New Organization on Severe Autism

Autism is not one of the disabilities that my two adult sons have had to deal with. My awareness of autism goes back to the late 1970’s and the struggle to get schools to fulfill their obligation to make available a “Free and Appropriate Public Education” (FAPE) to every disabled child. Autism was not an official category defined by federal regulations at the time, but most children with autism fit under one or another of the categories listed and because of their disabilities needed special education. 

I knew families whose children had been diagnosed with autism and other related disabilities that would fit the definition of autism as it is now understood. The difference is that forty years ago, I never heard anyone talk about “high-functioning” autism or any of its milder forms. The manifestation of the disability was almost always severe and was often combined with intellectual disability, severe language impairment, and behaviors that interfered with education in regular classrooms and sometimes caused self-injuries or injury to other family members.

As a non-expert, I do not pretend to know enough to explain the explosion in autism diagnosis, but cases of severe autism have not abated. The needs of this population are growing, especially with the aging of family caregivers and the tendency for some advocacy groups to turn their backs on people with the most severe disabilities in favor of presenting an optimistic and more palatable image to the public and policy makers. If I had to rely on presenting a “positive” image of my children now and in the future to justify spending on services for them, I would be sabotaging the prospect of them receiving services that are both appropriate to their needs and effective in preventing harm.

A new organization called the National Council on Severe Autism (NCSA) has been launched “Pursuing recognition, policy and solutions for the surging population of individuals, families and caregivers affected by severe forms of autism and related disorders.” 

This from a press release on 1/10/19:

“…The new organization is created to address pragmatically the many serious challenges in services, housing, and policy facing families, caregivers and individuals affected by severe forms of autism and related disorders.

“‘Autism is often romanticized and sugar-coated in the media and social media,’ said Jill Escher, NCSA President. ‘In contrast, our efforts will be guided by pragmatic realities. For countless families devoted to the well being of their disabled loved ones, the daily challenges can be overwhelming, and the prospects for the future extremely bleak. We will work to increase capacity and a range of new options for this population.’….”

The organization has gotten off to a good start with a Website that presents their reason for being, policy statements, and an active blog .

From the NCSA blog:

If you wish to Share your story, the NCSA wants to hear from you:

Please share with us your story and concerns, and also your ideas about how to improve the lives and prospects for all those affected by severe forms of autism and related disorders. Topics may include, for example:

• Housing and long-term supports
• Education and training
• Day programs and employment
• Medical care and therapeutics
• Behavioral crisis and crisis care
• Financial issues
• Autism research
• Individual, parent and family well-being

Your information will help inform NCSA’s efforts, and will be kept confidential. If follow-up information is needed, we will contact you. Thank you for your generous assistance and time...

Amy Lutz, a parent of an adult with severe autism, writes about the organization on the Inspectrum blog from Psychology Today: "National Council on Severe Autism (NCSA) Launches; New organization will advocate 'for those who cannot speak for themselves.'", 1/14/19.

************************ 

For more information: 

Website: ncsautism.org
Email: info@ncsautism.org
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ncsautism/
Twitter: @ncsautismorg

Mail:

National Council on Severe Autism
PO Box 26853
San Jose, CA 95159-6853

Abelone Kelley January 16, 2019 0

Michigan 2019: Tackling water contamination

An article from Mlive.com, "State employees required to report health, safety threats in Gov. Whitmer’s first executive directive" by Emily Lawler, 1/2/19, reports on the new Governor's first executive directive of her administration that begins to tackle the problem of water contamination in Michigan.

Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed her first executive order on 1/2/19 establishing a chain of command for state employees to report threats to public health and safety. 

"'The people of Michigan deserve to know that their government is working for them, and our government employees deserve to know that they can speak up when they see threats to Michigan’s health and safety,' Whitmer said before signing her first executive order."

The order was in part a response to the Flint water crisis where a state-appointed emergency manager failed to act to protect the city against lead contamination of its water supply. 

Another worrisome source of water contamination in Michigan was covered by Garrett Ellison on Mlive.com, "Major warning about Michigan PFAS crisis came 6 years ago" on 7/12/18. PFAS (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) have been found in Michigan waterways and drinking water supplies. Robert Delaney, a veteran geologist at the Department of Environmental Quality “..took his concerns about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, to state environmental leaders more than six years ago in a prophetic report that called for decisive action on a looming health crisis…His alarm bell was largely ignored.” 

