The Missouri Division of Professional Registration has provided a list of statutes and regulations that it is requesting to be waived due to the COVID-19 crisis. This twelve-page document contains requests from 17 different professional registration boards. The requests are all related to occupational licensing and require the governor’s approval.

Many requests have already been approved. Several licensed occupations, including optometrists and nursing home administrators, are now able to meet their license renewal requirements online, which was not allowed or limited before. Missouri pharmacies are now allowed to use pharmacists and pharmacy technicians that have out-of-state licenses and can seek assistance from out-of-state pharmacies. There has also been a huge reduction in restrictions on health care professionals, making it easier for them to practice and coordinate with others in the field.

The Division of Professional Registration is not alone in looking to change some rules. A few lawmakers requested that the Department of Public Safety waive the restriction on selling mixed drinks to go, and in an executive order, the governor ordered the “suspension of any prohibition of the sale of un-prepared food by restaurants to the public.”

These regulations make it harder for workers to get and keep jobs. But if lifting some of these regulations is helping consumers and businesses during this crisis, we should wonder if they’re necessary when things go back to normal. One can only hope that many of these changes will stick, and we will continue to have fewer business regulations moving forward.

The post Missouri is Lessening Regulations, and Hopefully It’ll Stick appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The report includes numerous violations of public records and public meeting requirements. The following government bodies failed to abide by the proper procedure for making meetings closed to the public:

• Gentry County
• City of Savannah
• Ste. Genevieve County
• City of Liberal
• Southern Dallas County Fire Protection District
• Daviess County
• City of Brentwood
• Department of Public Safety/State Emergency Management Agency
• City of Buckner
• City of Diamond
• Cedar County
• Caldwell County
• McDonald County
• Lake Lotawana Community Improvement District
• Vernon County
• Montgomery County
• Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners
• Clark County
• Stone County
• The School District of Springfield, R-XII
• Monarch Fire Protection District
• Natural Resources/Soil and Water Conservation Program
• Higher Education/Southeast Missouri State University
• Madison County

Most of the government bodies that failed to keep meetings open were cities and counties, but some of these bodies, including the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, the Department of Public Safety/State Emergency Management Agency, and the Southern Dallas County Fire Protection District, are charged with ensuring public safety. The Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, for example, failed to comply with the provisions of Missouri law that require a body in a closed meeting to properly document issues discussed, to discuss only authorized topics during the closed meeting, and to properly disclose the final disposition of matters discussed in closed sessions.

Government bodies have the power to deprive us of life, liberty, and property. They are charged with providing public safety and education services that Missourians depend on. They are given the power to extract payment for these services whether an individual wants them or not. The open government requirements of Missouri’s Sunshine Law are essential safeguards against abuse of government power.

The post Ain’t No Sunshine: What’s Going On Behind Government’s Closed Doors? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Political Fix blog initially titled its article “Missouri state agencies fact check blogger,” later changing it to “Credit check: State agencies dispute Show-Me Institute figures.” Both titles misrepresent the truth. The numbers that I reported were produced by Missouri government agencies, not by the Show-Me Institute or myself. The data in the “Show Me: The Spending” web tool comes directly from the Missouri Accountability Portal, which contains information reported and distributed by the state of Missouri.

I spoke with Lorna Domke, outreach and education chief for the Missouri Department of Conservation, who checked with her accounting office and discovered that funds had been misallocated. In an email, she provided the following clarification to me:

Our contracting services for our Permits sales system (“POS system”) should have been through an object code #2496, “other business services.” That category should have had $1.789 million put in it instead of in the object code #2487, “credit card fees.”

Her numbers check out. I isolated these numbers in the Show-Me: The Spending web tool, and then I exported the relevant data to Excel to combine into the following graph. In 2009, the department’s expenditures on credit card fees increased by about $1.7 million and its expenditures on “other business services” decreased by the same amount.

According to her email, the correct FY09 credit card fees total should have been $31,616 and the correct FY08 credit card fees should have been $32,439.

I also asked Ms. Damke if she could define this category for me, because some of our blog readers raised questions about which types of fees it might contain. In the email, she provided the following clarification:

“Expenditures for the fees incurred when accepting payment by credit card.”

Credit card companies will charge the vendor (our Nature Shops in our case ) a fee of a few% of purchase plus 20 or 30 cents per transaction for each purchase, depending on the agreement. So our credit card fees are only for paying the credit card company for being able to accept credit cards for payments. They do not include any interest, late fees, etc.<just the regular fees for accepting credit cards.

