Audio Recording Of Legislative Hearings Should Be Standard Operating Procedure At Missouri Capitol

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

This weekend, longtime statehouse reporter Phill Brooks penned a commentary for the Columbia Tribune examining the history of broadcasting the proceedings of the Missouri Legislature. I commend to you the whole piece, but I think Brooks intends to leave us with a warning that we should not take the unintended consequences of recording legislative proceedings for granted — not only the potential of legislators hamming it up for the camera, but also the concerns about the potential for lobbyist pressure if every official move of our representatives is documented. I appreciate those concerns; after all, we want our legislators focused on their job of legislating well, not putting on a performance.

However, I think one section of Brooks’ piece deserves to be highlighted for why erring on the side of recording should be preferred to erring on the side of what are really the political concerns of our legislators.

It is difficult to realize how different the Senate was some four decades ago.

The chamber even banned taking notes in the visitors’ gallery overlooking the chamber. A couple of senators said they didn’t want lobbyists using their quotes against them. The note-taking ban was dropped when it was exposed by a newspaper story that made the chamber look silly.

The “note-taking ban” was news to me, and it’s appalling that the Senate chamber at some point in its history felt that such a rule was appropriate. Thankfully, both the House and the Senate now livecast their floor debates online. As someone who is rarely in Jefferson City, that service is invaluable not only to my work but also to all Missourians. If legislators are concerned that constituents might hear what they said at a public hearing . . . well, they better get used to that idea, because that’s the whole point of a public hearing.

Likewise, requiring that House and Senate committee hearings to be broadcast in the same way as when the full House and Senate are in session — or, alternatively, recorded and made available online afterward — should be a no-brainer when it comes to promoting transparency in government. It’s why I think the audio recording of the legislature’s public hearings should be on this year’s reform agenda. Missourians with full-time jobs across the state deserve to be able to hear the committee debates that, these days, are only accessible to “note-taking” Jefferson City lobbyists.

Let the sunshine in.

Ferguson Mayor James Knowles On Privatization

Posted on by Darin Morley

There are numerous ways that Missouri communities can benefit from privatization. David Stokes documented examples from across the state to help inform both decision makers and the public about the options available (read the case study). He also interviewed Ferguson Mayor James Knowles about that city’s use of privatization:

 If you enjoy these highlights from his interview, please watch the full interview.

Missouri Privatization Documents

Posted on by David Stokes

The Show-Me Institute has released a comprehensive project about privatization efforts in Missouri. This project documents the wide variety of ways in which counties, cities, and towns can engage the private sector to provide many public services. We also discuss the many public service areas where privatization is appropriate and potentially beneficial, along with the areas it is not. The study provides city officials, administrators, and interested citizens with examples of where, how, and why privatization can be expanded in their communities. The documents made available here are part of that effort.

Government privatization refers to the practice of providing what are commonly considered public services via the private sector. In these cases, the public service is provided either directly by a private firm (or multiple private firms), or indirectly through private firm management of government-owned operations (i.e., outsourcing). There are numerous ways private management of government operations can be arranged. Privatization, when done properly, can increase efficiency and expertise, provide additional services to the public, and decrease costs for taxpayers.

In 2003, the Missouri Legislature created a subcommittee on Competition and Privatization that issued a final report in December 2004. The subcommittee’s work was promising, and its goals were inspiring. Unfortunately, the final results of the project were ultimately disappointing and few of its recommendations were implemented. However, there are valuable parts to the report that document how Missouri has used private entities for many information technology (IT), data entry, and other service-related state government needs. For the first time, that report is available online at Showmesunshine.org.

We also have included several examples of contracts and proposal requests between local governments and private sector partners. If there are local officials in Missouri who wish to look further into privatization but do not know the legal requirements, we hope that these examples of existing contracts and proposals can be of assistance. These contracts include examples from the City of Saint Louis, Kansas City, Cameron, Jackson County, Chillicothe, and Wentzville.

