When one thinks of no-show political jobs in Missouri government, most people (at least those with a knowledge of Missouri history) would think of the infamous Pendergast political machine of Kansas City a century ago. Giving out jobs to political supporters who rarely, if ever, were required to actually show up to work was a staple strategy of that machine (and many others). Over the past decade though, there has been another job reminiscent of the well-paid, no-show jobs of political yore: the St. Louis County Auditor.

In June, the St. Louis County Council fired the county auditor, Ms. Toni Jackson, for lack of work output after her office completed only two audits in her more than three years in the position. (The county auditor is one of the only jobs in county government that reports to the council instead of the county executive.) Jackson had been hired in 2021 after the council had fired the previous auditor, Mr. Mark Tucker, also for lack of audit output. How little work have the last two auditors been doing? A quick perusal of the St. Louis County Auditor’s Office website shows that the office has released just 13 reports since 2018. Many of these reports do not qualify as “audits.” For example, three of the 13 reports were short 2018 memos about pet adoptions.

By comparison, the St. Charles County Auditor’s Office released 13 audits in 2024 alone, many of them substantial. If you are keeping score, that is 13 audits in one year in St. Charles County, and 13 reports (including a few actual audits) over eight years in St. Louis County. As frustrating as the lack of production in St. Louis County has been, one almost has to admire the audacity of it all. In Tucker’s case, he also wasn’t properly qualified for the job, so some of the blame for hiring him was on the council. In Jackson’s case, she was well-qualified, at least on paper, so the fact that she didn’t do the work is all the more frustrating.

It’s not like St. Louis County government is so clean that it has no need for auditors. I know of at least two cases of county employees embezzling large amounts of money in the past two decades. A qualified (and courageous) auditor could have raised questions about the activities of former St. Louis County executive Steve Stenger, who went to prison for various nefarious activities right when the prior auditor was busily engaged in doing nothing. A state audit of Stenger’s criminal actions as county executive identified Tucker’s lack of qualifications and actions as one of the reasons Stenger got away with his activities for as long as he did. Stenger, a CPA himself, was well aware of Tucker’s poor record as auditor. The former county executive routinely criticized the council for hiring Tucker while quietly benefitting from Tucker’s inability (or desire) to track any of Stenger’s illicit actions.

There is a pressing need for quality audits in local government. In a review of New York State comptroller audits of New York municipalities between 2003 and 2009, 234 out of the 259 audits included reports of deficiencies and recommendations for improvements in internal controls. Twenty-five percent of those cities with internal control problems had funds missing or unaccounted for (though outright fraud or theft was likely not the reason in every one of those instances). Within St. Louis County, two unsupervised clerks were charged in 2023 with stealing $650,000 from the village of Flordell Hills.

One of the recent St. Charles County audits identified several county-operated phone lines that the county was improperly paying phone taxes on. (As a government agency, it is supposed to be exempt from those taxes.) The audit identified the oversight and the matter was corrected. Have the last two St. Louis County auditors saved taxpayers money with insightful analysis and helpful digging? Since it is impossible to identify problems by audits when you don’t do any real audits, we all know the answer to that question is “no”.

Unreliable auditors have compromised the effectiveness of St. Louis County government in recent years. While outside auditors have reviewed the county’s annual financial statements for accuracy, the lack of a proactive internal auditor has deprived county residents and taxpayers of the watchdog they need and deserve.

Tom Pendergast may have mastered the use of the no-show political patronage job, but it was auditors who helped end his reign and send him to prison for tax evasion. Government auditors aren’t going to detect waste, fraud, or errors with taxpayer dollars if they don’t show up to do the job in the first place. Hopefully, that simple requirement will be understood by whomever the council hires next.

The post In St. Louis County, Who Will Audit the Auditors? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It’s an obscure state law that every article about government and politics in Kansas City has to include a quote from Harry Truman. As I follow the controversy over the reassessment process in Jackson County, I flash back to my own time working for St. Louis County government during the 2001 “drive-by assessment” scandal. That, in turn, reminds me of this quote from our 33rd President: “The only thing new in the world is the history you do not know.”

