Thanks for joining us.

Republican Representative Mark Tisdel is here.

He wants to ban cell phones in school classrooms and the governor agrees.

Our lead story more state of the state analysis on what the governor said an didn't say this week on the OTR panel, Simon Schuster Beth LeBlanc and Zoe Clark.

Sit in with us as we get the inside out.

Off the record production of Off the Record is made possible in par by Bellwether Public Relations, a full servic strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and issue advocacy.

Learn more at bellwetherpr.com And now this edition of Off the Record with Tim Skubick.

Yes, post-State of the State.

Nice to see everybody as we are in the studio C for it off the record.

And so we did a pretty good job of analyzing the speech after the speech.

But you guys must have a different take.

What was your lead out of that speech?

Our lead was the fact that she is pushing again for road funding.

You know, it was pretty similar to their 2019 speech, but that's the best you could do.

Well, Tim, I think her message on roads was interesting because she appeared to be putting businesses on notice that they would be carrying some of this cost on it, she said.

She noted that it could not be carried on the backs of middle class and that businesses should should know that this is coming down.

Did she tell busines how much she wanted to hit them?

No, she didn't.

But was that an omission or was that on purpose?

I think that was on purpose.

I don't think would be a very popular state of the state speech if she laid out numbers.

Just then.

Do not governors have a responsibility to lay out their specific proposals to people in a state of the state?

No.

And you know that better than anyone.

No, This is lofty language.

And we have to remember that this is a governor now who only after this speech has won more state of the state address left.

This is where you start thinking about legacy.

There are 22 months left.

So absolutely no, she's not going to lay out policy in this speech.

That's what the budget presentation is for.

Could she use the term I am going to increase your taxes to fix the roads.

Could she say that you are just like fascinated about this tax conversation she could have?

And then the headlines would have been, you know, governor, to raise taxes instead, what she did, what she continued this pivot that we've been talking about now since election 2024 really about wanting to be the governor who is now all about bipartisanship, working together, crossing the aisle, and that this was a speech that really in some respects didn't necessarily need a Republican response afterwards, but a Democratic response afterwards.

Yeah.

I mean, I think that the speech is a marked tone, marked shift in tone.

Last year, we were halfway through a Democratic trifecta coming off a flurry of policy making.

And I think a lot of people were surprised by how much that tempo ground to a hal in the latter half of last year.

You know, there was it was supposed to be cram time for Democrats.

It didn't happen.

And now they're back to divided government.

And, you know, it's crammed time for the governor and her legacy.

And so I think that while we're seeing a marked increase in sobriety from the governor in term of what she wants to get done, I think that the lack of specificity in the road funding proposal is very intentional.

We're looking at she wants upwards of $2 billion from businesses, but she's not saying through what ways or means that's going to happen.

And I think that's very intentional because rather than saying I want a 45 cent gas tax.

Pinning yourself to a specific tax increase that the her opponents can then specifically kill.

She's saying everything's on the negotiating table.

I want to make this happen.

Some way somehow, and I'm willing to talk to you until I can get it done.

There was a hidden agenda in the governor's speech.

Come heck or high water.

She was going to get Republicans to stand up for something.

And she finally got Matt Hall.

And I'm sure they got the picture of them shaking hands when she agreed with her legislation.

Good move.

Yeah.

So let's just back up a little bit.

Basically, she she introduced it was saying, you know, I know Matt is going to you know, first thing I know Matt is going to like my good buddy Matt, and I've known for a couple years.

Let's see if he's going to, you know, stand for this one.

And what she said is that she agrees with House Republicans and this rule that basically earmarks.

Right.

Are going to be public, that that now, if a lawmaker wants some specific amount of earmark in the budget, they have to put their name on it.

They have to declare and explain basically what those dollars would for.

And Whitmer said, I am for that.

Let's see, budget transparency.

And indeed, Matt Hall stood.

And then, as you said, there was a moment where they shook hands.

Well, let's see.

Do you think we get a deal this year on roads?

I think they need a deal this year on roads, even if it's just a one year kind of continuing resolution for roads, because they they have the the state, by all accounts, is facing a $3.9 billion funding shortfall for roads come next year.

