Recording Public Hearings? Let The Sunshine In

Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once noted that “[p]ublicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” Transparency, in other words, helps society avoid some of the social ills that could be promoted or concealed by obstruction and secrecy, and as a general matter, public policy should be decided with as many people watching as possible.

That is why I found this story so troubling.

The chair of the Senate General Laws Committee banned video coverage of the final debate and vote of his committee approving a bill that seeks to declare Missouri exempt from some federal gun laws.

Earlier, a reporter for an NBC affiliated television station had his camera physically removed by a Senate staffer from the committee on the second day of hearings on the bill.

The committee chair … had warned TV reporters the week before that he would ban cameras on tripods and restrict access to areas where it would be impossible to get a full view of anyone testifying before the committee.

Only the Senate’s official photographer was allowed to use a tripod at the committee hearing. One reporter holding a camera by hand behind the committee witnesses also was permitted to record video.

Seriously, does this look obstructive to you?

Briefly, as to the bill itself, my view on nullification is well-documented, so I won’t rehash it here. But suffice to say, it is highly problematic that the rules for covering a high-profile bill could reduce public exposure to shaky cam coverage like this.

Our democracy is better than that, and if our public bodies are not going to record these meetings themselves, they should be allowing far greater latitude for the public at large to record them in their stead. Let the sunshine in.

Brentwood Should Join Consolidated 9-1-1 System

The heavily fragmented government system in Saint Louis County leads to higher costs on taxpayers, but NOT quite as high as one might assume. That is because the many cities and other governments within Saint Louis County do a better job of cooperating than people may realize. To give one example, almost every municipality contracts with Saint Louis County for some types of public works inspections. Here is the matrix of city governments that contract with the county for various things.

Another long-time example of shared services is emergency dispatch. We wrote a number of blog posts about the issue several years ago. Few cities have operated their own emergency call centers, which is a good thing. There are obvious economies of scale in sharing resources here, which is why so many cities have done it.

Brentwood is a particularly wealthy city due to the high level of shopping within the city, the high assessed valuation combined with limited government-service needs of Brentwood Forest, and more. So, it has been able to do something on its own that other cities have not been able to afford, such as operating its own emergency dispatch. There is nothing automatically wrong with that, but now officials are thinking about trying to save money by participating in the East Central Dispatch Service 9-1-1 center, which serves many other cities in mid-Saint Louis County.

I think this is a no-brainer “yes” decision for Brentwood. Even if the short-term savings are small, the long-term benefits of being in the larger system would be noticeable, primarily, greater access to a larger pool of resources (technology, employees, back-up systems, etc). Phone calls do not take longer to get to Olivette than they take to get to Brentwood. There are certain things cities do NOT have to do themselves, and emergency dispatch is at the top of the list.

Let’s be honest here. Opposition to this is about protecting public sector jobs in Brentwood, not about public safety. Brentwood should participate in the East Central Dispatch Service.

Do You Know The Pay In San Jose?

In late December 2013 and early January 2014, the Employment Policies Institute (EPI) in Washington, D.C., conducted a telephone survey of restaurants in San Jose, Calif. San Jose was chosen because in March 2013, the city leaders enacted an immediate 25 percent increase in its minimum wage, from $8 to $10 per hour. EPI wanted to see how one group of affected businesses — fast food and table-service restaurants — respond to such a wage hike.

As always, we caution against putting too much weight on the outcome of one survey of one industry in one town. With that caveat in mind, what did the survey say?

In response to the higher minimum wage, two-thirds of the responding firms, the majority of which fall in the 10-49 employee size, will (or have) increase prices. More than 40 percent of the establishments plan to reduce employee hours and staffing levels. While 7 percent of the firms are now considering closing locations in San Jose, 30 percent are, after the wage increase, not likely to expand operations.

The EPI survey of food establishments in San Jose offers one observation supporting the predictions of basic economic theory; namely, that a higher minimum wage will lead to undesirable consequences, including higher product prices for consumers and, especially for those workers on the lower rungs of the job market, reduced income.