In the Spring of 2001, the St. Louis County Assessor had a problem. An enormous number of homes were coming back with a reassessment appraisal increase greater than 17 percent, meaning that a physical (in-person) inspection would be required. The problem was that the assessor had neither the time, the staff, nor (apparently) the desire to schedule in-person inspections of tens of thousands of properties. The solution? Quietly redefine what “physical inspection” meant. The assessor’s office plotted tens of thousands of properties with large valuation increases on maps (probably using Mapquest; Google maps hadn’t been designed yet) and sent assessors off driving around the county. Driving past a house and looking at it was considered a physical inspection. Problem solved, right?

Wrong. Assessments ballooned throughout the county. Taxpayers were livid. They called their council members screaming. A few of them, including my soon-to-be boss, started to investigate. They asked for the filed inspection reports. Once it became clear that individual assessors had somehow been doing several hundred “physical inspections” per day, the scheme was exposed and the scandal exploded.

Huge valuation increases. A poorly managed assessor’s office. Angry taxpayers. Politicians trading blame. Does this sound familiar to residents of Jackson County?

If you look at the property valuations in Jackson County from a decade ago and compare them to valuations in St. Louis, it is hard to dispute that Jackson County property, overall, was underassessed. That is the only partial defense I’ll give to the Jackson County executive and assessor. But for multiple cycles now, especially in 2019 and 2023, the assessor’s office has done a shockingly poor job of managing the reassessment and adhering to the rules of the process. Nobody likes seeing their valuations go up at tax time, but 113 other counties in Missouri seem to be able to reassess property without the process failures that have plagued Jackson County. Taxpayers in Jackson County have every right to be angry.

Taxpayers in St. Louis were angry in 2001, too. Almost immediately, the assessor and revenue director were fired. While it took a few more years, that demand for reforms to the reassessment process led to real change locally and statewide. The law was clarified to define a physical inspection as just that, and the trigger point for an inspection (with homeowner consent, of course) was reduced to the present 15 percent increase in value. Requirements for tax-rate rollbacks by governments were enhanced. Eventually, the St. Louis County charter was changed to make the assessor an elected position. While the present process is far from perfect in the rest of Missouri, the changes that emerged from that 2001 scandal have benefited the entire state.

Which brings us back to Jackson County. Voters and taxpayers need to demand reform. There is already an effort to change the law to elect the assessor, which seems like an obvious improvement. Another change that is needed is to end the tax-rate rollback exemption for the Kansas City School District. Despite its substantial increase in assessed values in 2023 (which is still being contested in court), the district voted once again to keep its tax rate the same. Every other taxing body in Missouri has to roll its tax rate back to at least partially offset assessment increases, but the Kansas City School District gets to enjoy its windfall on the backs of taxpayers. Finally, Jackson County could consider using variable property tax rates, as St. Louis County does, to allow for greater ability to adjust rates by property type in response to future changes.

Other changes would be easier and don’t require amending the law. Why the Jackson County assessor still has her job after all this mismanagement is a mystery to me.

The 2001 reassessment disaster in St. Louis led to improvements to the overall process that are still in place today, at least everywhere but in Jackson County. Hopefully, the ongoing controversy over the 2023 reassessments in Jackson County can lead to similar, lasting reforms. Jackson County taxpayers deserve nothing less.

The post Jackson County Assessment Disputes Will (Hopefully) Lead to Real Change This Time appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

While the governor’s announcement didn’t precisely outline what he had in mind for Show-Me DOGE (department of government efficiency) or the timeline for implementing it, there’s reason to believe such an endeavor would be worthwhile for Missouri. Given the numerous examples of waste found by the federal DOGE effort thus far, and the fact that Missouri’s budget has nearly doubled in the past five years, it’s likely that a closer look at our state finances would be able to uncover significant savings.

Last month, my colleague Aaron Hedlund and I published a guide for establishing a Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE). Our guide explained Missouri’s recent runaway spending growth, discussed the benefits of the executive branch leading the charge of finding inefficiencies and cost savings, and outlined key principles that would increase the likelihood of success for any DOGE-type effort.

The ideas from our guide were informed by the work of then-California Governor Ronald Reagan back in 1967 that used private funding and non-government experts to provide an unbiased outside perspective on California’s government. All told, Reagan’s effort was able to find more than 2,000 areas for reform in short order, and if all were implemented, would have saved taxpayers more than $500 million, which adjusted for inflation would amount to about $4.2 billion today. Unfortunately, only about half of Reagan’s recommendations were ultimately implemented.

Reagan’s experience makes it clear that buy-in from both the legislative and executive branches of Missouri’s government will be necessary for success. The good news is that both chambers of Missouri’s general assembly have already established their own committees on government efficiency and have begun working diligently.

