Kansas City Star, Aug. 30
When it’s legal to play a little loose with their ethical behavior, it’s clear some current and past Missouri General Assembly members will go that route.
And if an action is labeled illegal? It appears that sometimes won’t stop lawmakers either.
Several recent incidents have received worthwhile public attention in the Show-Me State, which is notorious for having some of the nation’s weakest ethics laws. As Gov. Jay Nixon told The Star’s editorial board Tuesday, progress on this issue has been “disappointing.”
- Hartville Republican Rep. Tony Dugger resigned on Aug. 19 so he could avoid obeying a new state law that took effect last Sunday.
Earlier this year the General Assembly passed - and Nixon signed - a bill that finally imposes a short, six-month waiting period on lawmakers before they can rush into being paid lobbyists.
It’s the right approach as the legislature tries to restore public trust. That goal isn’t met if it appears legislators can cast votes one day to help a business or special interest group, and turn around the next day to get paid to work for it.
Dugger unsuccessfully opposed the six-month cooling off period for potential lobbyists. Soon he could be navigating the halls of Jefferson City to help a new employer get its way.
- A new state audit this week criticized the Missouri Senate for soliciting lobbyists’ contributions to pay for meals for senators and their staffs.
The money is deposited in a bank account outside the state treasury - which auditor Nicole Galloway says violates the Missouri Constitution.
Unfortunately, Senate leaders responded by essentially holding up their hands and saying they couldn’t close the account and still pay for the meals.
This is a weak argument given the fact that lawmakers receive public funds for meals and lodging every day. That money could be used to help pay for food to keep them and some staff members fed at odd hours during long meetings.
Missouri’s legislative leaders keep saying they’re going to improve the ethical environment in Jefferson City. Simply closing one bank account would be a small step in that direction.
___
St. Joseph News-Press, Aug. 29
At some point, improving safety on our highways is not about new laws and regulations that impact everyone.
Bad behaviors - bad choices - by a small percentage of drivers are far and away the leading causes of traffic crashes, injuries and fatalities. The focus must remain on compelling these drivers to conform to existing laws.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the need to rein in drunken driving. Figures released Monday by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration make this case. NHTSA said 35,092 people died in traffic crashes in 2015, and 29 percent - 10,265 men, women and children - died in crashes involving drunken driving.
Drunken driving deaths actually are trending down over the last decade, which coincides with the launch of a campaign by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. But that’s no consolation to the thousands of families nationally and the hundreds in the two-state region that lose loved ones each year.
Few bad choices rival that of driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. One that does, however, is to return to driving drunk after previously being convicted.
One of MADD’s points of emphasis is to have states require or strongly encourage judges, upon convictions, to order the installation of an ignition interlock device that renders the vehicle inoperable if the driver is unable to pass a breath test.
Twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia, including both Missouri and Kansas, have such rules on the books that apply to all convicted offenders.
The worthiness of the devices has been shown in Kansas, which has seen a 37 percent decline in drunken driving deaths since its requirement took effect in 2011, and Missouri, which has seen a 9 percent decline since 2014.
Other law enforcement steps, such as sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols, have the potential for inconveniencing drivers who have done nothing wrong. These are particularly common around holidays when more people drive after drinking.
These steps, when not overdone, will be tolerated by drivers who not only drive sober but also want to help ensure everyone does.
___
Joplin Globe, Sept. 2
Do we believe Missouri senators are willingly selling their souls for late-night stuffed-crust pepperoni pizza?
Of course not.
But the existence of a separate Senate administration fund taking money from lobbyists leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth.
This bank account is set up outside of the state treasury and the money is used to feed senators and their staffs when they work late.
In the past, the fund was used to pay for the dinner and gifts for retiring senators, but after two previous audits criticized that, the practice was stopped. Yet the Senate kept the money, using $5,800 of the $6,500 deposited in it to pay for meals instead.
This, despite the fact that state senators already get about $100 each day for expenses and meals - enough for them to eat breakfast, lunch, and still buy a few pizzas for themselves and staff when they work late.
The audit also concluded that the Senate does not have the ability to hold funds used for state business outside the treasury and recommended that it be dissolved. The House does not have a similar fund.
State Sen. David Sater, R-Cassville, said he would abide by the rules if the fund is found to be illegal, but he disputed the notion that meals from lobbyists swayed legislation.
“It certainly doesn’t influence our decisions at all,” Sater told the Globe. “If anything it does the opposite, because we can think clearer with food in our stomachs.”
But Missouri Auditor Nicole Galloway said in releasing her findings: “Soliciting contributions from lobbyists gives the appearance of, and may result in, a conflict of interest.”
Hers, we think, is the higher road.
Meanwhile, in her audit of the House of Representatives, Galloway found that in September 2013 the interim committee on education solicited two lobbying firms for contributions for a statewide bus tour. The two-month tour was given a total of $1,000 by the lobbying firms, and the rest was paid for through general revenue.
“If House appropriations are not sufficient to cover interim committee costs, those costs should be reduced or savings realized elsewhere to allow for the costs,” the report said.
We agree with the auditor again.
Both practices betray a too-cozy relationship between lawmakers and lobbyists, and while a few slices of pizza here and there won’t make or break a senator’s vote, they do contribute to the breakdown of trust between the electorate and the lawmakers.
We’d advise the Senate to get rid of the fund and pay for its own meals and the House to fund its own trips in the future.
___
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 3
The University of Chicago has issued a healthy warning to incoming freshmen: Get over yourselves. At long last, an institution of higher learning is reminding students that they are entering the real world, where people engage and debate and, yes, disagree fervently with each other.
University life is supposed to be about the free exchange of ideas. But in recent years, campus life has been smothered by self-appointed thought police who seem bent on enforcing political correctness at all costs.
At the University of Missouri last year, assistant professor Melissa Click came to embody that Orwellian view. She stood guard at the perimeter of a public space that protesters had declared a “safe space.” Anyone who didn’t think like them was not allowed in, as if it was their space to control.
Despite her role as an instructor in the Department of Communications, her most notable communication tactic was to call in “muscle” to interfere with a journalist covering the protest. The episode underscored how a warped mindset has taken hold at some campuses across the country.
Enough, says the University of Chicago. Administrators have correctly decided to take their campus back in the name of free thought.
“Once here you will discover that one of the University of Chicago’s defining characteristics is our commitment to freedom of inquiry and expression,” John Ellison, the university’s dean of students, wrote in a letter to incoming freshmen. “Members of our community are encouraged to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn, without fear of censorship.”
Ellison emphasized the ongoing need for civility and mutual respect but warned that in the free exchange of ideas, there will be “rigorous debate, discussion and even disagreement. At times this may challenge you and even cause discomfort.”
These very words no doubt made some students uncomfortable. But it got worse: He advised them that the university wouldn’t support the notion of “trigger warnings” - statements alerting readers or viewers about upcoming content that might cause distress.
“We do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ’safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,” Ellison wrote.
Writing in The Atlantic this week, James Madison University religious studies professor Alan Levinovitz noted the concerns of some people that Ellison was playing to “crotchety elites” who have made up a “caricature of today’s college students as coddled and entitled” to hide their fear of empowered students. But no, Levinovitz wrote, the stifling effect of wanton political correctness is real.
It’s no caricature; we saw it played out on Mizzou’s campus. Students everywhere need to absorb Ellison’s message. Life is a messy feast. Toss gently, serve and enjoy.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.