Policies & Reports - Michigan Indigent Defense Commission

Policies and Reports

The MIDC will periodically prepare and publish reports and analysis of indigent defense services and systems in Michigan. We are required by statute to publish on our website our policies, our budget and expenditures, and our annual report. M.C.L. §780.989(6), §780.999. The MIDC will publish reports of any data collected and analyzed pursuant to M.C.L. §780.989(1)(f) and M.C.L. §780.993(1).

Bylaws

The Michigan Indigent Defense Commission is required to publish its policies and make them available to all attorneys and professionals providing indigent criminal defense services, the Supreme Court, the Governor, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate and House appropriations committees, and the Senate and House fiscal agencies. See MCL §780.989(h)(6). The current policies of the MIDC are described in the bylaws adopted by the Commission itself. The bylaws were adopted by the Commission in February 2015 and signed by the Chairperson. They provide as follows:

BYLAWS

ARTICLE I.

NAME, PURPOSE, AND POWERS

The Michigan Indigent Defense Commission is established by and derives its authority and responsibilities from Public Act 93 of 2013.

ARTICLE II.

MEMBERSHIP, APPOINTMENTS, RESIGNATION, AND TERMINATION

A. Membership. Commission membership shall be designated by the Governor. The Executive Director of the Commission may participate in Commission discussions but shall not have the power to vote on matters considered by the Commission.

B. Resignation. Resignations from the Commission shall be made to the Governor, in conformance with MCL § 780.987.

C. Removal. The Commission may recommend to the Governor removal of a Commission member from the Commission, in compliance with MCL § 780.987(8) and Article V. Section 10 of the Constitution of 1963.

ARTICLE III.

ELECTION OF OFFICERS, ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Election of Officers and Organization of the Commission. The Commission shall annually elect, by a majority of those present, a Commission Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary. The Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary shall be eligible for reelection. The term of the Chair is limited to three consecutive years. The election shall be held at the regularly-scheduled Commission meeting in December, commencing in 2015. The term of office for the Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary shall comprise one calendar year, commencing on January 1st, and ending on December 31st, commencing January 1, 2015.

Nominations. The Chair shall annually appoint an ad hoc nominations committee for the purpose of reviewing candidates for the office of Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary. At the regularly scheduled December meeting, the nominations committee Chairperson shall report out to the full Commission and submit nominations for each office. Following the report, the committee is discharged, and the floor shall be opened for additional nominations. Any committee member, or any Commissioner, may nominate a candidate for either office. No second is required to nominate a candidate. A vote shall be taken with new officers’ terms taking effect January 1 of the following year.

Vacancies. A vacancy in the office of Chair, Vice Chair or Secretary is recognized upon resignation or removal as described in Article II of the Bylaws, or upon death. The Vice Chair is recognized as the presiding officer if the office of Chair is vacant. In the event both the offices of Chair and Vice Chair are vacant, the immediate past-Chair is recognized as the presiding officer. If the immediate past-Chair is not present, then the presiding officer shall be elected by majority vote of those present. Upon vacancy of the Chair, the presiding officer shall re-form the nominations committee, and if necessary appoint new members to the committee at the first regularly scheduled Commission meeting. Elections shall then be held in accordance with Article III of the Bylaws at the next regularly scheduled Commission meeting.

Core Officer Duties. The Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary shall have the following core duties. The Executive Director shall assist with the coordination and implementation of such duties.

a. Chair:

1) Serve as presiding officer of Commission meetings;

2) Appoint standing committees;

3) Serve as a member of the Executive Committee, and as an ex-officio member of all other committees;

4) Coordinate preparation of Commission meeting agendas;

5) Provide formal reports, statements and testimony on behalf of the Commission;

6) Oversee and approve the Commission’s budget and expenditures;

7) Manage and evaluate the performance of the Executive Director;

8) Approve formal press releases and official public statements on behalf of the Commission;

9) Conduct such other duties as are reasonable and customary to fulfill the responsibilities of the Commission.

b. Vice Chair:

1) Perform the duties of the Chair when the Chair is unavailable to perform such duties.

2) At the Chair’s direction, conduct such other duties as are reasonable and customary to fulfill the responsibilities of the Commission.

c. Secretary:

1) Coordinate the issuance of Commission meeting notices;

2) Ensure that minutes of Commission meetings are recorded;

3) Coordinate press statements and other public communications made by the Commission;

4) At the Chair’s direction, conduct such other duties as are reasonable and customary to fulfill the responsibilities of the Commission.

