HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 2009.08.12 - 9690REPORT (MISC. 109145) August 12, 2009
BY: GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE — Christine Long, Chairperson
RE: MR #09145 — BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS — SUPPORT FOR HOUSE BILL 4785 &
4786 TO PROVIDE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
To the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
The General Government Committee, having considered the above titled resolution on
August 3, 2009, recommends that the resolution be adopted.
Chairperson, on behalf of the General Government Committee, I move the acceptance of the
foregoing report.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
:tcaQ
GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE
Motion carried on a roll call vote with Runestad. Jacobsen and Long voting no.
Miscellaneous Resolution #U9 145
BY: Commissioner Gary R. McGillivray, District #24, -efraglilliftheilie
RE: Board of Commissioners — Support for House Bills 4785 & 4786 to Provide
Unemployment Benefits
TO: Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009, enacted several changes
concerning unemployment insurance benefits for displaced workers; and
WHEREAS among the changes are a number of provisions aimed at encouraging states to
"modernize" their unemployment insurance programs by increasing benefits and expanding
eligibility, for which states were offered S7 billion to assist in the cost of funding these changes; and
WHEREAS House Bills 4785 and 4786 propose to enact amendments to the Michigan Employment
Security Act to provide unemployment benefits to individuals who are available for and seeking only
part-time work, and to provide extended benefits to individuals who exhaust regular benefits and are
enrolled in an approved job training program; and
WHEREAS enactments of these provisions would enable the state to receive additional federal
funding made available under the federal American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009; and
WHEREAS House Bill 4785 amends the Michigan Employment Security Act (MCL 421.27) to
provide up to an additional 26 weeks of U I benefits to individuals who exhaust regular benefits (up to
26 weeks) during the period they are enrolled and satisfactorily completing an approved job training
program, including programs authorized under the federal Workforce Invest Act; and
WHEREAS House Bill 4786 amends the Michigan Employment Security Act (MCL 421.28( to
provide that for benefit years beginning after January 1, 2010, if a majority of weeks in an
individual's base period include part-time work, an otherwise eligible individual could not be denied
benefits for any week solely because the individuals is available only for part-time work; seeking only
part-time work; or refuses an offer of full-time work; and
WHEREAS the federal Department of Labor - Employment and Training Administration (DOL-ETA)
has indicated that Michigan's share for enacting these provisions is $138.9 million; and
WHEREAS House Bills 4785 and 4786 have both been passed in the House and have been
referred to the Senate Committee on Commeice and Tourism; and
WHEREAS according to the U.S. Department of Labor, in May 2009, the unemployment level in
Oakland County was 12.4%; and
WHEREAS in May 2009, the Michigan Department of Human Services projected that Oakland
County is expected to have nearly 11,000 unemployed people exhaust their current unemployment
benefits between May and December of 2009; and
WHEREAS unemployment benefits are essential to help Oakland County workers who have lost
their jobs and who are trying to meet their financial obligations while riding out these tough economic
times, and
WHEREAS the economic environment in Oakland County will be worsened if state legislation is not
adopted that will allow access to $138.9 million in federal stimulus that Ildb bUell lliade available to
Michigan's unemployed workers.
MESCAL Legislative Analysis
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE: IMPLEMENT FEDERAL
"MODERNIZATION" PROVISIONS FROM RECOVERY ACT
Mitchell Bean, Director
Phone: (517) 373-8080
http:llwww.house.rni.govIha
House Bill 4785 (Substitute 11-4)
Sponsor: Rep. Richard Hammel
House Bill 4786 (Substitute 11-1)
Sponsor: Rep. Bert Johnson
Committee: Labor
Complete to 6-22-09
A SUMMARY OF HOUSE BILLS 4785 AND 4786 AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE 5-6-09
The bills would enact amendments to the Michigan Employment Security Act to (1) provide
unemployment benefits to individuals who are available for and seeking only part-time work,
and (2) provide extended benefits to individuals who exhaust regular benefits and are
enrolled in an approved job training program. Enactment of these provisions would enable
the state to receive 1138.9 million in additional federal funding made available under the
federal American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009.
