxes, but none of them are saying no either.

Consider the following comments from the Democratic and Republican leaders in Lansing:

Gov. Granholm says state government is actually facing a “$3 billion deficit” because she is including the elimination of the Single Business Tax, which doesn’t expire until a year from now.

The governor appointed an “Emergency Financial Advisory Panel” and gave them three weeks to solve a problem that she and the Legislature have known was coming for years. The panel is a who’s-who list of people on record supporting tax increases and the consensus around town is that it’s designed to provide the governor with political cover for tax increases.

The governor told MIRS recently that “how we solve the state’s fiscal crisis is a critical part of our ability to transform our economy,” thereby tying fixing the current deficit to something everyone supports: fixing the economy.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester Hills, recently told MIRS that while he doesn’t see taxes as the answer, “In government you have to leave the door open to things.”

When asked whether he supported expanding the sales tax to services, State Sen. Ron Jelinek, the Republican in charge of the Senate’s budget committee, recently told the Detroit News, “Those who understand the revenue situation we’re in are showing some interest in this. We won’t be able to provide services a lot of people feel are essential if we don’t have a revenue stream for them.”

When dealing with a budget shortfall, the two options are to cut spending or increase revenues. The list of people saying no to taxes is dwindling, while the list of government programs those same people want to protect is growing. Reconciling the difference is likely to fall on the taxpayers’ shoulders – the question at this point is how much of the burden is about to be shifted your way.

This Bailey Blog post has been prepared to help you as you prepare to vote in the upcoming election on November 7. Our bipartisan team encourages you to take advantage of this right and let your voice be heard.

Please see the information below to gain a better understanding of the five ballot proposals.

Proposal 1 - Conservation Recreation Funding
Proposal 2 - Affirmative Action
Proposal 3 - Mourning Doves
Proposal 4 - Eminent Domain
Proposal 5 - K-16 Funding

——————————————————————————–

With the 2006 election right around the corner, are voters ready to make their selections this November 7? Out of the five candidates below, which do you know are running for governor?

Douglas Campbell
Jennifer Granholm
Bhagwan Dashairya
Dick DeVos
Gregory Creswell

If you chose numbers two and four, you’re not even half correct. All five individuals mentioned above are running for the office of governor. In fact, there are 774 candidates on the statewide Michigan ballot, not including local offices and boards.

But not to worry, your local ballot will only reflect those candidates that are running for office in your area. This means you will see, at minimum, 60 candidates, along with five ballot proposals. That’s a lot of homework to do if you’re just catching up on election details!

For a list of ALL candidates, visit the Secretary of State’s Web site. Here you will find a comprehensive list of all candidates for every position on the statewide ballot this year, not including various county, city, township or village offices or school district positions. If you know your district, you can locate those candidates that will appear on YOUR local ballot. If you are not sure in which district you reside, you may call your county or city clerk, or the Elections Bureau of the Michigan Department of State at 517-373-2540.

Offices that will appear on the ballot, along with the number of seats available and a list of candidates running, include:

Governor/Lt. Governor (1)

Democrat: Jennifer Granholm / John Cherry, Jr.
Republican: Dick DeVos / Ruth Johnson
Green: Douglas Campbell / David Skrbina
U.S. Taxpayers: Bhagwan Dashairya / Carl Oehling
Libertarian: Gregory Creswell / Scotty Boman

Secretary of State (1)

Republican: Terri Lynn Land
Democrat: Carmella Sabaugh
Green: Lynn Meadows

Attorney General (1)

Republican: Mike Cox
Democrat: Amos Williams
U.S. Taxpayers: Charles Conces
Libertarian: Bill Hall

U.S. Senator (1)

Democrat: Debbie Stabenow
Republican: Michael Bouchard
Green: David Sole
U.S. Taxpayers: W. Dennis FitzSimons
Libertarian: Leonard Schwartz

Additional offices that will appear on your ballot, along with the number of seats available, include:
- Your district U.S. Representative in Congress (1)
- Your district State Senator (1)
- Your district State Representative (1)
- State Board of Education member (2)
- University of Michigan Regents (2)
- Michigan State University Trustees (2)
- Wayne State University Governors (2)

Additional offices might include:
- Justice of the Supreme Court
- Judge of the Court of Appeals
- Judge of the Circuit Court
- Judge of the District Court
- Judge of Probate
- Specified County, City, Township or Village Offices
- Specified School District Positions

Please use your time well in discovering the issues and candidates that best fit your beliefs, values and goals, and take notes to prepare for the election, which is right around the corner. Along with the Internet, your local newspaper will generally have various columns and articles to use as a reference. If you have additional questions, you may contact your candidate directly. Remember, they are representing YOU. And it is your right to know and understand each candidate. Election day gives voters a chance to shape public policy and help determine the direction Michigan will head in the next few years. Don’t waste this opportunity and let your voice be heard.

