House to vote on 4-year terms next week

MAC Board members, staff urge legislators to act on ARP funding

Michigan’s 83 counties will have 619 commissioners in 2023 (corrected)

Michigan’s 83 county governments will be led by 619 elected county commissioners after the 2022 elections, following decisions this fall by the county apportionment boards. (The original version of this item had incorrect information for Oceana County.)

The new total is a decrease of 3 commissioners from the current roster of 622 commissioners established after the last census and apportionment process.

Eight counties increased the size of their boards for 2023. The biggest boost was 2 seats, done in five counties, including Kent County, which, at 21, will have the largest board in the state on Jan. 1, 2023.

Seven counties reduced the size of their boards, with the largest reduction in Antrim, which is going from 9 districts to 5. Oakland County, which currently has the state’s largest board at 21, reduced its board ranks to 19 for 2023. Click here for the corrected list by county.

Every 10 years, a county apportionment commission sets the number and boundaries of county commissioner districts based on the numbers from the federal census. The number of county commissioner districts is restricted by state law based on population ranges. No county may have fewer than 5 seats or more than 21 under a law last modified in 2011. (Exceptions to this are Monroe and Wayne counties due to the way they are organized. Source: Guide to Michigan County Government, Fifth Edition, MSU Extension.)

This is the sixth apportionment process since Michigan went to directly elected commissioners from geographic districts in 1968 and continues a multi-decade trend of reductions in board seats. Beginning with the first apportionment in 1972, the number of commissioner seats has steadily declined from 1,033 to the current 622. This occurred even though Michigan’s population grew over the same period from 8.88 million in the 1970 census to 10.1 million in the 2020 census.

 

Four-year terms bills zip out of House committee

Legislation to enact four-year terms for county commissioners continues to gain momentum as the House Local Government Committee took only a few minutes this week to approve Senate Bills 242 and 245.

SB 242, by Sen. Ed McBroom (R-Dickinson), and SB 245, by Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-Oakland), now rocket to the floor of the Michigan House. The committee approved both by votes of 10-2 on Wednesday.

While MAC is thrilled by the progress, much work remains to ensure final passage. Please tell your representative of your support for four-year terms by utilizing our digital advocacy tool to send messages of support.

“We’ve reached another critical juncture,” said Governmental Affairs Director Deena Bosworth. “Every representative needs to hear from you, our county leaders, about this bill. It only takes a couple of clicks to send a pre-drafted message of support today!”

MAC also thanks the 29 counties whose boards have passed resolutions of support: Allegan, Alpena, Bay, Berrien, Cheboygan, Clinton, Huron, Crawford, Delta, Dickinson, Emmet, Genesee, Houghton, Ionia, Isabella, Lenawee, Macomb, Manistee, Marquette, Mecosta, Missaukee, Newaygo, Oceana, Ogemaw, Ontonagon, Oscoda, Sanilac, Van Buren, Washtenaw and Wexford.

MAC is urging the House to act on the bills once the Legislature returns from its current break at the end of November.

For more information on this issue, contact Deena Bosworth at bosworth@micounties.org.

 

MAC provides legal review of federal vaccine mandate

In response to questions from members, MAC reached out to the firm of Cohl Stoker & Toskey for information regarding how the federal vaccine mandate on employers relates to county governments.

Below is the response, reproduced in its entirety. Members, of course, are also advised to consult with their corporation counsels on all legal matters:

On November 4, 2021, the Federal Occupational & Safety Administration (OSHA) issued its Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) to protect unvaccinated workers from the risk of contracting COVID-19 at work.  Employers must require that (1) employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, or (2) be tested every seven days and wear a face covering if unvaccinated. 

The ETS applies to all employers with more than 100 employees, but does not apply to

(a) employees who do not report to a workplace where other individuals such as coworkers or customers are present, (b) employees while they are working from home, or (c) employees who work exclusively outdoors.

The ETS requires covered employers to develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, with an exception for employers that instead establish, implement, and enforce a policy allowing employees who are not fully vaccinated to elect to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at the workplace.

The ETS requires employers to determine the vaccination status of each employee, obtain acceptable proof of vaccination, maintain records of each employee’s vaccination status, and maintain a roster of each employee’s vaccination status. Employers must also support vaccination by providing employees reasonable time, including up to four hours of paid time, to receive each vaccination dose, and reasonable time and paid sick leave to recover from the side effects of vaccination.

