[ Reply | Next | Previous | Up ]
From: Harry Zych
Category: Shipwreck Research
Date: 08 Jun 2007
Time: 03:32:15
Remote Name: 66.73.194.240
Harry Zych, Advocate for Diving Rights, Great Lakes, U.S. & Territories, PO BOX 578250, Chicago, IL 60657-8250, Phone (773)-583-8901 Fax: (773)-583-2236 E-Mail: harry_zych@sbcglobal.net
Senator McManus,
Yes, there has been a great deal of confusion the past couple of weeks, in regards to the actions of the legislators of the State of Michigan. The second highest paid group of legislators in the 50 United States have found another way to waste time and money chasing a photo opportunity, while the State of Michigan is languishing in 900 million dollars of debt. Excuse me Senator; nobody believes the spin, that the 900 million turned into 400 million overnight. Government does not create miracles; in fact, it’s a miracle they work at all.
While you were on Mackinac Island at the annual Business conference, did you happen to notice how many Dive shop owners/operators were not there? Or maybe how many Dive charter boat owners/operators were missing? You know, those nameless faces, who used to generate income that was taxed to pay the bills of the state, including the very generous salaries ($79,650.00 – 2002 & 2005 numbers), supplemental salaries ($12,000) and fringe benefits (couldn’t find hard numbers as of yet) of its legislators. I’d bet you didn’t.
I’ve spent a great deal of time researching a wide range of information the past week, wondering who, why, where, what and how Michigan needed the largest state park in the modern history of the United States & Territories. Also, the question came to mind, how did the Diving Community, become the funding source for the largest park system in the United States. It takes many sources of fees and taxes to support the parks in existence now. How is a declining group of end users going to keep the “park” afloat?
I attended both the House & Senate Committee hearings and was appalled at the heavy-handed politics exercised. In the house hearings, I felt like I was in a court of law, defending my self against a prosecuting attorney. In fact, the rebuttal testimony requested of the proponents of the house bills reminded me of closing argument/summary by the prosecution.
The glowing accolade of Ken Vrana, in the opening remarks, by the senate Chairperson, concerning Mr. Vranas discovery of PA171, was very disconcerting. It was mentioned that without Mr. Vranas discovery several years ago, and his sharing it with the Michigan government, the “Great Lakes State Park”, would not be a reality today.
The timeline presented in Mr. Vranas testimony ran like this. The state passed PA 171 in 1899 to protect bottomlands and swamps for access to hunters. Mr. Vranna stated, “Hunters guaranteed their shooting rights.” Nowhere, did I see title to the lands transferred under that statute. Also, how do you know what the intent of the act was 108 years ago? No court of law would allow that kind of conjecture as admissible evidence, but it is convenient. I failed to see any validity of the act as a basis of creating the largest unfunded state park. How can we apply today’s economic and social needs to yesteryears unknown necessities?
Next Mr. Vrana pointed to a state attorneys opinion written by Frank Kelly in 1976. Mr. Vranna pointed out it was positive and in favor of the “New Park system”. It didn’t read that way to me, but, it was true, there is an opinion on file from 1976. No text of the opinion was provided.
Then Mr. Vrana states that PA 171 in the codification process of 1994-95 put PA 171 in the hunting grup of laws under the jurisdiction of the Michigan DNR and they had the responsibility for the new park being created out of an old hunting law. The DNR had responded with a ‘ NO POSITION’ statement. They weren’t saying no, but they weren’t saying yes either. What really bothered me in the hot potato game, was the fact the state legislators had Mr. Vranas’ data for 2-3 years and no mention of any research was made public. That insults me. What do the citizens pay (I haven’t run down his salary figures yet) an attorney general for?
I believe that PA 171 was repealed by 1995 PA 57, MCL 324.90104 and/or by MCL 317.291 – 317.297 during the codification process of 1994-95. (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(twjsko45d5vzzy550ijvhw55))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-chap317) But more importantly, WHY isn’t there a RECENT opinion by the State of Michigan Attorney General office on this?? Why was Ken Vrana the only expert resource on the legal status of a Michigan Public Act? It brings to question if an opinion WAS rendered and it did not agree with Mr. Vrana. Legislators have access to free legal advice from the state attorney, they should have, as a normal course of responsible action, sought the opinion of the states chief legal officer. In fact, you still can, and in fact on behalf of the diving community I demand it!
Creating a park on the basis of 1899 PA 171, is folly. The state can create the park without PA 171.
Passing laws without funding is inherently bad business. Waiting for funding to arrived in some future place and time is very strange. Senator Basham asked Mr. Wilson (from the senate policy office) directly how much money was needed to implement the park, Mr. Wilson replied that they (?) were working on it, but, had nothing to present at the moment, and that there were some other funds available. . It was stated by, Bob Wilson, that the collected moneys from the $15 “voluntary donations” would be held till such time, as it could be self-sustaining. But, with the misrepresented numbers projected that is a scary thought. When would that money be absorbed into the general fund.
As far as the house bills 4638, 4639 and 4640 I’m not concerned with their name change or responsibilities at the moment, although I see flaws there too.
The statement I’d like to address about the divided interests between the advisory committee and the DNR management responsibilities, and of course, both of these entities being controlled by the legislature. I don’t think so, state legislatures don’t manage much of anything well. Mr. Wilson assured us that no state fees can be raised without legislative approval. When we disagreed, he sent us a copy of the legislative authority in regards park management. It was about regulating the parking fees of motorized vehicles, in the state park, parking lots. A far cry from the paragraph I read about the director making decisions on park fees. Legislative consent is not required on other fees.
Your next statement about the voluntary decal fee appears to be ridiculous, nothing voluntary ever stays voluntary. In the interest of modern skepticism, review seat belts. For years Michigan has had non-funded diving regulation in place. By and large the diving community has voluntariliy funded it, excessively, in some cases. Where has the state been? Now after years of doing and not bitching, (ok sometimes we bitched). The dive community is supposed to buy “ feel good stickers” from the state??? What do you think the diving community sees in this? Supporting the largest state park in US history is not wowing people whose love of their sport is threatened by more government regulation.
In the private sector it takes about $165,000.00 in income to pay for one employee. How many employees will this idea take? How many dollars have you been told that you’ll take in?
These bills will not enhance anything. In fact, they create a burden the population of the State of Michigan is not prepared to take on. Also, you will open a can of worms over all the recreational activites implied by a state park: public access is critical and there are not enough harbors, launch ramps and other forms of access to guarantee true use by the tax paying public. It just gets worse and worse, doesn’t it?
However, the worse is yet to come. How does Michigan propose to implement your licensing program? When did you decide, you could license divers? How will an out of state person, get licensed? How many tourists will come when they find out they need a state license? It is a very bad idea that should have never been said out loud.
Another very bad idea that should never have been said out loud “ it is a bad idea for you to talk to the newspapers.” Did I miss the repeal of the 1st amendment?
I have lots more to say, but, space is at a premium, and it’s not very flattering.
Harry Zych