Reducing The Size Of The Saint Louis Board Of Aldermen

Posted on by David Stokes

Most people are familiar with Einstein’s E=mc2. In government, there is another powerful theory, the “Law of 1/n,” which states that as the size of a legislative body grows, that body increases spending. The larger a council or assembly, the more it spends. With that in mind, let us discuss the current proposal to reduce the size of the Saint Louis City Board of Aldermen from 28 aldermen and wards to 14.

When I was an assistant at the Saint Louis County Council, I once received a call from a resident who had just moved to an unincorporated part of the county from Saint Louis City. He wanted a new street light installed by his house. I explained in detail the various ways he or his neighborhood association could contact AmerenUE and arrange to pay for and install a new street light. After I went on in detail for several minutes, he finally cut me off and said, “Look, I just want you [meaning my boss, the councilman] to install a street light in front of my house.” The caller then explained that he just moved from the city, and, there, if he wanted a street light, he just called his alderman and he got a street light. He could not understand a system where he or his neighbors might be expected to actually handle something like this on their own.

The current makeup of the city’s board is unusual for at least two reasons. With 28 members for 320,000 residents, it is far larger on a per-resident basis than almost any other major city’s legislative body. By comparison, Kansas City has just 13 councilmembers for approximately 460,000 people. Furthermore, Saint Louis board rules authorize the filibuster, which is rare for local government councils. The filibuster — or often just the threat of it — gives each member of the board of aldermen substantial individual authority. There are benefits to that, but allowing so many officials to make certain their constituents get their “fair share” is a recipe for the creation of political fiefdoms. The benefits of getting a “fair share” for your ward are concentrated, and the costs are widely distributed among many other officials and taxpayers. In simpler terms, “Give that guy a street light!”

The “Law of 1/n” is a widely held finding of public choice economic theory. As any legislature has more members, they will seek a larger share of the pie for their voters. Both total spending and pork-barrel spending increase as an inevitable part of that quest. Taxes increase to pay for that spending. The accounting firm KPMG just released a study that found Saint Louis has the second highest business tax burden of major American cities. Those street lights aren’t free, you know.

There are counterweights to this. Most notably, Missouri’s Hancock Amendment thankfully limits the ability of governments to grow and grow. But another counterweight is a smaller legislative body. In a smaller body, the politician’s constituent will both receive the new street light and pay for a larger share of it. The politician has to consider both benefits and costs.

What about citizen representation? Clearly, there is a symbiosis between having a large number of aldermen and residents asking their alderman to do many things. If an alderman represents a small area, he or she can try to do many things for that area. That may be great, but individuals likely could do some of those things themselves if not for the easy availability of the alderman. I am reminded of the Australians in the “Simpson’s” episode who decide they must speak to their prime minister about a certain issue, and then just run to the neighboring farmhouse to see him.

The current members of the board represent slightly more than 10,000 people each. In Saint Louis County, the councilmember for the sixth council district (South County), along with one assistant, serve the constituent needs of 140,000 unincorporated county residents. If one county councilmember and one assistant can service 140,000 constituents, I think the members of the city board of aldermen can handle 23,000. Unless, that is, they really want to give a new street light to everyone who asks for it. Perhaps the largest benefit to a smaller board of aldermen is that it will say “no” a little more often.

David Stokes is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Court Plan Reforms Are Good For Missouri

Posted on by Patrick Ishmael

On Nov. 6, Missouri voters will have the opportunity to make a modest change to the way judges are appointed to Missouri’s Supreme Court and appellate courts. Currently, a nominating commission comprised of three non-lawyers that the governor chooses and four lawyers (three that the Missouri Bar elects plus one judge) picks the candidates which the current governor can appoint to these courts. The reform would allow the governor to appoint four citizens to the commission — making a non-lawyer majority possible — and would make a retired judge a non-voting advisor. Lawyer-elected representation would remain unchanged.

Opponents of Amendment 3 like to portray the current lawyer-dominated court plan as immune to even minor improvements. As a lawyer, I strongly disagree.

Missouri’s current court system dates back to middle of the 20th Century. Tired of overly partisan courts, Missourians enacted a new court plan that moved the state from a substantively partisan judge selection process to one that tried to remove some of the overt political pressures that campaigns produce.

Unfortunately, the structure of Missouri’s judicial selection system biases strongly toward lawyers, entrusting great power to those who would practice before the Court to choose what the Court looks like. As the Wall Street Journal noted in 2007, “[a] democratic system of choosing judges requires a transparent process — and accountability for those who make the choice.” Unfortunately, the lawyer-selected representatives of the Missouri court plan simply are not accountable to the rest of the state.

Does a system where lawyers get to approve their judges sound like a good system for everyone else? Not to me. It is bad policy to delegate immense power to a few thousand lawyers and let them effectively build a court over time that renders justice on the other six million or so non-lawyer Missourians. Inmates do not get to vote on who runs the prison. Lawyers should not have preferential rights for who metes out Missouri justice.