Other documents we have made available online here include:

  • A 2007 memorandum from the City of Florissant documenting how it used the funds from the 2002 sale of its municipal water utility.
  • A 2004 memorandum from Milwaukee County, Wis., detailing that county’s privatization efforts from 1995 to 2004.
  • A 2004 report from Stephen Witte with the Missouri Legislative Academy on the issues regarding toll roads in Missouri.
  • A 1996 report from the Missouri Council on Efficient Operations discussing various ways to make state government more effective.

The Show-Me Institute’s privatization project is dedicated to expanding the use of privatization in Missouri state and local governments. That effort is ongoing. Missourians can use this information to monitor state government and their local governments as a way to encourage privatization efforts when possible. We also hope the documents listed here will assist local government officials who may be considering privatization efforts. Being active in government and monitoring its services can be difficult. This tool makes it a little easier.

 


Contracts and proposal requests between local governments and private sector partners:

 


An Open Letter To Streetcar Supporters

Posted on by Patrick Tuohey

At the recent meeting of the Kansas City Save the Trolley Trail, supporters of an expanded streetcar system dismissed assertions from the Show-Me Institute, which are backed by research, that construction of fixed rail does not drive economic development. This is important because it appears that economic development is the raison d’être for the streetcar. One Kansas City City Councilmember told the Kansas City Business Journal:

“The stated goal of this project is economic development. That’s the dominant goal,” [Russ] Johnson said. “The dominant goal is not to have a lot of people ride it. The dominant goal is to develop the city.”

During remarks at the meeting, supporters, including Kansas City Mayor Sly James, presented as evidence of economic development the construction that has already taken place downtown. However, this employs a logical fallacy — post hoc ergo propter hoc. Municipalities often claim credit for development simply because it occurred after their policies were enacted, but it is disingenuous.

Below is an incomplete list of studies that demonstrate that economic development is not a result of fixed rail. We encourage everyone to read these, and we encourage streetcar supporters to provide contrary evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

  • “The Great Streetcar Conspiracy,” Cato Institute, June 2012. Randal O’Toole has written extensively about the topic. If one questions this research because it comes from the libertarian Cato Institute, there are plenty of other sources.

  • The Atlantic Cities published an article which makes clear that evidence for economic development due to streetcars is lacking. The author writes:

But while the Portland streetcar was the anchor or at least the featured element of this growth, it wasn’t responsible for this boom by itself. Rather, it was part of a broader development plan in which zoning, public-private investment, street upgrades, and other renewal efforts also played considerable roles.

The literature regarding empirical measurement of actual changes in economic activity, such as changes in retail sales, visitors, or job growth, is almost nonexistent for streetcars. Indeed, this lack of empirical data was cited by many of the streetcar system survey respondents described in this report.

The same report also addressed the notion that streetcars attract the creative class:

Although occasionally the literature forecasting economic benefits for proposed streetcar systems posits that streetcars will attract more “creatives” to the area, this idea cannot be substantiated.

Taken together with earlier evidence that the social costs of rapid transit are higher than those for buses, the results suggest that it may be difficult to justify rapid rail investment on the basis of a benefit-cost analysis. In the absence of local economic development around stations, the benefits of rail are limited to those that might occur at the regional level. Future work should seek to quantify these benefits.

. . . the increase in property values and economic development are subsidized benefits and may not be greater than the subsidy costs. Both citizens and local officials should have an understanding of the costs of light-rail transit relative to the potential benefits. Given the size of costs relative to the benefits, the creation of light-rail transit systems or the expansion of existing systems in American cities may be difficult to justify.

Indeed, building commercial-grade rail lines through 100-plus-year-old neighborhoods is difficult to justify. Study after study indicates no support for the city’s “dominant goal” of economic development. If streetcar boosters are aware of research that supports the claim that streetcars themselves — and not the tax-subsidized construction that goes with them — results in economic growth, we are eager to learn of it. Presumably, everyone else cited here would welcome seeing the research as well.

