Initial Franklin County Charter Thoughts

Posted on by Phil Eckelkamp

So, the question of the day for me is: Why did the proposed Franklin County Charter fail? Now that I’ve had a few days to think and talk about it, I think there are a number of reasons for its demise, all of which need to be addressed.

One of the most common sayings used by charter opponents was, “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” I can understand that kind of thinking, because a lot of Franklin County is rural and we really enjoy life the way it is. There is also a natural human condition that resists change. Lots of people (my family included) still live on in a rural area, on 10 or more acres, and the last thing they want is more interference in their daily lives. My objection, however, is that by passing home rule, those who want to limit interference could have protected themselves from outside laws. Home rule can be a good insulator.

Some argued that the charter would increase the size of local government, but I think this was a misinterpretation of the charter — just because there’s greater representation doesn’t necessarily mean that there will be greater intrusion. Why expand the county council to seven members when you can stay with two associate commissioners? Well, when you’re debating a tax hike or deciding where to put a road, wouldn’t you want people from each of the the county’s seven regions to provide input, rather than just two people? Additionally, a seven-member council would better represent the county as a whole. While David Stokes and I were interviewed on KLPW AM radio in Franklin County, we heard multiple people call in with this sentiment: “This is just Washington trying to rule the rest of Franklin County.” I don’t think people realized, however, a seven-person council would have made Washington as equal as the county’s other regions — whereas it’s currently the biggest voting area.

Judging by our radio experience the other day, there had been a campaign of misinformation about the entire issue. For example, people thought that the new county council people could (and would) vote itself a raise as a first order of business. However, this would not have been possible because the charter froze salaries until 2014. After that, Missouri’s Constitution would prohibit a raise from taking effect till after there had been an election. So, even if the council would have voted itself a raise down the road, the members would have to get reelected after that vote. Something tells me that would be a hard campaign to win.

Overall, I think the charter proposal failed out of resistance to change, rather than a true understanding of what charter government is and how it can work either for or against the county’s residents. Hopefully, next time a charter is proposed people will have access to better information about what type of government a charter would really bring.

Low Turnout for St. Louis Election

Posted on by Clovis Ouangraoua

As you all know, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay was reelected, joining a club of rare political authorities to maintain himself in this particular position for a third term. But, as it turned out, he was elected by a fairly high percentage of a very low vote turnout. He won the most votes cast by a mere 15 percent of registered voters, in a city that has a little over 350.000 citizens. People seem so involved and preoccupied by the current economic and market situation that they may not have prioritized getting out the vote.

The mayor is expected to unveil his new economic plan of development for the city during his inauguration speech on April 21.

I Found the Holy Grail at the End of the Rainbow

Posted on by David Stokes

Knowing, as my dedicated readers do, that my two favorite things to blog about are the nanny state and the fragmented nature of local government in Missouri (and especially St. Louis), I have long dreamed of the opportunity to comment on a newspaper article that perfectly combined the two issues somehow. My quest has been fulfilled, and I assure you that I just excitedly jumped up and ran around the office (fully clothed, unfortunately) while screaming “Eureka,” which is just delightfully clever in this situation.

The article I am referring to is in today’s Post-Dispatch, and discusses the issues regarding enforcement of St. Louis County’s child helmet laws within the various county municipalities. Readers might be confused by statements such as this in the article:

Maryland Heights Police Chief Tom O’Connor, when asked about helmet laws, said, “That’s a St. Louis County ordinance and we don’t enforce county ordinances.”

What? They don’t enforce county ordinances? That might sound strange to people, but it is quite normal.

Most county ordinances only apply in the unincorporated parts of the county. The 91 cities enact the local ordinances within their boundaries. There are crossovers, though. The county sets traffic laws on county roads, even those within municipalities. This occasionally leads to disputes, as the county has to count on local police to enforce the county traffic laws on the county roads within cities, and the question is what will the city police enforce if the city and county disagree on something like a speed limit? (Something very close to this happened when the Forest Park Parkway reopened after MetroLink construction, with St. Louis County, Clayton, and University City disagreeing on the new speed limits for the Parkway.)

The primary area in which county laws trump local control is in the health code. No municipality in the county is large enough to have its own health department. I believe a city has to have at least 70,000 people before it can have its own health department (that number is from memory; I don’t feel like looking it up). So, the county health code automatically applies within cities, which is why they enacted the helmet requirement under the health code rather than the criminal code. Cities can certainly enact tougher legislation in the area of health laws, like Ballwin’s smoking ban, but generally the county rules govern when it comes to public health issues. It is not hard to see why a city police chief might not be aware of this exception.