Initiative opponents suggest the proposed amendment would inject politics into Missouri’s court system. Nonsense. Politics have controlled Missouri’s courts for decades, albeit behind closed doors. Instead of currying favor with several special interests, prospective judges need only to keep on good terms with the members of one interest — the Missouri Bar. There are many fine lawyers, but I do not agree that we as a profession are better equipped to choose our referees than regular Missourians.

This reform is important because a court which is more accountable to Missourians is less likely to be beholden to today’s ingrained special interests. A judicial selection process that returns power to Missourians through their representatives while removing the most salient and destructive aspects of judicial elections would add confidence to Missouri’s court system. Indeed, reforms that empower Missourians to reassert majority control in their judicial system over special interests should be lauded — by both non-lawyers and members of the Bar.

Missouri’s court plan is far from perfect and needs reform. This initiative is a step in the right direction.

Patrick Ishmael is a policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Hot TIF In The City This Week

Posted on by David Stokes

Yesterday, I testified in front of the Saint Louis City Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Commission regarding the proposed $10 million subsidy for a proposed new apartment complex and grocery store in the Central West End. I have said before that, like an unhappy family in a Russian novel, every TIF is awful in its own unique way.

This TIF is no different. Two awful policy items stand out in this TIF. First, this is one of the wealthiest and most successful parts of Missouri. If the corner of Euclid and West Pine needs a subsidy, then everywhere in the state deserves a subsidy for anything. Let’s just end the dog-and-pony shows and subsidize everything. We can stop paying Development Strategies to come up with terrible analysis that would flunk a high school economics course. We can stop pretending there is a deliberative process involved and just go right to cutting checks upon request. Because that is basically where we are now in Missouri.

The second awful aspect is the special absurdity of the “blight” designation here. The owners of the property — who are seeking the TIF and blight designation — have owned the property for some time and are benefiting from allowing the property to be “blighted” in legal terms. (Note: It is not really “blighted.”) Because the owners tore down the prior office building and did not improve the property for several years, their baseline tax rate under TIF will be far lower than it would have been otherwise. State statutes should be changed to prevent property owners from deliberately decreasing the assessed value of their property so that they can have substantially lower payments-in-lieu-of-taxes (the method by which a TIF subsidy operates) when they apply for a TIF.

This project absolutely does not need a tax subsidy. So, of course, the proposal passed the TIF Commission unanimously, 8-0. Even the few commission members who asked tough questions about the TIF voted in favor of it. So it goes.

McGraw Milhaven – David Stokes on KTRS

Posted on by David Stokes

David Stokes has a recurring spot on McGraw Milhaven’s KTRS radio program. In this appearance, Stokes and the host discuss topics such as the speed limit change on Forest Park Parkway in Saint Louis, traffic safety policy generally, the city of Florissant getting a new WalMart despite turning down the requested TIF, the difference between pro-market and pro-business, and the final ballot initiative: the special school district tax increase.

 

McGraw Milhaven – David Stokes on KTRS

Posted on by David Stokes

David Stokes has a recurring spot on McGraw Milhaven’s KTRS radio program. In this appearance, Stokes and the host discuss topics such as the sudden lowering of the speed limit on Forest Park Parkway in Saint Louis, the benefits of synchronized stoplights, the Saint Louis County sales tax pool and why it should be kept, the issue of “local control” in the city of Saint Louis, and the issue of ticket scalping.

 

McGraw Milhaven – David Stokes on KTRS

Posted on by David Stokes

David Stokes has a recurring spot on McGraw Milhaven’s KTRS radio program. In this appearance, Stokes and the host discuss topics such as the proposed reduction in size for the Saint Louis Board of Alderman, the effects of increasing proportional representation, the lower speed limit on Forest Park Parkway in Saint Louis, the proposed Central West End TIF, and David Stokes’ status as a Republican elector.

 

 

 

A Low-Performing School By Any Other Name . . .

Posted on by James V. Shuls

Although just more than half of students in the Saint Louis Public Schools graduate in four years and the district has an abysmally low ACT score of 16.5, the Missouri Board of Education granted the school district provisional accreditation status, and rightfully so. After all, the district met the minimum requirements for provisional accreditation under the evaluation system in place when the district filed its request. Rather than quibble about whether they should or should not have been given provisional accreditation, it is time to reassess how we evaluate schools and school districts.

In college track and field, the NCAA sets both provisional and automatic marks for athletes to qualify for the national competition. The marks are set very high and often, not many athletes qualify automatically or even provisionally. In contrast, the state’s board of education has set the bar for accreditation and provisional accreditation very low; so low, in fact, that the distinctions are essentially meaningless.