The ETS requires employers to ensure that each employee who is not fully vaccinated is tested for COVID-19 at least weekly (if in the workplace at least once a week) or within 7 days before returning to work (if away from the workplace for a week or longer). The ETS does not require employers to pay for any costs associated with testing. However, employer payment for testing may be required by other laws, regulations,

or collective bargaining agreements. In addition, nothing prohibits employers from voluntarily assuming the costs associated with testing.

Employers must also ensure that each employee who is not fully vaccinated wears a face covering when indoors or when occupying a vehicle with another person for work purposes.

The ETS is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register on November 5, 2021.  To comply, employers must ensure all provisions are addressed in the workplace by Dec. 5, 2021 (other than testing for employees who have not completed their entire primary vaccination doses), and by Jan. 4, 2022, for testing of employees who have not received all doses required for a primary vaccination.

It is important to note that the Federal OSHA does not directly apply to Michigan employers. Rather, Michigan has an approved State Plan of its own under the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Act (MIOSHA), MCL 408.1001 et seq.

However, even though the ETS does not directly apply to Michigan, under MIOSHA, MCL 408.1014(5), within 10 working days after a new Federal OSHA Standard is adopted or promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor, the Director of the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity is required to initiate the processing of an administrative rule that is substantially similar to the Federal OSHA Standard. The Director may also promulgate an MIOSHA Emergency Temporary Rule under MCL 408.1021(2).

Adoption of this ETS, or an ETS that is at least as effective as this ETS, by State Plans must be completed within 30 days of the promulgation date of the final Federal rule, and State Plans must notify Federal OSHA of the action they will take within 15 days.

Thus, although the ETS does not directly to Michigan, the substance of the ETS is required to be processed as an administrative rule in Michigan.  MCL 408.1014(5); MCL 408.1021(2). 

MIOSHA applies to all places of employment, except domestic employment and mines, MCL 408.1002(1), and applies to all employers, including the State or a political subdivision (including Counties) that employ one or more persons.  MCL 408.1005(2); MCL 408.1006(2); MCL 408.1009. MIOSHA applies to the judicial branch of government.

 

County leaders, tell Senate to oppose privatization bid

Bills that would create a damaging privatization scheme for the state’s local mental health services cleared a Senate committee this week.

MAC is opposing this legislation and asking county leaders to engage with their senators with that message. (See below.)

Senate Bills 597-98, by Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey (R-Jackson) and Sen. John Bizon (R-Calhoun) respectively, cleared the Senate Government Operations Committee this week. Joining Shirkey in support of the bills were Sen. Dan Lauwers (R-St. Clair) and Sen. Aric Nesbitt (R-Van Buren).

The committee made several changes to SB 597, by Shirkey (R-Jackson), to the timeline for privatization to create a phased approach. The first phase focuses specifically on children, the second phase focuses on adults with serious mental illness (SMI) or severe emotional disturbance (SED), the third phase focuses on individuals with a substance use disorder diagnosis, and the fourth center son the intellectually and developmentally disabled population. There were only three phases initially, as the first phase originally included both children and adults with an SMI or SED diagnosis. Full financial integration would be extended from 2026 to 2030 to account for the revised timeline.

Additionally, the legislation requires that any General Fund money distributed to the CMHs or other providers, as determined by the state, must receive 100 percent of the intended reward — no administrative fees would be permitted.

MAC opposes any move to shift toward privatization of our local public mental health system. MAC has provided testimony to the committee and joined on a letter with criminal justice partners that share concerns. Shirkey indicated during committee these bills will move with a substantial mental health supplemental spending bill in the upcoming months, which was introduced this week as Senate Bill 714. MAC will oppose spending that is tied to passage of SBs 597-98.

To help make our case to the Senate, please use MAC’s email advocacy tool to send your message of opposition to your senator with just a single click. Feel free to customize the email as you see fit. Personal stories or examples of our local system success stories are extremely helpful.

Additionally, partners at the Community Mental Health Association of Michigan have advocacy tools you may wish to share with constituents or others.

A one-pager on the issue can be found here and provides bullet-pointed concerns of the legislation. A list of concerns, as well as a list of the groups in opposition, can be found here and used as you see fit.

For more information on this issue, contact Meghann Keit-Corrion at keit@micounties.org.