A leading legal scholar says controversial anti-bullying legislation passed last week in the Michigan Senate is vague, confusing and will do little to address the problem of bullying.

“The bill does not prohibit bullying. It does not apply to students. It does not require any student to do anything or to refrain from doing anything. It requires school boards to adopt anti-bullying policies,” Douglas Laycock, Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Virginia Law School. “It does not require the school boards to include language protecting First Amendment rights. In fact, subsection 8 appears to be entirely meaningless. It says that this section does not abridge rights under the First Amendment (which it could not do even if it tried), and this section does not prohibit statements of religious belief or moral conviction. But this section doesn’t prohibit any other statements either. It doesn’t prohibit bullying statements.”

SB 137 was passed last week by the GOP-controlled Senate, on a party line vote of 26-11, with Democrats voting no. Republicans inserted language which would allow statements based on sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions. That language, advocates said, was a “license to bully,” and the bill received national press as a result.

Laycock said the legislation was “badly drafted.”

“I hope the schools that implement this do a better job of drafting than the legislature did. It took this law professor 20 minutes to parse this prose; a third grader would have no chance,” he said. “So what they apparently meant to say is that the school policies that prohibit bullying should not violate the First Amendment and should not prohibit statements of religious belief or moral conviction. But they never actually say that.”

The First Amendment law expert said opponents were in correct in their assessment of the impact of the inserted language.

“Taking it for what they probably meant, instead of what they said, how should we understand this First Amendment caveat? It is not reasonably interpreted to mean that one student can bully another as long as the bullier has a sincere religious motivation. Rather, it should be taken to mean that a statement of religious belief or moral conviction, made within the bounds of civility, is not bullying – even if the recipient of the statement claims to have foreseeably suffered great emotional distress by being subjected to this disagreeable opinion,” he said. “Can the bullier repeat the statement over and over even after the target makes clear that he does not want to continue this conversation? Generally no, in the law of workplace harassment, and I would think not in the bullying context either. Students have a right to express their views and to try to persuade people who disagree with them; the initial approach or the first statement cannot be labeled as bullying. That’s what section 8 ineptly tries to say. When a speaker persists after it becomes clear that the conversation is unwelcome, and persists to the point that he violates the bill’s vague definition of bullying (or a better drafted definition in school policies implementing this bill), then he is bullying despite his religious motivation.”

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, praised the language of the legislation last week in an interview with Michigan Messenger. He was pleased with Laycock’s assessment.

“Glad to see that a First Amendment expert agrees with our assessment of the bill’s language,” Glenn said. “And thus your First Amendment expert rightly condemns homosexual activists and their Democratic and media allies who leveled such a ridiculous charge.”

Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the ACLU of Michigan’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project, says he agrees with the law professor.

“I agree with Doug Laycock’s analysis. The additional language was unnecessary and could ultimately confusing. It wasn’t needed and should be removed from the House Bill, but it does not provide a legal defense to the act of bullying,” Kaplan said. “I just wanted to add that where we really need to be doing the work is with the individual school districts, to make sure not only do they have effective anti-bullying policies (that preferably have enumerated categories), but equally important provide for training of both staff and students so this policy is not merely a piece of paper, but has a significant impact on the overall school environment.”

Kaplan also agrees that the legislation itself does nothing to address bullying.

“The professor is correct that all this bill does is require school districts to have anti-bullying policies. The strength of these policies and how effective they are is going to depend on the local districts themselves. A majority of Michigan school districts already have anti-bullying policies — some are effective, some are not. The most effective programs include training for both staff and students,” Kaplan says. “The bottom line is that no state law is going to eliminate the problem of bullying in schools, it’s going to be up to the local districts to come up with both a policy and program that effectively addresses the issue of bullying and harassment of students. A good state law can offer direction to the the local districts, and clearly this language regarding moral and religious beliefs is superfluous and provides only confusion to the districts.”

Emily Dievendorf, policy director at Equality Michigan, said Laycock’s assessment of the legislation was shared by her organization, which is a statewide LGBT policy group based in Detroit.

“The language needs to be stripped out completely and we need not make it look like the 1st amendment needs a defense written into a bill by merely amending their offensive and unnecessary clause,” she said. “The first amendment, by way of its existence, stands on its own and has a clear route to defense through the courts. If Republicans wish to add to this bill, they can take the national attention this bill is receiving as an opportunity to show those outside of Michigan that they can make amend SB 137 in ways that make it the strong, comprehensive, enumerated bill that Gov. Snyder refers to when he recommends that we use the State Board of Education’s policy as a blueprint.”

