In 2021, the Show-Me Institute began a new transparency project focused on whether schools in Missouri are teaching critical race theory (CRT) concepts in the classroom. Similar to the Show-Me Checkbook and Show-Me CBA projects, the Show-Me Curricula Project seeks to find out from Missouri schools what Missouri tax dollars are buying Missouri parents.
In July of 2022, the Show-Me Institute kicked off a repeat of its Show-Me Curricula Project.
Last week, the Show-Me Institute kicked off a repeat of its Show-Me Curricula Project from last year. The purpose of the project is to use Missouri’s Sunshine Law to find out what is being taught to students and told to teachers in Missouri schools, in connection with critical race theory (CRT) and its associated concepts.
Overall, the responses we’ve received so far in 2022 look generally like what we saw in 2021. Most schools either have not responded to our request for information or have denied teaching CRT. Some schools have opted to try and charge the Institute hundreds of thousands of dollars to get access to school curriculum, and many more wanted to charge smaller fees. What has been rare, however, is schools openly providing documents that include CRT-type material. Last year, the most prominent example of this was the Kansas City Public School District.
But another notable example from last year was the Hazelwood School District. Hazelwood was one district that provided CRT-related materials when the Institute sent requests last year, and at that time its curriculum included excerpts of the 1619 project being taught to fourth graders and materials provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center about “Teaching for Tolerance.” When Hazelwood responded to this year’s request, the district sent basically the same documents it did last year, though this time without any fourth-grade curriculum, indicating that content was removed from the curricula.
Our director of government accountability, Patrick Ishmael, has been critical of CRT concepts. But it’s important to remember that regardless of the content of the instruction, the public has a right to see it and districts have an obligation to provide it.
Hazelwood should be commended for its honesty and forthrightness in response to our inquiries, both last year and this year. Through two iterations of the project, it is the only district that to date has twice released the pertinent curriculum without any fees, delays, or complaints.
The point here is that if school districts are going to spend taxpayer money to educate students regarding a subject, including CRT, they should make the information available to parents. Ideally, all districts would be transparent with curriculum and would post it on their website or send it to parents before the start of a school year. After all, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and if government transparency can improve curricula, our schools and our kids will be better off for it.
I mentioned in my recent blog post about our curricula transparency project that a significant amount of the more than $800,000 price increase between this year and last year’s total payment required by districts came from three school districts in central Missouri. Those districts? Malta Bend, Blackwater, and Gilliam.
What I didn’t mention was that all three of those districts broke three classic classroom rules I’m sure their students follow (or are supposed to follow, anyway).
The letters sent by all three school districts in response to our request were very similar. Each cited the same list of terms and asked for similar amounts to provide records—Blackwater requested $207,584, while Malta Bend and Gilliam charged $196,908. In fact, the Gilliam School District sent us the form letter copied onto its letterhead but written as if it were from Malta Bend. Interestingly, all three schools are within twenty miles of each other. It seems like Gilliam, Malta Bend, and Blackwater might need to learn to keep their eyes on their own papers.
All three districts responded to a Sunshine Law records request in their reply to us, but they didn’t respond to ours. Instead, they each sent a form letter written in response to another organization’s request on similar topics, which asked the school districts to look for 78 key terms compared to our request’s eight. Malta Bend even neglected to change the name of the addressee in its response letter. It’s concerning that all three districts either didn’t take the time to read our request or chose to send a response written for a completely different situation, rather than understand our inquiry and provide a real estimate.
Gilliam and Malta Bend both responded to our request on the last day allowed under the Sunshine Law. Maybe these districts panicked knowing they hadn’t studied for this transparency “exam.” Whatever the reason, mistakes were made as the response window closed.
In the end, after we reported them to the attorney general’s sunshine office, all three districts charged us nothing to inform us they had no responsive documents, and I had a useful conversation with the superintendent of Gilliam, who only recently assumed his position. To some extent, the unhelpful responses we initially received were understandable, since all three districts have two or fewer schools and, given their relative anonymity compared to big districts, have limited experience handling Sunshine Law requests.
