The opinion
WHITBECK, P.J.
(concurring). While I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the “for employment purposes” residency requirement of defendant state agencies is consistent and compatible with the intent of the pertinent state and federal legislation, I would reach this determination by relying on the plain language of the legislation alone rather than resorting to examination of the legislative history, particularly bill analyses.
“The problem with relying on bill analyses is that they do not necessarily represent the views of even a single legislator. Rather, they are prepared by House and Senate staff. Indeed, the analyses themselves note that they do not constitute an official statement of legislative intent.”[ 1 ]
Therefore, bill analyses “are of ‘considerably diminished quality,’ and thus ‘are entitled to little judicial consideration in resolving ambiguous statutory provisions . . . .’ ” 2
*702 I agree with the remainder of the majority’s conclusions regarding the issues presented.
Lansing Mayor v Pub Service Comm, 470 Mich 154 , 170 n 8; 680 NW2d 840 (2004), quoting Frank W Lynch & Co v Flex Technologies, Inc, 463 Mich 578 , 588 n 7; 624 NW2d 180 (2001).
Id. at 169-170, quoting In re Certified Question (Kenneth Henes v Continental Biomass Industries, Inc), 468 Mich 109 , 115 n 5; 659 NW2d 597 (2003).