Many homeowners in Jackson County had seen their reassessments increase by more than fifteen percent, so this order by the STC was no small thing. Because of the major impacts on tax revenues for various local governments, the county sued the STC to stop the order. The judge ruled the other day, and the county lost.

The county will likely appeal this ruling, but the facts are pretty clear here. The Jackson County Assessor’s Office did not adhere to the requirements of the process, and property owners were harmed by it. I don’t see any way the appeals court changes this ruling (I am not a lawyer), unless the judges decide that the harm to the taxing districts overrides the rights of the property owners.

I have been writing about the history and issues of property reassessments in Jackson County for a long time. One hundred and thirteen counties can get their reassessments done correctly, and one can’t, so the problem is more with the management in Jackson County itself than with the reassessment process overall. Better management of the Jackson County Assessor’s Office is the first needed change. Beyond that, some policy changes are needed for Jackson County, including:

• Electing the assessor (Jackson is the only county in the state with an appointed assessor); and
• Removing the tax rate rollback exemption for the Kansas City 33 School District.

Jackson County may have been underassessed overall, but that doesn’t excuse the county from complying with the reassessment process laws. If the county appeals, I hope it loses again, and quickly.

The post Jackson County Property Tax Assessment Update appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I am not a lawyer, so I am going to keep this all very simple. As one legal blog explained it:

Under the Chevron doctrine, if Congress had not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable.

This obviously puts a great deal of power into the hands of regulatory agencies. All they had to do in interpreting federal rules for regulatory purposes was not be insanely crazy, and courts would be required to defer to the agency’s judgement. These were glorious days for regulators. Unlike, say, now.

If you believe, like I do, that regulatory powers have expanded too far, then overturning Chevron was a strong move for individual liberty and is something to be celebrated.

But it is a federal case. We have our own regulatory issues in Missouri. That is why legislation has been introduced to apply these same changes to Missouri laws. As the summary of Senate Bill (SB) 221 explains:

This act modifies the standard for review for a state agency’s interpretation of statutes, rules, regulations, and other subregulatory documents. Specifically, a court or administrative hearing officer shall interpret the meaning and effect of such statutes, rules, regulations, and documents de novo, rather than de novo upon motion by a party if the action only involves the agency’s application of the law to the facts and does not involve administrative discretion. Further, after applying customary tools of interpretation, the court or officer shall exercise any remaining doubt in favor of a reasonable interpretation that limits agency power and maximizes individual liberty. [emphasis mine]

Right now, a state agency is suing a woman in St. Louis for practicing dentistry without a license. The question is whether installing tooth jewelry should require a dental license (which is, obviously, not easy to get). If Missouri’s Chevron legislation passes, the regulators in this instance would have to act more strictly under the law as written by the legislature and rely less on various interpretations of that law by the Missouri Dental Board, which, believe it or not, may be a bit biased. If this case goes to court, the judges will no longer have to just assume the dental board is correct.

I don’t know whether the person in question is practicing dentistry or not. I do know that a Missouri where the courts don’t automatically assume the regulatory agency is always correct is a freer Missouri, and that is something I want.

The post The Chevron Debate Comes to Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Both reports warn against uncritical reliance on NGOs. The Buckeye Institute’s report highlights how groups like the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and the International Code Council (ICC) provide prepackaged regulations that states often adopt with minimal changes. This might simplify rulemaking but risks surrendering control over policies meant to serve unique state interests.

Similarly, the Texas Public Policy Foundation stresses that NGOs wield significant influence due to their specialized knowledge. However, when this expertise is accepted without scrutiny, state leaders may find themselves locked into policies shaped by national or even global agendas, often misaligned with local priorities.

Transparency emerges as a key recommendation from both reports. The Buckeye Institute calls for opening up the entire regulatory process, urging state governments to publicly disclose all interactions with NGOs, including drafts, meetings, and financial agreements. This would allow taxpayers to see who’s behind the policies affecting their lives.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation also emphasizes transparency but frames it as a cautionary principle: state leaders must “exercise extra caution and deliberation” when adopting NGO-driven proposals. Their point is simple—just because NGOs offer expertise doesn’t mean their rules are the best fit for every state.

The Buckeye Institute goes further by offering specific policy solutions:

• Legislative Oversight: Every NGO-driven regulation should face legislative review before adoption.
• Public Input: Create forums for broader public participation in the rulemaking process to counterbalance NGO influence.
• Tailored Standards: States should adapt model rules to fit local contexts rather than adopting them wholesale.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation takes a broader approach, focusing more on raising awareness about the issue. The message: recognize the influence NGOs wield and remain vigilant.