Missouri Conference On Transportation Report

On Jan. 23, I attended the Missouri Conference on Transportation in Jefferson City. Much of the talk focused on needs: needs for roads, public transportation options, improved waterways, and most of all, more money. Unfortunately, the remedies put forward to solve the money problem abandon the principle of making the user pay and would keep Missouri’s transportation funding system on the road to unsustainability.

When Dave Nichols, director of the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), delivered the conference’s keynote address, he focused on his department’s impending financial Armageddon. He stated that from 2005 to 2011, MoDOT had a construction budget of $1.3 billion per year, but this year it has just half that amount. He also claimed that MoDOT requires $485 million simply to maintain the existing system. However, MoDOT will not have even that minimal amount by 2017. The decrease in funds is the result of the declining purchasing power of the state gas tax, decreasing federal support for transportation, and increasing bond payments. The director explained that the $1.3 billion budget had given Missouri better roads, new bridges, and increased safety measures. He pointed out that the department will no longer be able to make such improvements, and soon will be unable to maintain the current system.

The mismatch between MoDOT revenues and obligations did not appear overnight. Since the early 2000s, MoDOT has slowly seen its costs and obligations increase. At the same time, nothing has been done to increase user fees in the form of gas taxes (which has remained at 17 cents since 1996) or tolls. But instead of fixing the problem by raising user fees or controlling costs, MoDOT issued billions of dollars of debt and then relied on federal stimulus funding to improve and expand Missouri’s infrastructure. In effect, Missouri drivers got new roads and bridges without creating the tax base necessary to pay for them. With the bond money spent and the stimulus finished, MoDOT has to live within its means, which apparently it cannot do.

Once again, Missouri has an opportunity to set MoDOT funding on a sustainable, user-pay path. But instead of seizing the opportunity, some speakers at the conference called for a temporary 1-cent transportation sales tax to pay for transportation projects. I have written before that a sales tax is not a good way to pay for roads. Paying for highways based on how much people shop, and not how much they drive, encourages artificially high demand for roads. This increases road degradation, congestion, and sprawl beyond what would occur if drivers had to pay for their roads through gas taxes or tolls. Thus, it guarantees that when the “temporary” sales tax expires, Missourians will face the same funding problems they are facing today. Except then, it will be worse, because the user-generated revenue will be lower and road system maintenance requirements will be artificially higher.

The speakers at the Missouri Conference on Transportation accurately outlined the current condition of transportation funding in Missouri. Unfortunately, their policy solutions would create a system that is not bound by user demand and turns transportation spending into a subsidy slush fund.

Kansas City Star Calls For New MCI Plan, Airport Leadership

On Wednesday, the Kansas City Star called for a complete re-think of the $1.2 billion new terminal plan at Kansas City International Airport (MCI). The article even suggested replacing Mark VanLoh, the current director of the Kansas City Aviation Department (KCAD), stating that he “does not have the public credibility to lead on this extremely crucial project.” While we could not agree more, it is important to point out how the Aviation Department’s policy decisions have tarnished its reputation. In truth, KCAD has lost public credibility because it produced self-serving cost estimates, did not seek input from airport users or the airlines, and failed to offer alternatives to its preferred plan.

As the article rightly points out, the aviation director initially supported an even more expensive South Terminal Plan. That approach lost favor with KCAD because the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) would not build the required highway alterations. When selecting a new design, KCAD gave the public three options: the South Terminal Plan (which it already knew it could not do), the current design, and a mirrored option of the current design. So much for alternatives. Even today, after months of Airport Advisory Group meetings, the Aviation Department has yet to create serious renovation alternatives to its desired plan.

The Star article does not point out how the department has repeatedly contradicted itself about cost estimates and construction timelines. First, the airport was going to cost a minimum of $1.2 billion, then it was $900 million, or $965 million. MCI repair costs are shown as less than $200 million in a bond report, but then KCAD claimed the amount is $600 million or even $700 million. The new terminal planning documents call for the new terminal to open by 2019, but the aviation director then claimed that construction will not happen until 2020. At what point should the public conclude that the Aviation Department will say whatever number they think will get a new terminal?

