My own experience with Nixon’s office corroborates the reputation. Several months ago I submitted two public records requests for a contract held by an agency under the governor’s authority. I submitted one of these requests directly to the governor’s office; the other I sent to the agency bound to this contract. The agency responded promptly. In less than two weeks, a full copy of the contract appeared online, and the agency sent me a copy. The governor’s office was not so prompt. After the full contract had been publicly available for at least a month, I received a copy of the contract with blanks in place of key information, including dates and signatures.

These problems occur at the local level as well. A couple years ago, former Grundy County assessor Don Stotts refused to comply with a simple records request from David Stokes of the Show-Me Institute. While Stotts demanded over $9,000 to complete the request, dozens of other county assessors provided the same information at little or no charge. The dispute was finally resolved when the attorney general weighed in and Grundy County complied with the request.

I’ve handled plenty of open records requests, and I see two attitudes toward the Sunshine Law: one of compliance with the letter of the law and one of observance of the spirit of the law. When I send a sunshine request to some public agencies, the request is viewed as a burden. The people handling these requests seek to provide the bare minimum to avoid violating the law. They resent the scrutiny that can come from open government, and hence they follow the letter of the Sunshine Law while trying to avoid disclosing anything useful.

On the other hand, there are some public agencies that value feedback from the people they serve. When I send a request to an agency that shares this “spirit of the law” attitude to the Sunshine Law, I get a prompt and full response to my request from people who really try to be helpful. Agencies like this see open government as a public service and are happy to honor the public’s right to know how their public institutions operate.

Public officials, from the governor to employees of cities and counties, should keep in mind both the letter and the spirit of the Sunshine Law when interacting with the citizens they serve. Government provides a set of services on behalf of the community, and in a democracy, part of that service is transparency.

John Wright is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute.

The post Two Approaches to Open Government appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In all the areas of government overreach and wasteful spending, this doesn’t come close to taking the cake. Honestly, it’s an appealing prospect. I mean, look at the picture below. Who would be against this puppy getting adopted? It shouldn’t take a tax credit for someone to support adopting puppies.

But this proposed bill wants to do just that, subsidize pet adoption, and the subsidy is the bad idea.

I want dogs to be adopted. I have a soft spot for dogs, and whenever a dog dies in a movie, I turn into Niagara Falls (don’t judge me—a lot of guys cry at the movies). However, the government shouldn’t be in the business of helping people pay for pet adoption. It should be in the business of providing basic goods and services necessary for a functioning society (police, firefighters, and prisons jump immediately to mind). Pet adoption is the purview of individuals and private organizations. If the government kept its spending down to the bare essentials, taxes would be low enough so that taxpayers would have more money to spend on a variety of admirable things: adopting puppies, saving the spotted owl, and preserving the rain forest.

Missouri has issued tax credits to things that frankly don’t need them, like country clubs and movie stars. Adopting pets isn’t nearly an egregious waste of taxpayer dollars as the former two, but it still shouldn’t occur. I hope it will never get the chance.

The post A Bad Idea That Sounds So Good appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Larcenist is a strong word to call someone, but that is exactly what Missouri Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D-Dist. 14) called parents attempting to secure a good education for their children. The senator, who has otherwise been good on the transfer issue, was referring to parents who moved into the Normandy School District to take advantage of the transfer program, which allowed them to send their children to better schools outside the district. “I think it’s educational larceny for people to move into a community from another community just so they can attend another school,” Chappelle-Nadal said.

The Missouri State Board of Education seems to agree. Earlier this week, the board voted to revoke the transfer right of any individual who was not enrolled in the Normandy School District the year before the transfer law went into effect. Now, more than 130 students who benefited from transferring to higher-performing schools have had that right stripped away.

Among the list of bad decisions the state board has made recently, this is among the worst.

First, I find it highly unlikely that 130 students moved into the district with the intent purpose of taking advantage of the transfer program. Most likely, many already lived in the district, but paid to send their children to private schools or they relocated for various other reasons. This was the case for Diane McCrary and Connie Holtrop. You can read their story in this excellent piece by Elisa Crouch.

Nevertheless, let’s imagine that some families did move to the Normandy School District simply to take advantage of the transfer program. They did not violate any law. They simply made a decision to put their kids into better schools.

Now these families have had that opportunity stripped away because it was good for the district’s bottom line. If any educational larceny has occurred, it took place when the State Board of Education robbed these students of the opportunity to attend good schools.

