This next edition of Off the Record features the chair of the House Oversight Committee, Republican Representative Jay DeBoyer.

He and the secretary of state had some issues.

Our lead stories gun safety package goes to the Michigan house where its fate is well iffy at best and the July 1st budget deadline, an update.

Around the OTR table Rick Plut Beth LeBlanc and Jordyn Hermani.

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.

Thank you very much.

Welcome to the studio C. A busy, busy week in our town.

We have a new term on our town, the triangle.

It used to be the quadrant, four leaders, and now it's only three.

The governo and the Senate Democratic leader and the House speaker, they met.

And what happened?

Well, we're still sitting here without any level of an education budget.

The statutory deadline for that is July one.

So they've still not broken anything as of yet, but we're coming incredibly close down to the wire.

Yesterday, the House and Senate came in, pretty much spent the entire day at a recess at a standstill.

Negotiation were ongoing in the background, but it was a lot of a hurry up and wait.

Then we saw a little bit of movement later on in the evening.

We did see the triangle using your term meet in the governor's office for a bit and then not long after, come out and adjourn.

Now, during that time, the Senate did add a couple of extra session days coming next week on the first and the second when where we stand now, you know, it it depends on who you ask.

These deep budget director Jen Flood came out and said that she was optimistic.

Hall seemed like he was ready to commit to a July one deadline and then Brinks said Eh got to pump the brakes on that one.

She seemed a little less bullish on the subject, which the Commit to the July one aspirational deadline.

What does that mean?

Well, I think that means tha maybe it's less than committed.

But also we should point out that we're talking about this July 1st statutory deadline, which, by the way, there are no like repercussions for missing that.

But it's focused on the K through 12 budget.

But that's also community colleges and public universities.

That's also local governments that there are other players in that game who are not being considered in that discussion, at least not publicly.

Yes.

Because Matt Hall last night actually said that they're not considerin community colleges in higher ed.

So they're narrowing their focus, trying to get something across the finish line by July 1st.

And he, like Jordan, said he seemed optimistic last night.

But Brinks, as she walked away from the meeting and I struggled to keep up, sh said.

She walked away from you?

She said that there was a lot of work to do to get it to a point where they can vote on it.

So that's with with the days ticking down, that's not exactly.

Well the sticky wicket here, is transportation and the the fixing the road stuff.

These two are intrinsically connected.

Am I right or wrong?

Well, you're right and wrong.

That there's You oughta to go in to politics.

That Matt Hall is trying to confine it to the K through 12 budget and the universities budget and then saying once those are locked into place, then we can deal with everything else.

And let's not forget tax cut and the Senate majority leader and I think the governor as well are on the pages like no that everything fits together.

You don't get to take just two pieces and put them on the table just because that works to your benefit.

And so, you know I mean, we're still negotiating.

What's the old you know, we're still negotiating about the size and the shape of the table before getting to everything else.

But putting the two togethe makes it tougher to get a deal.

I mean, it does.

And but for what it's worth, it would make it tough to get a deal at this point anyways.

I mean, we look at our education budgets.

You have the Senate and governors, at least if we're you're talking about per pupil funding here are relatively in line.

So, you know, the whitmer's suggeste a $10,000 per pupil allowance.

The Senate, I believe, is at 10,008 and then you have the House at 12,000.

That's a huge gap.

And I actually was talking to a superintendent earlier this week who's saying that.

So for schools, they actually have their their fiscal year ends on the 30th.

So they have alread had to put their numbers to bed.

They've already had to try and figure out where they stan for the coming budgetary years.

You know, that' where the aspirational deadline of July one kind of came from is to help give these school a little bit more reassurance.

You know, they're saying that they've had to kind of just take a stab in the dark in years past.

These budgets have more or less been in line.

So taking a stab in the dark is a little less risky than this time around.

Where this time around, you have a $2,000 gap in per pupil spending, not to mention what's going on with, you know, these rolled up categorical.

How is this money going to get down to schools?

What is what is even going to continue to be funded in the budget, for instance, universal school meals.

And it's leaving a lot of districts kind of gritting their teeth and saying, you know, if you could figure it out, it'd be it'd be a big help.