House Bill 4785 (Training Benefits)
The bill amends the Michigan Employment Security Act (MCL 421.27) to provide up to an
additional 26 weeks of UI benefits to individuals who exhaust regular benefits (up to 26
weeks) during the time period they are enrolled and satisfactorily completing an approved job
training program, including programs authorized under the federal Workforce Investment
Act, PL 105-220. ' The additional benefits would be payable beginning eight months after the
bill's effective date.
Under current law, up to 18 weeks of benefits may be provided to individuals with an
unexpired benefit year who exhaust regular benefits and who are enrolled in a job training
program approved by the UI.A. The act provides that the UIA may authorize an individual
with an unexpired benefit year to pursue vocational training or retraining only if it finds that':
' While the duration of benefits is often reported as being "up to 26 weeks,' the actual number of weeks is based on
earnings in the base period. The weekly benefit amount is calculated as 4.I% of the highest quarter of wages in the
base period, pita.; 56 per dependent (up to 5). The maximum weekly benefit amount is $362. The duration of
benefits is 43% of the base period wages, divided by the weekly benefit amount.
2 An individual with an unexpired benefit year includes individuals receiving benefits as well as individuals who
have exhausted their right to regular benefits. These provisions also apply to individuals receiving regular benefits
and who receive a waiver from the work availability requirements by the UIA because they are enrolled in a job
training program, as required by the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 USC 3304, as amended by the
Employment Security Amendments of 1970. P.L. 91-373. In regard to this provision, the state Department of Labor
stated, ''State law must provide not only that benefits shall not be denied because the claimant is taking approved
training, but also that the claimant shall not be held ineligible or disqualified for being unavailable for work, for
failing to make an active search for work, or for failing to accept an offer of, or for refusal of, suitable work. In our
present complex industrial society, training in occupational skills has become important to the employability of the
individual. It is, therefore. essential that the unemployment insurance system not impede training. By taking
Analysis available at litipliwww.legislature,mi.gov Page I of 24
for any week solely because the individual is (1) available only for part-time work: (2)
seeking only part-time work; or (3) refuses an offer of MI-time work.3
Section 28 of the Michigan Employment Security Act, MCL 421.28, currently provides that,
as a condition of eligibility for U1 benefits, an individual must be able and available to
perform suitable full-time work that he or she, by training or past experience, is qualified to
perform, that is similar to the individual's previous line of work, and that is available locally.
Further, Section 29 of the MESA, MCL 421.29, provides that an individual is disqualified
from receiving benefits for failing without good cause to (1) apply for available suitable work
after receiving notice from an employment office or the U1A that work is available; or (2)
accept a specific offer of suitable work.4
The bill provides that, during an individual's base period, 'part-time work" means work that
is less than 40 hours per week. During an individual's benefit year, "part-time work" means
work that is not less than 16 hours per week and not more than 40 hours per week, and that is
comparable to the number of hours of work per week in a majority of the weeks of work
during the base period.
A base period is the time period used by the ULA in determining whether an individual meets
the minimum wage requirements to be eligible for benefits. A benefit year is the 52-week
period beginning when the individual files a claim for UI benefits. It includes the time period
during which the individual would receive benefits.
The bill further states that an individual would continue to be ineligible for benefits if he or
she voluntary separates from part-time employment without good cause attributable to the
employer.
[Note: The bill does not alter the initial eligibility requirements, based on an employee's
earnings. Employees who do not meet the earnings requirements under the act, even though
their wages are subject to federal and state CI taxes, would still not be eligible for benefits
under the bill. Moreover, individuals who are not eligible for benefits because of other non-
monetary reasons, such as voluntarily quitting employment, would still not be eligible for
benefits under the bill. The bill essentially provides benefits to individuals who are
monetarily eligible for benefits, but are currently disqualified for benefits because they've
restricted their availability to only part-time work.]
FISCAL IMPACT:
3 By specifying the "part-time" provision applies to benefit years beginning after January 1, 2010, the bill essentially
provides that it would first take into consideration the earnings and work patterns of 1.11 claimants beginning in
October 2008. As described in greater detail later, under the Michigan Employment Security Act, to be eligible for
benefits, a claimant must meet certain wage requirements within the 'base period_" The standard base period is the
first four of the last five completed calendar quarters. The act provides for an alternate base period that includes the
last four completed calendar quarters.