For Kevin Epling, the legislation is personal. It is named after his son, Matt, who committed suicide in 2002 after a bullying incident in East Lansing. Epling said he was ashamed of SB 137, and that it did not reflect his family’s values.

“Trying to have a bill that would clearly ‘outlaw’ bullying would be as laughable as the new language. Those thinking that is what this bill will do are off target,” Epling said.

“I have always seen two primary beneficiaries of this bill: the students and the parents. I would love to have all the ‘shall’ and ‘encourages’ changed to ‘must,’” Epling said. “The other part to focus on is the students who now will know that by state law schools are supposed to tackle this issue and they are to play a part. The students themselves are the biggest tool we have to combat this issue. Beginning the education process and getting them activated should be part of the overall long term plan for each school.”

The Michigan Senate may take up a non-enumerated anti-bullying bill Tuesday morning in its regular session.

A version of the bill was voted down last week when Democrats attempted to attach it as an amendment to a bill to remove the cap on the number of charter schools in the state. Republicans also rejected a fully enumerated amendment.

At the heart of the argument is a belief by Democrats and most advocates that an enumerated bill — which specifically lists protected classes — would be more effective in addressing bullying. However, Republicans and their allies, including Gary Glenn at the American Family Association of Michigan, argue enumeration does not protect every student and that it is also part of the “homosexual agenda.”

The hoopla over last week’s votes was followed by Republican senators allegedly laughing while explaining their no votes, Sen. John Gleason (D-Flushing) told the Messenger last week. That behavior, he said, led to him staging a one-man sit-in at the Capitol on Thursday night. On Friday, plans to have citizens join him were derailed by Capitol officials who threatened arrest for anyone who remained in the building after 5:30 p.m. Both Gleason and Westland Democratic Sen. Glenn Anderson were both told they could not stay in the Capitol either since they did not have offices in the building. They were also told if they stayed at least one senate Sergeant-at-Arms would be required to stay, costing the state overtime during a significant budget shortage.

Gleason stayed in his office at the Farnum building Friday night.

The battle to create comprehensive anti-bullying laws — which are preventative in design — has been going on for 13 years. Michigan is one of only three states in the U.S. without a law to address bullying in the schools.

In a move that activists call unnecessary and based on bigotry, Rep. Tom Hooker (R-Byron Center) wants to make sure that Michigan taxpayers do not foot the bill for any gender assignment surgeries Michigan prisoners may need as part of their treatment.

Hooker readily admits he knows of no case where a Michigan prisoner has had gender reassignment surgery. But in an interview with the Grand Rapids Press, he explained why he thought the legislation was important to Michigan:

“It’s something that’s kind of a common sense thing. I’d much rather be proactive than reactive,” said the Byron Center Republican. “It’s definitely something we want to prevent.”

Equality Michigan, a statewide advocacy group for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, quickly condemned Hooker’s proposal. Denise Brogan-Kator, who is herself transgender, issued the following statement on the legislation:

“Representative Hooker’s bill is ill-conceived and is yet another attack on the gay and transgender population of Michigan by this Legislature. To the best of my knowledge, only one other state – Wisconsin – has ever passed such a bill and the federal courts struck it down as unconstitutional. Lawmakers should not be in the business of legislating medical care and should not be substituting its judgment for that of the medical profession in such matters. For Representative Hooker to dance to the tune played by Mr. Glenn, the head of an organization labeled as a hate group by the Southern Law Poverty Center is the very antithesis of the “common-sense” he purports to be exercising. I extend an offer to Mr. Hooker to meet with me and discuss this issue in greater detail.”

The SPLC labeled the national American Family Association an extreme anti-gay hate group last year. Officials there said the label did not necessarily apply to the local affiliates because the organization had not had a chance to review their activities and statements to make such a determination.

And Kator is correct, a similar law pass in 2005 by the Wisconsin legislature was struck down as unconstitutional by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in August. The court ruled that gender reassignment surgery is no different than any other kind of medical treatment. “Surely,”, the course said, “had the Wisconsin Legislature passed a law that DOC inmates with cancer must be treated only with therapy and painkillers, this court would have no trouble concluding that the law was unconstitutional.”

