The Commission’s Omissions?

Posted on by George Reynolds

This summer, Missouri passed a troubling piece of legislation—SS HCS HB 137. The main provisions of it essentially state that license fee offices may not award points to bidders based on the amount of money they would return to the state. While I do not have a major problem with the central purpose of the law, I do find one specific provision very unsettling. It reads as follows:

 “The leases, agreements, contracts, or subleases and any amendments for space, usage, or services in any convention center or related facilities owned or operated by a regional convention and visitors commission… must not be considered public records under the Open Meetings and Record law, commonly known as the Sunshine Law…”

It goes on to say that this is only the case if transparency would put the commission at a competitive disadvantage; however it never defines such a situation and seems to leave it to the commission’s discretion.

Upon reading this, I immediately found myself wondering a few things. How is it ever a bad thing for the public to know how a public entity is spending public dollars? What is the possible competitive disadvantage regarding documents to which the parties have already agreed? If there really are legitimate situations in which the Convention and Visitors Commission would be hurt by transparency, why did nobody take the opportunity to tell us what these situations look like? At least the law states that this exemption does not apply if a sports franchise is involved, but I doubt it should apply under any circumstances.

I understand that secondary provisions get tacked on to bills fairly frequently, and perhaps legislators felt very strongly about getting the rest of this bill passed. However, questionable policy is questionable policy. Even if the legislature felt strongly that the main of the bill needed to pass, why did it not take the time to clean up this unrelated, troubling provision?

Some Comments on a Minimum Wage Testimony

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

There’s been a lot said on the prospect of increasing the minimum wage in Saint Louis. A lot of that has come from Show-Me Institute researchers. However, an interesting perspective on raising the minimum wage comes from Nahuel Fefer, the newly hired Special Assistant to the Mayor for Policy and a recent graduate of Washington University. He testified  (testimony starts at 1:20:28) before the Ways and Means Committee the day after I did and he raises some points that are worth discussing.

It appears from the testimony that Mr. Fefer supports raising the minimum wage. The first thing to notice when listening to his testimony is that a lot of it simply relates to the number of workers making below a certain wage level. For example, Mr. Fefer says that 44 percent of the workers in Saint Louis City make less than $15 an hour and 14 percent of workers make the minimum wage or less. Even if Mr. Fefer’s numbers are correct, and for the sake of argument, let’s say that they are, these statistics don’t tell us a whole lot. A key point people need to understand in discussing the minimum wage is that people who earn low wages aren’t necessarily in poor households. A man working as a greeter for $9 an hour at Wal-mart might be an upper-middle class retiree who just wants to stay active. Of course, he might not be, but Mr. Fefer’s statistics don’t tell us one way or another. This information is useful in that it captures the raw number of workers who could see pay increases, but nothing much beyond that.

A bigger problem with Mr. Fefer’s testimony is that he overstates the evidence in support of his position. Mr. Fefer states, “The theory that raising the minimum wage results in job loss has been proved wrong in just about every case.” That’s simply inaccurate. One can point  to several studies that show that raising the minimum wage does harm employment.

The minimum wage is certainly a contentious issue. Voices on both sides should be heard and given due consideration. However, it is important that any information which is presented to the public is put in the proper context and any errors are corrected. 

Normandy Students-Still Trapped

Posted on by Brittany Wagner

The Post-Dispatch published a heart-wrenching story yesterday about a family trapped in the Normandy school district. The Harpers have two daughters— seventh-grader Keiara and her older sister Shannon, who attended Ladue High School via the transfer program for the past two years.

Shannon won’t be returning to Ladue next year, and despite having post-traumatic stress disorder from being severely bullied in sixth grade, Keiara will not be allowed to transfer either. Of the 679 students who applied to transfer, only 564 were approved. According to the story, the Harpers were denied, because of the confusing, byzantine process by which families have to demonstrate their eligibility for the program.

The Post-Dispatch reported:

The district has no record of the Harpers’ applying for Shannon to stay in Ladue or for Keiara to leave, said Cindy Gibson, the spokeswoman for the Normandy School District. Diane Harper says she filled out the paperwork for Shannon to stay in Ladue and submitted a mortgage payment and utility bill in January as proof of residency, weeks before the deadline. She said she was unaware of an application deadline for transferring Keiara until she contacted district staff in the spring and was told it was too late.