Missouri’s policymakers should take these warnings seriously. Kansas City’s adoption of the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) serves as a cautionary tale​. The city’s unmodified adoption of the more costly standards stalled new home construction.

Missouri must balance benefiting from NGO expertise with preserving state sovereignty. Public transparency, legislative oversight, and tailored regulations are essential safeguards.

As the Buckeye report warns, if policymakers fail to inspect every policy offer carefully, they risk inviting a Trojan Horse into state rulemaking—complete with hidden costs and unintended consequences. In an era of growing regulatory complexity, vigilance is necessary.

The post When NGOs Make the Rules: Safeguarding State Sovereignty appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Like these other ongoing sagas, Jackson County’s assessment practices have been getting worse, though they were never great to being with. As bad as the situation was in 2019 and earlier, in 2023 it hit bottom.

The Missouri State Tax Commission (STC) has taken the unprecedented step of ordering Jackson County to essentially ditch the 2023 reassessment and move every change in assessed valuation (AV) that was over a 15 percent increase down to 15 percent. The total AV increase for Jackson County was almost 25 percent, which is enormous. Obviously, if the total increase was 25 percent, a substantial number of individual properties had to go up more than that 15 percent number. (The 15 percent level is key because that is where additional taxpayer notification laws come into play.)

This change lowers the assessed valuation for tens of thousands of properties and involves hundreds of millions in AV. According to Jackson County, the total amount of tax revenue disputed here for various local governments is $117 million. (The AV would be significantly higher than the tax revenues.)

Jackson County has been underassessed for decades. Jackson County has been attempting to correct that in recent years (under direction from the STC), and that is a good thing. More accurate assessments don’t have to lead to higher taxes, except in the Kansas City 33 school district, but’s that another issue. However, Jackson County officials seem to think that their attempts to correct prior errors somehow exempt them from following the current laws. As a county official admits in the just-filed lawsuit against the STC order :

This filing is not just about the legalities—it’s about safeguarding the resources that support our schools, public safety and community programs. [emphasis mine]

Fortunately for taxpayers, good intent does not exempt you from following the laws in reassessment. As the STC order states, the Jackson County assessors made all sorts of mistakes in 2023:

9. The Commission finds and determines that in conducting its biennial reassessment for 2023, Jackson County assessing officials failed to give proper notice to property owners and failed to perform physical inspections as required by Section 137.115 RSMo. where the assessed valuation of residential real property increased by more than fifteen percent since the last assessment, resulting in mistaken or erroneous assessments and taxes that were mistakenly or erroneously levied or paid in 2023 . . .

The STC order goes into more detail on a number of failures by the assessor’s office.

The order may well impose a major burden on taxing agencies in Jackson County that must now redo their valuations and property tax rates. But just because it’s a major burden doesn’t mean taxpayers should have to accept having their rights violated.

I hope the Jackson County lawsuit fails and the STC order is upheld. The county assessor should not be allowed to ignore the very clear rules—rules that every other county assessor had managed to follow in recent years—that protect the rights of property owners. This may be a mess in Jackson County, but it is a mess of the county’s own creation.

The post Jackson County Assessment Facts, Part Four appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For example, why do all food truck employees have to wear an ID badge with a passport-quality photo on it? Restaurant employees don’t have to do that. That regulation seems insane, and at least some members of the board of aldermen appear to agree. As a Riverfront Times (RIP) reporter described it:

Committee members were shocked. When it was time for questions, Ward 8 Alderwoman Cara Spencer began with this: “My first question is, are you — and then there’s an expletive — kidding me.”

Show-Me Institute analysts have been writing about food regulation issues for years. In fact, we may have done more videos on food trucks than any other topic. It’s a great topic for us because it perfectly encapsulates how entrenched interests (in this case, restaurants) and their allies in government have worked together to stop a popular new way of doing business.

But back to the city. I think one of the reasons why the aldermen were so surprised by the level of red tape food trucks deal with is that they didn’t intend for it to be this difficult. But when you read the current legislation, one thing jumps out at you. The current ordinance governing food trucks gives the street director, the parks director, and the license collector authority to institute further rules they deem necessary. Here is one example from the ordinance (section 5.M):

The Director of Streets shall formulate any additional rules and regulations necessary for the proper administration of this chapter. Rules and regulations shall be maintained in the office of the Director of Streets and shall be available for public inspection during ordinary business hours.

This isn’t a hypothetical issue. The question of how legislators grant authority to regulators to set law is the subject of a major supreme court case right now. President Eisenhower stated that engineers went far beyond his original intentions with the Interstate Highway System by including intra-city highways without his knowledge, as just one example of this problem.