Gender identity disorder is a recognized mental health problem and is treated with therapy, hormone replacement therapies and gender reassignment surgery. In addition to those therapies, the transgender person is encouraged to live his or her life as the gender they believe they are, rather than the gender assigned at birth. In fact, gender reassignment surgery is not an option for transgender persons until and if they complete a period of time living publicly and completely as their self-identified gender. Mental health officials have argued that refusing treatment for transgender patients can lead to dire consequences, including suicide.

And Equality Michigan is not the only organization condemning the Hooker legislation. David Holtz, executive director of Progress Michigan, slammed Hooker for not paying attention to job creation.

“Voters want their lawmakers to be spending every available minute working to help businesses create jobs,” said Holtz. “That’s what Tom Hooker should be doing, not trying to find a solution for a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Not every group is opposing the legislation. Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, says the legislation is important.

“Given that it’s already risen as far as the second highest court in the land in a neighboring state, we agree with Rep. Hooker that it’s prudent to act to protect Michigan taxpayers before it becomes an issue in our prison system,” Glenn said. “It doesn’t make sense to passively let legislators or judges in other states set policy for Michigan taxpayers.”

Glenn points to an 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals ruling which ruled state prison system are not obligated to use Medicaid funding to pay for a gender reassignment procedure for a woman transitioning to a male. That ruling was made in 2001.

“As to the 7th Circuit’s decision on Wisconsin’s law, the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2001 ruled just the opposite, that taxpayers are not obligated to pay for prison sex-change operations,” Glenn said. “Michigan is in the entirely separate and somewhat conservative 6th Circuit, where hopefully we’d get the same result as the 8th rather than the 7th. Eventually, especially because of the conflict between different circuit courts, it appears likely to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, but that could be years away.”

Between the Lines Newspaper, a weekly newspaper for the LGBT community, also reported on the story. The newspaper spoke with Russ Marlan, spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Corrections.

Marlan consulted with the chief medical officer who said that MDOC would not provide sex change operations.

But, Marlan added, “if there ever was a circumstance where somebody had a medical need for such a thing, it’s certainly possible and allowable under our health care contract right now.”

Marlan said the chief medical officer knows of a transgender inmate who self-injected silicone into his breasts. The silicone is now leaking into his organs and blood. “There’s a health risk there with what’s happening to him so we’re certainly going to provide treatment for that,” Marlan said. The silicone will be removed from the inmate’s body. The inmate asked for silicone breast implants as a replacement, but the chief medical officer said the inmate will receive a prosthesis to wear instead.

“We provide medically necessary care and we want to keep prisoners healthy,” Marlan said. “It’s good for them, it’s good for their families … when 95 percent of them return to society we want to have them healthy. That helps control our long-term costs as well.”

The MDOC has a full policy related to dealing with prisoners diagnosed with gender identity disorder. That policy says that the disorder “represents serious medical needs which may not be ignored.” The policy lays out how MDOC medical officials are required to diagnose the disorder, as well as how plans dealing with treatment of gender identity disorder. Those actions include individual housing, access to gender appropriate clothing and hormone replacement therapy. Gender reassignment surgeries are identified as a possibility, but only in “extraordinary circumstances.”

Surgical procedures for initiation, advancement, or maintenance of sex reassignment shall not be performed except in extraordinary circumstances as determined by the Chief Medical Officer, and the Director.

It is unknown how Hooker’s legislation will play in the Republican-controlled House and Senate. Both chambers have attempted to move legislation which would limit the rights of LGBT people since taking office in January, including attempts to ban health care benefits for same-sex partners. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette is suing to prevent such benefits from being implemented for state workers, claiming in part that the benefits discriminate based on sex.

Julie Nemecek, a transgender activist fired from the conservative Christian Spring Arbor University in Jackson county, also weighed in on the legislation.

“The action of Representative Hooker is the worst kind of pandering. Without bothering to check with the Michigan Department of Corrections or authorities on a condition described by the American Medical Association as a ‘serious medical condition,’ Rep. Hooker is against something that he isn’t sure is happening because the American Family Association says he should be against it,” Nemecek said. “Keeping inmates from necessary psychological and medical care is cruel and unusual punishment. For some diagnosed with gender identity disorder, surgery is a necessary treatment prescribed by a doctor. Even the IRS recognizes this surgery as a legitimate medical expense for those able to pay for it. Courts have increasingly called this kind of legislation unconstitutional. Is there a basis, other than bigotry, to deny a treatment that is less expensive than other covered treatments? Proposed legislation should not be based on the ideas of Gary Glenn’s hate-based organization.”

Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan, has announced he is considering a run for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in 2012.

If he does run and win the GOP nomination, Glenn will square off with incumbent Debbie Stabenow, a Democrat from Lansing. Glenn has been an active spokesperson for the religious right in Michigan for years. He has also recently been seen talking to a variety of conservative and Tea Party groups about so-called “right to work” legislation in the state.

In an email he sent to the media announcing his exploratory committee, Glenn had this to say about the reasoning for his potential run:

“Our nation’s economy, security, liberties, moral foundation, and founding principles — all that’s made America and Americans exceptional in the history of the world – are under attack from within,” Glenn said. “If they’re not stopped, liberal ideologues like Debbie Stabenow and Barack Obama will rob our children of their birthright of freedom and turn our country into the United Socialist States of America. If I run, it will be to answer a call to duty — to God and my country and my own children — to do whatever I can to help senators like Jim DeMint and Rand Paul and Mike Lee stop them.”

Glenn’s announcement comes as a series of high profile Republicans — Saul Anuzis, former chair of the Michigan GOP; former Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland; and former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land — have declined the chance to run. Livonia Republican Congressman Thaddeus McCotter also declined a chance to challenge Stabenow, instead opting for a longshot bid for the GOP nomination for president.

The big names are likely being scared off by Stabenow’s campaign war chest of $4 million on hand.

That has opened the door to a host of lesser candidates to toss their names into the hat. The Detroit News reports:

Announced candidates so far are activist Peter Konetchy; Rick Wilson, a retired autoworker who’s run unsuccessfully against Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Flint; self-described constitutional conservative Chad Dewey; and former West Michigan judge Randy Hekman.

Also considering a run are: Clark Durant, former Cornerstone Schools chief executive; and Rob Steele, the Ann Arbor cardiologist who lost to Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn, last year.

The absence of high profile GOP names in the race led the Michigan Democratic Party to issue an taunting press release Friday morning.

“It’s really not surprising that top candidates do not want to challenge Debbie Stabenow,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Brewer said in the release. “Debbie Stabenow is getting results on issues important to Michigan families like job creation, fighting unfair trade and protecting the Great Lakes. She is in a very strong position so it’s not hard to see why Republicans are having trouble finding a top candidate willing to run against her.”

The budget compromise announced by Gov. Rick Snyder, House Speaker Jase Bolger and Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville contains at least one provision that the governor’s legal counsel has said is unconstitutional and two controversial provisions that have nothing to do with the budget but are part of the conservative social agenda.

During a Thursday press conference announcing the budget agreement reached by the Republican leadership, Bolger said that a controversial line item to institute reporting provisions for stem cell research done in the state would remain in the budget.

Michael Gadola, legal counsel for Snyder, wrote a letter May 18 to Richardville and Bolger informing them that this provision would violate the state constitution. When voters approved a referendum legalizing stem cell research, they included an exclusive set of “enumerated limitations.” The reporting requirement demanded by this new provision, Gadola said, “violates the express language of the constitution and is unenforceable.”

Nonetheless, that provision remains in the budget bills that will be sent to the governor’s desk for his signature. In spite of having the letter from his own legal counsel, Snyder was coy on whether or not he would use his line item veto to strike those provisions.

“We’ll just have to wait until they have passed the budget and what comes before us,” Snyder said when asked whether he would do so.

One other provision that Gadola said was unconstitutional in his letter, dubbed the Agema amendment, would have fined state universities five percent of their budget appropriations if they continued to offer benefits to unrelated, unmarried live-in partners of university employees. That language has now been changed so it merely expresses the opinion of the legislature that offering such benefits violates the constitution but no longer contains any penalties.

In addition to those two provisions, the Senate higher education bill includes a religious conscience clause requiring state universities with accredited counseling programs to “report” on actions to protect counseling students from having to do something which might interfere with the “sincerely held religious beliefs” of the student.

The close, section 472, was described by a Senate Fiscal Agency document as follows:

Religious Beliefs. Requires report from each university on efforts to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of students enrolled in accredited counseling degree programs. (Sec. 472)

That move comes in response to the case of Julea Ward.

