Welcome back.

Representative Emily Dievendorf.

A new House Democratic member is up next.

And our lead story, the governor's council to grow the state population.

They met, but what are they doing on the yacht?

Our panel, Simon Schuster, Emily Lawler 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 part by Martin Waymire, a full service strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and public policy engagement.

Learn more at martinwaymire.com.

And now this edition of Off the Record with Tim Skubick.

Thank you very much.

Welcome.

Two off the record on this beautiful, ugly, pure Michigan morning.

I think summer is over.

October 13th.

It's Friday the 13th.

What are you going to do?

We're going to go to say good night, folks.

It is called the Growing Michigan Together Council, a group gathered together by the governor of the state of Michigan to figure out how we can get people to not only stay here, but come here.

They had a meeting this week that had to do with recommendations, and the recommendations were not very specific.

Emily, maybe.

A little wishy-er and washy-er than you would have thought, but I don't think these are the final set of recommendations.

Better not because recommendations.

Sort of a peek into how the council's going and some of the things they're thinking about specifically around education.

A lot of it is not exactly 100% new to us.

For example, they're sort of thinking about K-12 as like pre-K 14.

That's something that we've heard before, certainly in terms of getting everyone at least a path through community college.

That's obviously a stated goal of the governor, is that she's looking to increase educational attainment in the state.

But I think we are kind of crying for details at this point.

And this council is wrapping up in December.

They are having like meetings and also talking to citizens across the state.

I sat down with Hilary Doerr, who is the Michigan's first, and she will say the country's first chief growth officer last week.

And this is all about this this executive director that the governor put together on Mackinac Island, which is all about Michigan's population.

They have made decisions on recommendations but declined to let us know what they are.

Yeah, I mean, when you look at the problems that they're trying to face, these are some of the largest, most systemic issues that the state has faced for decades.

And so when you look at them trying to lay out a road map for what these solutions are going to be, when you see these initial recommendations is essentially we just need to solve these systemic problems and then everything will be all right.

And so I think that it frustrates a lot of people that they're just seeing an ID of the problem and saying we just fix the problem rather than saying, here's how we fix the problem.

The drill in our town is when we have a council like this, those nosy reporters start making phone calls to find out what they're working on.

I made two phone calls the other day and was told in no uncertain terms, we're not talking to you.

I said, What do you mean you're not talking to me?

I've been instructed.

We do not talk to the media when that's a gag order.

Do I have a consensus on that?

Apparently not.

Maybe you just need better sources.

Tim.

Well.

Wait.

The story's not done.

I did find some of the recommendations, which is $3 billion more for education.

Why don't they want that number out?

This is what Minority Leader Matt Hall really from the beginning, I mean, I remember talking to him on Mackinaw Island, I think it was even before the governor made the speech about the Population Council and he was this is going to be a tax increase.

And I mean, really, this is what he has been pushing since the beginning.

But to Simon's point, I mean, intractable problems aren't if they were that easy to fix and didn't take any money, I would certainly have hoped that Michigan would have fixed that.

Spend 3 billion additional dollars on education without talking about a tax increase.

Now, you could close loopholes.

There's other ways.

But Mr..

The chair person says tax increase is not in my lexicon.

That's because he doesn't have a lexicon when it comes to tax increases.

Is the Republican co-chair.

Yes, yes.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, that's the beauty of this council, right?

I think if you look at the biggest setback from Governor Whitmer's first term, it was proposing a gas tax increase that sort of died.

It never happened.

And the council is great because they can propose for Governor Whitmer that taxes have to be increased, that revenue has to be raised, which is something you haven't heard from the Democratic legislature, but neither neither the governor nor the legislature has to do it well.

And at yesterday's meeting, they told reporters they couldn't come in the room.

Yeah, it's like trying to get in the room and that doesn't look like it worked out.

This is a.

Council with an attitude.

You know, they certainly have a closed door attitude.

We'll give them that figure.

Closed door meetings.

There really hasn't been a lot of insight into their process, but they are coming out with this set of recommendations that I guess we'll learn more about.

They're supposed to have them out by December 1st, so we'll find out more in terms of as you're talking about, not just, you know, saying what the problems are, but what the fixes are.

Do you want to say that?

It's a really short timeline?

I think people have said that from the beginning.