Section 29 provides that ''suitable work" is determined by the UIA based on the risk involved to the individual's
health, safety, and morals; the individual's physical fitness and prior training; the individual's length of
unemployment and prospects for securing local work in the individual's customary occupation; and the distance of
the available work for the individual's place of residence. Prior experience and earnings arc also considered,
although an individual could not refuse to accept an offer of suitable work where the wages arc at least equal to 70%
of prior earnings. The act specifically states that unsuitable work includes a vacancy created by a labor dispute,
work where the wages and conditions are "substantially less favorable" than prior work, or work where an individual
would be required to jo;r1 or resign from a labor organization.
Analysis available at http;i/www.legislature.mt.gov EIB 4785 & 11B 4786 as passed by the House Page 3 of 14
House Bill 4785 (Training Benefits)
In a revised estimate, the Unemployment Insurance Agency has indicated that enacting this
change would increase expenditures from the state unemployment trust fund by
approximately S37.0 million on an annual basis. In the near-term, one limiting factor is a
provision in the bill, consistent with Department of Labor guidance. that provides that the
training benefits would not be provided to an individual who is receiving a similar stipend
(such as Trade Readjustment Assistance), or an individual who is entitled to UI benefits
under any other federal CI program or the federal-state extended compensation program.
However, the continued receipt of extended UI benefits may provide sufficient income
support to enable displaced workers to enter a training program (such as those funded under
the state's No Worker Left Behind program) and be eligible to receive, under the bill,
additional weeks of UT benefits after exhausting other benefits, which has the potential to
increase programmatic costs.9 Given the eight month delay in the effective date of the bill,
once enacted_ claimants would have to exhaust their regular benefits (up to 26 weeks) and
extended benefits (13 weeks), before potentially receiving training benefits under the
The Michigan Employment Security Act currently provides that the cost of training benefits
is paid from the nonchargeable benefits account (NBA). This account is a non-experience-
rated account where the standard tax rate paid by contributing employers is 1.6% of taxable
wages. As its name implies, the NBA used to pay the cost of UI benefits that are pooled
among employers and not charged directly to a specific employer's experience account. (The
more common example of this type of "non-chargeable benefits" includes the costs of UT
benefits payable to former employees of employers that have gone out of business.) Because
contributing employers will see an increase in their federal unemployment tax rate by 0.3 percentage points. (The
standard rate, after application of a 5,4% credit, is 0,8%. For employers in compliance with the law, the rate will
increase to 1,1%4 This equates to an increase in federal Ul tax liability of i21 per employee. Further "credit
reductions' are likely in subsequent years to the extent the leans remain enpaid. Additionally, the continued
outstanding balance necessitates the imposition of the state solvency tax - generally 0_75%, or S67.50 per employee,
for ''negative balance" employers (those who have more benefit charges than state LI tax contributions), The tax
was temporarily suspended by 2009 PA 1, because the Recovery Act waived interest due during 2009 and 2010.
4 Title IV of PL 110-252 temporarily established the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (ECC08) program,
providing up to an additional 13 weeks of LTI benefits to individuals who exhaust their regular benefits, The
program was expanded by PL 110-449 to provide an additional 7 weeks of extended benefits and, in states with high
unemployment ratee, an additional 13 weeks beyond the 20 weeks provided. The Recovery Act provides that
benefits are available to individuals who exhaust benefits before the end of 2009. (Individuals receiving EUCO8 at
the end of the year are still eligible to receive the remaining benefits payable to them.) EB benefits are established
in permanent law by the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act. The program provides 13
weeks of extended benefits to individuals in states with high unemployment rates. The state triggered "on" for EB
benefits at the end of January. With the enactment of Public Acts 18-20 of 2009, the state adopted an alternate EB
trigger that temporarily provides an additional seven weeks of benefits. Under the Recovery Act, EB benefits will
be financed 100% by the federal government through the end of 2009. The effect of these extensions is that Ul
claimants can receive up to 26 weeks in regular benefits, up to 33 weeks in EL:C 08 benefits, and up to 20 weeks in
ES benefits.
