MPPS Fall 2016 data tables
Summary tables for questionnaire items from the Fall 2016 Wave of the MPPS broken down by jurisdiction type, population size, and region of the state:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Relationship between State and Local Governments
-
- Agree or disagree that state government officials value input from local government officials
- Agree or disagree that the State is taking too much decision-making authority away from local governments
- Agree or disagree that the State holds local governments to a higher standard than it holds itself to
- Agree or disagree that the State’s decision-making is transparent to local officials
- Agree or disagree that the State unfairly treats some jurisdictions better than others
-
- Impact of communication between state and local officials on relationship
- Impact of term limits for state officials on relationship
- Impact of behavior of state officials on relationship
- Impact of behavior of local officials on relationship
- Impact of State’s system of funding local government on relationship
Trust in Government
Communication between State and Local Officials
Division of Authority between State and Local Government
-
- How should authority be divided for economic development
- How should authority be divided for local finance and tax policy
- How should authority be divided for environment and natural resources
- How should authority be divided for land use and planning
- How should authority be divided for business issues
- How should authority be divided for anti-discrimination policies
- How should authority be divided for social issues
- How should authority be divided for how local governments conduct business
Overall Relationship between State and Local Government
Factors Contributing to Local Government Fiscal Distress in Michigan
-
- Population loss as a factor in local government fiscal distress
- Economic decline as a factor in local government fiscal distress
- Rising costs to provide services as a factor in local government fiscal distress
- Citizen opposition to revenue increases as a factor in local government fiscal distress
- State decisions affecting local government as a factor in local government fiscal distress
- Local government corruption/mismanagement as a factor in local government fiscal distress
- Retiree pensions/benefits as a factor in local government fiscal distress
Evaluation of Emergency Manager Law (P.A 436 of 2012)
-
- Support or oppose allowing local units the choice between a consent agreement, Emergency Manager, mediation, or bankruptcy
- Support or oppose allowing an Emergency Manager to reject, modify, or terminate collective bargaining agreements
- Support or oppose allowing an Emergency Manager to set aside decision-making powers of local elected officials
- Support or oppose allowing an Emergency Manager to recommend the sale, transfer, or lease of the local jurisdiction's assets
- Support or oppose allowing a State-appointed advisory board to have ongoing oversight powers after the Emergency Manager leaves
- Effectiveness of Emergency Manager Law at restoring fiscal health in the short-term
- Effectiveness of Emergency Manager Law at establishing sustainable financial conditions for the long-term
-
- Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law is undemocratic
- Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law helps difficult decisions to be made because the EM is an “outsider”
- Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law is racially discriminatory
- Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law pays insufficient attention to underlying structural problems
- Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law serves the interests of local residents by improving their jurisdiction’s fiscal sustainability
- Agree or disagree that the Emergency Manager Law leads to an overemphasis on cost-cutting
- Support or opposition to the Emergency Manager Law overall
Reforms to the Emergency Manager Law
-
- Support or oppose requiring Emergency Managers to plan for improving factors beyond just finances
- Support or oppose including provisions for possible new local or state revenue options for jurisdictions with Emergency Managers
- Support or oppose requiring Emergency Managers to analyze impact on disadvantaged groups when making decisions
- Support or oppose requiring Emergency Managers to consider local elected official input before making decisions
- Support or oppose requiring Emergency Managers to consider citizen input before making decisions
- Support or oppose adding a state-level ombudsperson oversight for citizens and local officials to appeal any Emergency Manager decision
- Support or oppose more proactive State monitoring of finances for all local governments in Michigan
Citizen Engagement
- How engaged are citizens in your jurisdiction?
- Extent of citizen engagement opportunities in your jurisdiction
-
- Agree or disagree that jurisdiction makes opportunities for engagement available, but citizens rarely take advantage of them
- Agree or disagree that some of the best engagement with citizens happens informally around the community
- Agree or disagree that most citizens the jurisdiction hears from are more interested in complaining than in finding solutions
- Agree or disagree that citizens want access to information about the government’s finances and operations
- Agree or disagree that most citizens aren’t willing to take the time to become well-informed on issues
- Agree or disagree that jurisdiction reaches out to groups that typically might not engage in policymaking processes
- Agree or disagree that citizens tend to only be engaged on issues that affect them directly
- Agree or disagree that jurisdiction’s decision-making is transparent to its citizens
- Agree or disagree that jurisdiction struggles to find enough citizens to serve on appointed boards/commissions or elected offices
The Role of Citizen Engagement
- Official’s trust in citizens to be responsible participants
- Who should have the final say in controversial decisions: citizens or public officials?
Overall Satisfaction Regarding Citizen Engagement