The post Missouri State Board Of Education Robs Students Of Educational Opportunities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Patrick Gibbons, public affairs manager for Step Up for Students – Florida’s only tax credit scholarship organization – has a great critique of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s tirade against Missouri Sen. Maria Cappelle-Nadal (D-Dist. 14).

He wrote:

The newspaper editors declared Sen. Chappelle-Nadal to be “clueless on the value of public schools.” They expounded on that value by discussing the ways public schools benefit the general public, including increasing home values, greater economic development, higher incomes and more. Naturally, an educated population improves the greater public good.

But those public benefits don’t magically disappear if more kids are educated at private schools using publicly funded vouchers (or even privately funded tax-credit scholarships). The benefit ensues WHEN students are educated, NOT because of WHERE they are educated.

If privately funded vouchers improve educational options for children (and the vast majority of research says they do), then society is better for it. Society is worse off if we eliminate options for students struggling in schools simply because newspaper editors and politicians are concerned about the geography of where the education occurs.

Gibbons is absolutely correct. The goal of public education is advanced when students receive a quality education, not when public schools educate more students. This goal can be advanced by providing students with opportunities to attend quality schools, regardless of who operates the school.

Joy Pullman, of the Heartland Institute, joins Gibbons in criticizing the editorial board. To read her piece, click here.

The post Post Dispatch’s Criticism Of Sen. Chappelle-Nadal Misses the Mark appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The lawmakers were candid and provided a great discussion about school choice and a potential fix to the problems with the inter-district transfer law. The Post-Dispatch’s editorial board pulled one comment during the lawmaker’s panel discussion and its press coverage gave a scathing criticism. Unfortunately, members of the editorial board were not there in person and did not get to hear all of the comments.

Well, they can watch them now. The panel discussion as well as the other presentations are now available.

Maybe they can pull some other quotes. Here are some of my favorites:

Sen. Lamping:

Missouri has a very strong filibuster. We have 34 senators and two or three or four senators can stop just about anything. But, I’m not here to tell you that two or three senators are opposed to choice. I’m here to tell you that institutional education in Missouri is the single strongest lobby that is in the capitol, bar none.

Speaker Jones:

This [school choice] will not be the end of public education as we know it. How do we know that? Because many, many, many states have incorporated many of these things we’ve talked about and they have vibrant public education school systems and private education systems, charters. Some even have vouchers and they still have public schools. So, I think it is time to try something new and give people a choice.

Sen. Chappelle-Nadal:

There is not going to be a bill without the private option. I know that. Ray Charles would know that.

The post Video: Our School Choice Event Is Now Online appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Show-Me Institute and the Hammond Institute for Free Enterprise at Lindenwood University hosted a discussion about tax credit scholarships, explaining what they are and how they might be beneficial to Missouri. During the event, Jason Bedrick and Jonathan Butcher presented information from their recent Show-Me Institute case-studies and Paul DiPerna presented the findings of a new poll. The discussion also included a legislative panel that included Missouri Senators John Lamping and Maria Chappelle-Nadal and Missouri House Speaker Tim Jones. You can view the papers and video of the presentations via the links below.

• Bedrick case study:
• Bedrick presentation:
• Butcher case study:
• Butcher presentation:
• DiPerna presentation:

The post Expanded Opportunities: A Discussion About Tax Credit Scholarships appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When I speak about tax credit scholarships, I get a lot of questions: What is a tax credit scholarship? How would that work? What are the chances of that passing in Missouri?

If you want to find out the answer to these and other questions, join us on April 25 at Lindenwood University in St. Charles, Mo. We are partnering with the Hammond Institute for Free Enterprise at Lindenwood University to present a dynamite event, “Expanded Opportunities: A Discussion About Tax Credit Scholarships.”

Jason Bedrick, of the Cato Institute, and Jonathan Butcher, of the Goldwater Institute, will present information about how these programs are working in other states. You can download their recent case studies for the Show-Me Institute about the New Hampshire and Arizona programs directly from our website.

Attendees also will be able to take part in a panel discussion with Missouri Sen. John Lamping (R-Dist. 24), Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal (D-Dist. 14), Missouri Speaker of the House Tim Jones (R-Dist. 110), and Rep. Michael Butler (D-Dist. 79).

RSVP online, mark your calendars, tell your friends, and join us on April 25.

The post Mark Your Calendars For Our April 25 Tax Credit Scholarship Event appeared first on Show-Me Institute.