I know.

I know you guys hate this, but I want to move on to the next issue.

But quickly, do they get a deal by July 1st?

yay or nay?

Nay, nay, Yes.

No.

And as Jordyn pointed out, they're already late to this.

Once again, Beth LeBlanc is absolutely correct.

They do get a deal by then.

All right.

We have the secretary of state in a long awaited appearance before the committee chaired by our guest today.

Did they fight to a draw or didn't they fight at all?

Or what was the lead out of that conference?

No, it's not It wasn't even confrontational.

I didn't think.

Yeah, it was a little tamer than I expected, to tell you the truth.

But I think.

The build up was a little higher than what we got as a result.

Yeah and I think part of it was that her staff had already come in in front of oversight and hashed out a lot of those details in the challenges that they were facing when it comes to the website.

So by the time she got there, a lot of those questions had already been answered.

Let me just inteerject what we're talking about is the rollout of a new website for campaign financing didn't go well.

And the R's were up in arms.

Right.

So were a lot of the D's.

Well, yeah, the interesting thing there, there was her audience sitting in front of her were all the people that were supposed to use this system and it didn' work.

What did you make of it?

I mean, it's been a system, a problematic system from the jump.

For what it's worth, Benson tried and pretty much gave the same response that she had earlier in the week to reporters when asked about, you know, what is going on with the system.

And it's basically that, you know, this was a bigger undertaking than we thought.

We're really sorry.

Changes are coming later next month.

Whether those changes will actually do what they're supposed to do, you know, remains to be seen.

We haven't seen the system work yet.

I'm not necessarily holding my breath that it will work immediately afterwards.

But for what Benson is saying, we are at least getting some money back.

The state is we are going to spend about $9 million over the next five years with this company that's put meant to put this on Tyler Technologies.

However we're only really getting back kind of paltry savings there.

I believe it like $166,000.

TBD on if we're going to get more back, because I'm still not holdin my breath necessarily about this patch is going to be the the Holy Grail here.

The question here, the overriding question was their mismanagement.

Okay, did they make mistakes?

I think she acknowledged that there were mistakes and that was where she tried to make nice with the committee's leadership, where she said, you know, she basically said you have been partners in pointing out the problems with this.

And we are grateful for that.

And, you know, pivot a little bit and contrast that to the legal filing that the secretary of state made this week in reply to the subpoena cas on election related materials, where she basically told the Oversight committee, you're engaging, this is about politics, this isn't about oversight.

And so there was just this contrast between what we saw in the court filings and the demeanor of the secretary before the oversight committee.

What did you make of her answer when she was asked, Are the Republicans out to get you?

I think while you're smiling, I think she's made clear that she feels this is political.

Throughout it all.

She her line was the scrutiny.

My word, not hers has been a little more intense.

I think there's.

By the way, the chairman denies it.

He says if that had been a Republican SOS up there, I would have done the same thing.

Well, I think, you know, you see the level of scrutiny applied to, let's say, the unemployment agencies failure of their software right now.

Now, granted, the unemployment agency, there was a committee hearing on it, a couple of them, it didn't advance to the to the level of the House Oversight Committee and they didn't switch over to a new system while the other system was still being built.

Yeah, so that's a difference, but it's a much higher dollar amount in the UIA.

I mean, I think like more than 75 million that they're spending on their software.

So, I mean, there are some differences in the way these issues and failures are being looked at.

And so I think people can draw conclusions from that.

All right.

Let's tal about guns in the state Senate.

Here' what happened there this week.

There was zero bipartisanship on this so-called gun safety package.

Has 19 Democrats said ye and 17 Republicans said no way.

These bills are a misguided attempt to regulate so-called ghost guns, but they ultimately punish responsible gun owners rather than addres the root causes of gun violence.

Currently, state lawmakers and law enforcement officials can carry concealed weapons into the state capital.

The Democrats, however, voted today to ban that practice involving citizen who carry gear in the Capitol.

Law abiding citizen are not granted the same right.

We should all here be focusing our energy and resources on measures that continu to make our communities safer.