Whether or not they were aware of the rule, it is great to read some of the police officers’ comments exhibiting common sense and anti-nanny-state sentiments:

“Is it practical to enforce if you come across three or four kids out riding bikes without helmets? What the hell do you do, confiscate their bikes and then drive them all home to tell their parents? It ought to be the parents’ responsibility in the first place.”

Not surprisingly, the health department bureaucrat who has made it her mission in life to tell everyone else how to live their lives doesn’t agree:

The driving force behind it was Shirley Scatcherd, a county public health coordinator. She had worked for four years to extend to municipalities a regulation in effect in the unincorporated areas since 2001.

“The law was never intended to be punitive, but we do expect that it will be enforced,” she said.

Soon enough, my son will start riding bikes, etc., and when he does we will make sure that he uses a helmet. When he starts to ski, that will also be the end of my helmet-less time on the slopes, because I will have to set a good exemple for him. (The argument over “moral hazard” — or, whether the presence of a helmet will cause me to ski more dangerously than I would without one — is a topic for another post. Hint, the answer is: “guaranteed it will.”)

But I can once again feel my blood pressure rising with yet another example of a public official taking away our own individual liberties and responsibilities under the guise of “safety.” This case is particularly maddening, because she wasn’t happy enough just to enforce the rules in the unincorporated parts of the county. Nope, the nanny state must apply everywhere!

Not Gaining More, Losing Less

Posted on by Josh Smith

According to the Post-Dispatch, some are leveling criticism at MOSERS, a Missouri state employee pension fund, because of bonuses paid to investment staff for their performance while the fund was losing money. The nature of the criticism is obvious, until considered in context.

As pointed out in the article, the entire market was down during this period, and the MOSERS staff lost less than the average investor, percentage-wise. It would be difficult to independently check the numbers, but — if true — this is certainly a good reason to give bonuses. The relevant thing to consider is that it is difficult to maintain positive gains in such a losing market, and that if the folks at MOSERS hadn’t invested the way they did, the fund would have lost MORE money than it did.

Here’s a tortured analogy: Suppose that all the investment personnel are engaged in a ditch-digging contest, and the deeper their ditches, the better off they are. Every day, the ditches grow deeper. However, because of a general lack of foresight and some misguided government policies, the dirt removed from each ditch is stored right next to the ditches. One day, there’s an earthquake that fills in a large portion of everyone’s ditches, and everyone’s long, arduous work seems undone. Because of one digger’s foresight and good practice, however, the earthquake filled the MOSERS ditch with much less dirt than everyone else’s holes. That ditch is worse off than it had been before the earthquake, but thanks to the employee’s efforts, it’s not as bad as everyone else’s ditches. Should this employee be rewarded or punished?

Again, I haven’t run the numbers myself, but from what I’ve heard and read, this loss does not bode well for an already underfunded system. We needn’t blame the managers for this particular loss, but this is a good time to pay attention to Missouri’s public pension systems. Check out the Show-Me Institute’s recent study for more information.

Show-Me Institute Study Makes Reason Foundation Report

Posted on by David Stokes

The latest issue of Surface Transportation Innovations, from the folks at the Reason Foundation, has a lot of great information in it. It includes a quote from Dr. Ken Small, excerpted from the Show-Me Institute study he cowrote, “Private Provision of Highways: Economic Issues,” which was released toward the end of last year.

Please check out the study as well as the analysis by Bob Poole at Reason.

Free-Market Campaign Finance Reform

Posted on by Dave Roland

Campaign finance regulation has been a very big deal on both the state and national levels for some time. Advocates for sharp restrictions on the amount that any given person can donate to a political candidate argue that, all too frequently, contributions are used to buy influence and access to lawmakers. Opponents of campaign finance restrictions point out that people have a constitutional right to support and publicize the political candidates they prefer and the political issues that are important to them. As with so many issues, I appreciate the concerns expressed by those who favor regulation — after all, it is a very rare politician who is willing to offer the average constituent the same respect and access afforded to the largest donors — but clamping down on people’s freedoms is a poor way to address this concern.

There is a freedom-respecting solution! Even more than campaign contributions, politicians respect votes. I propose that a group of voters simply pledge to cast their ballots based on how much money the candidates raise — and the lower the amount of contributions, the better. If as few as five percent of registered voters (which in many elections could be a decisive margin) committed to voting for candidates with smaller campaign “war chests,” I’d wager that politicians would quickly respond by de-emphasizing the importance of fundraising.

What do you think?

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