It may sometimes be necessary for elected officials to trust regulators to set rules under wide authority. However, there is serious risk to this approach. The idea that regulators are setting these rules fairly outside of their own system of pressure, bias or favoritism is hard to believe.

I hope the city will address the overregulation of food trucks with this excellent, newly proposed bill. After, all, it’s probably time for us to make another video . . .

The post Why Exactly Do Food Truck Workers Need a Passport Photo? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state board made the right decision, but not necessarily for the right reasons. Don’t get me wrong— public feedback and buy-in, especially on issues such as this, is critical. But the board made the right decision because DESE did not have statutory authority to push these standards.

Back in September, I noted that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) was pushing the social–emotional learning standards without statutory authority. At the time, DESE claimed Section 161.1050 of the revised statutes of Missouri provided the authority. In the lead up to this week’s state board meeting, DESE has changed its tune. Instead of citing the statute for the “Trauma-informed schools initiative,” it  cited Section 161.092. This section of the statutes is labeled, “Powers and duties of state board.” Despite the change, DESE still lacks statutory authority to impose the SEL standards.

Section 161.092 essentially tells the state board what it must do. It must “adopt rules governing its own proceedings,” for example. The state board must also “make an annual report.” Nowhere in the section does it mention “standards,” “social–emotional,” or anything vaguely resembling the work that DESE has been pushing.

Once again, I have posted the full statute below for you to examine. It seems DESE is grasping at straws for authority, but coming up empty.

 161.092.  Powers and duties of state board. — The state board of education shall:

(1)  Adopt rules governing its own proceedings and formulate policies for the guidance of the commissioner of education and the department of elementary and secondary education;

(2)  Carry out the educational policies of the state relating to public schools that are provided by law and supervise instruction in the public schools;

(3)  Direct the investment of all moneys received by the state to be applied to the capital of any permanent fund established for the support of public education within the jurisdiction of the department of elementary and secondary education and see that the funds are applied to the branches of educational interest of the state that by grant, gift, devise or law they were originally intended, and if necessary institute suit for and collect the funds and return them to their legitimate channels;

(4)  Cause to be assembled information which will reflect continuously the condition and management of the public schools of the state;

(5)  Require of county clerks or treasurers, boards of education or other school officers, recorders and treasurers of cities, towns and villages, copies of all records required to be made by them and all other information in relation to the funds and condition of schools and the management thereof that is deemed necessary;

(6)  Provide blanks suitable for use by officials in reporting the information required by the board;

(7)  When conditions demand, cause the laws relating to schools to be published in a separate volume, with pertinent notes and comments, for the guidance of those charged with the execution of the laws;

(8)  Grant, without fee except as provided in section 168.021, certificates of qualification and licenses to teach in any of the public schools of the state, establish requirements therefor, formulate regulations governing the issuance thereof, and cause the certificates to be revoked for the reasons and in the manner provided in section 168.071;

(9)  Classify the public schools of the state, subject to limitations provided by law and subdivision (14) of this section, establish requirements for the schools of each class, and formulate rules governing the inspection and accreditation of schools preparatory to classification, with such requirements taking effect not less than two years from the date of adoption of the proposed rule by the state board of education, provided that this condition shall not apply to any requirement for which a time line for adoption is mandated in either federal or state law.  Such rules shall include a process to allow any district that is accredited without provision that does not meet the state board’s promulgated criteria for a classification designation of accredited with distinction to propose alternative criteria to the state board to be classified as accredited with distinction;

(10)  Make an annual report on or before the first Wednesday after the first day of January to the general assembly or, when it is not in session, to the governor for publication and transmission to the general assembly.  The report shall be for the last preceding school year, and shall include:

(a)  A statement of the number of public schools in the state, the number of pupils attending the schools, their sex, and the branches taught;

(b)  A statement of the number of teachers employed, their sex, their professional training, and their average salary;

(c)  A statement of the receipts and disbursements of public school funds of every description, their sources, and the purposes for which they were disbursed;

(d)  Suggestions for the improvement of public schools; and

(e)  Any other information relative to the educational interests of the state that the law requires or the board deems important;

(11)  Make an annual report to the general assembly and the governor concerning coordination with other agencies and departments of government that support family literacy programs and other services which influence educational attainment of children of all ages;

(12)  Require from the chief officer of each division of the department of elementary and secondary education, on or before the thirty-first day of August of each year, reports containing information the board deems important and desires for publication;

(13)  Cause fifty copies of its annual report to be reserved for the use of each division of the state department of elementary and secondary education, and ten copies for preservation in the state library;

(14)  Promulgate rules under which the board shall classify the public schools of the state; provided that the appropriate scoring guides, instruments, and procedures used in determining the accreditation status of a district shall be subject to a public meeting upon notice in a newspaper of general circulation in each of the three most populous cities in the state and also a newspaper that is a certified minority business enterprise or woman-owned business enterprise in each of the two most populous cities in the state, and notice to each district board of education, each superintendent of a school district, and to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president pro tem of the senate, and the members of the joint committee on education, at least fourteen days in advance of the meeting, which shall be conducted by the department of elementary and secondary education not less than ninety days prior to their application in accreditation, with all comments received to be reported to the state board of education;

(15)  Have other powers and duties prescribed by law.

