May 27, 2010

M I S S O U R I S E N A T E C O M M U N I C A T I O N S

DAILY NEWS CLIPSC o l l e c t e d / A r c h i v e d f o r T h u r s d a y , M a y 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 -- Page 1 of 33

State Senator Predicts Ballot Initiative For Missouri Income Tax Kirk Wayman (2010-05-26)

MARYVILLE, MO (KBIA) - The chair of the state legislature's joint committee on tax policy says the issue of how revenue is created for the state will likely reach Missouri voters soon. Savannah Senator Brad Lager says the debate is heating up as a citizen's group pushes for a ballot measure to eliminate the Missouri income tax and replace it with a comprehensive sales and service tax.

"If you're a person who believes everyone should pay a portion, or pay, quote- "their fair share" then you're probably towards taxing consumption. If you're a person who believes we should tax people more, because they make more, then you're going to want to tax wealth creation."

Lager predicts the issue will be put on a ballot for the voters to decide within the next four years.

News Clips online: www.senate.mo.gov/snc — Subscribe via: [email protected] Senate online: www.senate.mo.gov — Senate Communications online: www.senate.mo.gov/newsroom

http://www.senate.mo.gov/newsroom

http://www.senate.mo.gov/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.senate.mo.gov/snc



Mo. gov. to sign overseas voting legislation JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon plans to sign legislation designed to help those in the military and overseas cast ballots.

The changes are needed for Missouri to comply with new federal voting rules for the November election. Under the new procedures, local election officials would send ballots at least 45 days before the election and could do so by e-mail. Applications for absentee ballots and other election information also could be sent electronically. Completed ballots would still need to be mailed.

Missourians who are out of the country must now request an absentee ballot by mail, fax or in person. Local election officials send a ballot to them through the mail at least 42 days before an election.

Nixon plans to bill signing ceremonies Thursday in Cameron, Warrensburg and Mount Vernon.








UPDATE: Opponents: Signatures for anti-Missouri Plan initiative fall shortBy Tony MessengerSt. Louis Post-DispatchUPDATE: James Harris responds: “I reject this as an effort by self-interested ambulance chasers to influence the Secretary of State’s count.”

See the full analysis from Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts here.

JEFFERSON CITY — An analyis of the signatures submitted to the Secretary of State’s office by the group seeking to make all judges in Missouri elected fell short of statutory minimums, says a group opposing the effort.

Earlier this month, a group called ShowMe Better Courts submitted what it said was more than 250,000 signatures in its effort to do away with the state’s method for choosing many of its top judges, the Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan. Instead, the group led by lobbyist James Harris would seek to have all judges elected. The group’s efforts have been opposed by a coalition of lawyers, judges and business groups who formed together as the Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts Action Fund. That group argues that the current plan limits the effect of politics on judicial selection.

The opponents filed a Sunshine Law request to obtain the signature data submitted by Better Courts, and according to their analysis, the issue will not make the November ballot. The Secretary of State has until August to certify whether issues will qualify.

To qualify for the ballot, ShowMe Better Courts would need to collect 8 percent of the number of votes cast in the 2008 gubernatorial election in at least six of nine congressional districts. The group basically ignored three congressional districts in its signature gathering process, meaning only one of the remaining districts would have to fall short to disqualify the issue from the November ballot.

According to the analysis from Missourians for Fair And Impartial Courts — which was obtained by the Political Fix — the ShowMe Better Courts signatures likely were short in both the 7th and 9th congressional district, even if 100 percent of the signatures turned in are considered valid, which is unlikely.

The discrepancy in what ShowMe Better Courts turned in, and what is actually counted by the Secretary of State, could make up for some of the signature short fall. For instance, in Boone County, the ShowMe group said it submitted 1,500 pages of signatures. But, according to the opponents’ Sunshine Law request, the Secretary of State only counted 1,074 pages of signatures.

The dispute between the groups over the signatures has been quite intense and expensive.






http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/1046D126C0CE26F986257705000719C2?OpenDocument

http://interact.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/political-fix/2009/08/anti-missouri-plan-group-refiles-petition-on-judge-selection/

http://mofaircourts.com/analysis-of-signatures/




Group: Mo. court critics missed signature target By CHRIS BLANK

Associated Press Writer

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Opponents of an attempt to require partisan elections for all Missouri judges said Tuesday that their analysis shows too few signatures were submitted to get the idea before voters.

But plan supporters said the analysis was flawed and called the group behind it "self-interested ambulance-chasers."

An initiative targeted for the November ballot seeks do away with Missouri's nonpartisan system for nominating and appointing judges to appeals courts and urban trial courts. Instead, all judicial candidates would run under party labels, such as Republican or Democrat, as they already do for many trial courts.

Missouri adopted the nominating system in 1940 to minimize the influence of politics in the judiciary. Backers of the current system say partisan elections could make the courts more political, but critics contend the courts remain political and that trial attorneys have too much influence in picking judges.

To get a proposed constitutional amendment on the Missouri ballot, organizers need signatures equal to 8 percent of the votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of Missouri's nine congressional districts. The deadline for turning in signatures was earlier this month.

Election officials have until Aug. 3 to determine whether the measure qualifies for the ballot.

The Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts Action Fund, which opposes the proposed ballot measure, used Missouri open-records law to obtain all the signatures submitted for the court petition.

