Unintended Consequences of ballot proposals

I want to offer my suggestions of a vote on the six ballot proposals facing Michigan voters this year.  I am concerned by the strong presence of personal agendas in the proposals, and the fact five of the proposals make permanent constitutional changes based on these personal agendas.  These proposals have been put together to preserve a way of doing business for a particular special interest, or preserving personal financial monopolies.  They do not represent what is best for all the citizens of Michigan.  If these proposals pass, citizens will forfeit their ability to elect representatives to make these tough choices.  Decisions that are meant to be made by our elected representatives will become embedded into our state constitution.  They will no longer be the responsibility of our democratically elected representatives.  If we are unsatisfied with the decisions of our elected representatives we can and should vote them out of office, not take the decision making ability away from them.

Thus, I plan to vote ‘no’ on proposals #2 through #6 since, if these pass, they short circuit the individual voter’s ability to hold their representatives responsible for managing the state’s finances.  I will vote ‘yes’ on proposal #1 since that gives the governor the ability to intervene when a publicly financed entity is financially unable to meet its obligations to use public funds in accordance with their intended purposes.   I would encourage everyone’s close consideration of the unintended consequences of these proposals.  Although the ads make them sound good, they are dangerous for Michigan’s future growth and prosperity.

Issue of the Month: John Ball Zoo

During the past several years the county has partnered with the John Ball Zoological Society in operation of the John Ball Zoo through two structures—the county owns and funds the operations, and the Zoological Society provides fund raising for new projects. A study completed in early 2011 found this business model was not consistent with zoo industry accepted best practices and was not an efficient model for a sustainable long-term future. Many of our private local Foundation funding entities concurred with this finding. The Zoo Society and County agreed to form a Transition Committee in mid-2011 to develop a new non-profit entity with responsibility for both functions. This Transition Committee designed a new non-profit governance structure with a new Board and management structure. Even though the Zoo Society was active in the Transition Committee work and formation of the final governance structure, concerns have recently been expressed by the Zoo Society members that this direction is wrong. There is a feeling the work expended on behalf of the zoo by the Society has not been sufficiently recognized. This is causing delay in implementation of the new structure, and consequently delay in pursuing a new method of providing the community a quality zoo with a sustainable future. The County Commission Chair has recently communicated the intent of the County Commission to move forward with the recommended changes, and invited the Society members to continue their involvement by serving as board members of the new non-profit. It is unfortunate there is continued dissension about this direction since we started out with mutual intent to find the best possible sustainable operational model for this community asset.