The post In Search of Statutory Authority for Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Standards appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

You can take a look at DESE’s proposed standards yourself. For the most part, they seem to be fairly straightforward standards that many could get behind. For example, the standards say students should learn “Processing and managing one’s own thoughts and behaviors to regulate emotions in a healthy manner.” Here’s another: students are to show “Respect, kindness, and civility while treating others with dignity.”

DESE breaks the standards into three categories: “Me,” “We,” and “Others.” “Me” is about developing a healthy sense of self. “We” is about building healthy relationships. “Others” is about treating others well. If you click on the link to provide feedback, you will be asked, “What comments do you have on the ‘Me’ section of the proposed standards?” You’ll have the same opportunity to reply on the “We” and “Others” standards.

DESE is asking for reactions and suggestions to its proposed standards. But this is not the question it should be asking.

The key question anyone should ask is this: What gives DESE the authority to set SEL standards?

The May 2023 Missouri State Board of Education Agenda lists Section 161.1050 of the revised statutes of Missouri as justification for implementing SEL standards. Curiously, I cannot find a single thing in this section that would even remotely give this authority to DESE. You can read the statutes for yourself. I’ve copied them below.

The statute DESE claims gives it authority pertains to the “Trauma-informed schools initiative.” Nowhere in the statute does it say anything about SEL, nor does it mention the adoption of standards of any kind.

The statute says DESE should “provide information regarding the trauma-informed approach to all schools.” It is a big leap from providing information about trauma-informed education to setting SEL standards.

Without the proper statutory authority, it doesn’t really matter what comments anyone has on the “Me,” “We,” and “Others” standards. It does not matter because based on the authority cited DESE should not be writing the standards in the first place.

Missouri Revised Statutes

 161.1050.  Initiative established, department duties — definitions. — 1.  There is hereby established within the department of elementary and secondary education the “Trauma-Informed Schools Initiative”.

2.  The department of elementary and secondary education shall consult the department of mental health and the department of social services for assistance in fulfilling the requirements of this section.

3.  The department of elementary and secondary education shall:

(1)  Provide information regarding the trauma-informed approach to all school districts;

(2)  Offer training on the trauma-informed approach to all school districts, which shall include information on how schools can become trauma-informed schools; and

(3)  Develop a website about the trauma-informed schools initiative that includes information for schools and parents regarding the trauma-informed approach and a guide for schools on how to become trauma-informed schools.

4.  Each school district shall provide the address of the website described under subdivision (3) of subsection 3 of this section to all parents of the students in its district before October first of each school year.

5.  For purposes of this section, the following terms mean:

(1)  “Trauma-informed approach”, an approach that involves understanding and responding to the symptoms of chronic interpersonal trauma and traumatic stress across the lifespan;

(2)  “Trauma-informed school”, a school that:

(a)  Realizes the widespread impact of trauma and understands potential paths for recovery;

(b)  Recognizes the signs and symptoms of trauma in students, teachers, and staff;

(c)  Responds by fully integrating knowledge about trauma into its policies, procedures, and practices; and

(d)  Seeks to actively resist retraumatization.

The post Social-Emotional Learning Standards: Under What Authority? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In fact, checkbook transparency is an issue that multiple branches of Missouri government have consistently recognized since the rollout of the Institute’s Show-Me Checkbook projects. In 2018, the Missouri Treasurer’s office introduced the aptly named ”Show-Me Checkbook,” cataloguing state spending in a comprehensive way that, to that time, had only existed on the Show-Me Institute website. Meanwhile, the Missouri legislature introduced, and the House passed, legislation that would have required city governments in Missouri to report these checkbook records to the state for publication.

But could the Missouri Auditor’s Office get ahead of them all and deliver taxpayers a game-changing transparency win?