Democrats also passed legislatio to regulate so-called ghost guns and to order all gun owners in the state to get a serial number on guns if they don't have them now.

And this Oakland County Republican says what they're doing is wrong.

This legislation does nothing to stop black market firearms sales, reduc crime or enhance public safety.

Instead, it burdens law abiding citizens with excessive regulation and fuels fear over the erosion of their Second Amendment rights.

Under this legislation, over a million firearms in Michigan would be rendered illegal overnight.

And the senator adds, It's illegal.

But this Democratic Oakland County lawmaker, the only Democrat who spoke on the package tried to correct her colleague, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I would just like to correct a statement that was made from the previous speaker of the United States Supreme Court, even with its conservativ majority just ruled as recently as March of this year that such legislation to regulate so-called ghost gun as you would any other firearm by requiring serial numbers is in fact constitutional.

One Republican had an unusua twist on the gun debate, citing the future of America may have been a doubt if that if this bill were the law of the lan at the moment of our founding, our nation most likely would not exist.

The founding of our country AR-15s also did not exist.

The Senate passed package with no Republican support, now moves to the House for more debate Where it's future is dead on arrival.

And I'm not sure that you were factually accurate when you said more debate, because I think that it's probably just going to.

Well it was debated by th House speaker and he declared it dead.

Debated with himself.

Yeah.

Why?

I mean, I think that goes without saying.

He has a Republican majority in the House that will have no tolerance for for these kind of laws.

And I also think I mean, kind of pivoting and taking a thousand foot view of this.

It was interesting that while they were passing those laws, Ted Nugent walked into the state capitol with a firearm on him and the police didn't catch it for some reason, which means lawmakers, law enforcement and Ted Nugent are allowed to carry them to the Capitol.

The original legislation.

It's the Nugent loophole, but I think it's, you know whether what they were debating there or what's been debated all along is like how what how can they enforce these gun laws?

Will they enforce them?

You know, that was a question of when the MSU shooter, when they reviewed his gun records, he probably shouldn't have had a gun at that point.

But a prosecutor made a decision about charging him.

So I think, you know, lot of this rotates around like, you know, the bills are going nowhere in the Republican led House.

But if they were, what type of enforcement would that require?

And is the state equipped to enforce that law?

They just can't crack this nut on some of these.

Some people would argue that the bump stock thing that is a device which is added to a weapon to make it more automatic so you can fire becomes effectively a machine gun.

Yes, exactly.

Reasonable people might say that deserves at least a debate.

Well, and on top of that, too, that was the only gun bill that did to receive a bipartisan vote.

I believe there were three Republicans that joined on with Democrats and saying, yeah, we probably don't need this.

And I mean, I believe correct me if I'm wrong, but we did for a shor period of time, have bump stocks outlawed at least at the federal level following a severe mass shooting You know, and now we're bac having this conversation again.

All right.

Let's talk about issues from the Oversight committee with the chairperson.

Representative, welcome to Off the Record.

We've been trying to get you on for a while, so the timing is perfect this week.

And so how did you score the Benson appearance?

Did you do pretty good in your mind?

Yeah, I mean, I think Jocely Benson presents well, obviously.

I mean, you don't becom Secretary of State if you don't.

Did you buy her story?

Oh, no, not entirely.

So that wasn't a good performance?

Well, I mean, I think I have the luxury of understanding the campaign finance process, election process.

So it gives me a maybe a little bit of an advantage to to hear what she says and be able to parse those pieces apart.

and be able to parse those pieces apart.

So on a 1 to 10, it was a what kind of performance I'd give it about a five, four and a half maybe.

Tough Grader.

All right, who's got one?

All right, who's got one?

I would like to combine this with the another issue that you're having in the Oversight committee.

You have subpoenaed Jocelyn Benson's office for election related election management related records.

You're now in court over enforcement of that subpoena that the secretary of stat this week filed their response brief in this case, which is the lead up to a decision that I mean, I guess if you boil it down, is that this is your your inquiry is not just about oversight, that the scope is too wide.

And it boils down to politics that targets the secretary of state.

I don't know if you've seen the brief yet.

I have not rea the brief that they filed yet.