“Something’s got to happen,” said Robert Harper, sitting in a chair beside his daughters in their home near North Hanley Road. “I’m not going to send my kids there. I’m just not.”

Now, it’s impossible for us to know whether or not the Harpers actually followed the procedure as they said they did. What we do know is that this family should not have to jump through so many hoops to make sure their daughters receive a quality education.

Keaira and Shannon, and many students like them, need more options. Last week, the Show Me Institute hosted former Oklahoma State Senator Jabar Shumate, who spoke about the Sooner State’s efforts to expand school choice. I encourage you to watch my interview with him. While it might be too late for the Harpers this year, we can work to create more and better options for families zoned for failing schools.

 

No Need for Pension Problems in Springfield

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

A pension benefit meant to allow Springfield police and firefighters to take early retirement is now underfunded. Employee contributions have been unable to keep up with the cost of this benefit. With the shortfall increasing, Springfield officials are asking whether taxpayers or employees will have to cover the gap. 

It is unfortunate that taxpayers and employees are in this position, but this situation could have been avoided if the Springfield Police-Fire fund was a defined contribution plan instead of a defined benefit plan.

Defined benefit plans are plans where retiree benefits are guaranteed based on a formula that typically takes into account various factors like years of service and final average salary. Since the benefits are guaranteed, this creates a liability for the pension plan which must keep paying out benefits as long as the pensioner is alive.

With defined contribution plans, benefits are paid at retirement and consist of the employer and/or employee contribution plus any investment gains or losses. There would be no underfunding of promised benefits since the balance of the account is the benefit. It would also spare taxpayers from having to make up any funding shortfalls since there is no liability going forward.  

Alas, Springfield’s police and fire pension is not a defined contribution plan and it is possible that taxpayers will have to cover any shortfalls that occur. For cities/states that want to avoid situations like this, transitioning to a defined contribution plan might be the way to go. It is not a cure-all (benefits already accrued will still have to be paid for), but it could prevent a potential problem from turning into a catastrophe.

University City uses private sector to save taxpayers money

Posted on by John Wright

The University City Council voted 5-2 in favor of a proposal to contract out for municipal ambulance services. The five year contract, which is expected to save University City taxpayers upwards of $500,000 each year, would utilize Gateway Ambulance, a private ambulance company. Read the Post-Dispatch’s coverage here and here.

Gateway Ambulance is able to provide a potentially better service than existing ambulance services because of an innovative delivery system. Rather than keep ambulances at a fixed location such as a firehouse, Gateway plans to keep ambulances ready to go out in the community. These locations will be chosen based on a statistical analysis of where they would be most useful. If the city’s needs change and the community is better served with ambulances posted in different locations, the solution is as easy as driving the ambulances to the new posting points. You can’t move a brick-and-mortar firehouse like this.

From reports we’ve heard, Gateway Ambulance can provide a better turnout time than the fire department. “Turnout time” is the length of time between an alarm and when an ambulance starts moving. Most fire departments in St. Louis County have an average turnout time of about 90 seconds. This makes sense because staff need to transition from whatever they are doing, get ready, get to the ambulance, and get the vehicle moving.

Gateway operates out of their ambulances. If it’s hot or cold outside, the vehicle is already running. All the Gateway Ambulance drivers need to do is find out where they are going and they’re ready to go.  With the private option, turnout time is virtually eliminated.

Spending less money for a better services sounds like a win-win, right? It’s the sort of outcome that we often see when contracting out for public services. Private companies have a strong incentive to provide a superior service because if consumers, in this case taxpayers, don’t like the service, they can simply go to a different company.

Why NOT let the public vote?

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

There is breaking News out of the St. Louis Circuit Court. Judge Thomas Frawley has ruled (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/no-vote-on-city-money-for-new-nfl-stadium-in/article_51c33b67-9b72-5055-ba56-94cc9e1b46e2.html) that a city ordinance requiring a vote on the use of public funds to build a new stadium is invalid. This clears one hurdle standing in the way of construction of a nearly $1 billion football stadium on the St. Louis riverfront.