Super Bowl Lessons For Kansas City Transit

Posted on by Joseph Miller

With Clay Chastain’s partial victory in the Missouri Supreme Court this week, his plan for a 24-mile light-rail system for Kansas City may come back under consideration. We have written many times that Kansas City would be better off without light rail. It is prohibitively expensive, carries few commuters in cities with low-population densities, and is inflexible to changing demand. For an example of this inflexibility, look no further than the aftermath of the Super Bowl.

While most Missouri residents are aware that the Seahawks defeated the Broncos in the big game, they might not know that transportation enthusiasts had dubbed this year’s game the first “mass transit Super Bowl.” The New York metropolitan area is the nation’s densest, with extensive rail and bus networks. Organizers encouraged almost 100,000 fans to take public transportation, either rail or bus, to reach the game. Indeed, this is the type of event where mass transit systems should be most effective: moving a large crowd of predictable size to and from a centralized location.

However, things did not go as planned. As fans left the game, thousands packed into the Secaucus train station, where people waited up to 45 minutes for hot, crowded train cars. Some passengers reportedly required medical attention. It took hours, and scrambling 50 buses to the site, to clear out the jam.

What went wrong? Despite actively promoting the use of mass transit to get to the Super Bowl, organizers underestimated the number who would use the trains by a factor of three. Trains are a relatively inflexible form of transit; it takes a long while to bring extra capacity to an area with a sudden, unexpected spike in demand.

There are lessons Kansas City should take from the Super Bowl in planning the city’s future transit priorities:

First, planning for transit is fraught with pitfalls. Organizers of the Super Bowl had a set population and pre-sold tickets, only to massively underestimate those who would take rail transit. In the same way, no one can be sure of the future traveling habits of Kansas City residents or the city’s growth pattern.

Second, buses are flexible, trains are not. To alleviate the jam after the Super Bowl, New Jersey brought on 50 extra buses. New Jersey could not suddenly bring a whole set of trains to the Super Bowl when a problem arose. They could not build a new station to spread out the crowd. If Kansas City builds light rail and the population shifts or there is economic growth in an area where there is no rail service, there is little the city can do but eat its losses and build a new line. But if the city focuses on Bus Rapid Transit, it could shift resources to meet new demand.

On The Airline Industry, Don’t Trust The Airlines, Just Listen To A Consultant

Posted on by Joseph Miller

The Kansas City Star recently published an article airing the views of a consultant group, Frasca & Associates. Frasca attacked the airlines’ critical view of the proposed $1.2 billion new terminal plan for Kansas City International Airport (MCI). Despite getting more ink than the airlines’ representative received, all the points the consultant made were irrelevant or shortsighted.

First, the consultant criticized the airlines’ statement that the airline industry has experienced considerable stress since 2001 and would attempt to use their limited resources where they make the most profit. The consultant claimed that, “In fact, the airlines are now experiencing record profits.” This point is shortsighted. Airlines have managed profitability in the last couple of years. However, in the last two decades, the airlines lost so much money that Warren Buffett joked, “If a capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk back in the early 1900s, he should have shot Orville Wright.” The airlines only reached this profitability after massive consolidation, keeping just the most profitable flights, and closing airport hubs. Airlines, especially MCI’s largest carrier, Southwest, have learned their lesson and will likely remain cost-conscious in the future.

Second, the consultant objected to the airlines’ view that terminals do not create demand. They stated:

…a new or expanded terminal can address certain deficiencies and open up new air service opportunities…For example, the lack of international gate capacity…

This point is strange, as the consultant admits that growth in international travel at MCI is essentially flat (0.7 percent growth) and will remain so. But, according to the consultant, Kansas City can be like Pittsburgh, which has a flight to Paris. Unfortunately, Pittsburgh had to pay $9 million in subsidies for that honor, so maybe Kansas City does not want be like Pittsburgh. As Southwest officials stated, MCI has adequate capacity and its price competitiveness means more service. Compared to non-hub peer airports, MCI has more non-stop destinations.