Strong municipal transparency laws are few and far-between around the country, but the Auditor’s Office could make the Show-Me State a leader on the issue by leveraging the office’s existing rule-making power. Section 105.145 of Missouri’s Revised Statutes states:

2. The governing body of each political subdivision in the state shall cause to be prepared an annual report of the financial transactions of the political subdivision in such summary form as the state auditor shall prescribe by rule, except that the annual report of political subdivisions whose cash receipts for the reporting period are ten thousand dollars or less shall only be required to contain the cash balance at the beginning of the reporting period, a summary of cash receipts, a summary of cash disbursements and the cash balance at the end of the reporting period. (Emphasis mine)

Put another way, the auditor has the ability to define what will be required of annual financial summary reports submitted by Missouri cities. That summary can, then, be required to include a host of financial information, including a listing of transactions undertaken by a city above a certain threshold; the public contact information of vendors with whom the city does business; revenues received and from what sources; and any other relevant information that would help the auditor do her job. The auditor’s office could then offer an alternative to filling out all of this information in the summary form she prescribes: to simply export the expenditure data from the city’s accounting software in a machine-readable format. Implementing this reform through existing reporting requirements reaffirms that there would be no additional cost to cities to transparently report their spending. With this reform, cities could go through the process of filling out the auditor’s form pursuant to the auditor’s requirements, or they could largely just submit the documents that would have gone into their financial summaries anyway. From there, publication of the checkbooks online by the auditor or other department would be a simple and inexpensive, if not costless, undertaking.

I have been impressed by the Auditor’s work on transparency issues in the past, and I think if her office pursued a project like this, it would serve as a model for transparency initiatives across the United States. Missourians deserve to know what their local governments are spending their money on, and it appears the Auditor’s Office may be able to deliver it to them.

The post Missouri Auditor’s Office Should Require Muni Checkbook Transparency appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Click on the link below to download the entire report, or click here to read it online.

The post Missouri at the Crossroads: Government Union Laws and the Path to Successful Enforcement appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Obama administration’s guidelines had come under criticism as more and more individuals accused of sexual assault came forward to argue that their due process rights were being violated.

The “Dear Colleague” letter (and subsequent communications by the Department of Education) offered several bits of problematic guidance. First, the letter directed universities to follow what is called a “single investigator” model when pursuing these claims, meaning that a university employee would, as Emily Yoffe of the Atlantic wrote, act as “detective, prosecutor, judge, and jury” for the case. There is a reason why we separate those responsibilities in our court system.

Standard rules of evidence that we would expect any court of law to follow did not have to be followed. Because of the opaque nature of these investigations, those accused did not have a right to submit evidence on their own behalf or cross-examine witnesses or experts. In fact, those accused of these crimes did not even have to be notified of the specific complaint against them. It was a recipe for disaster.

At the core of all investigations is the balance between the rights of the accused and the rights of the accusers. As both Yoffe and Robby Soave of Reason.com have documented in heartbreaking detail, current processes have failed both of these groups. Due process helps to ensure that the guilty are punished and that the innocent are not. With an issue as serious as sexual assault, it is that much more important that fair and transparent procedures are followed. Let’s hope that this period of public comment brings them back into balance.

The post Education Department to Revisit Title IX Guidelines for Sexual Assault Investigations appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We found the idea that a government body could withhold documents by simply not giving them to a custodian of records troubling at best, and so we filed a complaint with the Missouri Attorney General’s office. They got back to us last week, and thankfully found the MTC to be in the wrong. As the office put it:

“Generally information retained by the commissioners and presented at a public meeting would be considered a public record. If the information had not been previously provided to the custodian of record, we are not aware of any impediment which would have prohibited the custodian from asking the commissioners to provide them with a copy of the information presented during the meeting…”

The Attorney General’s office sent the MTC a letter explaining these facts, along with eight booklets on the sunshine law. While the response of the Attorney General’s office is to be commended, the MTC was able to effectively withhold documents from the public for months. For this circumvention of the sunshine law, the body has received only a slight remonstrance. We can only hope that the Attorney General’s office, among other state policy makers, will pay closer attention and give closer scrutiny to the MTC’s actions in future.

Note: We did not receive the document, but are no longer seeking it because the draft ordinance has been superseded. 

Read the full letter from the Attorney General by clicking on the link below.

AG_Oct14_2015.pdf

The post Taxicab Commission Inappropriately Refused Sunshine Request appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Recent decisions that the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and the State Board of Education have made raise some real questions about their ability to read the law.

First, the State Board of Education voted to remove the transfer right from any student who did not attend class in the Normandy School District in 2012-13, relegating at least 130 students who had transferred back to the struggling district. Yesterday, it was announced that DESE has instituted new regulations that impose the same restrictions on new transfers from the Riverview Gardens School District. Both of these decisions are begging for a lawsuit.

