by Tim Skubick
August 21, 2009

These must be pretty heady times for the speaker of the Michigan House. Rep. Andy Dillon has dominated the news media with his yet to be fleshed out health care for public employees idea, and everyone assumes he will springboard from that into a race for governor.

However, he is not running for governor now. And the odds are less than 50-50 that he will. But just in case he does, his health care gambit is helping to shape an image for Dillon that he is a statesman willing to take on labor even though it might damage his bid for governor.

But Dillon has other challenges right in his own backyard, and if left unchecked, he won’t look like a statesman for long.

In that regard, both veterans and freshmen in the House Democratic caucus have raised serious questions about Dillon.

To be sure, one of those vets concludes, “Nobody wants to have a revolution” to remove Dillon from his job, but there is an attitude that “some tough decisions are being made by a select few, and some are feeling disenfranchised.”

Another is more blunt: “We want to be heard and be part of the process.”

In other words, the frustration needle in the caucus is moving up and Dillon’s to blame.

Item: the day he announced the health care concept, his Democratic colleagues read about it in the newspaper. Dillon excluded most of them from his deliberations, and he was told behind closed doors that some members didn’t like it. Whatever his reasons for secrecy, Dillon violated the first rule of politics — keep your friends close, but your potential detractors even closer.

Item: As reported in this space last week, the freshman Democrats three weeks ago demanded a sitdown to air their frustrations over the summer “work schedule” and their lack of knowledge on budget talks. Described by one participant as a “conversation” and by another as not a “bitch” session, the two-hour exchange focused on why so much time was taken off during the summer. House members were in session once over the last six weeks.

Even though the bulk of the Democrats are not included in the budget talks anyway, if they were in town they could at least get an update. Because here’s the rub: when these Democrats are back home and citizens ask, “What’s going on with the budget?” the lawmakers have to sheepishly confess, “I don’t know.” And as one of them correctly notes, “That’s not a good answer.” Understatement number one.

Apparently it was a constructive meeting, but Dillon did not attend. He sent two lieutenants instead.

“No reason was given on why he was not there,” confides one source who adds, “It would have been nice had he been there.” Understatement number two.

Dillon got only two days notice of the meeting and tried to find another day, but the anxious freshmen would not change the date. Dillon decided to keep his appointment with whomever, which sent the signal that the “whomever” was more important than members of his own caucus. For a guy trying to win friends and influence members of his own party, it was the wrong message.

So while Mr. Dillon reaps headlines and pats on the head for tackling the status quo, the fires are burning in the Democratic ranks. Maybe before he decides to run for governor he should consider running for fireman first?

Tim Skubick is Michigan’s senior Capitol correspondent and has anchored the weekly public TV series “Off the Record” since 1972.

Tim Skubick Extra Extra… (A weekly bonus for Dome readers)

Would He Do That?
He wouldn’t do that, would he?

The governor says he won’t, but is it wishful thinking or does she really believe it?

The reference here is to the possible scenario under which President Barack Obama, desperate to find a new home for Gitmo inmates, picks Michigan over the governor’s objections.

Gov. Granholm says her homeland security questions have not yet been answered by the Obama administration, and minus assurances that the 200 or so Gitmo residents won’t create a threat to Standish and Michigan, the governor won’t sign off.

But does it matter?

There’s a debate over the governor’s authority to veto any presidential decision she does not like. They call it state’s rights. Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox believes the governor can block the decision if the president makes it.

GOP Congressman Pete Hoekstra, who is gobbling up a ton of free media on his staunch opposition, guesses the president can pretty much do what he wants, but coming in over the governor’s objections would be “a bad decision.”

And on that the Democratic governor agrees.

She was asked this week whether, if the president says yes, can she say no. She offered, “I don’t think it will come to that.” And then she adds, “I don’t think they would do that. It would not be wise.”

Indications are she really believes that and it is not wishful thinking. She notes that the new president has been “very sensitive and deferential” to the governor’s apprehensions.

Yet when push comes to shove, the president made a campaign promise to close the makeshift prison, and to do that he must find new digs for the suspected terrorists.

Let’s see: pay off on a campaign promise he made to the nation and stick a Democratic governor with a decision she will not like.

He wouldn’t do that…would he?

Only a Matter of Time
This is incredible. See if you concur.

You would assume that the state’s child abuse investigators spend the bulk of their time involved in hands-on probes into the family life of children who may be at risk. But if a veteran state caseworker is right, they are spending most of their time hands-on the computer — and management wants it that way.

Ran into Ray Holman the other day. With 17 years under his belt, he is a dedicated public servant trying to save children. But because of a recent court order, the state Department of Human Services is under the gun to reduce its caseload, and Holman contends the word has gone out to beef up the info going into the computers to do it.

“You’re forced to continually feed information to a computer,” he contends, estimating 65 percent of his time is spent on that task. And here’s the rub: “The type of work we do, it can go really bad…children can die (and often times) you’re pressured to cut corners because management wants you to feed the computer and make things look nice on the computer system.”

Holman and colleagues are losing sleep at night and some have taken stress leave because they fear the consequences of this “feed the computer” misplaced-priorities mentality.

It’s only a matter of time before sitting in front of the computer will result in some youngster being beaten-up at home.

“We are forced to guess” about the degree of risk children face. Normally, he explains, caseworkers look for “red flags,” but now with less time in the field, they look for “bright red flags” and hope they’ve made the right call.

Holman concludes, “We are fighting the battle with one hand tied behind our backs.”