——————————————————————————–

Proposal 1

A proposed constitutional amendment to require that money held in conservation and recreation funds can only be used for their intended purposes.

The proposed amendment would:

- Create a Conservation and Recreation Legacy Fund within the state Constitution and establish conservation and recreation accounts in the fund.

- Use current sources to fund the account, such as state park entrance fees, boating and snowmobile registration fees and fishing licenses.

- Establish the current Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Nongame Fish and Wildlife Fund within the Constitution.

- Provide that money in the Fund can only be used for specific conservation and recreation purposes.

People voting YES on this amendment argue:

In the past, funds from licenses and creation-based fees are often raided to pay for other programs. This money must be protected constitutionally and not redirected for other purposes when the state budget gets tight.

People voting NO on this amendment argue:

This proposal ties the hands of our governor and Legislature to respond to budgetary troubles by further restricting how the money can be used. Uses of these funds in the past may have helped to stave off budget cuts and prevented tax and fee increases.

——————————————————————————–

Proposal 2

A proposal to amend the state Constitution to ban affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.

People voting YES on this amendment argue that:

State institutions should not be allowed to apply different standards to individuals or groups based on race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin in their admission, hiring process and health screenings.

People voting NO on this amendment argue that:

State institutions should be allowed to use race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin in their admission, hiring processes and health screenings, because providing opportunities may necessitate consideration of gender and minority status when choosing between otherwise equally qualified candidates.

——————————————————————————–

Proposal 3

A referendum on Public Act 160 of 2004 – an act to allow the establishment of a hunting season for mourning doves.

Public Act 160 of 2004 would:

- Authorize the National Resources Commission to establish a hunting season for mourning doves.

- Require mourning dove hunters to have a small game license and a $2.00 mourning dove stamp, with revenue from the stamp split evenly between the Game and Fish Protection Fund and the Fish and Wildlife Trust Fund.

People voting YES on this law argue that:

Hunting is part of Michigan’s outdoor heritage and should be preserved and expanded. Studies have shown that hunting mourning doves does not diminish their population. Forty other states allow mourning dove hunting and Michigan stands to lose revenue generated by hunters if the same opportunity is not presented here.

People voting NO on this law argue that:

Mourning doves have been protected in Michigan for 100 years. Hunting doves serves no wildlife management purpose, and doves are not a viable human food source. Mourning doves have a significant value as live songbirds.

——————————————————————————–

Proposal 4

A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes.

The proposed amendment would:

- Prohibit government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for economic development or tax revenue.

- If an individual’s principal residence is taken by government for public use, the individual must be paid at least 125 percent of its fair market value.

- Require government that takes private property to demonstrate that the taking is for public use.

People voting YES on this amendment argue that:

This will protect private property rights by prohibiting government from taking private property for purposes of transferring the property to another private individual to increase tax revenue. Some local governments are currently abusing their powers of eminent domain and this proposal is necessary to protect homeowners.

People voting NO on this amendment argue that:

This provides excessive compensation to owners of residential properties. Sometimes local units of government need to resell unused, condemned parcels of property for private development.

——————————————————————————–

Proposal 5

A legislative initiative to establish mandatory school funding levels.

The proposed law would:

- Increase education funding by approximately $565 million and require the state to provide annual funding increases equal to the rate of inflation for public schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges and higher education. The funding would come from the General Fund.

- Base funding on districts with declining enrollment on three-year student enrollment averages.

- Reduce and cap retirement fund contribution paid by public schools, community colleges and state universities and shift the remaining funds to the state.

- Reduce the funding gap between school districts that receive basic per-pupil foundation allowances and those receiving maximum foundation allowances.

People voting YES on this law argue that:

Education funding has not kept pace with inflation. Cuts or small increases have not been enough to keep pace with rising costs, forcing cuts and layoffs in many areas. Further cutbacks could result in a decrease of the quality of educational programs. The gap between the state’s highest and lowest funded districts will be narrowed and eventually eliminated.