You know, the Mackinac Policy conference where this was announced as in May, you know, at the time it was said this would be wrapped up by December.

That is a heavy lift.

The appointments took several months, I think, to fully populate this council.

And it just seems like I think a lot of people have questioned what kind of work they're going to get done on that time frame and whether we'll really see sort of like the substantive goals or like we said, maybe just the sort of outlining some of these intractable issues that are still very hard to solve.

Right.

I'm almost trying to think, are we going to see like a michigan Population Council 2.0 right.

So you do the recommendations and then it's like, okay, but how do you actually do the fix?

What does that implementation actually look like when as we know, you know, last year we were talking about just how much surplus money there was in the budget.

Now it's looking like there is It could be so much, you know, billions of dollars to spend.

What almost sort of wonders had this aligned, you know, you can't go back and fix, you know, timelines, but had something, you know, aligned with these recommendations when there was still billion dollar surplus, what that could have looked like and really kind of like institutional changes.

To be fair here, look at I understand that commissioners want to keep stuff secret until it's soup.

Okay.

I understand that.

But could not an argument be made by putting some of the stuff out there?

You get more public input and you might be able to add more flavor to the soup that people will drink.

I just make that point.

All right.

The Democrats in the House continue to have voting problems.

What are they, Simon?

Yeah, I mean, I think this also ties in in the Population Council because we look at part one of this year for the legislature, it was about hitting on do on so much of the Keystone accomplishments that you saw during Rick Snyder's administration during a Republican controlled legislature and the Population Council.

Like this legislative agenda is sort of the second part where they see what policy do we want to craft that's new?

That isn't just a reversal of what we've seen in the past.

And this is where I think they're struggling more with caucus unity, getting the votes that they need together to get this this.

Abortion issue is one of them.

They want to make some changes.

They don't have the votes to do that.

The Mike Duncan tax, which looks to be on life support in the House, they can't get the votes.

I mean, it was put up on the board.

I mean, like not just like they can't like, you know, talking about it was then put up on the board and they.

Didn't if you don't have the votes, you don't turn the green lights on.

That that tends to be the rule.

I mean, it is rare, right, Because of course, when you are in the majority, you get to say, you know, this is what we're voting on right now.

It's pretty darn rare unless you want to make sort of the other side take a really, really difficult vote.

But even then, it's very rare to see that happen.

I think it's an example of intra caucus pressure here because it shows I mean, I think if my memory serves, the majority floor leader in self and was also his name stayed white during that vote as well.

So I think this shows that up and down the ranks of leadership that while there's a lot of support perhaps in Detroit for this measure, it's not going to necessarily extend outside the bounds of the city.

I do think that what's potentially embarrassing about putting up a vote and having it flop is being surprised by that.

I don't think that Speaker Tate was surprised by the result.

I think it's.

Something we saw.

I mean, this is this story's been going on for a couple of weeks that they can't get the in a row.

Yeah.

And what be really interesting to watch is, you know folks who who who know the politics and how Mike Duggan uses levers of power.

You know, he's saying, I'm going to go back and we're going to try this again.

It's going to be fascinating to see what those levers are that he starts.

Especially for somebody who would like to be governor, who would then be pulling those levers, is.

Absolutely talk about a, you know, Mike Duggan looking looking ahead.

I don't have two sources that I'm putting out on the table right now.

I'll sure you know.

But no, I mean, that's it's another really interesting dynamic, too.

And when you have, you know, for the first time, a Democratic speaker of the House from Detroit in decades going along with a Democratic mayor and working in tandem on this, it's fascinating to watch this this soup.

I think this shows the limits of the geographic shift that we've seen in legislative leadership.

I mean, you saw that for the the majority of the time that Republicans were in charge.

These were representatives and senators from rural areas.

And now for the you know, for the first time, as you said, we have a leader of the House is from Detroit, leader of the Senate.

He's from Grand Rapids.

But it also shows us that the shift from an, you know, urban representation or representation towards urban representation is not necessarily a carte blanche rewriting of state policy.

Well, if you don't have enough votes, it's tough to be a leader.

But maybe that's where the leadership really is.

When you can't get the votes that you do get the votes.

Well, and then figuring out, okay, I mean, if it's not just within your caucus, I mean, let's remember, too, there were Republicans who were voting on the board for this legislation.