The distinctions are also inconsequential because they change very little for the district besides the label. And as Shakespeare noted, “a low-performing school district by any other name would smell like a low-performing school district.” OK, maybe Shakespeare did not say that exactly, but you get the point; call the district what you will, the label has no real impact on students.

The state is moving to a new accreditation system this coming year. While the new system will be an improvement, it still leaves much to be desired. Both the old system and the new system accredit school districts, not schools. This was very important in the accreditation decision of Saint Louis Public Schools, where magnet schools drove up the district’s average performance. District level evaluations, especially in large urban districts, give parents very little information when they are deciding where to send their children to school.

Missouri’s current method of accrediting school districts does little more than give grown-ups something to argue about and has few real implications for schools or students. The state would be doing a real service to families if it moved to a school report card format, where schools are graded on a scale from “A” to “F.” A school grading system would allow families to be more informed, hold their local school more accountable, and express choice more wisely. Isn’t the goal to have parents become informed and engaged?

The current system pre-supposes that the state can hold schools accountable by accrediting the school district, when in reality, school accountability is best achieved when families are allowed to hold their child’s school accountable. The state can help in this effort if it makes school performance more transparent at the school level. If the reclassification of the Saint Louis Public School District proves anything, it is that the state’s standards are much lower than parents’ standards.

James V. Shuls is the education policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Proposition B: Forcing Smokers to Cough Up for Education

Posted on by Michael Rathbone

Non-smokers may think they have nothing to lose if they vote to increase taxes on tobacco products in Missouri. And if the resulting revenues are set aside in a “lock box” for public education, one might think this is a real win-win proposition — both discouraging a bad habit and raising more money for our schools.

That is the argument that proponents of Proposition B are making in calling for a whopping 429 percent increase in Missouri’s cigarette tax (from 17 cents a pack to 90 cents). But there are good reasons for rejecting this argument.

First, tobacco taxes are regressive in nature and disproportionately harm the poor. It is wrong to place a higher tax burden on people who are least able to afford it simply because they are engaged in an activity that is not popular.

Second, no one should trust the security of the so-called “lock box.” Though Proposition B states the revenue directed to K-12 education should be “in addition to” funds from the school funding formula, it is likely the new money will replace other state funds. A provision in the bill allows tobacco dollars to be used in the school funding formula if it is underfunded, which currently it is. The lock box is already open and there is little reason to expect legislators to close it.

Third, and most importantly, more money does not necessarily mean the quality of education will improve. According to the Digest of Education Statistics, Missouri increased per-pupil spending on education by almost 40 percent in inflation adjusted dollars between 1992 and 2008. Despite that, Missouri’s achievement scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress have remained almost flat.

Making sure our kids get a great education is a moral imperative. It is also politically popular. Yet, specifically targeting politically unpopular and vulnerable groups in order to raise money for education is the wrong approach to fixing our schools. We all know that smoking leads to a variety of health problems. But that does not give the government license to inflict punitive taxes on people engaged in a legal activity. This is behavior modification through taxation and is the equivalent of taxing milkshakes in order to fund road construction.

Real improvement in education will come from making Missouri a place that attracts business and educational entrepreneurs; a place where parents are free to choose and schools are free to innovate. Making smokers cough up more tax dollars for education will not achieve these goals and will do little to provide a strong, sustainable educational system for future generations.

Michael Rathbone is a policy researcher and James V. Shuls is the education policy analyst at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

Easing Concerns About My Salary Straitjacket Solutions

Posted on by James V. Shuls

After we released my new paper, The Salary Straitjacket, I quickly received a message from a friend who happens to be a teacher. He was a bit concerned about what I say in the paper; I suggest school districts should be able to “reward teachers for their unique contribution” to their school, rather than pay all teachers in the same lock-step fashion.

My friend’s concerns are many, but he has two main questions. Is it fair to pay teachers of one subject more than teachers of another? And, if we paid math and science (a.k.a. STEM) teachers more, wouldn’t it lead to shortages in other fields?

In the paper, I tried to focus on what is practical and logical from what we know about teaching and the job market. Because STEM teachers are in high demand and short supply, it does not make logical sense to pay them the same amount as teachers of other subjects who are in abundant supply. Fairness, of course, is a subjective term and paying teachers of some subjects more may seem unfair to some; but as I say in the paper, “it seems more unfair . . . to not recognize teachers for their specific skills and talents. Not all teachers are the same and not all skills are equally demanded.”

It is also important to remember that schools are not in the business of adult fairness, they are in the business of educating children. To that end, single salary schedules put a straitjacket on school officials and prevent them from having the ability to attract and retain teachers.

School districts need to be released from their straitjackets so they can begin paying teachers for their unique contributions. Schools districts then would have more leverage to attract high-quality teachers in STEM fields. If this creates shortages in other fields, the market would need to adjust. That is the beauty of the free market; it has an uncanny way of adjusting to supply and demand, whereas our current system is inflexible and perpetuates the problem of shortages in STEM subjects.

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