It’s long past time for a serious effort in Jefferson City to rein in the state government’s excess, and it’s great news that so many of our elected officials have stated their interest in taking up the task. Missouri’s general assembly has already started its work. Now it’s the governor’s turn to follow suit and seize the opportunity to rightsize our state’s government.

The post Where’s Show-Me DOGE? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The report highlights the success of reforms in states like Florida and Texas, which reduced government headcount without sacrificing services. Key recommendations include hiring freezes, targeted evaluations, and using technology to eliminate redundant processes. “Automation has allowed states to do more with less, improving services while reducing the need for additional staff,” the report notes—insights Missouri could apply to areas like its Medicaid program.

Unlike across-the-board cuts, targeted workforce evaluations allow states to focus on performance and eliminate inefficiencies. The report stresses: “By focusing on core services and shedding nonessential roles, states can strengthen public trust and improve outcomes.”

For Missouri, adopting these strategies could mean smarter spending, better services, and a government that prioritizes taxpayers over bureaucracy. This isn’t just about cutting jobs—it’s about focusing resources where they matter most.

Along with the Institute’s Missouri’s Free-Market Policy Guide and the 2025 Blueprint, the FGA’s report is a must-read for policymakers who want to ensure Missouri’s government is smarter, not just bigger.

The post Pruning Missouri’s Bureaucracy: Lessons from FGA’s Report appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I live in the Central West End neighborhood of the city, and my street (to the best of my knowledge) was never plowed. For the better part of two weeks, I was not able to move my car. As of this writing, the trash in the dumpster in my alley has not been picked up since before the storm—a storm that began on January 5.

For one thing, the inability to clear the roads created much more serious problems. Some people have had to rely on friends or family just to get groceries. Mail delivery in the city has essentially ground to a halt. Most pressingly, impassable streets create difficult scenarios for emergency services. There are stories of people who need medical help and live on streets that ambulances can’t currently reach.

It is fair to point out that this was a big storm, and probably an unusually difficult storm to deal with. Freezing rain falling right before a lot of snow is a headache. But this was also not some once-in-a-century storm. We had about 10 inches of snow and some ice—Midwest cities ought to be prepared to deal with storms like that occasionally.

A KSDK story noted that $600,000 was cut from the city streets department for snow removal, but city officials have explained that this money was mostly for salt, and that the city already had stockpiles of extra salt because of recent mild winters.

This isn’t a story about resources. It’s a story about incompetence.

Predictably, we’re beginning to see finger-pointing and recriminations. The mayor blamed residents for leaving parked cars in the path of snow plows. The director of the streets department claimed she was getting “incorrect information” regarding the situation. Leaving aside the morality of throwing your staff under the bus, this claim does not pass the smell test. Figuring out street conditions is not a difficult feat of intelligence gathering—this is not like trying to gain information about a nuclear program in a rogue nation. If you step outside pretty much anywhere in the city, it’s apparent. Or you could check any of the hundreds (maybe thousands?) of posts on social media detailing the situation.

The city seems to be conceding that it screwed up, and that something needs to change. Officials have signaled that the longstanding policy of not plowing side streets might be changing. The city also resorted to hiring outside contractors to help clear the ice.

This is a great example of the wisdom in my colleague Patrick Tuohey’s pleas that Missouri cities focus on providing basic services. Instead of addressing crime or maintaining infrastructure, the City of St. Louis seems eternally fixated on shiny objects like economic development subsidies that don’t work or expanding train service that very few people use. People don’t want to live in a place that can’t provide an adequate level of essential services—and residents are voting with their feet. How long is it going to take city leaders to figure this out?

The post The Gang that Couldn’t Plow Straight appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a city or county manager system, the manager is employed by elected officials to run the day-to-day operations in a (hopefully) non-partisan and less politicized manner. Many municipalities use city managers or city administrators (a very similar system where the professional manager has slightly less power) in Missouri, including Kansas City and Springfield. Clay County is the only county that uses a county-manager system; it just instituted the system in 2021. The system works well, in my opinion, for small to mid-sized cities. I am less sold on this system for larger cities and, especially, counties.

Overall, the academic evidence suggests that adopting professional management would reduce corruption, improve financial reporting, lead to more broadly focused legislation (and fewer narrowly targeted measures), reduce political conflict, and increase innovative policy thinking (in ways both good and bad). These changes would be generally beneficial for the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County, though the idea that politicians would now have more time for “innovative” thinking terrifies me. Usually, that “innovation” means harmful policies involving subsidies and mandates.

On the other hand, there is not enough evidence to state that professional management would significantly affect taxes and spending, government employee pay levels, or the quality of local services, despite what proponents of city manager systems claim.

The last claim regarding the quality of local services is key. Would the adoption of a city or county manager improve the quality of basic governmental services? (For example, would the snow get cleared off the roads faster under a city manager?) The presumption of better service quality with professional management is common, and it may be correct in some cases. But the evidence is not as clear as its supporters would suggest. Professional management might well perform better than management by elected officials. But as one academic stated, “For decades, analysts have presumed this performance gap exists, but they have yet to empirically demonstrate that any differences actually exist.”

Interestingly, the one proven downside of professional management is lower voter turnout for local elections. It seems that when you depoliticize local government (which is not a bad thing), people understandably depoliticize their own involvement with local government.

I remain unconvinced that professional management is the cure for the governmental problems in the City of St. Louis or St. Louis County. Adding another layer of bureaucracy is rarely the right solution.

The post Is Professional, Non-Partisan Management the Solution for St. Louis Government? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If Missouri’s elected officials are serious about addressing our state government’s unsustainable growth, they should look at past efforts undertaken across the country to see what might work. Perhaps the most successful state-based cost-cutting initiative in history was then–California Governor Ronald Reagan’s 1967 executive order creating the “Governor’s Survey on Efficiency and Cost Control”. (The text of that order is available here.)

Reagan’s blueprint outlined some some key principles that any Missouri initiative should consider:

Governor Created

• The Governor is the elected official best situated to coordinate an effort that examines all parts of Missouri government and to start implementing solutions. He can ensure that all executive branch officials cooperate in providing information and executing reforms.

Goal-Oriented

• To help ensure success, the initiative needs to start with a clear mission, a top-level objective, stretch goals, and a commitment from everyone involved (inside and outside government) to reach those goals.
• Much of the data needed to inform decisions will not be immediately available. Rooting out inefficiency will require targeted requests or establishing new metrics to get the information necessary to achieve the initiative’s goals.

Led by Non-Government Experts

• Reagan understood that getting a handle on government growth required innovation, creativity, and outside-the-box thinking that could only come from those outside of government. A Missouri initiative should seek insights from business executives, nonprofit experts, former government officials, and financial consultants with prior public-sector knowledge or experience successfully turning around companies.

Privately Funded

• Efforts to find cost savings in government shouldn’t be dependent on government funding for functioning. Reagan’s efficiency initiatives at both the state and federal level were entirely funded by private sources.

Pre-Specified Timelines

• Time is of the essence for Missouri when it comes to cutting costs. Ensuring the work is completed in a thorough and expedient fashion will require deadlines, perhaps with the option to extend them based upon meeting preapproved metrics.

Commitment to Implementing Solutions

• One of the biggest hindrances to Reagan’s cost-cutting efforts was a lack of legislative commitment to implementing the survey’s recommendations. In fact, only about one third of the recommended cost savings could be realized without any legislation being passed. Going into the efficiency exercise with a commitment from legislative leaders will be key for the initiative’s lasting success.

All told, Reagan’s citizen-led commission of more than 200 private-sector leaders was able to recommend, in short order, more than 2,000 reforms to improve California’s government operations and significantly cut costs. These recommendations included long-term savings estimates for California taxpayers of more than $500 million, which if adjusted for inflation would amount to about $4.2 billion today.

A similar result for Missouri today would be a much needed step in the right direction. It’s long past time for a serious effort in Jefferson City to rein in the state government’s excess, and taking a page out of Reagan’s book by turning to the private sector for meaningful solutions might be the most promising path forward for achieving long-term success.

Following the Reagan and DOGE frameworks, here are some specific examples of what a Missouri initiative could look like:

Creation

• Establish by executive order a Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE)

Objective

• Mission: The Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE) would conduct a comprehensive review of Missouri’s government. This review would include all services, programs, spending, regulations, and administrative practices. The goal would be to determine how Missouri’s government can be improved, as Governor Reagan specified in his original executive order, to be “the most efficient, expeditious, and economical” in the country.
• Pre-Specified Timelines: This review, along with actionable recommendations, should be completed by no later than December 31, 2025.
• Insights from Business (performance metrics): Given that Missouri’s budget is approximately twice its pre-COVID size, federal COVID relief for states is ending, and state tax revenues are down, a reasonable goal would be to return Missouri to its fiscal year 2019 cost trajectory unless a cost–benefit analysis by MOGE clearly justifies an alternative savings target. In dollar terms, this would amount to an approximate inflation-adjusted reduction of $2 billion in general funds.