Ultimately, Gilliam, Malta Bend, and Blackwater chose a fast, last-minute, and incorrect reaction to our request rather than taking the time to respond fully and accurately. Our districts and schools should hold themselves to a higher standard.
When I first started working on the municipal checkbook project this year, I thought that many of Missouri’s smallest cities might have trouble getting information back to us. After all, cities with populations under 100 often have few if any full-time government officials. These cities also generally have few expenses, as their fire protection and police services are usually provided by other departments.
But as it turned out, some of the smallest cities I worked with were the most responsive and welcoming of our checkbook inquiries. The Village of Huntsdale, Missouri, is an example. Located 20 minutes west of Columbia, Huntsdale has a population of only 25 people. All of its government officials are unpaid and work part time in addition to their full-time jobs. Considering these factors, one might expect that the city would just ignore our request, as many small towns have. However, that wasn’t the case.
Ana Lopez, a Huntsdale city official, replied to us within a week of our request. She acknowledged that the village has very few expenses due to its size, and only has a single monthly bill (totaling a little less than $800) for landscaping work. She provided us with a digital copy of this bill, showing the exact cost, who the amount was paid to, and the date. Of the over 600 requests that the Show-Me Institute sent, Huntsdale is the smallest city to respond thus far. As it turns out, being a smaller city may mean fewer resources for officials to marshal, but it also means fewer stones to turn over when asked about its operations.
This isn’t to say that Huntsdale’s response would be the exact format for what we would want a submission to the state to look like someday, when a statewide mandatory checkbook reform comes to pass. We have talked before about the importance of reporting spending in a standardized format, and that format when submitted to the state would probably look (to enter the weeds briefly) like an Accounts Payable report or some equivalent. In that scenario, the state would need more than a lonely bill from Huntsdale for it to be in compliance. Of course, that isn’t the circumstance today.
Moreover and as with every city, receipt of a city’s documents is not itself a confirmation of their contents. Our presumption in our Sunshine Law requests is that the responses we receive will be in good faith. Lacking an independent basis to affirm the truth of a document we receive; however, we can only observe how well respondents adhere to the transparency process and the nature of the documents we got. The state, empowered by a mandatory checkbook reporting system, will be far better positioned to confirm the truth of local spending documents, and we will leave those determinations to when that time comes—as we always have. With that in mind, Huntsdale’s response was nonetheless sufficient for our purposes now.
It has now been over three weeks since we sent requests for spending information out, including many to middle-sized and large municipalities. But if Huntsdale, a town of 25 with zero paid officials, can respond promptly, so can larger cities with one or more full-time staff. Government transparency requires officials to use their power in a responsible manner, with an eye toward stewardship, and that’s something that can happen in small towns and sprawling cities alike.
Municipal transparency doesn’t really depend on city size at all.It depends on city culture. Fortunately, it seems Huntsdale’s culture of transparency is a good one.
As we reboot the Show-Me Curricula Project, it’s been interesting to compare the differences in responses between last year and this year. One difference this year is that we’ve received many more responses within the three-day window required by Missouri’s Sunshine Law. You can find those responses here.
However, the most obvious difference between the 2021 and 2022 requests isn’t the quicker time frame and greater participation. It’s higher prices—far higher prices. If we had paid for every school to respond fully to our request in 2021, the total bill would have come out to $59,980.63. In 2022, we would have paid $908,192.38. The average requested cost was $3,332.26 in 2021; it was $26,711.54 in 2022.
A significant amount of the massive price increase can be attributed to a group of three schools in the center of the state that each charged over $100,000 (I’ll discuss these schools in more detail in a later post). Still, ten other districts raised their estimates by at least $1,000, with the largest increase coming from rural Neelyville, which asked for $56,218.95. In 2021, Neelyville said it had no responsive documents to our request and did not bill us.
It’s not clear what is driving the huge price increase from Neelyville. Given that we have received underwhelming and disappointing responses from both small districts and large districts, it would seem the differences in curricular openness depend mostly on whether there’s a “culture of transparency” at a school, not whether critical race theory is present in the curriculum. (Just ask Kansas City Public Schools, which readily provided its school’s curricula and posts supporting these ideas in response to our request last year!) If nothing else, it would seem Neelyville’s “culture of transparency” has declined in the last 12 months.
In the end, schools choose whether their cultures will include transparency or not, and the estimates we’ve received in our curriculum requests show a troubling trend toward noncompliance.
Over the past two decades, a smoldering fire has been slowly burning in North St. Louis County. No, I’m not talking about the Bridgeton landfill fire; I’m talking about the Robertson Fire District (Robertson).
A few decades back, the City of Hazelwood annexed some adjoining land into the city. That land was previously unincorporated and had been served by the Robertson Fire Department. Because of an arcane and misguided law applicable in St. Louis County (RSMO §72.418), Hazelwood was required to pay Robertson the property tax revenue in the annexed area for Robertson to continue providing service there, even though Hazelwood was entirely willing and able to provide fire services in that area via its own municipal fire department at lower cost. As part of the agreement reached after the annexation, the residents of the area pay a portion of the property tax (as is normal), but the city itself pays anything above the initial tax level. Since that agreement was reached a long time ago, voters in Robertson have approved extremely high property tax rates, which is easy to do because the city—not the property owners—is responsible for the increased property taxes for the portion of the fire district that lies in Hazelwood. Confusing? Yes, it is, and that’s the point. Fragmented government, low-turnout elections, obscure special taxing districts, politically active public-employee unions: taken together, they create the perfect environment for government mismanagement and abuse.
The situation has gotten so bad that Hazelwood is saying it may have to declare bankruptcy. Some residents of Hazelwood have put together a citizen’s group to demand change, and they have successfully placed a recall election for the Robertson board on the November ballot. Average citizens are now engaged in this issue, and that is what the Robertson board should fear the most.
What is the solution here? Well, there are several options. There is the political solution, which will be addressed in the upcoming recall vote. Then there is the direct policy solution, which is to repeal RSMO §72.418 and allow municipal fire departments to serve annexed areas. But there is a bigger issue here, and that is the political influence of the firefighters union and its ability to dominate independent fire districts (and some municipal fire departments, too, no doubt). From this Post-Dispatch story:
Also opposed is Local 2665 of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Only a handful of districts in St. Louis, St. Charles and Jefferson County—including the Northeast district—have fire boards controlled by directors whose campaigns weren’t backed by the union.
The Robertson issue is just one local example of this larger debate. I saw what happened when local politicians in University City tried to oppose the fire union, and it wasn’t pretty. I commend the Hazelwood elected officials for their stance here, but to stop the abuses of firefighters unions in our area many more voters and local officials will need to get involved.
David Stokes, Abigail Wagner and Quin Rizer join Zach Lawhorn to discuss the recent election in Missouri, price transparency at hospitals in the state, and the latest data from The Municipal Checkbook Project.
Used car prices have risen dramatically over the past few years. That will hit Missouri car owners hard in the tax column this year. Car owners are used to seeing the taxable value of their used cars decline slightly each year, but with used car values increasing, personal property taxes will rise substantially.
According to information I have received, personal property tax revenues are expected to increase by more than 20 percent in the following counties: St Louis, Jackson, Warren, Lincoln, Cape Girardeau, St. Charles, and St. Louis City. St. Charles County is taking the lead here; the county council passed a resolution declaring its intention to reduce the personal property tax rate this fall (after final numbers are in) to a revenue-neutral level to offset the large increase in assessed valuations. Good for them. Many local governments in Missouri need to follow this example, especially school districts, which receive the bulk of your property tax payments. Increased used car valuations should not be a revenue windfall for local governments.
I commend the St. Charles County Council and the county executive for this move. Hopefully others will follow the example of St. Charles County. I would love to see Hancock Amendment rollback provisions extended to personal property in the future. (Now they only apply to land and buildings.)