So the money that that she borrowed through the Building Michigan plan four years ago, it's four or five years ago, it's running out at the end of the year.

And and they need some new revenue for roads, whether they find that in the existing budget o whether they tax new businesses.

I think that's going to be the crux of this debate.

Here's the sticky wicket in this debate, what's happening in Washington with this tariff stuff.

Michigan could be hit hard and, you know, whatever thing, all bets are off.

You've got to start from scratch.

Yes or no?

Yes.

I mean, if she's if what she wants is new revenue from the business community specifically that's contingent on Michigan's economy continuing to do well because of the business community feeling the pinch of layoffs and increasing unemployment's going up, then the business community has a much stronger argument to say the last thing we need is more overhead, more burden from the state when we're trying to make ends meet.

So the tariffs play an integral role in her ability to get this done.

It's a ticking time bomb.

Well, right.

And you have Trump sort of doing this Hamlet.

You know, I will.

I won't should I should I not changing the dates of when tariffs are going to go into effect.

What I think is really interesting is we had on our airwaves a couple of weeks ago Sandy Baruah, who is the hea of the Detroit Regional Chamber, and he he spoke out a little more forcefully than I think I'm used to hearing folks.

And so I think what's going to be really interesting is if you start to see business minded folks here in Michigan whose job it is to advocate.

Right.

Start to just say, look, like this is really not good and there's going to be some real economic issues because you can have, you know, Michigan's congressional delegation.

What differerence will it make it won't make any difference at all in the Trump White House.

Oh, yeah.

I don't disagree with that statement at all.

I think what I'm curious about, though, is do we start to see folks who tend to hold back a little bit and be a little bit more reserved vis a vis national politics, come out and say this is not workable?

But I completely agree that I don't think, you know, anyone here in Michigan necessarily is going to make a difference with DOGE or with tariffs or anything like that at this point right now.

One other thing from her speech, I mean, pivoting from tariffs that it wa is kind of one of those things that blink and you'll miss it in the speech.

But she had a couple of messages in there to young men that she hasn't really directed in the past, noting that they it's difficult for them to come into homeownership and that they are outnumbered by wome in higher education environment.

And I though that was an interesting pivot.

I think, you know, it kind of echoed some of the messaging that the Obamas had toward the end of the presidential campaign when they realized they were losing that demographic to Trump.

And I think it was an acknowledgment that they've overlooked that demographic in recent years.

And many of those young men voted for Mr. Trump Is what you're saying?

Pretty much.

I thought the other piece in there that was interesting, she conceded the point that Republicans for years have made about spending on education.

The R's have continually said, you can't throw big money at educatio and assume that you get a good.

And there was the governor in black and white who basically said, You know what?

That's right.

10,000 bucks per pupil and why are you smiling?

And we're getting nothing in, not nothing but the products.

Not good.

Right.

And I mean, I think that this is a rhetorical conciliation towards Republicans, an acknowledgment of the problem, which is a lot harder to do when you have a Democratic trifecta.

Right.

Because you can say, look at all this money we're dumping, you know that direction.

But there's no solutions proposed on the other end from either side in this in this ongoing issue.

It's just not we're not moving towards an action plan that actually show how we can address these issues.

I mean, I think you could listen to, like the school choice camp that charters in private schools will push a solution.

But I don't think Democrats are necessaril going to move in that direction.

What I'm more interested in is, is there going to be any concrete policy action that comes out of this acknowledgment?

Yeah, I haven't yet had a chance to call the folks over at the MEA, but it was crickets after tha statement, wouldn't you think?

Yeah.

And I mean, I think what's going to be really fascinating to watch, too, is what conversation around education happens in the gubernatorial.

A 2026 election.

Right.

That education, roads depending if there's a deal or not could really be wha what the conversation is about in election 2026.

One more point to that that I think that there's a huge time bar on reaching a deal on roads and it is the election in the 35th Senate district because if we move to a powe sharing agreement in the Senate, we're going to have a power sharing agreement with Aric Nesbitt, who's running for governor and very strongly motivate not to give the governor a win on this or raise taxes in a potentially heated GOP primary And a Republican state senator within the caucus now who is chair o the Michigan Republican Party.