Ward was a graduate student in the Eastern Michigan University counseling program, but she was expelled from the program when she declined to counsel a gay student. In refusing to counsel the student she said approving of homosexuality would violate her sincerely held religious beliefs that the Bible condemned homosexuality.

The school, however, held a hearing and removed her from the grad program for violating the school’s adherence to a national standard of ethics in the field of counseling. That ethical standard requires counselors to put their own views to the side to counsel people with whom they may disagree. The school panel also found unanimously that she violated the non-discrimination policy. She filed suit in federal court, but lost in the District level and is currently appealing to the Sixth Circuit Court.

Ward’s case has become a cause celebre for the religious right, especially for Gary Glenn and the American Family Association of Michigan.

Emily Dievendorf, policy director for Equality Michigan, slammed the counseling provision.

“Our public universities have a responsibility to train competent counselors that are capable of serving the needs of all clients. It’s crucial that students seeking services at counseling facilities are treated with respect in times of need. Professional ethics rules bar counselors from exhibiting intolerance or discrimination. Our institutions of higher learning must comply with such standards.”

“Fair-minded constituents won’t stand for this. They understand that refusing mental health services to individuals based on religious belief is both absurd and unprofessional. This amendment is yet another example of Republican extremists pushing a blatant social agenda to harm gay and transgender students. It has no place in our law and no place in our highly respected institutions of higher learning.”

Bolger told Michigan Messenger the provision was about the “constitutional rights” of students.

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder on Wednesday urged the state legislature to pass anti-bullying legislation, but his office declined to disclose which pieces of legislation currently pending before the legislature he supported.

“We must ensure that Michigan students’ opportunities are not diminished because we fail to provide them with a safe and secure learning environment. Forty-five states already have passed laws to address the problem of bullying in schools. It is time for Michigan to join them,” Snyder said during his special address on education in Detroit. “I am asking the legislature to pass a comprehensive anti-bullying bill that will be in place for the next school year. The bill need not tell each school how to deal with bullying, but it must require that they have clear policies do so. The State Board of Education already has developed a model policy that every district can look to as they develop their own.”

The state legislature has been struggling to approve an anti-bullying bill for a decade. Advocates for the legislation have been clear that the law should mandate enumeration — or a clearly defined list of protected groups — while Gary Glenn and the American Family Association of Michigan have opposed enumeration, calling it part of a “homosexual agenda,” because it would list sexual orientation and gender identity and expression as protected classes.

“Gov. Snyder’s statement made clear his desire that any such legislation not dictate to local school districts how to handle the issue, but if he intended by his comments to actually endorse the state Department of Education’s current model policy, he is as misguided in promoting homosexual activists’ segregation language such as found in that policy as were the Democrats who for five years blocked passage of any anti-bullying legislation that didn’t force that language on every school district in the state,” said Glenn in an e-mail to Messenger.

Legislation pending in both chambers of the legislature cater to either side of the debate.

And while Snyder’s hat tip to the State Board of Education model policy could be seen as a support for enumerated legislation, his spokespeople were unwilling to reveal which versions of legislation he supports.

“The Governor’s message very clearly outlines his language on this,” said Geralyn Lasher, Snyder’s communications director. “Every school must protect every student. Forty-five states already have these laws on the books and it is time for Michigan to join them. He fully intends to work with the legislature to provide a safe environment for all students.”

Despite the non-commitment on a specific piece of legislation, Snyder was very clear that action to address the problem of bullying is a necessity.

The harm caused by bullying is not under debate. Studies have long shown that it leads to low self-esteem, depression, poor academic achievement, truancy, and even suicide. School is not a house of learning for a bullying victim; it is a house of pain. A bullied student is not only being tormented; he or she is being denied an equal opportunity to a quality education.

Even the home is no longer a refuge for the bullying victim. Much of bullying today takes place on the internet, cell phone text services and by other electronic means. Such “cyber bullying” may not always take place on school property or during school hours, but when it is between students it must be recognized as a school issue. And because bullying is a school issue, it must be dealt with in school – before it becomes a law enforcement issue.

Many Michigan schools already have good anti-bullying policies in place and we need to ensure that every school has one. School policies cannot be designed to only cover some students – every school must protect every student. And, as adults, we need to be clear in both word and deed – bullying is always wrong

The Republican leader in the state House took a similar position.