“‘Communities with fire training facilities, other Department of Defense (DOD) bases, metal platers, other major airports, major transportation corridors, and other industrialized areas all could have extensive contamination by (PFAS),’ Delaney wrote.”

“…nearly six years after Delaney's warning about the dangers and potential ubiquity of PFAS, his predictions are coming true. Numerous sites around Michigan have known PFAS plumes and the list keeps growing as testing and attention escalates. So far, the number is 31 and counting across 15 communities, where neighbors are questioning whether contaminated water is to blame for chronic diseases.” 

A few months ago we began seeing signs along our beloved Huron River warning us not to eat the fish. And that white foam that we see on the banks from time to time may be related to PFAs.

Among the sources of contamination are fire retardents, food packaging materials, numerous household products, and drinking water.

“Following an October 2010 presentation on PFAS to the EPA, Department of Defense and an interstate regulatory group, Delaney wrote that his talk was 'well received, if you consider stunned silence a good reception.'" 

There is more information on PFAS from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Website :

“…Studies indicate that PFOA and PFOS can cause reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects in laboratory animals. Both chemicals have caused tumors in animals. The most consistent findings are increased cholesterol levels among exposed populations, with more limited findings related to:

• low infant birth weights, 
• effects on the immune system, 
• cancer (for PFOA), and 
• thyroid hormone disruption (for PFOS). "

Finding and reporting on sites of contamination are the first step in protecting citizens against the effects of PFAS. This is especially important in light of the apparent attempt to suppress Delaney's 2012 report and restricting Delaney's access to news media:

"Although Delaney has been a regularly accessible expert on PFAS contamination in Michigan, his freedom to speak with news media was curtailed at DEQ last fall [2017] after he talked about the report on the radio. The agency would not make him available for this story despite multiple requests over several months.

Requiring state officials to warn the public about risks to health and safety should have gone without saying, but the Governor’s first executive directive removes any ambiguity on this issue.

Abelone Kelley January 07, 2019 0

Employment for People with Disabilities: Opening Doors for Some, Closing Doors for Others

This is another article from the VOR Voice, Winter 2018. The VOR Voice is a print newsletter and one of the benefits of membership in VOR. VOR, "A Voice Of Reason, Speaking out for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities" is a national non-profit organization that relies solely on private donations. Hugo Dwyer is the Executive Director and the brother of Tom Dwyer, a resident of Southbury Training School in Connecticut.

******************************

Opening Doors, Closing Doors 

by Hugo Dwyer

One of the presenters at the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (11/8/18) spoke of the benefits of competitive integrated employment, and the benefits of closing sheltered workshops and ending specialized wage provisions under Section 14(C) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The speaker’s contention was that closing these opportunities would somehow open doors to full-time jobs at minimum wage or better for people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. 

When asked if she thought everyone with I/DD would be able to take advantage of this opportunity, she replied that some would not. She was then asked what would happen to those people. Her answer was that they would probably spend more time on the sofa watching TV or being driven in vans for meaningless trips to the local shopping malls. Asked if she thought that was a good thing, she replied that it was not, but that the plan was not to close sheltered workshops all at once, but to “phase them out” over time.

Obviously, that doesn’t solve the problem for those consigned to long days on the couch or at the mall, but it might take care of the public relations problems of those who believe they are doing what’s good in spite of evidence to the contrary. Opening a door for some, closing doors on others.

This led me to thinking about how the same misguided self-righteousness has governed our residential policies for the last thirty-five years. Admissions were closed at Tom’s home of Southbury Training School in 1986. The good people of Connecticut sought to “phase out” this type of residential opportunity, admitting that those fortunate enough to have that opportunity might continue to benefit from it, but closing the door on others who might need such a level of care. I don’t get it. Do they think that people will just adjust to having inferior care? Or do they just not want to think about the possible consequences of their actions?

At the House Judiciary Committee’s hearings examining class action lawsuits against Intermediate Care Facilities last March in Washington, D. C., Allison Barkoff of the Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities testified that a settlement agreement in Virginia enabled a single mother, who was #1,025 on the Community Waiting List, to receive HCBS waiver services. Earlier in the hearing, a mother from Virginia testified that the settlement agreement Ms. Barkoff cited had forced her twin sons out of their ICF home and into insufficient, inappropriate care in HCBS waiver settings. One of Mrs. Bryant’s sons died as a result. Opening doors for some, closing doors for others. 