B. Standing Committees. The Commission shall have the following standing committees, as well as additional standing committees appointed by the Chair and approved by the Commission from time to time, that shall not make decisions of the Commission or engage in deliberations as a quorum of the Commission. All committees may recommend to the Commission best practices in their subject areas and assist in the development of potential compliance plan models for approved standards subject to approval by the Commission.

Executive Committee. The Executive Committee shall be a permanent committee consisting of the Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary. The immediate past Chair of the Commission shall be an ex officio and non-voting member of the committee provided the chair remains a member of the Commission. The Executive Committee may make recommendations to the full Commission on any business that may be considered by the Commission. The Executive Director shall be a permanent member of the Executive Committee, but shall not have the power to vote on matters considered by the Committee.

Performance Standards Committee. This committee shall be responsible for overseeing the development of performance standards.

Indigence & Compensation Standards Committee. This committee shall be responsible for overseeing the development of standards related to compensation and indigence.

Training and Evaluation Standards Committee. This committee shall be responsible for overseeing the development of standards related to training and evaluation.

Selection Standards Committee. This committee shall be responsible for overseeing the development of standards related to selection of attorneys.

C. Ad Hoc Committees. The Chair may establish ad hoc committees of Commission members that shall not make decisions of the Commission or engage in deliberations as a quorum of the Commission. Ad hoc committees shall perform specific tasks, and then, after making recommendations to the Commission, be dissolved.

ARTICLE IV.

MEETINGS, QUORUM REQUIREMENTS, AND PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES

A. Regular Meetings. The Commission shall meet no less than four times annually and shall, at its December meeting establish meeting dates for the ensuing year.

B. Special Meetings. The Chair may call a special meeting of the Commission upon determination that business of the Commission requires action prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Chair shall call a special meeting upon the written request of five Commissioners. The agenda for a special meeting of the Commission shall be limited to the specific items for which the meeting was called. A special meeting may be conducted by polling commission members via e-mail.

C. Quorum. A quorum must be present in person, or via communication equipment to the extent permitted by law, for transaction of Commission business. The majority of the serving Commissioners shall constitute a quorum.

D. Presiding Officer. The Chair shall preside at all Commission meetings and perform functions delegated to the Chair by the Commission. In the absence of the Chair, the Vice Chair shall preside and perform functions delegated to the Chair. In the absence of both the Chair and Vice Chair, the immediate past-Chair shall preside and perform the functions delegated to the Chair. If the Chair, Vice Chair and immediate past-Chair are absent, the Commission shall appoint a temporary Chair who shall preside and perform functions delegated to the Chair only for that meeting or until the Chair or Vice Chair arrives.

E. Agenda for Regular Meetings. A proposed agenda of all known business to be conducted by the Commission shall be prepared for all regular meetings of the Commission. The Commission staff in consultation with the Chair shall prepare the agenda. The requirement for an agenda shall not interfere with the Commission’s responsibility to perform the functions specified in the statutes and executive orders in Article I of these Bylaws. The agenda for a regular meeting of the Commission shall include the following.

1 ) Call to Order.

2) Introduction of Commissioners and Guests.

3) Public Comments. Members of the public are provided the opportunity to make comment to the Commission. Public comment to the Commission shall be limited to 3 minutes per speaker and 45 minutes per meeting unless this requirement is waived by the Chair.

4) Additions to Agenda.

5) Approval of Minutes from the Previous Meeting.

6) Report of the Commission Chair, if any.

7) Report of the Executive Director. The Executive Director may deliver a report to the Commission.

8) Committee Reports, if any. Standing or ad hoc committees may deliver reports to the Commission.

9) Business Agenda.

A. Consent Agenda. The consent agenda shall consist of agenda items, which the Chair believes will not require extensive debate. Any Commissioner may request the removal of an item from the consent agenda, to the regular agenda.

B. New Business. The presiding officer opens discussion of new business, which appears on the agenda. Commissioners may raise additional items of new business within the scope of the Commission’s authority.

C. Unfinished Business. The presiding officer shall open discussion of unfinished business from previous meeting(s) which appear(s) on the agenda. Commissioners may raise items of unfinished business not raised by the presiding officer within the scope of the Commission’s authority.

10) Committee of the Whole. The presiding officer may entertain matters not otherwise on the agenda that the Commission wishes to discuss.

11) Announcement of Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting.

12) Adjournment.

F. Agenda for Special Meeting. The agenda for a special meeting shall be limited to the items determined by the Chair or by the majority of the Commissioners serving.

G. Commissioner Attendance at Meetings. As soon as practicable, a Commissioner shall notify the Chair and/or Executive director of an intended absence.