“While the Speaker has not taken a position on any pending legislation, he does believe protecting students from bullying in school is important,” said Ari Adler, spokesman for the Republican Speaker of the House Jase Bolger of Marshall. “In the past, he has not supported bills that provided special classifications of students, preferring that the bills focus on bullying in general.”

Advocates for enumerated anti-bullying legislation praised Snyder for his statement.

“I am now embarking on my eighth year of service on this issue, in some ways as long or longer than many elected officials. For any adult the old ideas of what bullying is along with outdated thinking of special treatment needs to be erased. The biggest problem in anti-bullying efforts are the adults, and I can only hope that when Governor Snyder says ‘comprehensive,’ he fully understands its meaning,” said Kevin Epling, co-director of Bully Police USA. Epling’s son, Matt, committed suicide following a series of bullying incidents in East Lansing. “I applaud Gov. Snyder’s address on anti-bullying and his stance that it is wrong and the adults must act. His call for a comprehensive bill is long overdue.”

Officials from both the city and county of Jackson are standing by their choice of a woman with a history of anti-gay statements as their shared human resources director.

Last week, officials announced the hiring of Ohio resident Crystal Dixon. She made headlines in 2008 when she was fired from the University of Toledo following the publication of an editorial she penned in which she opined that gays were not “civil rights victims.”

The Jackson Citizen Patriot reports the city and county officials have been “inundated” with e-mails.

The newspaper also notes that not only did Equality Michigan issue an action alert, as well as a petition on Change.org, but Gary Glenn of the Midland based American Family Association of Michigan sent out a notice to his supporters. In that notice, Glenn and the AFA praised Dixon for her “principled stand for family, faith and freedom.”

As Michigan Messenger reported last week, many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocates and their supporters condemned the hiring choice. Rick Davies, a former city council member, e-mailed leaders encouraging them to rescind their job offer to Dixon.

But officials say Dixon’s hiring will stand.

“We had six very capable people in the process of hiring for that position,” [Jackson Mayor Karen] Dunigan said. “They’re very qualified. I have to trust in them and their decisions.”

County board Chairman Steve Shotwell said if Dixon follows state law and county policies that prevent job discrimination, then her position on gay rights will be a non-issue.

“No one is to be treated any differently,” Shotwell said.

[Acting Jackson County Administrator Adam] Brown agreed and reiterated that she is the right person for the job.

“When she comes here she’s going to be evaluated on treating people fair and equitably,” Brown said. “We’re committed to that and she’s committed to that.”

The city of Jackson, the county and the state of Michigan have no law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The city considered a local ordinance in August of 2009, but the city council rejected the proposal on a 5-2 vote.

Michigan advocates are continuing their drive to get the state legislature to pass an anti-bullying bill, even as Arkansas has gone back and reworked its law.

The new Arkansas law, which is heading to the desk of Gov. Mike Beebe, was amended to specifically list, or enumerate, protected classes.

In Michigan, the legislature’s conservatives, fueled by activism by Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, have long opposed legislation including enumeration. In the last hours of the 2008 sessions, advocates for the law agreed to strip the bill of enumeration, to address concerns from Republicans. Republican Sen. Alan Cropsey (R-DeWitt) however refused to bring the stripped down bill to the Senate floor for a vote.

Cropsey was term limited out of office in November, but he was selected as the legislative liaison for Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette.

Gov. Rick Snyder’s pick to lead the Michigan State Police, Kristi Etue, said in December the Michigan State Police would continue its history of advocating for a strong anti-bullying law.

Kevin Epling, Co-Director of Bully Police USA, and the father of a son who committed suicide as the result of bullying, says he is frustrated at the lack of movement from the legislation.

“Arkansas has had a law for several years, but in keeping with many states it appears they have seen the need to update and adapt existing laws, to meet the needs of the changing dynamic of the bullying problem,” says Epling. “While Arkansas and other states have moved forward, it seems Michigan lawmakers have been committed to head in the opposite direction. Which to many parents has been extremely frustrating, and to a degree has cost students their lives because our previous lawmakers chose not to act and allowed people to simply look the other way.”

He said the recent anti-bullying conference at the White House was another reminder for him about how important the laws are.