Who are these people, opening and closing doors? Why do they believe this is a good thing? Can’t they see the pain they are causing? 

We need to open all the doors. We need a system that supports all levels of care and all opportunities for employment.

************************************

Editorial comment from The DD News Blog: 

This is from a blogpost for 3/30/16  on the Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council recommendation to eliminate the ability under state law of employers to pay less than the minimum wage to people with physical or mental disabilities based on an individual’s  productivity and earning capacity.  

"The controversy over sub-minimum wages is usually framed as a difference of opinion and ideology between people who believe disabled workers have the same right as everyone else to the protection of minimum wage laws, against those who believe that a subsidy to employers through sub-minimum wage certificates is justified to assure appropriate work experiences. For people who would otherwise not be employable in integrated, competitive work environments, wage certificates assure the availability of suitable alternatives.

"The problem is that the two sides in this argument are talking about different people in different circumstances who cannot be categorized by sweeping generalizations about people with disabilities. Individually, each person with a developmental disability has a right to appropriate services and a right to be protected from discrimination in the workplace. The federal law and regulations as they are now written do both, even though enforcement of the law and how it is interpreted may be open to question."

Sub-minimum wages are a way to subsidize employers who are willing to hire people who may not be able to keep up with their non-disabled peers and to fund special center-based programs that allow people to work at their own pace with the assistance they need combined with other needed services in addition to employment.

Supported employment for at least minimum wage in integrated settings is already subsidized through programs funded by Medicaid. Most people qualifying for work under supported employment or in center-based work programs are also eligible for other subsidies in the form of Home and Community-based Services, housing vouchers, Medicaid medical insurance, and Supplemental Security Income (social security benefits) and some are residents of Medicaid-funded Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. The argument that sub-minimum wage is unfair because it leaves these people destitute does not hold water.

See also, The DD News Blog on sub-minimum wage and alternatives to integrated competitive employment 

Abelone Kelley December 23, 2018 0

Tom Dwyer's message to the President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities

Hugo Dwyer is the Executive Director of VOR, a "Voice Of Reason speaking out  for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities". He traveled to Washington, D.C. in November to deliver a birthday message about his brother Tom, a resident of Southbury Training School in Connecticut, an Intermediate Care Facility for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/IID). This appeared in the Winter 2018 edition of the VOR Voice.

**************************

Executive Director’s Message: Tom Dwyer Speaks to The President 

My brother Tom turned 62 on November 8th of this year. He lives at the Southbury Training School, a state-operated ICF in Connecticut. STS has been Tom's home for his entire adult life, and I can honestly say that I don't believe Tom would be alive today without the quality care, love, and community that STS has given him.

Tom probably doesn’t know what a birthday is. He is severely developmentally disabled. Tom has autism, bi-polar disorder, Pica, Parkinsonism, and what was once called profound mental retardation. He has one detached retina and his vision is poor. He uses a wheelchair but he can be walked with a gait belt. And Tom is non-verbal.

I did not go to Connecticut to bring him his birthday present that day. Instead, I took a train down to Washington, D. C. to give him his gift. I went to Washington, D. C. to give Tom a voice.

I attended a meeting of the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID), hosted by the Administration for Community Living (ACL). I addressed the committee on behalf of Tom and on behalf of all of our loved ones with severe/profound intellectual and developmental disabilities. My voice, Tom’s voice, your voice, was the only voice that spoke on behalf of the most severely impacted members of the I/DD Community.

No one told me that the public wasn’t allowed to address the Committee at this meeting. Fortunately, no one had told the first speaker that either. When the Liaison from the Office of Health and Human Services to the Office of the President finished his opening remarks, centered around the committee’s intent to speak about Competitive Integrated Employment, he asked if there were any questions. I put up my hand, and not knowing any better, he picked me.

I introduced myself to the committee, and told them about Tom, that it was his birthday and I was there to speak for him, and for our VOR families with loved ones who need and want services in Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs). I told them that our families have been marginalized and overlooked for decades, our preferred services closed down or cut back, that admissions to ICF’s have been closed in many states, including at STS. I told them that we were being denied our right to choice, and that as parents and siblings and guardians, we had the right to make these choices. I went on to say that many other individuals with intellectual disabilities are being denied the opportunity to work in center-based employment with specialized wages. The choice of sheltered work environments is being denied by people who see this as detrimental to the wishes of those who seek competitive employment. I told them that our voices have not been heard in their meetings, and that I was there in hopes that the more severely intellectually disabled populations would have a seat at the table at the President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities.