And so, again, it's it's not just figuring out what your caucus wants.

It's talking to, you know, the minority leader and figuring out what it is that they want as well.

Well, on the abortion issue, one person in the House Democratic caucus is holding this one up.

Emily.

Right.

Representative Whitsett from Detroit actually told Clara, my colleague this week that she had voted for proposal three.

A lot of people are sort of envisioning the current package before the legislature as a continuation of Proposal three or sort of a validation of what voters expressed, which is that they wanted abortion to be legal in the state of Michigan.

And this would sort of remove a lot of the logistical barriers to getting an abortion.

But, you know, representative, which I just isn't convinced that a voter is meant to go that far necessarily.

Just one footnote on the Mike Duggan thing.

The good news is he doesn't run for governor until 2026.

So this will be old news, maybe unless they're still trying to get it in 2026.

Was calling our guest today.

Representative, welcome back to Off the Record.

It's been a while.

Nice to have you on board.

Yes.

I feel like I was a kid last time.

There you go.

So when the speaker of the House put out his list of what should be done in the fall session, your first thoughts were some of the stuff I want to do.

Not on the list.

What did you think?

I recognized the value of prioritizing really drilling down on a few things that we feel we absolutely need to do before the end of the year.

And I also know that we can get more done while we're working on key pieces, key priorities, and have broader appeal to those folks that we're here to serve.

But broader appeal because we need to answer the policy questions and challenges that address our most basic needs.

The speaker ignored the is a progressive wing and what label do you like on the ones of you that are on a different page?

Well, I think that depends, because I think we're starting to try to use progressive like it's a bad word or like it's unreasonable or unrealistic substitute.

You know, I.

Some would say it's guided.

And I would say that I would contend that is very wrong.

We have not a lot of very strategic forward thinking legislators that would like to respond to the will of their constituents and also model better governance, good governance.

Representative, can you explain a little bit about I don't know that I want to use the word disconnect.

Maybe you want to like and I understand you don't want to talk about things that happened in caucus, but help me understand how the conversations are happening and how the agenda is being determined and are the progressive wing or however feeling left out of that?

Are you not having enough?

Is not enough being asked of you guys like, how is it working that the agenda is putting out in this way?

Yeah.

So I'll start by saying we have a group of more progressive legislators and even moderate Dems that came in with a new philosophy after this last election when we were knocking doors.

Our constituent constituencies can consistently said, if you are not going to be there to represent our needs and priorities at the most basic level, then it's not just that we are voting for the other person next time, it's that we're not voting next time because we are losing faith in democracy.

We are losing faith in governance, in politics, in the way the system works.

So a number of us came back committing to we are going to fight more directly for what you are saying that you want and also asking for a more participatory democracy.

So from the beginning, so many in our caucus have been trying to facilitate and and encourage more discussion within caucus, allow for more doesn't come in with the attitude of we are here to do more and better.

That doesn't mean we can't do it strategically.

That doesn't mean we can't make sure that we're doing the public education and building the momentum that will ensure that we can sustain the change that we are making.

But we also need to be transparent and ethical and more collaborative than we've ever been in Michigan politics at this moment.

When you talk of sort of meeting those basic needs and, you know, sort of getting to the bottom of the grassroots politics, I guess, are there things that the legislature has accomplished in the first ten months of this year that have have gotten that thought and like, what more do you still think needs to be done?

Yeah, And to Tim's point and and Zoey, part of the reason that we do even need to come back and reprioritize is because we have been so productive so far this year.

We came in and we checked the boxes of a number of the issues that have been just kind of hanging there, waiting for really urgent attention like increasing and ensuring ATC, the repeal of the retirement tax.

Right.

Eliminating right to work.

We've done some huge things.

And also these are the priorities that we've checked off already that have been sitting around for a long time and not necessarily where the most current urgent demands are from our constituencies.

So in re-envisioning and reprioritizing for the rest of the year, a lot of us really feel like, yeah, absolutely, we should continue to do all of those things that clean house, that bring back order and we should also be introducing policy that reflects the interests and priorities of people right now.

When did those conversations about reprioritizing or thinking about the fall session happen?

When did that begin?

So we had been having these conversations throughout the summer.

We knew we were going to have to come back shortly before the fall and and come together as a caucus with our with at least a few set goals.