So th but you certainly know about the the argument that this is mor about politics than oversight.

So, I mean, defend you your committee's work on that.

I couldn't disagree more.

You go back to when was appointed chair of oversight the literally the day the press conference, I said this is going to be run professionally.

It's going to be run above board and it's going to be run appropriately.

We're not going to use it to take political shots.

And I would argue that there's nobody here that can say that I've done that with that committee.

We have a legislative purpose and our request for this information, we are the ones that set the time, the manner in the location for elections.

Jocelyn Benson's role in elections is a administerial role based on the legislation that we have provided.

And when we ask for information to determine if she's following those legislative directives and she says to us that we are not entitled to have them, that is clearly in direct opposition to what the Constitution provides for an oversight committee.

Could could your subpoenas have been more targeted and specific in what they were asking for?

Well, theoretically, sure, But they have a thing called an e-learning portal, and it's protecte behind a log in and a password.

And if I can't access that, how do I even know what I'm asking for as a legislator, as an oversight chair?

So what we have asked for is all of the information that is behind that e-learning portal log in.

They defend their position of not providing it to us for security protection of elections.

That's offensive to me, frankly, because I am a former county clerk.

I am the chair duly appointed and elected of oversight, as well as Rachelle Smit who is the chair of elections.

We are the people that should have access to those things and to believe that somehow we're going to compromise election security by asking for training materials.

I think that's just a stonewall defense.

What does it say about the process that you have not been able to sit down and bargain a system for getting the committee what it wants and needs in a fashion that still protects election security, at least in the mind of the secretary of state.

We offered that discussion.

In a on on one or private negotiation?

Absolutely.

And the secretary we were asked to bring in a judicial officer to make it the decision that is not appropriate, The power of oversight and the power of determining how elections are run resides solely with the legislature.

So to that and I mean, you know, we're talking about wanting to get instructiona materials, training materials.

Do you believe that the secretary of state is doing anything in violation of current election laws?

I don't know, becaus I don't have that information.

But I can tell you that she has done it in the past.

Right, but so I guess because that's kind of the argument I think, that Rick was getting out there is it almost seems like a chicken and egg thing to me.

And and please correct me if I'm wrong, but, you know, saying that we want to make sure that she's doing everything correctly.

So we need t look at all of this information, but we don't know what she's doing incorrectly if we can't look at this information.

So show us all of this information so we can determine if you're doing it like yo see how it just kind of spirals.

I mean, because that's where I come from with is she doing something wrong and then going to like the more targeted.

I completely understand that perspective.

But you have to remember the manner place that an election is administered rests solely with the legislature.

So the fact that we're having that round robin discussion is totally contrary to statute, totally contrary to the Constitution, state of Michigan.

But what I think is happening is that's the narrativ that wants to be created right?

That's not what should be being created.

We should be allowed to see those items to make a determination.

And it's not just about to find out if she's done something wrong.

It's to make good legislative decisions about the futur of the execution of elections.

Representative Speaker Hall in speaking about when he led oversight hearings in 2019 and 2020, h said it was quote the only show in town.

Do you consider your oversight hearings a show?

No, absolutely not.

Then how do you differ from his his way of running those?

I can't tell you I wasn't here.

I didn't have a front ro seat to observe how Speaker Hall ran oversight.

So I can't give you a perspective on my style versus his.

What I can tell you is that I will remain diligen to the integrity of the process.

It's not a political show.

I'm not taking political shots.

I've never taken a political shot at Jocelyn Benson, even though they claim that this is political, this is about the integrity of elections in the state of Michigan.

Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

You're also looking into the state police in the conduct of the colonel who's running that shop.

Yes.

What did you make of the people this week that came to his defense and said basically folks were out to get an African-American who's running MSP?

Well, that's disappointing because.

Is it true?

Absolutely not.

Absolutely not.

I would say if that were true, you're going to tell me tha 98% of the rank and file command and troopers in the state of Michigan State police that voted no confidence.

That's entirely a racially based motivation.

That is, frankly, offensive.

We're doing the job we're supposed to do.

And when you see number come out that a department head has a 2% and I'm rounding, by the way, a 2% confidence rate from the employees, I have an obligation as the chair of oversight to look into that.