People voting NO on this law argue that:

Michigan’s public education is very well funded and growing. Since Proposal A’s (1994) enactment, funding for public education has grown well beyond the rate of inflation and the gap between the highest and lowest funded districts has been narrowed. This proposal’s costs will likely result in tax increases or cuts to other essential state and local services.

While it may not be a presidential election year, the 2006 November ballot holds plenty of action. I’m not referring to the gubernatorial election, though the race for governor has continued to be a close race. I am talking about Proposal 2, known as the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which if passed would ban public agencies and universities from granting preferential treatment based on race or sex in hiring, awarding contracts or granting admissions.

Proposal 2 has been deemed the most controversial proposal on the ballot. The controversy began because the issue was not raised by a Michigan resident, but by a non-Michigan resident, Ward Connerly, from California. Then, there was cause for concern that Michigan residents were misled as they signed petitions in support of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. But there is no question now that the proposal is on the ballot, and all Michigan residents have a chance to have their voice heard on the issue this November 7.

Granted, if passed, this proposal will affect only public organizations, funded by taxpayer dollars, in their hiring, admissions or contracting efforts. But stop for a minute and think about how many public services you have used, or schools you have attended or corporations you have worked with that are funded by the public sector. How would your experience look if affirmative action based on sex and race were banned? Different? Or the same?

An interesting point that both sides of the proposal make is that affirmative action, especially based on race or sex, needs to end one day. Those for Proposal 2 believe that time is now. Those against Proposal 2 believe that time is further into the future.

Michigan voters, we need to ask ourselves: are we ready? Have we grown up? Or are we still in our teenage years as a state, willing to fiddle with independence and explore the outcome? Will passage of this proposal force more organizations to compete for the best workers? Will passage of this proposal force workers to truly be the best they can be? Or will it instead push us back 30 years?

While many believe that the government should set an example, should it lead in that example, or should it follow?

On November 7 – YOU decide.

Many Michigan residents are getting ready to vote in the forthcoming November election, but unfortunately not every resident. Voting is one of the most effective ways to make your voice and opinion heard on a variety of vital topics.

In the age of term limits, it’s more important than ever to select candidates who agree with your political positions. These candidates are the ones who will represent you and help make decisions for Michigan. Many of the proposals listed on the ballot can drastically impact your life and deserve your attention.

Voting is not only your right, but also your responsibility as a Michigan resident. It has only been 86 years since the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. African American men were given the right to vote by the fifteenth amendment in 1869, but many states found ways to prohibit minority voting participation with tests and other qualifiers. This was a normal thing of life until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 authorized the federal government to assume control of the voter registration process in any state or voting district that in 1964 had employed a literacy or other qualifying test and in which fewer than half of voting age residents had either registered or voted.

Why give up that right because of apathy or laziness?

Voting is a privilege that many people fought hard for and too many take for granted. The next time you choose not to vote, ask yourself how you would feel if you didn’t have a choice. What if you didn’t have a choice to decide who governs you, who represents you in the government? What if you had no voice in legislative decisions that affect your life?

So when November 7 rolls around, you know what you need to do – go to the polls and vote! If you aren’t registered, please visit this site and register. You need to do so before October 10 if you want to vote this year.

Ignorance will not bring bliss to Michigan voters come November 8. When it comes to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) or Proposal 2, knowledge is power www.oneunitedmichigan.org. Those who are in support of Affirmative Action, equality and civil rights should vote NO on Proposal 2. Despite assertions that a ban on affirmative action “promotes a colorblind government” the MCRI is not an issue of race, but rather one of gender.

If Proposal 2 is passed, any Michigan program that aims to increase opportunities for women and minorities could be scaled back or disappear altogether. That means that all gender-based health screening programs would be endangered, including breast, cervical cancer and prostate cancer, as well as programs supporting female victims of domestic violence. If passed, scholarships for women and minorities would be banned; funding for women’s shelters would be eliminated; and training, summer job and minority-oriented career programs would all be at risk.

I believe that affirmative action is essential because it benefits everyone; not just women and minorities, but everyone. I have the honor of working with a diverse group of individuals that bring so much to the table every day, thanks in part to Affirmative Action. JB&A currently employs 24 women and 8 men and each individual makes our team all that it is. This company is its people and without the contributions of our female staff, we would not be the success that we are today. I am voting NO on Proposal 2.

[poll=2]