-0 Individuals who exhaust regular benefits after the end of 2009 would not be eligible for ELIC08 benefits. They
would be eligible fur 13 weeks of El3 benefits (provided the state still "trigger; on" for ED benefits). Generally
speaking, then, EUC:08 benefits, unless extended by Congress, likely wouldn't be available when HB 4785 becomes
effective. The effect is that to receive the extended training benefits provided in IfB 4785, an individual would have
to exhaust regular benefits, and exhaust EB benefits (if provided), before receiving the extended training benefits.
Analysis available at httpeewww.legislatureeni.gov 1113 4785 & HB 4786 as passed by the House Page 5 of 14
years, the I:IA paid out nearly $1.8 billion in benefits. As such, the bill increases benefit
charges by less than 1.0% ovcrall.r
The bill would have a direct cost impact on the state and local governmental units, tribal
governments, kind non-profit organizations that are "reimbursing employers" and that
reimburse the state unemployment trust fund dollar-for-dollar for the unemployment benefits
paid to former employees. Again, for the state, the act provides that the actual cost of
benefits is charged to the employing state department against the funds available for the
payment of salaries and wages. The Department of Labor notes that, in 2008, 4% of benefits
were paid out by reimbursing employers. If that percentage continues for the benefits paid
under the bill, approximately $0.4 million to 50.7 million would be paid by reimbursing
employers.
The bill would have a direct cost impact on contributing employers. Generally speaking,
under the Michigan Employment Security Act, the chargeable benefits component (CBC) of
a contributing employer's state unemployment tax rate is the amount of benefits paid out
divided by the amount of taxable payroll over the 60-month (5-year) period ending on the
previous June 30.! The bill increases an employer's benefit charges used in determining its
CBC rate. As with any other tax, the increased tax burden does not cut uniformly across all
industry sectors or among all employers. There will be many employers that will not be
impacted by the bill at all, and there will be others (those with many layoffs where a
significant part of the workforce consists of part-time employees) that will see a larger tax
increase.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. PL 111-5 enacted several changes
concerning the provision of unemployment insurance benefits to displaced workers.'9
Among these changes are a number of provisions aimed at encouraging states to "modernize"
their unemployment insurance programs by increasing benefits and expanding eligibility.
Given that the cost of these changes is borne by the states (financed through the imposition of
unemployment taxes on employers), states were offered, in total. $7.0 billion to assist in the
cost of funding these changes. These changes were previously encompassed in federal
legislation known as the Unemployment Insurance Modernization Act (UIMA).2°
17 For additional information SCe, How Much Does Unemployment Insurance i"or Jobless Part Time Tforkers Cost?,
National Employment Law Project, May 2005, [http://nelp3erin.netiba62db32e3be2ca7e9_tpm6bn5if.pdfl
ft See, generally, Section 19 of the Michigan Employment Security Act, MCL 421.19, The 5-year look back period
applies to businesses that exist for more than 5 years. In the first two years, the CBC rate is 2.7%. In the third year,
the CBC rate is one-third of the chargeable benefits component (benefit charges divided by taxable wages) plus
1.8%. In the fourth year, the CBC rate is two-thirds of the chargeable benefits component plus 1_0%.
'9 Sec [http://thomas.loe ,govicgi-binitdqueryiz?d I 11:HR0000 I :1T0M113ssidl1iquery.htm13. The unemployment
provisions are contained in Subtitle A (Unemployment Insurance) of Title II (Assistance for Unemployed Workers
and Struggling Families) of Division B (Tax, Unemployment, Health, State Fiscal Relief, and Other Provisions).
See, also, the Joint Explanatory Statement, Dittp://appropriations.house.govipdfiRccovery_JS DivB.pdil, and
Unemployment Insurance Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvaiment Act of' Congressional
Research Service, Report R40368 (March 4, 2009), [http://assets.opencrs.eomirpts/R40368_20090304.pdil.