Those interested in reading the ruling can read it here (http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/a/71/a7116828-ac39-5c13-ab82-0a558fb68353/55bfaef6e79eb.pdf.pdf). I’m no lawyer so I’m not equipped to discuss the merits of the judge’s decision. However, it is interesting that there has been such an effort by the St. Louis Regional Complex and Sports Authority to block (http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-st-louis-nfl-stadium-lawsuit-civic-vote-20150410-story.html) a vote. One wonders why.

Is it because the new stadium cannot be justified economically (https://showmeinstitute.org/sites/default/files/20150323%20-%20Rams%20Testimony%20-%20Miller%20_0.pdf)? Is it because they know that a new stadium won’t lead to downtown redevelopment (https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/corporate-welfare/show-me-now-new-stadium-rams)? Could it be because they know taxpayers won’t see a positive return on the subsidies that would go into stadium construction (https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/local-government/no-post-dispatch-rams-dont-pay-their-way)?

It’s also not like the Authority didn’t have time to get this issue on the ballot. The stadium taskforce unveiled their plans in January (https://showmeinstitute.org/blog/transparency/thoughts-latest-rams-press-conference. If the April ballot was too soon they could have gotten it on the August ballot (i.e. today’s ballot). What was holding them up?

Whatever the Authority’s reasons might be, it got its wish. The project can move ahead without a public vote. That doesn’t make this project a good idea though, at least economically speaking. Hopefully, policymakers will come to realize that.

A Pat on the Back for Privatization

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

It’s a good thing when one can improve health services while simultaneously improving the health of one’s budget. That’s why it is commendable that Saint Louis County is looking into privatizing medical and mental health services for the inmates at its Justice and Juvenile Centers.

The County is accepting bids in order to improve services and cut down on costs. It has good reasons to believe that privatizing these services will result in these better outcomes. In 2003, the County privatized its pharmacy services in order to save on costs. What resulted was not only cost savings, but an increased quality of service to residents.

Privatization is not appropriate in all circumstances. For example, privatizing police services would not be good policy. Nor should the ownership and operation of jails themselves be privatized. However, within public jails, certain services can certainly be privatized, including food service and health care.  

There is no guarantee that privatizing inmate health care will have the same great result as privatizing the pharmacy did. However, if past performance is any indicator of future results, Saint Louis County has good reason to continue with this course of action. The County administration deserves a pat on the back for considering this move. I’m confident that, as with the pharmacy, the County will do the due diligence to make this work for better results for taxpayers and better services to inmates.

Missouri’s Rural School Students Need Choice, Too!

Posted on by Brittany Wagner

Recently, the Foundation for Excellence in Education released a paper about how states across the country are implementing course access programs. Course access programs allow students to direct a portion of their annual per-pupil funding to approved course providers outside of their traditional school and receive credit if they successfully pass the class.

In twelve states and numerous school districts, course access programs are providing students with an opportunity to experience a wider variety of classes than they usually would. In Louisiana, students are using their funds for career and technical certification programs; in Minnesota, students are getting back on track in high school through an online credit recovery program; and students in rural Texas are preparing for the University of Texas through tailored online coursework. 

These programs are beneficial not just to students, but to school districts as well. It can be resource-intensive for a school to create a whole class to meet one child’s interests or readiness for advanced coursework. With course access, a student interested in taking AP Calculus could just head to the school’s library and log into any number of courses offered by universities or other providers.

On the flipside, course access programs also offer school districts an opportunity to earn additional revenue. Teachers can create courses that other students from around the state can attend, and schools can charge for them. Schools that have invested in a highly specialized teacher for a foreign language or advanced math or science course can help defray the cost by having that teacher create an online version of his or her courses.

Such a program would do a world of good in Missouri. Most discussions about educational issues in the state usually involve St. Louis and Kansas City, but it’s easy to forget that more than 97 percent of the land area in Missouri is rural. While 476,765 students attend school districts classified as urban, 383,883 students attend school districts with a rural classification.

Students in rural districts often lack access to advanced math and science courses, Advanced Placement courses, diverse foreign languages, and technical skills training. This puts rural students at a disadvantage. A course access program could greatly expand these students’ horizons.

In an increasingly tech-oriented age, course access is an inevitable step. I hope Missouri join states around the country in this emerging trend.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging