HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2018.02.21 - 23334MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION #18062
BY: Commissioners Shelley Goodman Taub, District #12; William Dwyer, District #14; Gary McGillivray,
District #20; Hugh Crawford, District #9; Wade Fleming, District #16; Thomas Middleton, District #4; Doug
Tietz, District #11; Phil Weipert, District #8; David Bowman, District #10; Michael Spisz, District #3; Eileen
KowaII, District #6;
IN RE: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS - OPPOSING THE STATE BUDGET OFFICE'S PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE MICHIGAN INDIGENT DEFENSE ACT, MCL 780.991 et a.
To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act (MIDC Act), MCL 780.981 et al, requires local
funding units (counties, cities, villages and townships) to take over the delivery of indigent defense
systems. MCL 780.983(g) and MCL 780.993(10); and
WHEREAS Oakland County is the local funding unit of the 6th Circuit Court and the four election division
districts of the 52nd District Court; and
WHEREAS within Oakland County all the local funding units of the 35th (Northville), 43rd (Ferndale, Hazel
Park and Madison Heights), 44th (Berkley and Royal Oak), 45 1h (Huntington Woods, Oak Park, Pleasant
Ridge and Royal Oak Township.), 46th (Lathrup Village, City of Southfield, Southfield Township, Bingham
Farms, Beverly Hills and Franklin), 47th (Farmington and Farmington Hills), 48th (Birmingham, Bloomfield
Hills, Keego Harbor, Orchard Lake, Sylvan Lake, Bloomfield Township and West Bloomfield Township),
50th (Pontiac), 51st (Waterford Township) and 67th (Fenton) District Courts will also be impacted by the
proposed amendments to the MIDC Act; and
WHEREAS Oakland County is required to spend funds to provide defense counsel to indigent defendants
in compliance with the MIDC approved minimum standards at the level of its "local share"; and
WHEREAS "local share" is defined as the local funding unit's average annual expenditures for indigent
criminal defense services in the three fiscal years immediately preceding the creation of the MIDC under
the MIDC Act [2010, 2011, 2012], excluding money reimbursed to the system by individuals determined
to be partially indigent. MCL 780.993(6); and
WHEREAS the MIDC Act expressly provides that Oakland County "shall not be required to provide funds
in excess of its local share." MCL 780.993(7); and
WHEREAS Oakland County's local share is calculated at $1.85 million. MCL 780,983(h); and
WHEREAS the State Budget Office (SBO) is seeking an amendment to the MIDC Act which would
redefine local share by requiring a "minimum local share of indigent defense system of $7.25 per capita,
and provide for an annual adjustment of a system's local share by the Detroit Consumer Price Index or 3
percent, whichever is less, to maintain the local share of support"; and
WHEREAS the SBO per capita spending amendment would increase Oakland County's local share
calculation to $9 million and would require Oakland County to spend a minimum of $9 million on
indigent defense services before the State of Michigan would provide any grant funding under the MIDC
Act; and
WHEREAS the SBO per capita spending amendment is a de facto per capita tax and a violation of the
unfunded mandate limitations of Headlee Amendment, Article 9, §29 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963;
and
WHEREAS Oakland County is currently authorized by statute to seek reimbursements of the costs
associated with providing indigent defense counsel to defendants. MCL 769.1k(b)(iv); and
WHEREAS Oakland County averages $869,000 in annual revenue reimbursements from partially
indigent defendants pursuant to MCL 7691k(b)(iv); and
WHEREAS,tba-SBO is seeking an amendment to the MIDC Act which eliminates the deduction of
reimbursement revenue from the local share calculation and mandates that '90 percent of the revenue
collected from partially indigent defendants be remitted to the state to support statewide system costs";
and
WHEREAS under the amendment Oakland County will be able to retain only 10 percent or approximately
$86,900 of its collected reimbursement revenue; and
WHEREAS the SBO reimbursement remittance amendment will allow the State of Michigan to seize an
average of $800,000 in annual County reimbursement revenue; and