After I spoke, the committee announced that members of the public were not to be granted the opportunity to speak at this meeting. Except for two women who had been hired as ASL interpreters if needed, I was the only person attending as a member of the public. But I stayed and watched and introduced myself to individual members when on breaks. I made sure the members of the committee were very aware of who I was and who I was there to represent.

The President’s Committee appears to have already set their agenda. It will focus on the less severely impacted members of the community, their hopes for inclusion, for integrated competitive employment, even for attending college. These are all noble, admirable goals. We all want all of these things for all of these individuals and their families. Inclusion is fine, but we want our loved ones to be included, too. A report to the President of the United States about the community of people with intellectual disabilities is not complete if it excludes the most severely intellectually disabled.

I hope that the Committee did hear Tom’s voice that day, and that they will see fit to invite our families to be part of their discussions next year. And I hope that maybe someday, Tom’s voice will be heard by the President himself. Or herself, if it takes that long.

Hugo Dwyer

**************************

See also, 

"Disability Housing: Institutional Avoidance" by Micaela Connery, The Huffington Post, 12/6/17: "Institutions aren’t a failure of the past, they’re a reality of the present."

Southbury Home and School Association

Abelone Kelley December 22, 2018 0

The Right to Fail

Abelone Kelley December 07, 2018 0

VOR, "a Voice Of Reason", comments on a National Council on Disability report on guardianship, Part 2

The National Council on Disability (NCD) Report, "Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination for People with Disabilities”, is over 200 pages long and contains historical as well as current information on guardianship. To simplify and focus VOR's response, VOR comments on the seven findings from the report.

The NCD admits from the outset that there is a lack of reliable and comprehensive data on guardianship that makes it impossible to know for sure whether systemic reforms are necessary. This caveat, however, does not prevent the NCD from making recommendations for reform. Part 3 of The DD News Blog comments on the report will cover more information about the NCD and the philosophical underpinnings of the movement to replace guardianship with Supported Decision Making and other alternatives.

***********************************

VOR Comments on the Seven Findings of “Beyond Guardianship: Toward Alternatives That Promote Greater Self-Determination for People with Disabilities” 

Finding 1: There is a lack of data on existing guardianships and newly filed guardianship. 

VOR agrees with this finding and the recommendation to “develop initiatives to produce effective and comprehensive data on guardianship”. We recommend that data should also be collected on the welfare of persons who have been removed from the protections of court-ordered guardianship. 

This finding supports a conclusion that without more reliable and complete data on guardianship, it is not possible to determine whether systemic reforms are needed. Evidence is also lacking that would support the limiting of guardianship or the wholesale replacement of guardianship with Supported Decision-Making or similar alternatives. 

Finding 2: People with disabilities are widely (and erroneously) seen as less capable of making autonomous decisions… 

VOR disagrees with the above statement, especially the word, “erroneously”. It may be true that some people with disabilities are incorrectly assumed to be unable to make autonomous decisions. Others, especially those with profound and severe intellectual disabilities and other complex medical and behavioral conditions, are indeed incapable of making decisions for themselves in some or all aspects of their lives. When necessary, they should be afforded the due process protections of guardianship to assure that their interests and rights are protected. 

In recommending that the DOJ [U.S. Department of Justice] should issue guidance to states on their legal obligations under the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] in regards to guardianship, it is not clear what the NCD has in mind or how much control the federal DOJ has over state court-appointed guardianships. Unfortunately, the ADA and the 1999 Supreme Court Olmstead decision interpreting the federal anti-discrimination law have been widely misinterpreted to require that services be provided in the “community”. They have been incorrectly used to limit the choices and range of services available to people with I/DD. 

Guardianship may be inappropriate for some people with disabilities, but a finding that an individual lacks the capacity to make informed decisions and needs the protection of guardianship is not in itself discrimination. 

Olmstead does not address guardianship or other forms of surrogate decision-making. The 2014 Home and Community-Based Settings Rule, however, confirms the authority of state courts to appoint guardians to represent people with disabilities: “We note that where a legal guardian, conservator, or other person has the sole authority under state law to make decisions related to the individual’s care, the state must comply with the decisions of the legal surrogate.” [p. 2995 of the Federal Register of 1/16/2014; Definition of Individual’s Representative] [emphasis added]. 

The recommendation that DD Councils, Universities of Excellence in Developmental Disabilities, and Protection and Advocacy organizations should work to avoid guardianship ignores the recognition of individual needs, including the possible need for court appointed guardianship. 

Finding 3: People with disabilities are often denied due process in guardianship proceedings. 

VOR believes that the vast majority of Probate Courts and state guardianship laws assure due process when properly enforced. We would appreciate any information on courts that do not adhere to this standard. 

Finding 4: Capacity determinations often lack a sufficient scientific or evidentiary basis. 

VOR believes that this finding is a broad generalization and is not accurate. Requests for guardianship usually include statements from qualified physicians along with other information on the functioning abilities of the individual and recommendations on the need for guardianship. Recommendations and observations by parents and other family caregivers as to the functioning abilities of the individual should be included in assessments for guardianship. 

Finding 5: Guardianship is considered protective, but courts often fail to protect individuals. 

VOR believes this statement is overly broad and subjective. Most states require reports from guardians on the condition of the person under guardianship, and many require additional oversight of guardianship cases. 

We agree with the recommendation for appropriate levels of oversight and regulation of professional and public guardians. 

Finding 6: Most state statutes require consideration of less-restrictive alternatives, but courts and others in the guardianship system often do little to enforce this requirement. 

VOR believes that for people who can make decisions for themselves, less restrictive alternatives to guardianship should be available, based on the needs and desires of the individual. The recommendation to “use SDM [Supported Decision-Making] and the court systems to restore people’s rights”, even for people with severe intellectual disabilities, is questionable. Restoration of rights must consider the capacity of the individual to make decisions in some or all aspects of the person’s life and whether guardianship is needed to ensure a person’s safety, health, and general well-being. SDM has not been proven to be an effective method to replace guardianship and could instead place the person in harm’s ways. 

Finding 7: Every state has a process for restoration, but this process is rarely used and can be complex, confusing, and cost-prohibitive. 

VOR believes that this finding may or may not be true, given that, “Data on restorations is seriously lacking, making it impossible to tell how many individuals are in unnecessary guardianship…”[page 167 of the Report]. There must be recognition that ending guardianship for some people may be fraught with unintended and harmful consequences. For an individual who has undergone rigorous assessments on his/her ability to make decisions, and has been found unable to do so, assessments would either have to show that the initial assessment was incorrect or that changes in the person’s decision-making abilities no longer support a need for guardianship. 

For the most part, the federal Protection and Advocacy system opposes guardianship on an ideological basis rather than following its mandate to consider and protect the rights of individuals with developmental disabilities. We believe that to encourage P&A organizations to continue on this path with extra funding to remove individuals from guardianship would be a poor use of federal funds.

**********************

VOR Comments Part 1

Olmstead Resources

Celebrating the 17th Anniversiary of the Olmstead Decision: Opportunities and Choices

Guardianship vs. Supported Decision Making

Abelone Kelley December 06, 2018 0

Free-For-All in the Lame Duck Session of the Michigan Legislature

Brian Dickerson sums up what is coming to fruition this week in the Michigan legislature:

It's the holiday tradition Lansing observes every other December: 

• Lock 148 elected representatives in a couple of large rooms.

• Remind those assembled that more than a third of them will be out of their jobs in 30 days.

• Sit back and enjoy the fun as dozens of lawmakers with nothing left to lose take the $57-billion-a-year enterprise called the State of Michigan for one last, wild spin around the block.

What could possibly go wrong? 

**********************************

The Lame Duck session of the legislature is the period between the November midterm election and the end of the old term. The Lame Duck is expected to last either through December 13 or December 20, 2018. The new term begins on January 1, 2019.

Here are two articles from the Detroit Free Press addressing the Lame Duck free-for-all:

"Michigan GOP guts minimum wage, paid sick leave bills in final passage" by  Kathleen Gray and Carol Thompson, Detroit Free Press, Published Dec. 4, 2018 and 

"The most controversial bills in Michigan's lame duck legislature" by  Paul Egan and Kathleen Gray, Detroit Free Press, Published Dec. 4, 2018

After eight years of complete Republican control, the Democrats won state wide elections for Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State and gained a few seats in both houses of the legislature. Three ballot initiatives also passed that won by wide margins, but are under fire by the Republicans who are trying to water down the laws while they have the super majority in the house and senate needed to change these proposals.