“Seven years ago in Michigan my words fell on deaf ears, and to now hear our president echo some of those same thoughts is a strong vindication that some of us have always been on the right track for the right reasons: The safety of our children,” he says. “I am hopeful that our new legislative class will show their true ‘class’ and work for our kids and not their party or themselves this time around.This has never been about political party affiliation, sexual orientation or diminishing local control, it has been about our children and what they need, not what the adults want. Michigan’s political leadership needs not only to follow the other states but we should show our leadership and put forth a law that shows our commitment to our future generations.”

When and if the legislation passes, Epling says there is still much work left to be done to stop the bullying crisis in the country and state.

“We must remember that whatever language is in the Arkansas bill or is finalized in Michigan’s bill, it will still be the final implementation and enforcement of that law to make the changes needed,” Epling said. “Having a law is far better than just a policy but once passed, even though it has been a struggle for many of us, there is plenty of hard work ahead.”

Advocates for an strong anti-bullying bill will present a special showing of the play The Bullycide Project at Michigan State University’s Pasant Theater, located in the Wharton Center for Performing arts. The production will be Wednesday night at 7 p.m. The play was written and performed by actors of the Trust Theater Ensemble. Click here to view a trailer about the play on Facebook.

The Michigan House of Representatives is prepared to vote on a resolution which would overrule a January decision by the Michigan Civil Service Commission to provide partner benefits to state employees.

Republicans say the move will cost $6 to $8 million in increased costs for the state. Supporters say the costs are inflated, noting that in other locations where similar benefits have been implemented a tiny fraction of those eligible for the program enrolled.

The Senate passed the resolution earlier this month in a voice vote. One Democrat crossed party lines to join the Republican super majority in the chamber to approve the resolution. Because the bill was approved on a voice vote, it is unknown who that Democrat was.

And the House seems poised to push the resolution through with a similar action. In the House the move is called “gaveled through.” It is used by the majority party (including Democrats in the past) to pass consent agendas quickly. The acting chair, who is not always the Speaker, calls the vote, there is a verbal response (aye or nay) and the chair says the motion has passed.

The House currently has a 63 member GOP majority. But approving this resolution requires a two-thirds super majority, which means 74 votes, so 11 Democrats need to cross party lines in order for the bill to pass.

The resolution was passed out of committee last week while protesters were demonstrating against plans by Republican Gov. Rick Snyder to eliminate the Michigan Earned Income Tax Credit and to impose a tax on retirement pensions.

If the House approves the measure, it will be the first time in the history of the MCSC that a decision by the body was overturned by the legislature. Republicans are also seeking a ballot initiative to remove the MCSC from the state constitution, and in the meantime has been working to strip the body of much of its power.

American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn sent a letter to Republican leaders in the state asking them to reject the MCSC decision. But he went a step further and asked them to ask Bill Schuette, the GOP Attorney General, to determine if providing the benefits violated the state’s “Marriage Protection Amendment.”

That amendment was passed in 2004 by voters and defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and disallows the recognition of any other “similar” relationship. The last six words of the amendment — “or similar union for any purpose” — led to a lengthy court battle in the state that ended with the Supreme Court ruling in 2008 that providing same-sex partner benefits violated that provision. As a result, many public employers in the state created other eligible individual insurance programs. The MCSC resolution was based on those programs.

The domestic partner benefits were collectively bargained for during the Granholm administration and written into contracts. Union officials say the proper way to address the issue for the Snyder administration is at the bargaining table this summer — not through a legislative fiat undermining a good faith negotiation and agreement.

Correction: The American Family Association of Michigan did not ask Attorney General Schuette to provide a formal legal opinion on the constitutionality of the domestic partner benefits, as the article originally said; rather, they called on the legislature to ask Schuette to offer such an opinion.

LANSING — The Senate Committee on Reforms, Restructuring and Reinventing approved a resolution Wednesday morning that starts the process to revoke partner benefits for unmarried state workers.

The benefit plan was approved by the Michigan Civil Service Commission in January.

Republicans, led by Sen. Rick Jones (R-Grand Ledge), have criticized the plan as being too expensive at a time when the state is facing a nearly $2 billion budget deficit.

Grand Rapids Republican Mark Jansen chairs the committee and introduced the resolution, which was approved on a party line vote of 4 in favor and 2 against. Democratic Sens. Rebekah Warren (D-Ann Arbor) and Coleman Young, Jr. (D-Detroit) opposed the measure.