Although the Star article downplays it, the opposition of the airlines has done the most damage to KCAD’s credibility. Before their testimony, the Aviation Department said that critics were wrong: wrong that the debt could harm the airport financially, wrong about how much money a new terminal could generate, wrong that the airport could continue in its current form, even wrong about the convenience of MCI. However, since Southwest representatives essentially vindicated the critics and warned against the risks of the new terminal plan, KCAD’s position has become untenable.

Most residents know that the airlines understand the aviation industry and that if they do not support the new terminal, it is probably a bad idea. What most residents probably do not know is that the ability of MCI to finance the $1.2 billion terminal plan depends on the airlines signing a new contract that makes them responsible for paying the terminal’s immense debt. If the terminal is built and the airlines refuse to sign, then MCI will be in Sacramento International Airport’s current position, scrambling to cut costs and find new revenue sources as its debt payments mount. It seems impossible that KCAD devised a new terminal plan and took that plan public without ensuring that its tenets/source of financing actually wanted it. Yet that is what happened.

It is good to see the Star arguing for change in KCAD’s performance and a new plan for MCI. Whether or not the aviation director is replaced, Kansas City would be well served by an open discussion about the future of Kansas City International Airport.

Having It Both Ways

In his State of the State address, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon offered profuse thanks to the General Assembly for passing a massive tax break for one company (Boeing) in their December 2013 special session. This is the same governor who spent much of last year railing against a broad-based income tax cut. The governor continues to argue that Missouri is one of the least-taxed states in the country. “Missouri is a low-tax state — sixth lowest in the nation — and we like it that way,” he said on Tuesday night. So Missouri is a low-tax state, but our taxes are too high for Boeing? Or are taxes too high for Boeing, but just fine for everybody else?

Missouri, in fact, is not a low-tax state, not in the taxes that matter most for a state’s economy.

The governor also laments that our taxpayers are forced to pay for health reform in other states through our federal taxes. He says that by expanding Medicaid, we could get some of that money back. This is a strange argument for a governor of Missouri to make considering that over a 20-year period, Missouri received more in federal spending than it paid in taxes. That means Michiganders and New Yorkers have been paying to improve our schools and our health care. Does the governor think they are entitled to a refund?

The truth is that there isn’t much evidence showing that Medicaid actually improves the health of poor people.

The legislature is in a new session and the state is facing serious challenges. But instead of spending more money (and the governor wants to spend a lot more), the state should focus on significant reform.

One Last State Of The State Post-Mortem

This week, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon delivered his sixth “State of the State” address to the Missouri Legislature, where he set out his agenda for 2014. We all want to make this state a better place to live, but taxpayers should have serious concerns about the plans the governor detailed. (I commend to you James Shuls’ and Michael Rathbone’s blog posts for more.)

First, the governor is moving in precisely the wrong direction on tax policy. In his speech, the governor congratulated the legislature for creating nearly $2 billion in refundable tax credits for Boeing last year. “We didn’t win the biggest prize,” the governor said of the state’s failed bid, “but we competed at the highest level.”

By and large, tax credits are ineffective and inefficient to promoting substantive growth — risky experiments, if you will — and last year, the governor said about as much. In his 2013 address, the governor railed against the state’s out-of-control, multi-billion dollar tax credit system for six paragraphs. In 2014, he devoted all of 18 words — one sentence — to the issue, and held up what could have been the biggest giveaway of taxpayer money in state history as an example of progress, not regression.

But that’s what it was: regression. Why should the state support corporate handouts like the one for Boeing, but actively deny tax relief to the family businesses in our communities?

Second, substantive Medicaid reform should be the top health care issue in Missouri, not a costly expansion. The governor’s proposal would lock the state into billions of dollars in new Medicaid spending over the next decade without a plan to pay for it, and that’s a bad deal for taxpayers.