Third, consultants disagreed with the airlines about the importance of landing costs for airlines. They stated:

In general, airport costs (i.e., terminal rents and landing fees) comprise roughly 3 to 6 percent of an airline’s total costs.

The consultants claim that fuel is most important to airlines and operation costs can decrease at a more efficient, new site. However, this is irrelevant. If a new terminal is built that makes MCI more expensive to operate out of, the airport could certainly lose flights. Perhaps the consultants at Frasca & Associates should call Southwest officials and tell them that 3-6 percent of their costs don’t matter and they should not have refused to sign a lease agreement with Sacramento International Airport after that airport’s costs increased.

The consultants make several other points that are equally not insightful. Perhaps it need only be pointed out that airlines understand the aviation industry. The airlines also decide where their airplanes actually go, making their viewpoint on why they choose specific airports especially important.

Update: Lee’s Summit Superintendent’s Amazing Contract

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Lees Summit Super Salary

Yesterday, I wrote a piece in which I noted that the Lee’s Summit School District superintendent earned $258,660. Indeed, this was the figure cited in the recent audit of the school district and it was an accurate figure. It is not, however, his current salary. Shortly after we published the post, an astute reader of the blog pointed me to the superintendent’s current contract. This year, he is earning $282,831. Yes, he received a $24,171, or 9.3 percent, raise from last year to this year. Next year, he is due to receive $294,463, and $306,735 the year after that.

One mistake I made in the post was stating that his fringe benefits were in addition to his salary. His new contract states that the salary “includes the value of certain fringe benefits,” such as deferred compensation, family medical insurance, association dues, cell phone, business expenses, and a vehicle allowance. So, for the most part, his benefits are included in his salary total. Still, this is a pretty nice salary. In addition to these perks, he is allowed up to $3,000 additional income to cover fuel expenses. And, he is given 30 vacation days on top of holidays.

Let’s not forget, the superintendent is also a member of the Public School Retirement System (PSRS). That means the school district must provide a 14.5 percent match to his retirement contributions. All told, the compensation package for the superintendent of the Lee’s Summit School District is north of $320,000.

See the full contract here.

Update: Following this post, we received the following tweet from Dr. David McGehee:

MCI’s Competitiveness Harmed, Not Helped, With New Terminal Plan

Posted on by Joseph Miller

Two weeks ago, Southwest Airlines gave a presentation to the Kansas City Airport Terminal Advisory Group about the proposed $1.2 billion new terminal plan for Kansas City International Airport (MCI). Southwest officials echoed our concerns about the immense cost of the plan.

These revelations pushed some of those who had supported the new terminal to call for a new plan. But in the past week, those who still support the new terminal plan started to push back. As the Kansas City Star reports, transportation consultants working for the terminal advisory group stated that upgrades might attract more flights. These consultants also stated that the new terminal plan has the increased amenities and power outlets the business community demands.

Adding to this, business leaders stated at the most recent meeting of the Airport Advisory Group that unnamed businesses chose not to invest in Kansas City because MCI is not a welcoming “front door.” Those business leaders went on to say, like the aforementioned transportation consultants, that major repairs are necessary to draw more business travelers and investment to Kansas City. In other words, business travelers choose travel destinations based upon which airports have Cinnabons and Sbarros.

However, these arguments are less compelling when one notes that, with 51 cities in reach by direct flights, MCI has relatively good service compared to airports in peer cities. This is largely due to MCI’s price competitiveness.

pic2

In addition, the evidence shows that a city’s economic climate, not the state of its airport terminals, is most important for determining travel demand. As to the need for more amenities like food options and electrical outlets, building a $1.2 billion new terminal to address these matters is like using a jackhammer to drive a nail.

To sum it up, the airlines (and common sense) say that building an expensive new terminal will not increase demand for air travel. Quite the contrary, the higher costs to airlines and passengers may mean fewer flights. Even if we agree with business leaders that MCI requires more amenities, certainly there is a cheaper way of providing these than a $1.2 billion new terminal plan. The cost is so much greater than the supposed benefits that the plan looks more like a vanity project than a sound investment.

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