Opponents argued the resolution to eliminate the benefit program was about financial management of the state, not about social issues.

“Some people will say this is a social issue,” said Jan Winters, who runs the Office of the State Employer. “This is about cost… We don’t have the funds to cover a benefit that could be in the tens of millions of dollars.”

The total projected cost of the unmarried partner benefit is approximately .003 percent (three one-thousandths of a percent) of this year’s estimated deficit.

Winters delivered a letter to the committee from Gov. Rick Snyder saying, “I urge the legislature…[to] reject the extension of health care benefits to the unrelated live-in companions of state employees and their dependents,” Snyder wrote in his letter.

Winters said in January the program was estimated to cost $6 million, but Wednesday, said because the program was so broadly written, the program was expected to cost the state $8 million in the first year. The program is slated to go into effect Oct. 1, the beginning of the state’s new fiscal year. It would be available to an estimated 22,000 members of the United Auto Workers Local 6000 and the Service Employees International Union Local 517M, as well as 13,700 non-union employees.

Benefits such as this are considered cash income by the IRS and the state treasury, and are taxed as such. Winters said she was unsure if the cost offsets from the increased tax revenues from the benefit extension was included in the estimates, but she said the increased tax liability for the state as an employer was factored into the cost. Employers pay a portion of employment taxes.

Under the state constitution, lawmakers can override a decision by the Michigan Civil Service Commission. The Commission determines the pay schedules and benefits for employees of the state. But in order for the legislature to overrule a decision by the commission, two-thirds of both chambers must vote to do so 60 calendar days after the recommendation is submitted as part of the budget proposal by the governor’s office.

The resolution is expected to have no issues passing in the Senate, where the GOP has a super majority. But it will face an uphill climb in the House, where the GOP is the majority but need to get 74 votes to pass the resolution. The GOP majority is 63 Republicans to 47 Democrats. That means the GOP will have to peel away 11 Democrats to garner the necessary two-thirds majority to overrule the MSCS decision.

If the legislature approves the resolution with the required two-thirds vote, it will be the first time such a move has occurred in the state.

Democrats challenged the resolution and the attacks on the plan during the hearing. Young challenged the constitutionality of the resolution, while Warren raised questions as to whether this was an appropriate business decision.

“If we’re going to run it like a business, why not run it like other businesses in the state?” Warren asked Winters in the hearing.

At least one union official has questioned the move. Ray Holman, legislative liaison for UAW 6000, says he is confused as to why the legislature is undertaking the action. He tells the Lansing State Journal that the issue should be dealt with at the bargaining table — not in the legislature.

Advocates in favor of the plan expressed concern about committee’s action and the resolution.

Emily Dievendorf, policy director for Equality Michigan, a statewide organization which advocates for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights, issued the following statement following the hearing Wednesday morning:

Senator Warren raised valid concerns with today’s challenge to the Michigan Civil Service Commission decision. As she stated, Snyder’s foundation for his proposal to turn Michigan around is rooted in his claim that we need to run Michigan like a business. The fact is that more than half of Fortune 500 companies consider it a priority to offer Other Eligible Individual benefit programs to their employees. Successful, growing businesses consider their bottom line and in doing so don’t deny their employees the support they need to have a healthy stable household because social instability equates to economic liability.

Unfortunately, Jan Winters, Director of the Office of State Employer, could not address this contradiction in Michigan’s approach to our economic revival, nor could she explain where the new inflated cost estimate for the extension of benefits came from. It is a convenient oversight in her presentation that all figures being released to defend the reversal of the Civil Service Commission’s decision are worst case scenario estimates that assume everyone eligible for the benefits would take advantage of them. We know that the actual likely participation rate is below 2 percent. Furthermore, support for the MCSC’s decision reversal ignores the reality that not providing health benefits is always more expensive than providing benefits and would suck money out of the budget that Michigan doesn’t have.

The issue has drawn the attention of national LGBT groups.

“Providing employment benefits, including health insurance, to the adult partners of state employees is an issue of fundamental fairness,” said Sarah Warbelow, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign which is a national group advocating for LGBT rights based in Washington D.C. “It is critical for employees to provide for the best possible future for their families, and if Michigan fails to provide equal benefits, the state risks losing a notable segment of its committed, talented workforce. The Legislature must make Michigan more competitive to retain and attract workers, and ultimately private industry as well.”