So in an interesting way, Yes, yes, yes.

All right.

So last December, the governor told us that she wanted to to get a common ground with the president, and she shows up last weekend.

Simon sittin next to the president at dinner, Misson accomplished?

I think, on in terms of proximity to power.

Absolutely.

It shows that she's keeping yourself in the national.

You got to know somebody to get a seat next to the president.

Simon.

Yeah.

And I mean, I think also Donald Trump is someone who values fame, notoriety.

And, you know, he understands that Gretchen Whitmer remains a popular political figure and he's going to hang onto that because it obviously benefits him as well.

All right.

So what?

I jus I just the turnaround from 2020.

Can we just take a moment to observe that?

I mean, I in 2020, they were at each other's throats.

Five years later, we we see them sitting next to each other.

That's why it's such a great story.

That's also another one tha went a little under the radar.

Is he appointed or reappointed her, I should say.

I know.

I know.

It's it is when we're talking about sort of pulling the curtains back on and sort of getting the inside out to it.

This is what is fascinating right now.

And a lot of folks in politics are talking about is just this Whitmer's stance.

vis a vis Trump.

And it is frustrating some Democrats, too.

I mean, we should say there was a state rep who tweeted basically something about like even working with fascism, it makes it fascism.

This is Noah Arbit.

And so it's it's ticking off some Democrats.

Well, this is from the political playbook, but you need something from Washington at some point along ticket for governor of California who had the forest fires.

And he wants to go with his hand out to Donald Trump and say, please help me.

Okay.

She' smart enough to figure that out and smart enough, I assume Right, to be looking at polls.

And what she said also in the speech on Wednesday night is that, you know, voters want compromise, that what she is reading out of election 202 is that folks want government, whether that be Lansing whether that be Washington, D.C. to work together and come to compromise.

Yeah.

And I think I think it's more than just a policy talking point because I, I a few weeks ago when Trump did that temporary funding freeze for for federal funding, you know, it was we heard from lawmakers o stakeholders who were panicked about the possibility that Medicaid could be that Medicaid funding could be shut down, that other funding sources could be shut down.

But when we went to the departments that day, it was crickets for much of the day.

You know, they said we're kind of monitoring this.

We're seeing wha what the to actually say.

Yes.

And it took until the end of the business state for them to acknowledge that the Medicaid porta had been temporarily shut down.

What do you gain by beating up somebody in Washington who controls the purse strings other than a fast, quick fix, a sugar high?

But the long term impact of that could be negative.

Yeah, well, I think that there's an electoral advantage to it, certainly.

You know, we saw Governor Whitmer.

She's launching he original gubernatorial campaign, appearing at women's marches and those sorts of protests.

But she's not there now.

And so I think if there's anyone who feeling left out in the cold right now, it's Democrats are in backrooms, spitballing at white board about what the playbook should be for the second Trump administration.

It is the progressive base.

I think there's people out there who's looking for sort of this Braveheart esque approach to, you know, rallying against the Trump administration which has which is by all means been far more effectiv and much more ideological rigor.

And they're not seeing that right now.

And just very quickly, we should note, you sort of see Democrats moving a little bi nationally to the center as well with the announcement just this week that Michigan's newest freshman, senator, Elissa Slotkin, is going to be the one delivering the Democratic response to President Trump's state of the nation address.

And just to put a ribbon on thi sitting next to the president, he talked about the Monday Township project in Genesee County.

So, you know, you do what you got to do, and she did.

Let's call in Mr. Tisdel.

Representative.

Yes, Let's will turn it over.

I need that maybe.

Representative, welcome to Off the Record.

It's good to see you.

So let's cut to the chase as you try to ban cell phones in the classroom, how is see the feedback running from parents pro or con?

Well, for starters, it's not a ban.

We're talking about restricting or prohibiting use in specific times and places within schools.

And so and this is something that a number of school districts across the state are already looking at have implemented some kind of pilot program.