H. Parliamentary Procedure. The presiding officer shall have the same voting rights as any Commissioners in all questions brought before the Commission, including elections. Any matter of meeting procedure not specified in these Bylaws shall be governed by the most recent version of Roberts Rules of Order, as practicable and as interpreted by the presiding officer.

ARTICLE V.

AMENDMENTS TO BYLAWS

A. Amendments. These bylaws may be amended by a majority vote of the Commission, provided the proposed amendment or amendments have been sent to each Commissioner prior to the meeting.

ARTICLE VI.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND ETHICS

A. The Commission may adopt resolutions governing its interpretation of the term “actual expenses” as used in MCL §780.987(7).

B. A Commissioner shall abstain from voting on a question pertaining to funding for training the Commissioner will likely attend or participate in. Members may participate in discussion and debate concerning such questions.

C. A Commissioner shall abstain from voting on a question that concerns possible sanctions of that member or the agency that employs that member.

Modified the 17^th day of April, 2018.

/s/ Michael Puerner, Chairperson

Annual Reports

The MIDC is required to publish an annual report pursuant to M.C.L. §780.999. The 2022 Impact Report by the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission covers all activities of the Commission and Staff, our budget and expenditures, and recommendations for legislative action pursuant to M.C.L. §780.989(h).

Prior annual reports can be found here:

Budget

The Michigan Indigent Defense Commission is required by statute to publish its budget and a listing of all expenditures. Budget, salary and related information is reported publicly on an annual basis pursuant to MCL §780.999. Expenses through the most recent fiscal year are as follows:

FY 2023 – through the 4Q (October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2023):

Salaries and Wages	$1,585,252.00
Employee Benefits	$945,546.32
Travel/Training/Memberships/Employee Reimbursements	$25,308.52
Meeting Costs	$4,701.23
Rent	$44,192.80
Contracts	$48,670.01
IT/Telecom	$121,115.29
Office supplies equipment misc.	$2,330.66
Cost allocation to state of Michigan and Lara	$2,811.75

Total Spending FY23	$2,779,928.58

FOIA

Data Collection and Reports

The MIDC has the authority and duty to establish procedures for the mandatory collection of data concerning the operation of the MIDC, each individual attorney providing indigent criminal defense services, each indigent criminal defense system, and the operation of indigent criminal defense services. M.C.L. §780.989(1)(g). Indigent defense delivery systems are required to cooperate and participate with the MIDC in the investigation, audit and review of their indigent criminal defense services. M.C.L. §780.993(1). Reports analyzing data collected and published by or for the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission include the following:

Financial Reporting Review (Jefferson Wells, September 2023)

The Michigan Indigent Defense Commission is responsible for creating and enforcing minimum standards for indigent defense. To ensure the program standards are satisfied, the MIDC engaged an independent advisory firm, Jefferson Wells, to perform a financial reporting review of each system. The objective of the review is to substantiate the accuracy and completeness of grant financial reporting by the Grantees. Jefferson Wells will also advise on opportunities to improve financial reporting processes if such opportunities are identified during the review. The scope of the financial reporting reviews included: 1) a financial analysis; 2) general ledger analysis; and 3)a review of invoices. This was performed for the fiscal year October 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021.

Michigan’s Legal Tundras: Criminal Defense Attorney Shortages in Rural Communities (Michael Naughton, December 2022)

Rural communities across both the Upper and Lower Peninsulas of Michigan are experiencing criminal defense attorney shortages. Data collected from across the country, the state of Michigan, and from stakeholders in rural communities all suggest that an overall attorney shortage is steadily increasing and will compound social problems in these communities if left unaddressed. The attorney population in most rural communities in Michigan is composed of a generation of attorneys on the precipice of exiting the full-time practice of law. For a multitude of reasons, younger generations of attorneys have not migrated to rural Michigan communities in sufficient quantity to replace the number of exiting attorneys. To compound this problem, since 2013, there has been a sharp decline in in the number of students entering law schools. Accordingly, the pool of qualified criminal defense attorneys is quickly depleting. The diminishing numbers of criminal defense attorneys in rural communities will have a lasting and continued impact on access to justice for Michigan residents in these areas, especially as Proposed Standards 6 and 7 are implemented. This report seeks to identify the rural criminal defense attorney shortage, highlight factors that have contributed to this shortage, examine rural communities impacted, and provide options for this Commission to address and ameliorate this situation. The Michigan Indigent Defense Commission is uniquely positioned to address this growing statewide crisis.