At the Show-Me Institute, we’re glad to see that the Department of Conservation admitted that it made a mistake in coding its expenditures. It would be nice if they could get it right the first time. It would also be nice if other departments would also check their numbers. As reported on the Political Fix blog:

Department of Public Safety officials said the figure is misleading, and does not represent late payments from the department.

The Department of Public Safety should check with its own accounting office, because that’s the origin of the numbers that I reported.

The post Missouri State Agencies Fact-Check Themselves appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The yellow line represents the Department of Transportation, which has historically spent far more on recognition awards than the other government agencies. The orange line represents the Department of Conservation, which replaced MoDOT for the top spot in 2009. Between 2000 and 2009, Missouri’s government agencies spent a combined total of $3,866,129.40 on recognition rewards.

The largest expenditure to a single vendor for recognition awards occurred in the Department of Public Safety in 2008, which explains the big spike in the dark blue line during that year. Adjusted for inflation, this department spent $110,270 with On Time Marketing Corp. The second largest expenditure occurred in the Department of Transportation in 2001 — it spent $107,627 with Kay-Cee Enterprises, Inc.

According to the Department of Transportation’s “Personnel Policy Manual,” each employee is eligible to receive as much as $2,000 in recognition awards per calendar year. The policy document also states that employees may receive additional recognition awards from non-MoDOT sources, so it is possible for a person to be awarded even more than this.

• Aren’t there better uses for taxpayer money than roll-up blankets, windshield screens, and shirt/cap combos for bureaucrats?
• If the highest-performing MoDOT employees receive paid time off as a recognition award, doesn’t it follow that the lowest-performing employees remain at work?
• Isn’t Missouri looking for items to cut out of its budget? Wouldn’t it be more responsible to cut recognition awards before it cuts funding for education or for emergency communication?

I discovered this information via the Show-Me Institute’s new web tool, “Show-Me: The Spending.” Yesterday, Charis Fischer used this web tool to discover that travel expenditures for the governor’s office skyrocketed between 2008 and 2009, and I discovered that government agencies in Missouri spent more than $2 million on credit card fees in 2009 alone. I invite our blog readers to play with the tool and see whether they can uncover additional examples of wasteful spending by Missouri’s government agencies.

The post Government Agencies in Missouri Spent $3,866,129.40 on Recognition Awards Over the Last Decade appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On Tuesday, the Senate Appropriations Committee met to hear another round of public testimony from government agency spokesmen. Faced with a considerable tax revenue shortfall, state legislators will likely need to make budget cuts for the coming fiscal year. During the second day of public testimony, however, the committee heard the same message it had heard the day before from government agency representatives: Don’t make additional cuts.

On Tuesday, representatives from the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Social Services, the Department of Public Services, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Economic Development, the Judiciary, and the Office of the Public Defender had signed up to testify before the committee. About 65 people were set to testify before the committee for Tuesday with a few spillovers from Monday. Before the lunch recess, more than 25 people or groups had testified.

The morning testimony was filled with personal stories from former alcoholics, drug abusers, persons with disabilities, parents of children with developmental disorders, and others attempting to spare their respective programs from budget cuts.

However, committee members continued to focus on reducing the state budget. “The cuts are coming, really no one is going to be spared,” said Sen. Jim Lembke (R–Saint Louis).

At one point, Sen. Scott Rupp (R-Wentzville) asked, “Where would you point us to look to cut costs?”

Some people, such as Wendy Sullivan, president of Life Skills, urged funding cuts from existing facilities, such as the Bellefontaine Habilitation Center in Saint Louis, and downsizing state rehabilitation centers. Others, such as Dan Buck, CEO of the St. Patrick Center in Saint Louis, pointed to state tax credits.

Sen. Tom Dempsey (R–Saint Charles) said it was possible that the state could reconsider existing historical preservation and low-income housing tax credits.

Others offered ways to increase state revenues. Wayne Lee, a disability advocate, recommended that the state streamline taxes, while Gerrit DenHartog, a lobbyist for addiction rehabilitation organizations, advised an alcohol tax increase.

“The federal government doesn’t have any money. They’re borrowing from China. Their bubble is about to burst,” said Lembke, by way of advice to the St. Patrick Center and other organizations facing state funding cuts. “Let’s look to each other instead of government.”