Not only is the current Medicaid program wasteful, but the access and quality of care available to Medicaid enrollees is simply deplorable. We should be reforming this multi-billion dollar program, not making it bigger.

Even the education proposal is beset by the same “spend first, ask questions later” mindset. Missouri education funding has marched upward over the last few decades, and yet in terms of student achievement, our children remain stuck in the middle. From 1992 to 2008, Missouri saw an increase in per-pupil spending of 40 percent . . . and yet student achievement has remained basically flat.

That isn’t a spending problem. Our kids deserve to have the best education, and one of the best ways to achieve that is through school choice and competition. The governor’s address made no mention of such reforms — his focus was on simply spending more. That’s wrongheaded.

Wide-ranging reform, not wide-ranging new spending, should lead the state’s agenda in 2014. I hope that is what we will see.

Video: What To Expect During The 2014 Missouri Legislative Session

Last week in Columbia, Columbia Tribune Columnist Bob Roper and I delivered a presentation at the Show-Me Institute’s Show-Me Forum. We talked about what we expect will be the big legislative issues of the new year. We discussed taxes, labor issues, health care, and whole lot more. If you’re interested, you can watch the event in the video below.

Crime And (Doggie) Punishment: A Tale (Or Tail) Of Lost Freedom

First appearing in the January 13, 2014, Weekly Standard:

On a beautiful day in late October, Gus and I were enjoying a rare moment when our only companions in the large and hilly park in front of St. Louis’s Concordia Seminary were nut-gathering squirrels and the birds in the trees.

I was sitting on a Coleman camping chair reading a book and Gus, a beautiful black-and-tan Gordon setter, was doing his favorite thing—chasing birds. This is something Gus does at high speed, in narrowly zig-zagging and broadly circling patterns. The chases go on for as long as eight or nine seconds. I have never seen him pluck a bird out of the air, but he is right on their tails the whole time—forcing many a low-flying wren or robin to go into a steep climb.

It is a sight to behold. People stop and stare in disbelief. The birds seem to enjoy the game as much as Gus. Why else would they be so willing to come out of the trees and play catch-me-if-you-can? Sometimes, Gus begs them to do it—in short, staccato steps under a tree. Nose down, he dances to the sight of moving shadows signaling movement above. On a good day, Gus has dozens of bird chases.

On this particular day, my sense of perfect contentment was broken when I looked up and saw Gus at the far end of the park in the company, but not the grasp, of a policeman. It looked as if my grand-dog thought he had found something rather interesting and was happily escorting the policeman into my presence. Gus was off leash, as, too, of course, was the policeman.

As Gus pranced about the policeman, I grew increasingly annoyed thinking about what was about to happen. Wherever you go in today’s America, the nanny state, in its all-encompassing wisdom, has declared there shall be no dogs off leash—anywhere and everywhere, with the possible exception of your own basement.

If people who were alive a hundred years ago were to return today to our parks and open spaces .??.??. and find that no one is allowed to let a dog run free because of a widespread horror of dog poo, and fears that house pets might turn into killers .??.??. they would be appalled at our conformity, timidity, and stupidity. They would feel sorry for the dogs and wonder why we as a people weren’t already extinct.

As my mood turned sour, I also wondered—as a legal point, and I am no lawyer—what gave the policeman the right to come marching up to me on a private college campus.

So I did not politely get out of my chair to greet the officer, or even look up from my book, until he was hovering over me.

“Do you know there’s a leash law?” he asked. I answered his question with one of my own:

“Do you know this is private property?”

“Is it your property?” he countered.

I know my dog and I are welcome here,” I answered. “My wife and I have been here many times. We have come to know several of the faculty members. No one has ever asked us to put this dog on a leash. In fact, our dog has played off leash with their dogs.”

At this point, the policeman claimed the school administration had asked the Clayton police department (Clayton being a close-in St. Louis suburb) to enforce Clayton’s leash law. He pulled out a pad and started to write a ticket—asking for particulars not just about me (my name and address) but also the dog (name, breed, and weight).