I’m thinking specifically about Carla, a parent from the Riverview Gardens School District who applied to transfer her children this year. She has lived within the district for some time, but realized that the schools were not where she wanted to send her children. Through hard work and sacrifice, she has been able to put her children in a private school. Now, she is being punished for that decision.

Carla and the hundreds of other families like her are being singled out unnecessarily and possibly in violation of the law. This is a true injustice and it should be corrected.

The post Transfer Decisions Begging For A Lawsuit? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For states, that is a huge distinction with major policy implications. Many employers under the ACA can be fined/taxed if they do not provide health insurance to individuals who qualify for the federal government’s subsidies. However, if a state does not build its own exchange, then no employee would qualify for the subsidy, and therefore employers in the state would not be subject to the tax because none of their employees would meet the criteria set out in the law.

Then there is the national implication. If the federal government cannot collect those taxes/fines from employers, then the ACA — already rife with budgetary gimmickry — becomes even less sustainable and more fiscally dangerous. If enough states choose not to create exchanges, the ACA would become basically unworkable. (Credit goes to Cannon for really hammering this point home over the last year. You can find his full study on the matter here.)

Not surprisingly, it was only recently that Washington woke up to this reality. The Internal Revenue Service has now put forward an administrative rule that would expand the subsidies and taxes to federal exchanges, despite what the law says. Of course, there are some barriers to the IRS just making up new taxes. Enter the Oklahoma suit:

Under Defendants’ Interpretation, [this rule] expand[s] the circumstances under which an Applicable Large Employer must make an Assessable Payment . . . with the result that an employer may be required to make an Assessable Payment under circumstances not provided for in any statute and explicitly ruled out by unambiguous language in the Affordable Care Act.

Plaintiff believes . . . that subjecting the State of Oklahoma in its capacity as an employer to the employer mandate would cause the Affordable Care Act to exceed Congress’s legislative authority; to violate the Tenth Amendment; to impermissibly interfere with the residual sovereignty of the State of Oklahoma; and to violate Constitutional norms relating to the relationship between the states, including the State of Oklahoma, and the Federal Government.

Earlier this year, Christie Herrera, formerly of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and I wrote an op/ed for the Southeast Missourian on the issue of state exchanges. As we made clear, Missouri has not, and should not, implement a state insurance exchange under Obamacare for a variety of reasons. One of the most important reasons out there is that by declining to create the exchange, the state could avoid a bevy of burdensome taxes on employers. Granted, there is no telling exactly how a court will rule on this and to what extent the law could be saved despite itself, but the Oklahoma challenge begins the process of determining once and for all whether the law means what it says, or means something else completely.

The post Oklahoma Challenges Health Care Tax In Federally-Run Insurance Exchanges appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

After all, the government is well-equipped to bust some proverbial knee caps of their own, and it looks like the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Labor Department are taking out the big bats. First, it was Boeing’s decision to move some of its operations from Washington state to South Carolina, which the NLRB is now trying to block. This week, it’s the Labor Department’s turn to do some damage, tightening requirements on employers to report their anti-unionization activities. And today, the National Review editorial board lays out the NLRB’s latest plan to help organized labor and make employer attempts to dissuade employees from unionizing that much more difficult.

It is truly worrisome that the small, ideological leadership of these bureaucracies can so easily, and unilaterally, craft American labor law and interfere with the movement of labor without even a contemporaneous, affirmative act of Congress compelling these fresh rule-making activities. We already know that Obamacare didn’t empower the administration to offer waivers to the law. We know that the Obama administration wants to enact gun control through administrative procedure. Is there anything federal bureaucrats can’t do? If not, isn’t that an enormous problem?

National Review‘s Kevin Williamson puts the problem this way (emphasis added):

If you are an entrepreneur thinking about starting a large industrial enterprise, or an incumbent firm thinking about building a new factory or launching a new line of production, you want to know that your tax and regulatory environment is livable — and that it is not going to change at the whim of one or two or three people in Washington, D.C. The NLRB has five seats (and four members serving; there’s a vacancy at the moment). The fact that such a tiny group of unaccountable political appointees can just wake up one fine morning, have some Pop-Tarts, and then decide to rewrite the nation’s union-election rules is terrifying. Such changes ought to require an act of Congress.

Roll out of bed, toast a pastry, pass a rule. Maybe a bat isn’t necessary after all.

The post Pop-Tartocracy appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Brenda disagreed with the charge that she had run the red light for four reasons:

1. She tries very hard not to run red lights, and to obey other traffic laws.
2. Neither she, nor any member of her family, was in Kansas City on Feb. 16.
3. The car in the video was not her car.
4. The license plate in the photo was not her plate.