Organizational Structure

• Led by Nongovernment Experts: The governor could appoint two highly respected leaders from outside of government who have a proven track record of delivering transformational change to large organizations to lead MOGE. In addition, to help ensure the initiative’s success, MOGE leadership should be allowed to select any additional staff or members they deem necessary to conduct the review.
• Privately Funded: The Governor or his allies could fundraise, as Reagan did, to fund MOGE. Ensuring that all funds used to conduct the work of MOGE come from private rather than public sources removes any undue leverage that government could have over MOGE and its policy recommendations.

Commitment to Implementation

• Agency Cooperation: The Governor could order all government agencies to give full and timely cooperation to any MOGE requests for access to data or other information that MOGE deems necessary to conduct its work, except for any instances expressly prohibited by law.
• Citizen Participation: MOGE leadership should commit to publishing intermediate findings and recommendations, formally submitting progress reports to Missouri’s General Assembly, and creating a website or holding public hearings to solicit input from members of the public who in many cases have pertinent first-hand knowledge of government inefficiencies and needed services that MOGE’s internal audit of agencies may not fully uncover.
• Legislation: Fostering input and cooperation from Missouri’s General Assembly will be essential to achieving MOGE’s specified goals. To that end, the Governor should seek a commitment from legislative leaders both to cooperate with the MOGE efforts and to advance the legislative initiatives recommended to reduce the cost and increase the productivity of state government.
• Transparency: MOGE leadership should make all final recommendations public with supporting analysis and make its leadership available for public hearings and information sessions to explain its findings and methodology.
• Accountability: After MOGE issues its recommendations, the executive branch should be required to respond to every agency recommendation by either implementing it in full or detailing why it is not doing so.

The post Establishing a Missouri Office of Government Efficiency (MOGE) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Back in 2022, in response to the seemingly endless parade of scandals and mismanagement coming from City Hall downtown and the county offices in Clayton, several city managers in the area circulated an op-ed arguing that both the City of St. Louis city and St. Louis County should adopt a city/county manager system of government. Are they correct? Would the City of St. Louis benefit from professional, nonpartisan city management? (We will save the county discussion for later.)

As part of my new paper on municipal government in Missouri, just released by the Show-Me Institute, I reviewed the research and evidence on the use of city managers in local government. It is certainly an idea worth considering. Four of the five largest cities in Missouri use a city manager system, as do nearly all the larger suburbs in St. Louis County (if you count the closely related city administrator form).

The authors advocating for adoption of professional management argued that the change would, among other things, reduce corruption and improve the quality of public services.  Based on the research I reviewed, the first point is likely; the second is possible but by no means certain.

Overall, the academic evidence suggests that adopting a city manager would reduce corruption, improve financial reporting, lead to more broadly focused legislation (and fewer narrowly targeted measures), reduce political conflict, and increase innovative policy thinking (in ways good and bad). St. Louis may not reap all of these benefits, but it should get some of them, especially reduced corruption.

On the other hand, there is not enough evidence to state that professional management would significantly affect taxes and spending, city employee pay levels, or the quality of city services.

The last claim by proponents of a city manager is key. Would the adoption of a city manager improve the quality of basic governmental services? (For example, would the potholes get filled faster under a city manager?) The presumption of better service quality with professional management is common, and it may be correct. But the evidence is not as clear as its supporters would suggest. Professional management might well perform better than management by elected officials. But as one academic stated, “For decades, analysts have presumed this performance gap exists, but they have yet to empirically demonstrate that any differences actually exist.”

Discussing change in St. Louis without considering the crime problem would be an enormous omission. The prevailing assumption is that police are more insulated from public pressure (for better or worse) in cities with a city manager. But even assuming that this presumption is true, does it lead to higher or lower crime rates? Another economist researched that question and found that there was no evidence that the presence (or absence) of professional management has any effect on municipal crime rates.