On the other side of the state, Clay County is moving forward with the first commercial surcharge property tax reduction in Missouri history. The county commission approved placing it before the voters on the November ballot. Clay County has one of the highest commercial surcharges in the state, and this proposal for a modest reduction to match Jackson County’s level is a smart, reasonable one. (For the reasons why the rate can only be lowered by voters, why Clay County’s rate is so high, and more history of this special tax, please read this.)
I also commend the Clay County Commission and the rest of the Clay County leadership team for putting this proposal before the voters of their community. There are a few other counties that I think need to strongly consider reducing their commercial surcharge taxes—I’m looking at you, Perry County.
A version of this commentary appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
When elected officials intentionally ignore the law, we often react with a mixture of anger and helplessness. Abetted by their government lawyers, whose jobs exist at the pleasure of their only client, elected officials invent arguments to justify going around the plain meaning of ordinary words. It’s enough to make the most moderate of political hearts jump online and order home-delivery of pitchforks in bulk.
We have seen too many examples of this recently in St. Louis. For example, the statutory definition of the earnings tax for the City of St. Louis states that it can be collected “. . . for work done or services performed or rendered in the city.” [emphasis added throughout] Yet city Collector of Revenue Gregory F. X. Daly has interpreted those words during the pandemic to include people working remotely from their homes outside of the city for businesses within the city. Such a determination is preposterous.
You don’t like it? You have the audacity to think people should enforce the laws as written? Tough luck. Sue him. War is Peace.
The legislature has failed in an effort to further tighten the law to clarify that it does not include remote workers. That is unfortunate, as it will embolden Daly and others to engage in more of this, and it should not have been necessary in the first place.
St. Louis County Executive Dr. Sam Page is getting a Ph.D. in this line of governing. He took the position knowing the county charter states that “the county executive’s entire time shall be devoted to the duties of the office.” In the vernacular of 1950, when it was written, that passage clearly meant that the county executive could not have a second job, but Page kept practicing medicine part-time anyway. As admirable a profession as medicine is, the charter did not include an exception for admirable work.
Going from the sublime to the absurd, Dr. Page later attempted to appoint former County Executive Charlie Dooley to the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority. The governing statutes for that board state that nominees “may be appointed by the chief executive of the county with the advice and consent of the county council.” Dooley’s appointment was rejected by the council. (I think he should have been appointed, but that’s another issue.) Page appointed Dooley to the board anyway, with Page’s county counselor justifying it all with legal gymnastics that would have made Simone Biles beam.
You don’t like it? You think the county executive should follow the charter and laws? Tough luck. Sue him (which the council did, in a legislative fashion). Ignorance is Strength.
The county council and county voters have addressed these issues with charter changes, both past and upcoming. But it should not have to come to that.
During his brief time as Governor, Eric Greitens attempted to pay some of his cabinet members more than allowed by state law by quietly funneling the additional salaries through other departments. This was blatantly illegal, but the Greitens administration did it anyway until the legislature caught on and put a stop to it. Until then, it was two plus two equals five.
You think the Governor should follow the law and pay his people within the legal range? Tough luck. Impeach him (which the legislature did, albeit for other, more salacious actions).
President Trump routinely ignored the law to do whatever he wished. Spending money on his ballyhooed border wall without congressional approval and imposing a 25 percent steel tariff without any legal authority are just two examples out of many.
You don’t like it? Tough luck. Impeach him (which they also did, twice). Freedom is slavery.
It’s bad enough when the government lies. It’s worse when elected officials demonstrate how little they think of our democracy and the rule of law by flouting the very laws they are supposed to enforce or enact. The regrettable actions described here are part of a process that is degrading trust in our institutions and our democratic process. As a philosophical libertarian, I appreciate a healthy skepticism of government. Seeing government for what it is instead of taking its benevolent facade at face value is fine by me. But we should all be concerned about the breakdown of the basic regard for the law as it is written. If you don’t like the law, don’t ignore it. Change it by engaging in the hard work of democracy.
But while we are doing that, is it too much to ask that we all agree two plus two equals four?