I think that for many of us, we consider these goals to be overarching categories of priority as opposed to just a few specific policy projects.

Have to list before the speaker.

Well, I shared a list that was published and honestly, it was a honest assessment and clear assessment of where a lot of our bills stand that are ready, that we know we have public support for, and that we just aren't seeing movement on when we have time to spend on another policy when.

Some go ahead.

Do you view your responsibility as a legislature and a representative of your constituents?

Do you view that responsibility to enact those priorities, even if it means just a one term Democratic trifecta in the legislature?

Or do you think it's more important to maintain that trifecta, even if it means sort of moving those policy or those priorities a little bit further down the line?

Yeah.

So this is a yes and.

Right.

Because that's the age old question about the philosophy of what the role of a legislature are.

And I came in wanting to represent my district in a way that modeled a though a true representative democracy that ensures the people most impacted by by the solutions are creating the solutions not just at the table, not just submitting input.

But I'm not the only one I came in with with teachers.

I came in with labor organizers.

You know, I came in with psychologists, a number of folks who are used to doing direct service and know that we find the wisdom to come up with the solutions outside of ourselves.

But the reality is you folks have been told in no uncertain terms that if they move on some of the stuff that you want, you could cost the D's control of the House.

Have you heard that?

I of course, I have absolutely heard that.

I also have said.

Do you agree with it?

No, because I've been in politics longer than just about everybody in in my caucus.

If you have people in swing districts that you force to vote yea or nay on something, it could cost them them seat.

You agree with that?

Unless we do our due diligence policymaking.

What's that?

Well, I mean, it's something I love, but it is as much a part of the political process as actually pushing the button.

Right as I'm working on housing legislation, I knew that I was going to need to take the summer in district period to not just check in with my constituency, but to also do the public education to ensure that people knew what the state of the housing crisis is right now, what the best practices and proposed solutions are throughout the country, what's happening in other states.

And to create that engagement, they would also increase the demand for our legislators.

So our legislators across the state knew they had support to pass the policies.

I knew that we needed policy making has to do with not just that button, but also ensuring that you have already created the narrative draft, drafted the accurate and true and transparent narrative that will reflect where people are and the most effective solutions that we will need.

The caucus has shown.

And then we hold on to our majority.

Frankly, when we do what the people ask.

But we do it in a smart, strategic way that will retain those changes because people understand why they're happening.

We retain our majority because we're senior.

Members of the caucus tell you that that's not going to work.

You don't agree?

Absolutely, because I because I've done it and because I'm somebody who has had to make policy change under complete Republican control because I'm one of those swing districts.

I'm not in a swing district, but I'm also not Ann Arbor.

And yet my policies as progressive as they are, reflect exactly what my community is asking for every day.

So and to me, these are very basic things.

As much as somebody might want to call me a hippie or whatever, I don't know what all the words are that are used about me at this point.

Right?

We have to remember, and my background is partially in extremism.

We have to remember that as things get more extreme over here, it doesn't make the person that is right here so extreme.

It doesn't make the person who is right here that much more unreasonable because it gets more stream and extreme over here.

But the way we define it within our understanding shifts as we start to see people acting out on either end.

Progressives aren't not reasonable or or not moderate progressives at the very core.

Root to get back to your definition, are folks who are trying to address the daily struggle, but in a way that also gets to the root of the systemic disparity so that as we're addressing the daily struggle, we are not perpetuating.

You're describing right now is Overton Window, right?

This idea of like what becomes normal and what doesn't.

But but in many respects, I think what we're talking about is this idea that that, you know, for the first time, Democrats are in power for 40 years and what are you willing to give up?

These I mean, I get what you're saying, that it's like, no, if we push hard enough and explain our message, but we just know there are people that just aren't going to believe in that policy.

And I mean, that's that's the basics of governing and fundamental.

So I guess I'm curious from your perspective, can you understand where some of the other Democrats are and where Speaker Tate is coming from and where their concern lies in terms of not wanting to push too hard?

Do you understand that sort of point of view?

Yes.

We still have to prioritize policies.

We still have to figure out what is actually feasible.

I'm just arguing that some of the things that are being are being considered are talked about as if they aren't feasible.

We do have public support for and we could be creating the circumstances for success.