Professional city management may be what St. Louis needs, and it deserves careful consideration, but it is unlikely to provide dramatic or easy solutions to the city’s many problems.

The post Does St. Louis Need a City Manager? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are a few key features in this first phase:

• Adults 21–49 will be able to renew their licenses online every other renewal period.
• If you lose your driver’s license, you can go online and get a new one every other time.
• No need for new drivers to bring a physical copy of a Missouri State Highway Patrol driver test to the DMV.
• New computers, scanners, and customer tablets will be added.
• 175 new workstations at 275 license offices will help reduce wait times.
• 10% of administrative fees will continue to fund technology upgrades until a “modernized, integrated system for vehicle titling and registration, liens on vehicles (dealing with loaned vehicles), driver’s licenses, and identification cards” is established.

The second phase, which is slated for July 2026, will focus on reform in the taxing and titling process. After these two phases, only one percent of administrative fees will be remitted to maintain the new system. This funding mechanism has similarities to a user fee, which is a good approach to funding services. However, it is not a true user fee, as it is possible to buy a vehicle without directly benefiting from the new DMV services.

In the first days of the system, there were long delays with an influx of customers and workers getting acquainted with the new system. This is not a great sign, and we should continue to monitor the situation to see if wait times improve.

As of now, the price tag for this new system is $63 million, but the entire system upgrade (both phase 1 and phase 2) as a whole could cost more than $100 million. In Nevada, similar upgrades were slated to cost around $125 million, but may balloon to potentially over $400 million. Hopefully, prices will not skyrocket and the new system will provide an efficient system for Missourians. In the meantime, Missourians should keep an eye on this process to ensure that our government makes wise use of our tax dollars and keeps a tight rein on the project to avoid wasteful spending.

The post Missouri’s (Hopefully Successful) DMV Makeover appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In David Stokes’ latest report, A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities, the first in a series, he outlines how adopting free-market policies can positively transform municipalities across the state. The report discusses specific ways to encourage competition, streamline bureaucracy, and empower residents to choose services that best meet their needs.

This first installment focuses on the structure and organization of municipal governments, with subsequent guides planned to address taxation, transportation, public safety, and more.

Click here to download the full report.

The post A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities: Part One: Municipal Organization and Structure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

CIDs, TDDs, and other districts undoubtedly need better public oversight. There also needs to simply be fewer of them, oversight or not. Hopefully the second part will be as important as the first part for the committee. An audit of CIDs by the Kansas City auditor in 2021 detailed the many issues with them in Kansas City, and a similar report from this committee would be beneficial.

I will be at this first committee meeting to enter into the record the  2019 report on special taxing districts published by the Show-Me Institute. It is great that the city has formed this committee, and hopefully both better oversight and reduced usage of special taxing districts will be the result.

(As a child of the 80’s, the hardest part of writing this blog post about a special committee studying special taxing districts was avoiding making a bunch of church lady references.)

The post High Hopes for a New Committee at the St. Louis Board of Aldermen appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I am confident that the media will get that information, and I am as interested as anyone to learn more. But let’s be honest here–what we already know about the program makes it clear that this “grant” program smells like a racket. Let’s look at what this program is giving away as part of this $32 million “grant” program.

A former state representative is getting $1.5 million to expand her consulting company to create more affordable housing and grow the economy by two—that’s right, two—new jobs.

A former mayor is getting two grants for a total of $125,000 to expand and improve the bar he owns in the city.

Sweetie Pie’s restaurant is getting $1.5 million to expand operations, despite some recent problems with management and operations at the restaurant.

Non-profits are included too, and perhaps that is more understandable, but one non-profit that was only created after the program was announced last year is in line for over $700,000. Surprisingly, the director of that non-profit is connected to a politically influential family. I know, you’re shocked . . .

The list goes on. When the program was announced, officials claimed it was a way to invest in North St. Louis. But it isn’t investing in infrastructure or things that can benefit the public. The program simply seems to be a way to give away tax dollars to North Side businesses. That’s it. There is no way this should be legal.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Consider the comments of one business owner who, admittedly, did not receive funding:

“The whole process has just been problematic from day one,” said Tameka Stigers, who applied unsuccessfully for a grant to expand her hair salon, Locs of Glory, on Delmar Boulevard and has been rallying other disgruntled business owners to lobby SLDC for reconsideration. “It’s a genuine money grab from the city to give the money to their friends.” [emphasis added]

I couldn’t have said it better myself. We will have more to come on this issue, I assure you.