Outside of those four reasons, Kansas City had a really good case. Brenda, as the head of a free-market policy organization with a history of opposing these red light cameras as a money-raising device ineffective policy, was in a unique position to enjoy this letter. For just about every other Missourian, something like this is a major pain. Even if you are wrongly accused, the prospect of losing more time and money may well mean that it’s more worthwhile to make it just go away by paying the fine than to fight it. More offensive to me than the mistaken fine, though, is the assumption of guilt implicit in having a camera decide that you are guilty and need to pay a fine. If I ever had any faith in the fact that a police officer is “supposed” to be “reviewing” these tickets, I’ve lost that faith after seeing that an officer signed off on a ticket for the wrong car with the wrong plate. Brenda admits that the plate looked similar — they confused a “V” with a “Y” — but the car wasn’t all that similar.

From Brenda’s perspective as a responsible adult, the story has a happy ending. From my perspective as a blogger, it has a terrible ending. Brenda called the customer service line of the red light camera company, and was able to discuss all of the above issues in a call that took about 20 minutes. The customer service representative — Kyle from Tempe — promised that the company would put this ticket into their review category. The Show-Me Institute is in a pretty unique situation, so we might be the only people in Missouri who would hope for the bureaucratic nightmare, so we’d have something even more interesting to write about. Sure enough, though, the evidence was so bad that they rescinded the ticket, so our nightmare did not emerge. Still, it took Brenda about 20 minutes of her time to work out the situation.

(I wonder whether Kyle’s father-in-law set him up in a starter home in suburban Tempe.)

The post Red Light Camera Tickets Strike the Show-Me Institute appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In 2010, it appeared that the Missouri Department of Economic Development (DED) could sink no further. After all, the agency had initially awarded tax credits to a Cape Girardeau businessman who pleaded guilty to passing bad checks, and has been scolded by the State Auditor’s Office for (perhaps accidentally) pulling numbers out of thin air that overstate the economic benefits of tax credit projects.

But the DED has outdone even itself. On Jan. 5, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the agency had awarded $8 million to a redevelopment project that a court judge has ruled no longer exists.

NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the company behind an enormous and ambitious project slated to occur in north Saint Louis, received the $8 million. However, the tax credits that the DED awarded must be tied, according to state statute, to a “redevelopment agreement.”

State statute specifies that such a redevelopment agreement exists only when a city has selected a developer (in this case, NorthSide), by passing an ordinance to award additional local tax incentives to the company. Unfortunately for the NorthSide company, although city alderman passed such an agreement, it was thrown out by a judge in July — so, according to the statute, NorthSide simply isn’t entitled to the money.

This does not mean that NorthSide’s development should halt. The company has put forward a great deal of money to get the project started, and if the developer believes that the project will be successful without government subsidy, the project will move forward. But the DED should not be in the business of subverting state statute.

The Post-Dispatch article includes a sadly amusing quote from DED spokesman John Fougere: “We have to abide by the statute as it stands and as it stands, there are no safeguards for taxpayers.”

Of course, what Fougere fails to mention is that one easy way of safeguarding Missouri taxpayers is not to award $8 million to a redevelopment agreement that has been thrown out by the court. Instead, the department awarded the tax credits, but with a specification that if a court were to throw out the redevelopment agreement again, the company has to give back the money.

In essence, the DED has awarded NorthSide an interest-free loan, just in case the company manages to prevail in court at some point in the future. Why on earth would the DED do this? Surely, DED employees wouldn’t ignore their statutory obligations?

A possible reason is that because NorthSide is in the process of appealing this ruling, the DED viewed the judge’s ruling as not final — it could be overturned. However, it is strange that the DED, especially in light of recent public scrutiny, would not take the more prudent course of awaiting the result of the appeal before awarding tax credits.

Not only does Missouri desperately need a thorough, critical review of tax credit programs in general, it is clear that the workings of the DED need to be examined. This agency awards hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and is neglecting its duty to safeguard taxpayer money.

Audrey Spalding is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post DED Awards $8 Million in Tax Credits to Developer Ruled Ineligible by Courts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But the DED has outdone even itself. This week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that the agency had awarded $8 million to a redevelopment project that a court judge has ruled no longer exists.

NorthSide Regeneration LLC, the company behind an enormous and ambitious project slated to occur in north Saint Louis, received the $8 million. However, the tax credits that the DED awarded must be tied, according to state statute, to a “redevelopment agreement.”