Do we have to make sure that our our more fragile districts are supported and that we're doing extra work to make sure that people understand why we're doing the focusing on the policies that we are?

Absolutely.

And also, I would argue that even in our rural areas, even in our swing district districts, the mentality and the priorities have shifted.

And my district has changed, too.

While the density of the population is within Lansing, most of the land geography is in the rural areas, and I'm one of our few legislators that are driving out to my rural area regularly to check in with a rural community that is small enough to not get revenue sharing, but is is possibly one of the sites of of a future huge development project right in Eagle Township.

And our constituencies, regardless of party, they want to be heard.

They want to see that we're transparent and ethical.

They want to see that we care about them and and that honestly, in my conversations, regardless of where you are on the spectrum, is making a difference.

One of the most ambitious, I think, policies, because you referred to the circumstances for success in some of the most ambitious policies that we've heard proposed by progressives in this legislature necessitate the raising of revenue by state government.

Does this mean that, you know, people are going to push for tax increases because the last time Democrats had a trifecta, you know, there was a tax increase and then legislators were recalled and they lost that trifecta.

Yeah, well, I think that any responsible legislator also needs to be able to fund any project that we put out there, out on the table.

And when we suggest that increasing revenue is not something that would be positive or necessary.

That's a conversation we've been avoiding because we aren't talking about the realism of what is government.

So I personally am fine with exploring creative ways to increase revenue, but there are a number of ways we can do that so that we aren't putting the burden on the folks who are struggling the most.

Does that mean you think we should be changing our income tax bracket?

Given Michigan's flat income tax, We should be changing the gradation of that.

I think that we should be open to having conversations about so many different things.

I'm not going to make a recommendation for any particular way to raise revenue at this point, but I do think that it is not a dirty, ugly conversation.

If it's not a dirty ongoing conversation.

Let's talk about it.

Yeah, Well, I would say Brooks has raised several times publicly and privately, looking at graduated income taxes, but looking at who is who is making the most money, benefiting from from different programs where the the burden is and whether we are burdening the folks that are struggling the most is necessary for figuring out where we find our funding.

As you're looking at progressive priorities, like what did you self-edit off the list?

Like, what's something that you said?

You know, this is a policy that I believe in that would be really great, but this is the third rail for right now.

Okay.

So instantly, there are some things come to mind.

I don't know that I would put that on the table, but but absolutely, I as as a progressive but also somebody who has done lobbying and and and been a legislative staffer, there are policies that are just going to sit in a folder while I have conversations over, I don't know, 2 to 12 years.

And one has to do with how we manage and regulate sex work.

Am I introducing any legislation about sex work right the second.

No, no, not at all.

Is it is it because it doesn't matter.

It's not an area of policy that could make people safer, you know, all of these different things.

But I also acknowledge that it will take the due diligence to make sure that people really understand its contrast to other issues, why it's necessary, and that it's going to produce a knee jerk response in people who don't understand.

This.

Overton Window that you'd like to shift.

What's your top priority?

Honestly, it it really comes down to are most essential.

So housing, I'm leaving on all of the housing legislation in the in the legislature and while I have a bill which is the homeless bill of Rights to decriminalize homelessness and that sounds like an ambitious bill and I have that in order to set the foundation for how we are treating our unhoused neighbors, because I acknowledge that we're in a housing shortage and we need to be building more affordable and middle income housing.

And that doesn't we don't see the results of that.

Very quickly, before we close, have you folks talked about that you do have leverage.

You can take all of your votes and go to the speaker and say if we don't get this, you don't get our votes.

Have you tried that yet or will you?

Yes or no?

So I tell everybody no where your power is nowhere.

Your power is no when to use it.

And you don't have to do that in a man manipulative way.

Absolutely.

A 56 person majority means that we need every vote.

And we and I firmly believe we don't have to negotiate away our values in order to get that result.

But yes, absolutely.

I think that people should occasionally hold their votes to make sure that we are creating public policy that helps us.

Thanks for doing our program.

It's good to see you.

Good to see.

You.

Take care.

See you next week.

For more off the record.

Production of Off the Record is made possible in part by Martin Waymire, a full service strategic communications agency partnering with clients through public relations, digital marketing and public policy engagement.

Learn more at martinwaymire.com.

For more Off the Record, visit wkar.org.

Michigan public television stations have contributed to the production costs of Off the Record.