Well, you had some peopl come in privately this week.

Can you give us a hint as to what direction you're going here?

So so when this broke the issue of no confidence, we we had a discussion and said, I think we need to tal to people within the department who have historic knowledge, have been there a long time and can give us at least a perspective of what is going on within the Michigan State Police.

So we chose some individuals that have been there a long time, have seemed to be well respected by everyone, and ask them if they would come in and talk to us to try to at least explain to us what might be going on there.

So when the colone is in the chair across from you, what's the first question you're going to ask?

But probably because I haven't thought that through yet, but I would probably ask him, tell us why you have a 98% no confidence vote.

Correct us.

Tell us why that's not accurate.

What have you done and what hasn't happened and what's the perception?

Explain that to us.

Have you seen anything based on the conversations that you've had that indicates how that level of confidence or no confidence has filtered down to the operations and performance of the state police?

I won't comment on the direct testimony as of right now because we're still in that process.

I don't think that's fair and respectful to those individuals that were taking those interviews with depositions with.

But what I will say, the consistent message that I've heard that we're actually trying to validate is that there's no respect for for seniority.

There's no respect for background, there's no respect for historic knowledge.

And that that that all of the operations that go on there, our our our good old boy connection.

And who do I want in those kinds of things.

That's what we've been told.

What we're doing in our due diligence is we're attempting to determine, is that actually true, Representative.

There is an election next year for governor or secretary of state Attorney general.

Let's say Republicans take one of those seats.

Are all of them or what have you.

You have John James in office or Aric Nesbitt.

Do you promise to apply the same level of scrutiny to those leaders as you are right now?

Absolutely.

In fact, I said tha to Aric Nesbitt in conversation.

He actually jokingly said, Boy, do I have to worry about sitting in that offic if you're the oversight chair?

And I said, Yep, I had that conversation recently.

People in the state government not working downtown.

Does that bug you?

It does bug me.

Why?

Historically?

Couple of reasons.

Historically.

We have to remember that Lansing was designated as the capital of the state of Michigan.

Intentionally.

It was created as a state capital.

That's just the anecdotal reason.

We are the industry of Lansing, right?

The capital.

If you look at any private sector study and at home employment, there are scenarios in which it's effective.

But on a broad scale, it is not effective.

It is not as efficient and it is not as you cannot have accountability at the level that you should.

So do you believe Michigan taxpayers are losing out by having those workers at home and not downtown?

Yes, but you have no proof of that.

Well, I can step forward, you know.

Yeah.

Yeah.

When I went out and had a beer while I wa supposed to be counting.

True.

A lot do use a hybrid.

Absolutely.

The system.

I mean, is that not.

Anecdotally, you're speaking that it' anecdotal right at this moment It is anecdotal until we can dig into the invest, investigate it to determine those things.

But I can tell you, I get numerous complaints of phone calls to offices.

We have we have voice messages that say we're out because of the pandemic still.

People who will come to show up, to write a check, to pay for something that requires a deadline, only to find out that the office is closed.

That's not service.

That's what government is.

Government is a service industry.

And you think the administration is stonewalling you?

Perhaps.

Perhaps.

I don't, I'm not a mind reader, but I can tell you that that we do not operate as efficiently the way we're operating right no as far as relative to service.

So outside of Benson, outside of the MSP, what is next on the docket for oversight?

Well, we are looking at the the employees.

That's that that's coming.

We're digging into that information.

And I will just go back and say due diligence matters.

If you're going to run an effective oversight committee which means that you can't jump one week to the next on another topic, right.

You have to do your homework and we are doing our homework on multiple issues and those will come out soon.

Will you promise to get those people back to work?

I'm trying to do that.

Yes, Raise your right hand.

Raise my right hand.

All right.

And on that note thank you, sir, for showing up.

You bet.

Yes.

Good to see you.

Thanks.

Also, thanks to our great panel.

See for being here next week.

For more off the record, please, because we need you.

Bye-Bye.

Production of off th record as 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 to wkar.org Michigan public television stations have contributed to the production costs of off the record.