Social Work Data Points (Michigan Indigent Defense Commission, August 2022)

This manual is the product of a collaboration between the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (MIDC), the Muskegon County Public Defender’s Office, the Ottawa County Public Defender’s Office, and many other social workers in public defense around the state. It is intended for the benefit of indigent criminal defense systems throughout Michigan, to direct the procedures for collecting data on social work services and outcomes delivered alongside public defense services.

Unexpended Balances Final Report and Recommendations (Michigan Indigent Defense Commission, April 2022)

The Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (MIDC) was created through Public Act 93 of 2013 to ensure that all adults involved in the justice system within the State of Michigan had access to legal representation consistent with the rights enshrined in the 6th amendment of the United States Constitution. The MIDC operates through the establishment of standards for public defense, the review and approval of the plans of local indigent defense systems for compliance with these standards, and through the granting of funds appropriated by the legislature to support the additional costs associated with these services. In the Fall of 2021, preliminary year-end financial reports showed an unspent balance of $43.7 million, or 26.1% of the $167.6 million in total indigent defense spending in plans approved by the MIDC. In December of 2021, MIDC Chair Christine Green created an Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Unexpended Balance charged with researching the issue of unspent grant dollars, assessing the likelihood and risks of future unexpended balances and crafting recommendations to ensure our funding process is sound for future grant years. This report represents the Committee’s evaluation of current grant spending, budgeting process and provides recommendations to the MIDC.

Evaluation of the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission’s Minimum Standards for Indigent Defense Services (Urban Institute, December 2021)

This report was prepared by the Urban Institute at the MIDC’s request to (1) document the current state of indigent defense in Michigan as it relates to the four standards, (2) assess how implementation of the four standards proceeds across diverse local systems, (3) identify which standards were implemented most smoothly and which presented the most difficulties, and (4) understand what additional supports are necessary to bolster the implementation of indigent defense standards or improve the quality of indigent defense legal representation. In addition, the research sought to gain insight into overall perspectives of the need for indigent defense reform, and perspectives of the benefits and challenges associated with public defense, appointed counsel, and contract models of defense as they relate to the implementation of standards of indigent defense.

Michigan Indigent Defense Commission: Stakeholder Perspectives on Local Share (Final Report) (Public Sector Consultants, August 2021)

In 2018, the legislature amended the act to include a provision that requires the MIDC to submit a report to the governor and state legislature by October 31, 2021, that makes recommendations relative to the appropriate level of local share. To develop informed recommendations, the MIDC contracted with Public Sector Consultants (PSC)—a research, policy, and project management firm based in Lansing—to evaluate the current local share funding contributions. This report reflects PSC’s evaluation activities and recommendations. PSC conducted interviews and collected MIDC data to assess the current program’s functionality and better understand local jurisdictions’ potential funding contributions as the MIDC implements its standards. PSC’s evaluation and recommendations were further informed by additional data collection, focus groups, and a survey of local and state indigent defense system stakeholders that investigated themes, concerns, and ideas raised during interviews and initial data collection.

Incentivizing Quality Indigent Defense Representation – Recommendations for Reforming Compensation Mechanisms in Michigan (Spring 2018)

This report examines the financial incentives and disincentives inherent to the compensation structures utilized in many local indigent defense systems throughout Michigan, making a case for critical reform tied to proposed Standard 8, Economic Incentives and Disincentives. The report reviews the current incentive mechanisms utilized by systems across the state and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each. It then offers a series of recommendations for local systems to implement compensation structures that directly encourage attorneys to provide effective representation.

The Huron County District Court’s Counsel at First Appearance Pilot Program (Summer 2017)

This brief report summarizes the program model implemented by the 73B District Court, relays the experiences of court stakeholders, and offers suggestions for implementation in other jurisdictions.

Attorney Caseload Distribution in Michigan’s Assigned Counsel Systems – Research Brief (June 2017)

In response to the concerns voiced in the first survey of criminal defense attorneys, the MIDC Research Unit set out to investigate the distribution of case assignments across circuit courts in Michigan to assess the prevalence of imbalance in the assignment process.

Attorney Perspectives on Michigan’s Criminal Indigent Defense System: A Report of the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission (June 2017).

As the backbone of indigent representation, publicly appointed criminal defense attorneys must be at the center of systemic reform efforts. To learn more about their experiences representing indigent clients, the MIDC surveyed attorneys who take adult criminal indigent cases in Michigan’s 83 counties.

Snapshot of Indigent Defense Representation in Michigan’s Adult Criminal Courts: The MIDC’S First Survey of Local Court Systems (February 2016).

With no current statewide standards dictating best practices, the survey revealed wide variation in how courts deliver services to indigent defendants.