Sec HR 290, introduced by Rep_ Jim McDermott (P-Washington, 7th). The text of the bill is available at,
[http://ftwebgate.access.gpo.g ovicgi-bgetdoe.egi?dbname=111_cong_bills&doeid=f7h290ih.txt.pai See, also,
the September i 9, 2007 hearing on "modernizing unemployment insurance to reduce barriers for jobless workers"
by the House of Representatives, Ways and Means Committee, Suheommittee on Income Security and Family
Analysis available at httpliwww.legislatureani.gov FIB 4785 84 HB 4786 as passed by the House Page 7 of 14
• Part-Time Work: Permits (former) part-time workers to retain UT eligibility if seeking
part-time work.24
The Recovery Act provides that under this provision, "an individual shall not be denied
regular unemployment by any State law provisions relating to availability for work,
active search for work, or refusal to accept work, solely because such individual is
seeking only part-time work (as defined by the Secretary of Labor), except that the State
law provisions carrying out this [provision] may exclude an individual if a majority of
weeks of work in such individual's base period do not include part-time work (as so
defined)."
Pari-Titne Work. The Department of Labor has stated that "part-time work" means any
of the following:
Situations where the individual is willing to work at least 20 hours per week.
o Situations where the individual is available for a number of hours per week
that are comparable to the individual's part-time work experience in the base
period. For example, if the individual worked 16 hours per week in the base
period, the state may require the individual to seek jobs offering at least 16
hours of work. If the individual worked 32 hours per week, the state may
require the individual to seek jobs offering at least 32 hours of work.
o Situations where the individual is available for hours comparable to the
individual's work at the time of the most recent separation from employment.
This is similar to the preceding definition except that it allows the state to take
into account the period between the end of the base period and the filing of the
first claim for LiI benefits,
The Department of Labor has stated that states can adopt any of the above provisions or
a combination of them, or could have a broader definition, such as permitting an
individual to be available for only 10 hours or more of work per week. The underlying
principle, however, is that a state could not permit individuals to limit their availability
so as to effectively withdraw from the labor market.25
Majority of Weeks of Work in the Base Period. In reviewing the "majority' provision,
the Department of Labor has stated, nisitates are not required to have this exception in
general review of _state UT laws see. Comparison of State Unemployment Law (2009) Deparlment of Labor,
[http:liworkforcesecurity.Oolcta.govluncmployiuilawcorripar/2009/comparison2009,aspi
24 Expanding UI elieibility to displaced workers who meet the minimum earnings requirements but other seeking
part-time (rather than full-time) employment was included atnong the many recommendations of the 1994-1996
Advisory Council on Unemployment Compensation established under the federal Emergency Unemployment
Compensation Act of 1991. PL 102-164 (HR 3575), See, Collected Findings and Rceottlmendations: 1994-1996,
http://worktorcesec urity.dolcia.govidmstree/mise_papersiadvisory/acucicolleeted jindingsladv_eounc il_94-96.pdf
For additional information, sec Laid Off and Left Out: Part-Time Workers and Unemployment Insurance Eligthiliry
How States Treat Part-Time Workers and Why Ul Programs Should include Them, by Rick McHugh (National
Employment Law Project), Nancy E. Segal (The Program on Gender, Work, and Family), and Jeffrey B. Wenger
(Economic Policy Institute. (February 12, 2002), [http:1/nelp.3edn.net/d25bef7d43091bea3a_3hin6i2tad,pdfl, and
How Much Does Unemploymetu insurance Jar Jobless Pali Time Workers CosP. National Employment Law
Project, May 2005, [http:/Theip.3edn.netiba62db32e3be2ea7c9 jpin6bn5if.pdfj.
See Title 20, Part 604 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 20 CFR 604.5(a)(1).
Analysis available at http://www.legislature.mi ,gov HB 4785 & HB 47136 as passed by the House Page 9 of 14
otherwise would be compelling family reasons, and the state may deny the individual
under its misconduct provisions—Many state misconduct provisions have been
interpreted to require a willful and wanton disregard of the employer's interest, The
Department anticipates that these state law provisions are generally expected to meet the
conditions pertaining to compelling family reasons since separations for compelling
family reasons do not in themselves constitute a willful and wanton disregard of the
employer's interest."27
The Department of Labor notes that, at a minimum, "immediate family member" (used
in the domestic violence and illness/disability provisions) means a spouse, parents. and
minor children under 18 years of age. State law can be more inclusive to include
grandparents, siblings, domestic partners, adult children, or foster children.