State statute specifies that such a redevelopment agreement exists only when a city has selected a developer (in this case, NorthSide), by passing an ordinance to award additional local tax incentives to the company. Unfortunately for the NorthSide company, although city alderman passed such an agreement, it was thrown out by a judge in July — so, according to the statute, NorthSide simply isn’t entitled to the money. The judge, in his ruling, stated:

FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that defendants [including NorthSide and the city of Saint Louis], their officers, agents, employees, and all persons acting in concert with them with notice of this Order and Judgment be and they are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from implementing Ordinances 68484 and 68485 [the city ordinances that authorized the redevelopment agreement] of the City of St. Louis, including but not limited to implementing any special allocation fund pursuant to said ordinances, transferring revenues to or from any fund pursuant to said ordinances, or otherwise taking action under said ordinances.

I find these lines from the Post-Dispatch to be sadly amusing:

The credits, which come on top of $20 million the developer received in 2009, were authorized under the Distressed Areas Land Assemblage program. Economic development officials said that after McKee met all the law’s requirements, they had no choice but to issue the credits.

“We have to abide by the statute as it stands and as it stands, there are no safeguards for taxpayers,” said agency spokesman John Fougere. “We thought it was very important to demand the protections we secured in this agreement.”

Of course, what Fougere fails to mention is that one easy way of safeguarding Missouri taxpayers is not to award $8 million to a redevelopment agreement that has been thrown out by the court. Instead, the department awarded the tax credits, but with a specification that if a court were to throw out the redevelopment agreement again, the company has to give back the money.

In essence, the DED has awarded NorthSide an interest-free loan, just in case the company manages to prevail in court at some point in the future. I admit that I am flabbergasted as to why the DED would do this. Surely, DED employees wouldn’t ignore their statutory obligations?

A possible reason is that because NorthSide is in the process of appealing this ruling, the DED viewed the judge’s ruling as not final — it could be overturned. However, it is strange that the DED, especially in light of recent public scrutiny, would not take the more prudent course of awaiting the result of the appeal before awarding tax credits.

Not only does Missouri desperately need a thorough, critical review of tax credit programs in general, it is clear that the workings of the DED need to be examined. This agency awards hundreds of millions of dollars each year, and is neglecting its duty to safeguard taxpayer money.

The post “Wha’eva, I Do What I Want”: The DED Goes Off the Reservation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One group that is fighting to close down Lure is the Partnership for Downtown St. Louis, headed by Maggie Campbell. According to downtown Saint Louis business owner Bob Ray in his letter to the editor printed in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Partnership for Downtown St. Louis is trying to overstep its rightful authority as a civilian group. From his letter:

The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis is seeking to participate in the approval and revocation of liquor licenses downtown.
[…]
I am shocked by the subjective nature of the Partnership’s process. The Partnership does not have an official policy detailing the criteria or evidence required to trigger the revocation process. When asked whether a nongovernmental membership organization with no public accountability should have the right to oversee the revocation and issuance of liquor licenses, Ms. Campbell said that the Partnership considers closing down a business to be its right under the First Amendment.

David Stokes has discussed in this blog the unlawfulness of revoking liquor licenses as punishment for unrelated infractions, such as customers smoking cigarettes in areas where they are banned. The Partnership for Downtown St. Louis seeks to take this a step further, by placing the power to grant or revoke a license into the hands of one group of civilians. There is already an established legal process for dealing with dangerous businesses or persons who disturb the peace. If a particular business makes it through this process with its liquor license intact, it is not the job of the Partnership for Downtown St. Louis to take that license away.

The post Who Can Revoke a Liquor License? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Some House lawmakers said the idea of “inadequate declining performance” seemed subjective and was a hard standard to interpret.

Rep. Vicki Englund, D-St. Louis County, questioned how the commission evaluates casino’s performance and asked lobbyist Jim McNichols, who testified on the commission’s behalf to explain how casinos could be expected to meet standards when they weren’t explicitly provided with standards to comply with.

McNichols said the commission works hard to involve casinos in the rulemaking process.

The Missouri Gaming Commission opposes the bill, but McNichols said he couldn’t speak to the specifics of the President Casino case because there was a pending legal matter.

This may strike some people as a crazy idea, but I think it should be up to the owners of a business to decide whether it lacks sufficient revenue to justify operating, not the decision of a government commission with no set standards by which it must abide. And, of course, if the President is forced to close, it is not only the casino’s owners, employees, and patrons that would suffer, but also gamblers at other casinos. Following the decrease in competition, casinos would be able to pay out a lower amount in winnings at the margin.

Missouri Gaming Commission Executive Director Gene McNary got right to the heart of the matter in his written testimony when he wrote that passing the bill to keep the President Casino open would “neuter the commission and, in effect, take away our ability to regulate Missouri’s gaming industry.” I doubt he shared my view that this would be a positive development, however.

The post Limiting Casino Competition appeared first on Show-Me Institute.