The policeman was not unpleasant. An older cop (55 or 60), he was probably assigned to the easiest duty, and what could be easier than sitting in a parking lot on a super-safe college campus and getting out of his car to write a ticket on a dog that befriended everyone, himself included? He sympathized with the fact that my wife and I had been keeping this very sporty dog, now three-and-a-half years old, for our daughter and her family ever since he had been a puppy, and this was a dog, as he could see, that should not be cooped up in an empty house for 10 hours a day while its parents were working. We keep Gus on weekdays and he goes back to Elizabeth’s house on weekends.

So the policeman and I talked a bit about what to do with a dog that really needs at least an hour of hard exercise a day to be fit and happy.

There were several dog parks in the area, he volunteered.

“And they’re all like prison yards,” I told him—places where the more aggressive dogs are forever preying on less aggressive. It’s hump-o-mania all the time in crowded dog parks. Gus could stand up to the aggressive dogs, and would often, good-heartedly, come to the protection of weaker ones, but he didn’t like dog parks. Birds don’t much like dog parks either.

Maybe you could buy a farm, the policeman weakly suggested. He left me with a ticket and summons to appear in court on December 4.

Beth Ann, my wife, wanted to be there—with Gus. She is planning to write a children’s book about our several encounters with the law on this issue—and also our more numerous encounters with other dog-owners who scrupulously obey the leash laws and shout out enviously to outliers like us: Don’t you know there’s a leash law? For the purposes of the book, she wanted Gus to have his day in court.

I didn’t think Beth Ann had a chance of getting through security with a dog—even with such a beautiful and noble-looking dog as Gus. But I am never surprised by my wife’s inventiveness.

I had been sitting in the Clayton municipal courthouse for about an hour—along with about 100 other miscreants waiting their turn before the judge—when she and Gus (on a leash) came sweeping down the aisle. Beth Ann stopped to talk to a lawyer friend who was just leaving the court. Then, just as suddenly, she and Gus were gone.

To skip ahead to what would seem to be the end, when I was called to go before the judge, he told me that I had two options: I could plead not guilty and face a quick trial with the possibility of a fine of $300 or more; or I could talk to the person on the same dais seated to his left, who was the prosecutor and who had the discretion to negotiate a settlement. Naturally, I took the second option.

In a brief conference that took less than a minute, I told the prosecutor that Gus was not my dog, but my grand-dog, and that I had not known that I was violating any leash law at Concordia Seminary. He seemed faintly amused. Here was the deal, which I quickly accepted: If I agreed to pay court costs ($26.50), there would be no fine and, as the prosecutor put it, both Gus and I would be on six-month probation.

I won’t tell you what Gus and I might or might not do between now and next May. But I will tell you how Beth Ann and Gus got into the Clayton municipal courtroom.

As Beth Ann tells the story—

In her first approach to the courtroom door with Gus in tow, she was stopped and told she had to sign in first. Patrolman Karl pointed to an open ledger along the wall on the other side of the anteroom. She signed the ledger. When she returned to the big courtroom door, Patrolman Karl stopped her a second time.

“Dogs aren’t allowed in the courtroom,” he said.

“But he’s the perpetrator. He’s asked to appear in court.”

“I don’t think he has to be present in court.”

“Are you sure?”

“I’ll go ask the judge.”

With that, Patrolman Karl went through the door and Beth Ann and Gus followed a moment or two later. Having determined in private discussion with the judge or prosecutor that Gus’s presence in court was not an absolute requirement, Patrolman Karl duly shushed Beth Ann and Gus out of the courtroom.

So Gus really did have his day in court.

I wish the moral to this story was that you can’t keep a good dog down. But I fear the reality is that the nanny state and its obedient servants will keep any number of good dogs down for a long time to come. We are witnessing the death of common sense as a substitute for rules and regulations.

Life is less fun, with less freedom.

Andrew B. Wilson is a resident fellow and senior writer at the Show-Me Institute, a free-market think tank in St. Louis.

 

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