But to your question, the number one pushback that we get from parents is, is that in the event of an emergency, I want to be abl to contact my child at school, to which certainl understandable to which you say, well, when you take a step or two back, as I said I'm a father, I'm a grandfather, the anguish and the the anxiety, if there is an actual emergency at your child's school and you can't get a hold of them, and we're all used to having that instant contact.

Right, with cell phones.

Today I get that.

But the question is, how does your child communicating with you, who might be miles away from the emergency site, how does that improve your child' or enhance your child's safety?

You want your child focused on the trained adult that's at the head of the classroom.

But but here's your problem with that argument.

You appealing to their brain.

This is not their brain problem.

It's a heart problem and very difficult to legislate for the heart.

Representative, were you surprised by the governor's support for this proposal?

You introduced it last year and I don't think it received a proposed or sorry committee hearing.

I surprise, isn't it?

Obviously, it has some some political positive traction to it.

It's an it's become a national issue.

It's an international issue.

Many, many countrie in the EU of address this issue.

Very pleased that she's on board, that it's made its way to he desk, that she sees value in it and has made the decision to make it a priority.

She you know, she has some influence in Lansing, so I liked that very much.

Representative, do you se this more as a pedagogical issue or is this something that's about as the governor has touched upon mental health for young people, given like, you know, fixation on technology, you're just looking to ge pedagogical in there or is that.

Yeah, I mean, that was this part set down.

So the bingo card.

Yeah.

No, you know, it' it's not so, so much a way of of how information is is taught or transferred.

And if an instructor wants to use that device in in the classroom instruction time, that's, that's, that's the teacher's discretion just like there's no TV watching.

Well sometimes you roll a TV an and you watch some things that that are important.

But what we're trying to do is eliminate that distraction in the schools that have put this in.

One of the things you hear from teachers is how tremendous it is to be standing at the at the front of the classroom and see 25 or 30 set of eyeballs staring back at you.

And instead of this stuff under the desk, isn't this something that jus simply a teacher in a classroom could just say, we'r not using our phones right now?

Put them in, put them in this locker?

Yes.

I mean, so I guess I'm curious, as you know, Republicans, we sort of usually think of like small government.

Right.

Talk to me about your thoughts about having government have the role of being an arbiter of what should be happening within a classroom.

Well, K-through-12 education, we have 20 billion reasons for having an interest i what goes on in the classroom.

And if this is seen a an impediment to getting value out of those out of that $20 billion investment, I think it's certainly within our within our scope to take a look at it.

When you when you look at loca districts, intermediate school districts, charter sponsors, there are about 830 or more school districts in the state of Michigan.

If you're going to wait for each one of those to reach a decision on making a move forward.

And this particular issue, which is everyone will tell you, is a is a distraction in the school room, along with the bullying and the taunting aspect in the hallway and in the public areas of the or open area of the of the school buildings.

If we were to wait for all 830 of them to come up with a decisio or each school or each teacher to implement something, we'd be waiting an awful long time Representative what's your timetable.

I'd like to see it take effect at the beginning of the next class, next school session.

Okay, well, then that's a fast agenda.

When are you going to have the first hearing on this?

Well, the the primary co-sponsor that I saw it out was Representative DeBoer who's the chair of the Education Policy Committee, and she's on board and I'm hoping will get a hearing very soon.

So in other words, you don't have a commitment for a hearing, do not just I just reissued the bill last week, earlier this week, rather, last year.

Didn't you lay the groundwork you should have coming in with both legs running on this thing?

You would if you would have thought.

But it was an election year.

There were a lot of distractions.

I do have support on both sides of the aisle.

I've been working closely with with some friend on the other side of the aisle.

People see the value in this.

It's just a question of getting it started.

I'm sure that we'll get a hearing in education and we'll take it from there.

Do the supes say, do you get this done?

No, not necessarily.

Get it done.

I have the privilege of participating in a in a monthly legislative breakfast with the Oakland Count Intermediate School District in the eastern half of the superintendent.

Some, again, some schools are already doing this.

And and it gets them out of a kind of there's somethin called a collective action trap, but nobody else is doing i or everybody else is doing it.