The post The North Side “Grant” Program is a Racket appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This stonewalling is troubling. Transparency is fundamental to good governance. As residents, we deserve to know where and how our tax dollars are spent, particularly when public funds benefit the relatives of city officials. The city’s response—offering vague explanations while withholding records—only deepens the suspicion that something is being hidden.

It’s not enough to claim there are checks and balances in place. History shows that, without public oversight, those checks can be woefully inadequate. City leaders should be proactive in clearing up any appearance of impropriety. If the grants are above board, there should be no issue with releasing detailed information.

This issue echoes the broader problem of cronyism in public spending. Whether it’s sweetheart deals to developers or insider grant allocations, we’ve seen too many instances of public resources being funneled to those with the right connections. These practices erode trust and damage the city’s credibility.

Public officials must recognize that transparency is not optional—it’s a duty.

The post STL Should Come Clean About Leadership Conflicts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In this episode, Susan Pendergrass speaks with Stephane Lavertu, Professor at the John Glenn College of Public Affairs at Ohio State University and Senior Research Fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, about the so-called “fiscal cliff” in public education funding. They discuss the idea that returning to pre-pandemic funding levels constitutes a crisis, the implications of declining student enrollment, whether maintaining or increasing current funding levels is truly necessary, and more.

Stéphane Lavertu’s teaching and research focus on public administration, political economy, public policy analysis and evaluation, and education policy and governance.

He has a doctorate in political science from the University of Wisconsin, a master’s degree in education from Stanford University, and a bachelor’s degree in political science from The Ohio State University.

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Climbing Down the “Fiscal Cliff” with Stéphane Lavertu appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I discussed this issue in depth in op-eds in the Southeast Missourian and the Perry County Republic-Monitor. The county commissioners in Perry County approved a merger with St. Francois County. Opponents were able to propose the alternative option—a new tax and local control. I find the arguments against the merger to be perplexing. The arguments against the merger (and, yes, I have spoken to people in the county about it) tend to be about losing local knowledge in the current system and losing the county jobs.

You can imagine how I feel about the latter point. Government is not a jobs program. Resisting change in order to keep people on the public payroll is absurd. As this article makes clear, some of people leading the opposition to the merger work for Perry County 911. They are opposed to this merger and in favor of higher taxes specifically to save their own jobs. That may be understandable from their point of view, but only from their personal point of view. While they might be offered a position with St. Francois, nothing is guaranteed in life except death and taxes (appropriately enough). Rejecting a change just to preserve certain people on the public payroll is a terrible argument.

The local knowledge argument is also strange. Believe it or not, advanced GPS systems are better at emergency location and coordination than someone’s “local” knowledge. Can you only hire people in the future who can demonstrate they have lived in Perry County their entire lives and have sufficient “local” knowledge?

911 system merging is a great opportunity to use advanced technology to improve public services and lower costs throughout Missouri. There are many examples of such mergers around the state. I hope they take advantage of it in Perry County.

The post We Have Met the Neighboring 911 System, and They Could Be Ours, Too (via a Merger) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One would guess that the state board of education would spend the time between the commissioner’s retirement announcement and her June departure looking for a strong leader—ideally one with management skills honed in a similar-sized organization. This leader could bring a fresh perspective and take a hard look at what is going wrong and what is going right in Missouri public education. Perhaps this person would even question the board’s meaningless accreditation this week of all 523 school districts in the state, with the exception of six—even those with fewer than 1 in 10 students able to do grade-level reading or math. Finding this leader should entail a thorough search for and vetting of candidates.

Did the board do that? It did not. Without any public discussion that is readily available on the internet, it seemingly tapped a new commissioner with little to no search in behind-closed-doors meetings. The new commissioner is a former DESE assistant commissioner and a current state Senator. She served as superintendent of two rural districts in Missouri. Regardless of flaws in the search process, she deserves a chance to demonstrate if she can be the leader we need, or not.

The Missouri Board of Education had an opportunity to build public support for its commissioner choice. The board had an opportunity to signal that it would at least consider a potential change agent or someone from outside of the Missouri public education establishment. It could have avoided the questions regarding whether a sitting state Senator should vote on bills or budgets that impact her future role as leader of a department in the executive branch. Time, due diligence, and transparency could have worked in the board’s favor. Why were those elements ignored?