WHEREAS the SBO reimbursement remittance amendment will create a local disincentive for collections
of those reimbursements; and
WHEREAS Oakland County can no longer be expected to continue to fund the effort to collect
reimbursements from partially indigent defendants and act on behalf of the State when the cost of doing
so will exceed the amendment's 10 percent retained reimbursement revenue allowance. (Gosling
Amendment - Misc. Resolution #90004); and
WHEREAS the SBO per capita spending amendment and reimbursement remittance amendment will
cost Oakland County residents and taxpayers in excess of $9.8 million in expenses and lost
revenue; and
WHEREAS the SBO amendments to the MIDC Act will result in an unfunded mandate in violation of the
Headlee Amendment, Article 9, §29 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963; and
WHEREAS the State of Michigan is already not fully funding the MIDC minimum standards for indigent
defense in accordance with the revised first phase of standards to be implemented and any increase in
costs imposed by the SBO per capita spending and reimbursement remittance amendments will simply
exacerbate the State of Michigan's existing failure to comply with the MIDC Act; and
WHEREAS the State of Michigan is publicly demonstrating that it fully intends to continue shifting these
increased costs onto Oakland County and other funding units within Oakland County in spite of the State
funding promises made by the Legislature to secure votes to adopt the original MIDC Act; and
WHEREAS the increase in costs to $9.8 million cannot be constitutionally shifted to Oakland County
under the Headlee Amendment, Article 9, §29 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963; and
WHEREAS Oakland County has long been concerned that the State of Michigan would not pay for the
increased costs associated with the implementation of the MIDC minimum standards under the MIDC Act;
and
WHEREAS for these reasons, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners is opposed to the passage
and enactment of the SBO proposed amendments to the MIDC Act; and
WHEREAS for these reasons, the Oakland County Executive is opposed to the passage and enactment
of the SBO proposed amendments to the MIDC Act.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners hereby
opposes the passage of the SBO proposed amendments to the MIDC Act.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Clerk is requested to forward copies of this
adopted resolution to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, the State Budget Office, the Oakland
County members of the Michigan legislature delegation, the Michigan Association of Counties, the
Oakland County Executive, the Chief Judges of the 35th (Northville), 43rd (Ferndale, Hazel Park and
Madison Heights), 44th (Berkley and Royal Oak), 45th (Huntington Woods, Oak Park, Pleasant Ridge
and Royal Oak Township.), 46th (Lathrup Village, City of Southfield, Southfield Township, Bingham
Farms, Beverly Hills and Franklin), 47th (Farmington and Farmington Hills), 48th (Birmingham, Bloomfield
Hills, Keego Harbor, Orchard Lake, Sylvan Lake, Bloomfield Township and West Bloomfield Township),
50th (Pontiac), 51st (Waterford Township), 52nd and 67th (Fenton) District Courts located within Oakland
County, the Chief Judge of the 61n Circuit Court, the government relations consulting firm representing the
interests of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners and the Chairpersons of the Board of
Commissioners in all other Michigan counties.
Chairperson, I move the adoption of the foregoing resolution.
Comrrilissioner Hugh Crawford
District#9
Commissioner Thomas Middleton
grict #4
otimrSsioner Phil VVeipert
Disirict #8
ommissioner Gary McGillivray
District #20
cimmissione d‘rd-Bowman
District #10
Commissioner 44
District # chle4A,
Commissioner Wade Fleming
District #16
(CoN-ngsioner Eileen Ko-a,11--
District #6
Commissioner Commissioner
District # District #
Commissioner Commissioner
District # District #
Commissioner Commissioner
District # District #
Commissioner Commissioner
District # District #
Resolution #18062 February 21, 2018
Moved by Taub supported by Bowman to suspend the rules and vote on Miscellaneous Resolution #18062
- Board of Commissioners — Opposing the State Budget Office's Proposed Amendments to the Michigan
Indigent Defense Act, MCL 780.991 Et a..