This can this can create a statewide standard.

They get it.

They would like support from the state to move it forward.

It takes the onus off of them.

It takes the pushback from parents off of them.

And I'm more than happy to be that that boogeyman, you know, they the 14 year olds, can be mad at me and that's just fine.

Put your finance chair hat on for a second.

When the governor wants the corporation folks to kick in more money through a tax increase, does that have any chance in your committee?

Well, it's a roads package.

Why the long breath?

I'm being thoughtful.

It it's a roads package.

And so there will likely b very many moving parts to this.

I thought it was interesting in the state of the state address, the the governor started off talking about the ill effects of a tariff on and consumer and then ended up talking about corporate business tax increases, which will have the same ill effect on consumers.

One set of money goes to Washington, the other goes to Lansing and maybe is more preferable.

So is it dea with you and your committee?

No.

Are you are you of the belief that new revenue is needed?

I know Speaker Hall has advanced a plan that he thinks he can reshuffle the deck with existing revenue and find money there.

But Democrats are pretty assertive that there needs to be new revenue going forward.

I guess.

Where do you stand there?

Well, Speake Hall has said a number of times that that we have enough revenue coming into the state right now and he's more than willing to show the governor how to use it to to achieve this particular objective.

You know there was a $9 billion surplus.

There was three and a hal billion dollars in in bonding.

There was a one and a half billio or so in infrastructure support.

There's there were another billion over anticipated.

You add that all up, that's $15 billion just right there.

If the the first state budget that she signed, excluding federal dollars, was about 34 billion, the last one she signed was 46.

So it's about a 50% increase.

There is money here.

It's a question of priorities and what you're willing to give and take in order to to provide road funding.

Representative this week, colleague of yours, Representative Josh Schriver, made an announcement.

He was by himself.

No other Republicans wanted to stand with him, basically saying that the Supreme Court should make gay marriage illegal, illegal in the land again.

What do you make of of Josh Schriver doing this and what does it mean for your Republican caucus?

It's a huge distraction.

And it was personally, I, I, I think it was drawing attention to his preferenc and not the caucus preference, which is which is unfortunate.

We have a lot of good things that we can be doing here in the state, and that's not one of them.

I happen to have two sisters in la that became four sisters in law.

This has been this has been a settled issue in our our family for a long time.

They're a part of our family and we love them.

Representative, can I take you back to your answer to my question, which was, is it dead in committee?

And you said no, which mean it is alive in your committee.

So you're open to doing this?

I'm open to looking at what comes out of the negotiations from the governor and the speaker, certainly.

But if the speaker continues to says there will be no tax increase, you are not going to go against the speaker, are you, sir?

Probably not.

If I want to remain chair of the House Finance.

Well, I appreciate your honesty answer.

So that's reality.

Let's put it this way.

It's not dead in your committee, but it's clearly on life support.

Michigan's corporate income tax.

When you take a look at the top ten population inflow states, all those kind of southern warm states, Texas, Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, Tennessee and Idaho and Utah.

Our corporate income tax is 46% higher than the average of their good money by not going to the corporate income tax.

She could find other ways to raise money on business.

You would be open to that.

Let's say keep the corporate income tax off the table.

Other tax increases for business could be on the table.

My preference would be a consumption tax because you taxpayers can mitigate that.

They can economize and they can control that income tax.

No one wants to economize on their income.

No one wants to mitigate their tax burde by economizing on their income.

So those would be the kinds of things I'd be looking for.

Tax increase.

It could be it could be other user fees that you would incur as you use those services.

Do you want to hang around for overtime?

Sure.

All right.

Let's.

Okay.

Let's go to go credit.

You're a gamer, aren't you?

I got my my day is open.

I'm going to be long over time.

Magically.

So is mine after these closed credits.

And we'll see if more off the record go to WKAR.org for more with the good representative.

Production of Of the Record is made possible in part by bellwether public relations, a full servic strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and issue advocacy.

Learn more at bellwetherpr.com For more off the record, visit wkar.org Michigan public television stations have contributed to the production costs of off the record