Andrew Guevara is a student at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

The post Committee Hears Second Round of Budget Testimony appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On Wednesday, Gov. Jay Nixon announced an additional $200 million in state budget cuts. The cuts come in the wake of low state revenue numbers for the first quarter of the fiscal year. In early October, the director of revenue’s office announced that the state had taken in nearly 10 percent less in revenues than it had during the previous year.

The largest cuts came from Medicaid ($32.45 million for “cost containment”), the Department of Public Safety ($33 million for employee cuts and shifting costs to other agencies), making fewer building repairs ($20 million), K–12 transportation ($15.8 million), and nearly all of the funds allotted to the Life Sciences Research Board ($13 million).

A full spreadsheet of the budget cuts can be downloaded here.

The governor’s announced cuts today amount to a small fraction of the $23 billion budget for the year, totaling less than 1 percent. If the current trend in decreased tax revenues continues, the state will likely have to make more cuts in the future.

The post More State Budget Cuts Announced appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

If this halting of the contract is merely part of the new administration’s review of everything, than it is not a big deal. It is understandable that a new administration will want to take a look at pending projects, especially during tough financial times. But the fact that times are tough also makes it more important than ever to get the best deal, and when a well-known company like Motorola comes in with a bid that is significantly below the estimated cost, you don’t want to miss the opportunity to address an important need for a very reasonable price.

I am confident the governor’s administration will see the benefits of partnering with Motorola to give public safety officers the tools they need during emergencies.

P.S. — The work I did only involved gathering information about the involvement of public-private partnerships in emergency communications around the world, and forwarding it to the Department of Public Safety. It was a great deal of fun, and — just to be clear — the state did not pay us anything for the work. We don’t do contract work for anyone, or accept government money for anything.

The post Talk to Me, Sarge appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The story is a “he said, she said” story in which city officials’ trumped-up allegations against Roos are reported alongside Roos’s responses. Since most readers don’t know any of the parties and aren’t going to do research for themselves, this gives the (erroneous, in my view) impression that there must be something shady about Roos or the Post wouldn’t have published such a critical article. Here’s an example:
 

Roos’ properties have drawn complaints for graffiti and trash buildup. This year alone, city inspectors cited Roos’ properties for several infractions, including broken or missing window panes, a collapsed fence, a collapsed porch, a partly collapsed wall and improper display of address numbers.

Even the “End Eminent Domain Abuse” mural, which can be seen heading north where Gravois Avenue becomes Tucker Boulevard, has been cited. Last month, the Department of Public Safety issued Roos a notice for having an “illegal sign” and ordered it removed.

Other than the mural, Roos says that the buildings cited by the city had the violations before he purchased them. Roos says his rental units are “decent,” though not glamorous.

“It’s ordinary housing,” Roos said. “But durable, safe.”

Is Roos is telling the truth that his citations are only for buildings he’s recently purchased? I’m willing to bet he is (which would be an effective rebuttal to Roddy’s insinuation that he’s a slumlord) but the reporter didn’t check, something I expect he could have done fairly easily. Instead, he just repeated Roddy’s allegations and left the reader with the impression that Roos is probably up to something shady.

The story also glosses over why Roos is running housing in slums in the first place. Like most cities, Saint Louis has a shortage of affordable housing. Low income people have difficulty finding housing that’s “durable, safe”—and affordable. Roos provides such housing. And having seen both his office and his home, I can say with confidence he’s not getting rich in the process.

So what does the city do to help out?
 

A city-backed commission, led by the Missouri Botanical Garden, used eminent domain to acquire nearly two dozen buildings Roos owned or managed in the McRee Town neighborhood.

That’s when Roos said he first became a “victim.” To hear him tell it, McRee Town, left alone, would have been the next Soulard.

Not so, says veteran Alderman Joe Roddy.

“It was a neighborhood in a free fall,” said Roddy, who cited the area’s high crime rate.

Today, the neighborhood is home to a suburban-style subdivision — Botanical Heights, with homes listing for more than $300,000 — which Roddy points to as evidence that eminent domain can work.

That sounds lovely except for one little detail: poor people can’t afford $300,000 homes. The city has “solved” the problem of poverty in McRee town by forcing the poor to move to a different neighborhood. I’m sure that counts as “progress” for Mr. Roddy, because now they’re probably out of his ward and no longer his problem. But it’s not progress for the city as a whole. In fact it’s the opposite of progress, because what affordable housing remains will be more expensive and more crowded than ever.

The post Disappointing Reporting in the Post appeared first on Show-Me Institute.