Currently. Section 29 of the Michigan Employment Security Act, MCL 421.29, provides
that an individual is disqualified from receiving benefits if he or she leaves work
voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer. An individual leaving work
is presumed to have left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the
employer, and has the burden of proving that he or she left work involuntarily or for
good cause attributable to the employer. The act specifically states, however, that an
individual is not disqualified from receiving benefits if the individual has an established
benefit year and leaves unsuitable work within 60 days of beginning that work or if the
individual is the spouse of a full-time member of the U.S. military and has to leave work
due to the relocation of the spouse's military assignment.2P.
In Leeseberg v. Smith-Janneson. Inc., 149 Mich App 463 (1986), the state Court of
Appeals ruled that an individual who voluntarily left work to tend to her injured husband
left work without good cause attributable to the employer. The court noted. "[t]he
Legislature's use of the term 'voluntary' is clear and requires application. Although we
sympathize with claimant's plight and recognize the harshness of our result, we are not
at liberty to read into the statute provisions which the Legislature did not elect to
incorporate nor may we broaden the scope of the statute by an unwarranted
interpretation of the language used. "Voluntary" connotes a choice between reasonable
alternatives....Ilere, claimant was faced with returning to work and retaining
employment or staying home to care for her husband and risking possible discharge.
She chose to face termination because she wanted to care for her injured husband.
While claimant's choice was prompted by compelling personal reasons, a good personal
reason does not equate with good cause under the statute." (Internal citations omitted.)
• Dependent Allowance: Provides an additional dependent allowance for UI benefits,
with a minimum per dependent amount of $15 and a minimum cap of S50 per claimant.
The UIPL., is in a Q&A format where the quoted section was in response to a question asking whether state law
could deny benefits to an individual who was fired for chronic absenteeism due to (as is later revealed) compelling
family reasons.
IS The military spouse exception was added with the enactment of 2008 PA 480 and 2008 PA 48 (NEt 6427,
introduced by Rep. Fred Miller‘... A companior. measure, 2008 PA 479 (I-TB 6426, introduced by Rep. Gino Polidori)
provides that the costs of providing LI! benefits to displaced military spouses are payable under the non-chargeable
benefits account of employers
Analysis available at http:I/www.legislature.mi.gov HE 4785 & HE 4786 as passed by the House Page 11 of 14
According to conunittee testimony and prior research from the National Employment
Law Project, 12 states have provisions in their UI law providing training benefits to UI
exhaustees. Additionally, four states, including Michigan which, as noted above, hasn't
actualized the program in at least 25 years, has a training benefits provision that doesn't
fully comport to the Recovery Act's requirements.31)
The Recovery Act provides that the above provisions, whichever two are selected, must be
enacted as "permanent law" and "not subject to discontinuation." In UIPL 14-09, the
Department of Labor has stated that "the provision is not subject to any condition - such as an
expiration date, the balance in the state's unemployment fund, or a legislative appropriation -
that might prevent the provision from becoming effective, or that might suspend, discontinue,
or nullify it." This, in effect, means that a sunset date couldn't be included when the changes
are enacted. Similarly, the provision couldn't be enacted as part of an appropriations act, as
appropriations acts are not "permanent law.'
Following enactment of the Recovery Act, U.S. Senate Finance Committee Chair Max
Baucus (D-Montana) stated in a March 9, 2009 press release. "[Oates are not required to
enact reforms and receive additional funds. States that do participate are encouraged to
evaluate unemployment levels and workforce needs in 2011 when the provision is set to
expire. If states decide to discontinue the reforms, they are not obligated to return Federal
funds they have received. The temporary provision is designed to help accelerate economic
growth and stabitization."3-
In UIPL 14-09, Change 1, the department has further clarified that TN a state eventually
decides to repeal or modify any of these provisions, it may do so. and it will not be required
to return any incentive payments. However, in providing the incentive payments, Congress
clearly intended to support states that had already adopted certain eligibility provisions and to
expand eligibility to additional beneficiaries by encouraging other states to adopt these
provisions. By specifying that the provisions must be in effect as permanent law. Congress
also made clear its intention that the benefit expansions will not be transitory. While states
are free to change or repeal the provisions on which modernization payments were based
subsequent to receipt of incentive payments. Congress and the Department rely on states'
good faith in adopting the eligibility criteria, and the application must attest to this good
faith. "3
36 See the testimony of Rick McHugh, staff attorney and Midwest coordinator for the National Employment Law
Project, [http://www.nelp „orc/pagel-/UIlmichigan.uirna.testimony.pdf?nocdri--1]. as well as Changing WoriOrce,
Changing Economy: State Unemployment Insurance Refarms fin- the 21st Century. October 2004, National
Employment Law Project, [http://nelp.3edn.net131e9039786a84cdc52115m6y1dsp.pdf ] and Expanding State
Education and Training by Partnering with the Unemployment insurance Program, September 2005, National
Employment Law Project. {ittp://rielp.3cdn.net15c6528a372ab1c0ff6_8vm6bhjIr.pdf}. See, also, Federal Stimulus
Funding, Produces Unprecedented Wave of Stale Unemploymetu Insurance RefOrms, National Employment Law
Project (June 16, 2009), [http:iinelp.3edn.ncti045dbfa471945486.5f lpm6iyyjfpdf].
31 Unemployment Insurance Program Letter 14-09 (February 26, 2004), Department of Labor. Employment and
Training Ad ministration, [http:i4dr.doleta.govidirectivestattachfUIPL/UIPL 4-09.pdf].
[http:1/finance,senaTe.govipressiBpress/2009press/prb030909.pdf]
Unemployment Insurance Program Let:el-14-09, Change 1 (March 19. 2009), Department of Labor, Employment
and Training Administration,i.htip:inxdr.noieta.guvidirceiives/attach/UIP1JUIPL14-09c I .pdfi:
Analysis available at http;i7www,legislaturemi.gov HB 4785 & HD 4786 as passed by the House Page 13 of 14
Resolution #09145 July 15, 2009
The Chairperson referred the resolution to the General Government Committee. There were no objections.
Resolution #09145 August 12, 2009
Moved by Taub supported by Middleton to refer the resolution to the Finance Committee.
As a point of order, Commissioner Schwartz questioned why the resolution was being referred to the Finance
Committee.
Discussion followed.
Nancy Scarlet, Director of Human Resources, addressed the Board and answered questions.
Vote on referral:
AYES: Douglas, Gingell, Gosselin, Jacobsen, Middleton, Potter, Potts, Runestad, Scott, Taub.
Bullard. (11)
NAYS: Coulter, Gershenson, Greimel, Hatchett, Jackson, McGillivray, Nash, Schwartz, Woodward,
Zack, Burns. Coleman. (12)
A sufficient majority not having voted in favor, the motion to refer the resolution to the Finance Committee
failed.
Chairperson Bill Bullard, Jr. called for a recess at 8:06 p.m. to consult with Judy Cunningham, Corporation
Counsel, Minority Caucus Chairperson David Coulter, Commissioner Tim Greimel, Vice Chairperson Michael
Gingell and Nancy Scarlet, Director of Human Resources.
Chairperson Bill Bullard, Jr. called the meeting to order at 8:29 p.m.
Discussion followed.
Moved by McGillivray supported by Coleman the resolution be adopted.
Discussion followed.
Vote on resolution:
AYES: Douglas, Gershenson, Greirnel, Hatchet', Jackson, McGillivray, Nash, Potter, Schwartz, Scott,
Taub, Woodward, Zack, Burns, Coleman, Coulter. (16)
NAYS: Gingell, Gosselin, Jacobsen, Middleton, Potts, Runestad. Bullard. (7)
A sufficient majority having voted in favor, the resolution was adopted.
00ES NOT REOUIRE COUNTY WIRE KU
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Ruth Johnson, 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 August 12, 2009,
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 12th day of August, 2009.
Gat
Ruth Johnson, County Clerk