Here are a few of the most controversial bills going quickly through the legislature:

Minimum wage and sick leave

A ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage and require sick leave for employees had gathered hundreds of thousands of signatures and was going to be placed on the 2018 ballot. In September, the minimum wage and sick leave law was passed by the legislature with the intent to amend it during the lame duck session, when it would only require a majority of votes; A 2/3’s majority is required in most cases to change a law passed by the voters.

“Senate bill 1171: The bill would raise the minimum wage from $9.25 currently to $12.05 per hour by 2030 and take away cost-of-living adjustments. It also would raise the hourly wage for tipped workers, such as bartenders and waiters, from $3.52 to $4.58 per hour by 2030. If tips don't bring their wages to $12 per hour, the employer must make up the difference. The bill departs from the minimum-wage proposal included in citizen-initiated legislation, which would have raised the wage to $12 per hour by 2022, hiked the wage for tipped workers to $12 per hour by 2024, and tied the wages to the cost-of-living index…"

“Sen. David Hildenbrand, R-Lowell, sponsored the minimum-wage bill and said that he doesn’t believe in government-mandated wages.”

“State Rep. Abdullah Hammoud, D-Dearborn, offered amendments that would make members of the Legislature and state officials abide by the same pay and sick leave rules in the two bills, but they were voted down.

“‘You’ve gutted the original language and usurped the will of the people,’ said Hammoud, graphically comparing the changes in the bills to how a fish is gutted."

Senate bill 1175 waters down paid sick leave requirements

Michigan voter access

“Senate bills 1238-1240: Would alter the Promote the Vote ballot proposal passed by voters by 67-33 percent, tweaking a provision that allows a person to register to vote up to the day of the election to add more proof of residency in the 14 days before the election. The bills also would require a designation of U.S. citizenship on drivers’ licenses and state identification cards before a person could automatically be registered to vote and would allow people to opt out of registering to vote when they get their state identifications.”

Anti-gerrymandering

“Senate bill 1254: Would alter the Voters Not Politicians constitutional amendment ballot proposal, which voters passed by 61-39 percent to change the way state and federal legislative district lines are drawn, to impose a $500 fine for people who want to become a member of the 13-person redistricting commission if they mischaracterize their political affiliation and prohibit a person affiliated with any political party to provide consulting services to the commission. Republican lawmakers characterize the changes as legislation to implement the new redistricting method — which takes the drawing of district lines out of the hands of the Legislature. Those who backed the Voters Not Politicians plan say lawmakers shouldn't be interfering with the plan voters approved.”

Shifting Oversight of the campaign finance law

"Senate Bill 1252: The bill would shift oversight of campaign finance law from the secretary of state to a six-person bipartisan commission appointed by the governor. The move comes as Democrat Jocelyn Benson is about to replace Republican Ruth Johnson as Michigan's secretary of state."

[A commission split 50-50 between Democrats and Republicans would likely lead to a stalemate and stall or prevent changes being made that a large majority voted for.]

More influence for Legislature in court cases

“House Bill 6553: The bill would allow the state House of Representatives and Senate to intervene in any legal proceedings involving the state, which has traditionally been the purview of the state attorney general or the governor’s office. The move comes as Democrats are about to replace Republicans in both the governor and attorney general offices, while both chambers of the Legislature remain in GOP control."

Restricting powers on newly elected Secretary of State and Attorney General

“Senate Bill 1176: The bill would bar state agencies, including the attorney general's office and the secretary of state's office, from requiring nonprofits, which are frequently used to pay for political "issue ads," to disclose information about donors, volunteers or members. The bill would also restrict the powers of the Attorney General's Office in investigating fraudulent charities that scam the public.”

GOP senators cash in

"Senate Bill 1022: The bill would allow senators who earlier ran for the House to transfer surplus funds from their Senate campaign committees to their inactive and cash-poor House committees, in order to pay off old debts.The bill would allow two outgoing state senators — Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township, and Jim Marleau, R-Lake Orion, to pocket more than $92,000, by using surplus Senate funds to reimburse loans each of them made to their House committees." 

If you check the links for these bills, you should be able to find out their status. Eventually, they will all have to be signed by Governor Snyder to become law.

Contact information for Governor Rick Snyder.

Abelone Kelley December 06, 2018 0