The post Well, that Was Fast appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Having both Jackson County and Kansas City build their own new local jail is ludicrous. The Jackson County jail is going to cost $301 million (at least). There was discussion of sharing facilities and some resources (such as food service) but now Kansas City is moving ahead with its own facility at a to-be-determined cost.

In the “up-is-down” government universe, the county’s jail contractor told the city council that:

J.E. Dunn, the construction company working on the new county jail, told city council last week that a shared jail would cost more in the long run, because the city would have to pay for services like food and laundry.

Will Kansas City not have to pay for food or laundry at the new facility they are going to build by themselves? Because I don’t think that is going to be a very appetizing or ambrosial jail without food or laundry.

Local governments sharing jails can absolutely work to save tax money and still provide the necessary safety and justice functions jails are there for. Regional jails are common in Virginia, and the U.S. Justice Department released a very favorable report on this practice a while back.

I don’t know who or what to blame here. Contractors running amok and running the show? Political disputes between the two bodies? Quietly disruptive employees who actively oppose service sharing and cost savings because they reduce the number of government jobs? One local elected official is putting the blame squarely on the latter, and I commend him for his blunt comments:

Jackson County Legislator Manny Abarca IV said it’s ridiculous the city and county couldn’t work out an agreement. “It’s a waste of taxpayer dollars to build two facilities that are naturally gonna have similar shared services that we could’ve combined,” he said. “As a taxpayer I’m very upset that this is the outcome.”

Abarca said it seemed like city and county staffers stalled on the project, “long enough to make this impossible to move forward.”

I am delighted that both Kansas City and Jackson County have all of this extra tax money to throw around. Now I don’t have to take the city seriously when it says it can’t afford to operate without an earnings tax.

The post Kansas City and Jackson County Do Two Things Twice appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Over the past few months, I’ve talked a lot about Missouri resuming its Medicaid eligibility redetermination process. In short, during a three-year pause on eligibility checks, Missouri experienced enormous Medicaid enrollment and cost growth. Today, more than 20% of all enrollees are likely ineligible for the program, either because they make too much money, have coverage from their employer, or have moved out of state. This means that Missouri is wasting upwards of $120 million each month footing the bill for health coverage for people who aren’t qualified to receive it.

Missouri’s Medicaid agency is now two months into processing redeterminations and enrollment has finally started dropping, albeit slowly. Recent reports from both national and local news outlets are attributing the enrollment decline to “paperwork issues.” In my opinion, this characterization is incredibly misleading.

States classify anyone who fails to respond to a renewal application as being removed from the program for “procedure reasons.” This is being referred to as “paperwork issues” by some. This is in contrast to the other classification of individuals removed from the program—those who were “determined ineligible.” The problem is that if the state never hears back from an enrollee after repeated attempts to confirm their eligibility, they can only be removed from the program for “procedure reasons” because there wasn’t enough information to determine their eligibility one way or another. Calling all failures to respond to the state Medicaid eligibility checks “paperwork issues” misses a key point.

Someone who knows they no longer qualify for coverage is incredibly unlikely to go through the effort of filling out and returning the Medicaid renewal application. For years, individuals on essentially every welfare program (including Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [food stamps], and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) have been required to inform the state when something changes that would make them ineligible for services, but they rarely do. Recently, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that more than 5 million Medicaid enrollees nationally are currently enrolled in private health coverage, meaning states are losing billions providing coverage to individuals for whom it’s completely unnecessary.

Most Medicaid rules are biased toward recipients maintaining continuous coverage, which may sometimes be a good thing, but for many people, Medicaid is a resource they only need temporarily. No one is saying that eligible Medicaid enrollees should be removed from the program, but even if that does happen, they’re still effectively covered because the federal government will cover up to three prior months of health costs once they’re determined to be eligible again.

Removing Medicaid recipients who don’t provide evidence of eligibility is a necessary act of fiscal prudence—an act of prudence that, prior to three years ago, was standard, federally mandated operating procedure.

There’s no getting around the fact that more state tax dollars being spent on ineligible Medicaid enrollees means less money for other state spending priorities, such as education and infrastructure. If Missouri’s elected officials ever want a chance at reining in Medicaid’s runaway spending, scrutinizing the program’s rolls must remain part of the equation, and occasional drops in enrollment must be normalized as simply par for the course.

The post Problems with Paperwork appeared first on Show-Me Institute.