Vote on motion to suspend the rules:
AYES: Hoffman, Jackson, Kochenderfer, KowaII, McGillivray, Middleton, Quarles, Spisz, Taub, Tietz,
Weipert, Woodward, Zack, Berman, Bowman, Crawford, Dwyer, Gershenson. (18)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted in favor, the motion to suspend the rules and vote on Miscellaneous
Resolution #18062 - Board of Commissioners — Opposing the State Budget Office's Proposed
Amendments to the Michigan Indigent Defense Act, MCL 780.991 Et a. carried.
Discussion followed.
Moved by Woodward supported by Gershenson the resolution be amended as follows:
INSERT the following before the last WHEREAS clause
WHEREAS studies show Michigan is among the worst states in the country at protecting the
constitutional rights of poor criminal defendants; and
WHEREAS, based on the proposals sent to the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission from virtually
every county across the state, Michigan counties currently paid at least $108 million MORE on
prosecuting people accused of a crime than they do on the constitutionally required public defense
attorneys for Michiganders who can't afford their own lawyer; and
WHEREAS when a defendant has inadequate legal representation it can result in wrongful convictions
and quite possibly poor innocent people being sent to jail; and
WHEREAS inadequate legal defense was a factor in nearly half of the overturned convictions in
Michigan; and
INSERT the following BEFORE the last BE IT FURTHER RESOLOVED clause:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissions supports the Michigan
Indigent Defense Act and its efforts to insist upon fair and equal justice for low-income and indigent
defendants; and recognizes not nearly enough is being spent on indigent defense in this state.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Oakland County believes that just because a defendant is poor, he or
she should not be denied justice afforded to rich defendants.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Oakland County Board of Commissioners affirms that it is not
acceptable for wealth to buy constitutional protection. Instead the government must provide the rights
afforded by the Constitution to all citizens regardless of income.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Oakland County recognizes that while equal access to justice is a
fundamental constitutional right, the expenses related to providing these vital services must not be
unfairly shifted to county and local governments.
Discussion followed.
Commissioner Taub addressed the Board to offer an amendment to the amendment.
INSERT the following BE IT FURTHER RESOLOVED clause (ONLY):
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Oakland County recognizes that while equal access to justice is a
fundamental constitutional right, the expenses related to providing these vital services must not be
unfairly shifted to county and local governments.
Discussion followed.
Vice-Chairperson Michael Spisz addressed the Board to request a roll call vote on the offer of an
amendment to the amendment.
Vote on amendment to the amendment:
AYES: Jackson, Kochenderfer, KowaII, McGillivray, Middleton, Quarles, Spisz, Taub, Tietz, Weipert,
Woodward, Zack, Berman, Bowman, Crawford, Gershenson, Hoffman. (17)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted in favor, the offer to amend the amendment carried.
Discussion followed.
Moved by Taub supported by Hoffman to amend the amendment as follows:
INSERT the following BE IT FURTHER RESOLOVED clause (ONLY):
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Oakland County recognizes that while equal access to justice is a
fundamental constitutional right, the expenses related to providing these vital services must not be
unfairly shifted to county and local governments.
Vote on the amended amendment:
AYES: Kochenderfer, KowaII, McGillivray, Middleton, Spisz, Taub, Tietz, Weipert, Woodward, Zack,
Berman, Bowman, Crawford, Gershenson, Hoffman, Jackson. (16)
NAYS: Quarles. (1)
Discussion followed.
Vote on the resolution as amended by the amended amendment:
AYES: KowaII, McGillivray, Middleton, Quarles, Spisz, Taub, Tietz, Weipert, Woodward, Zack,
Berman, Bowman, Crawford, Gershenson, Hoffman, Jackson, Kochenderfer. (17)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted in favor, the resolution as amended, by the amended amendment, was
adopted.
HEREBY APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION
CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE
ACTING PURSUANT TO MCL 45.559A (7)
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lisa Brown, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and
accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the Oakland County Board of Commissioners on February 21,
2018, with the original record thereof now remaining in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the County of Oakland at
Pontiac, Michigan this 21 st day of February, 2018.
Lisa Brown, Oakland County