Its analysis concluded that too few signatures were submitted in at least five congressional districts. In a sixth district - one covering the Kansas City-area - there could be enough signatures only if nearly all turned in are determined to be valid.

Ken Morley, an adviser for the opponents, said the lack of signatures indicates Missouri residents do not want to change how judges are picked.

"While we were looking forward to the voters rejecting this proposal at the ballot box in November, the voters decided to do us one better and reject this bad idea during the signature collection process. And they rejected it overwhelmingly," he said.

The court ballot measure was submitted just before the state's deadline by ShowMe Better Courts. James Harris, a leader for that organization, said in a statement Tuesday that he does not believe opponents' analysis and called it an effort by "self-interested ambulance-chasers" to influence the count.

"Based on what the petition company reports, we believe we were able to overcome the trial lawyers' race-based suppression campaign and frivolous delaying lawsuits to collect the number of signatures necessary to put this before the voters," Harris said.

Ballot measure supporters have said that those gathering signatures have been subjected to physical intimidation by opponents, who deny the claims. Supporters obtained a temporary restraining order, but the judge later dissolved it.

Harris said earlier this month that more than 250,000 signatures were turned in. Opponents said Tuesday their analysis shows fewer than 200,000 actually were submitted.








Under Missouri's current judicial system, people interested in becoming judges for certain courts apply to special nominating panels that forward three finalists to the governor, who then appoints one. Voters then decide in periodic retention elections whether to keep that judge in place.

The system is used for the state Supreme Court, three regional appeals courts, and trial courts in the city of St. Louis and Clay, Greene, Jackson, Platte and St. Louis counties.

--

Online:

Petition signatures: http://mofaircourts.com/petitionanalysis/

ShowMe Better Courts: http://www.showmebettercourts.com/

Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts: http://www.mofaircourts.org






http://www.mofaircourts.org/

http://www.showmebettercourts.com/

http://mofaircourts.com/petitionanalysis/



Mo. judicial ballot question has failed, opponents say

Marshall Griffin, St. Louis Public Radio (2010-05-26)

JEFFERSON CITY, MO. (St. Louis Public Radio) - Opponents of a ballot question to scrap Missouri's non-partisan court plan say its backers have not gathered enough signatures to place it on the November ballot.

The current system for selecting judges to the Missouri Supreme Court, Appeals courts and some circuit courts relies on judicial panels to select nominees, which are then chosen by the governor.

The initiative would require elections for all of Missouri's judges.

Ken Morley is an advisor for the group Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts, which supports the current system. He says their analysis shows the initiative did not receive enough signatures in six of Missouri's congressional districts.

"The failure of that effort demonstrates clearly that when Missourians understand the risks presented by dismantling the non-partisan court plan, that they're going to reject that proposal out of hand," Morley said.

The initiative is backed by the group Better Courts for Missouri, which is headed by lobbyist James Harris. He released the following statement:

"I reject this as an effort by self-interested ambulance chasers to influence the Sec(retary) of State's count. Based on what the petition company reports, we believe we were able to overcome the trial lawyers' race-based suppression campaign and frivolous delaying lawsuits to collect the number of signatures necessary to put this before the voters."

A spokesman for the Secretary of State's office says they're still reviewing the petitions and will announce the results in August.








E. coli forces closure of beaches at 3 Mo. parks JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Beaches at three Missouri parks have been closed because of high levels of E. coli bacteria in the water.

The Department of Natural Resources says it has shut down the swimming beach at Mark Twain State Park, the day-use beach at Truman State Park and Public Beach No. 1 at the Lake of the Ozarks. Those beaches will remain closed until future water samples show bacteria levels have fallen to acceptable levels.

High water also has forced the closure of the campground beach at Truman State Park and of Pittsburg Beach at Pomme de Terre State park.

---

Online:

State Beach Closings: http://mostateparks.com/beaches/index.asp






http://mostateparks.com/beaches/index.asp



Window closing for 2010 Tour of Missouri SEDALIA DEMOCRAT Dennis Rich2010-05-26 21:59:04

The 2010 Tour of Missouri looks increasingly in doubt after tourism officials declined a request from race organizers for a last ditch meeting to save state funding.

Tour organizers Brent Hugh and Mike Weiss requested a meeting with representatives from Gov. Jay Nixon’s office last week, but were referred back to the Missouri Tourism Commission — an eight-member board appointed by the governor.

A Missouri Senate Appropriations Committee markup of HB 2007, the budget bill dealing with tourism and economic development, included language suggesting the commission include $1 million to fund the bicycle race — but all parties agree that funding decisions for specific programs is at the discretion of the governor and the Tourism Commission.

The commission’s chairwoman, Marci Bennett, said by telephone on Wednesday “the decision has already been made. The commission has already been clear on how they feel.”

“We did have a vote on this. We voted on this last November when we put together our proposed budget for this year and that proposal did not include funding for the Tour of Missouri,” Bennett said.

The matter may be complicated as Medalist Sports, the management company that runs the event, announced in early May that it would stop planning for the race if the issue was not resolved by the time the Tour of California race was complete.

The California race, which also is organized by Medalist, ended Sunday.

Hugh and Weiss said the company could still be brought in as a partner but, Weiss said, “the window of opportunity is closing quickly and it should be known that it is Jay Nixon who is closing it.”

Weiss said that without the participation of Medalist, the event would have to be canceled, but refused to say explicitly if Medalist had pulled out of the event.

Chris Aronhalt, a managing partner with Medalist, did not return phone calls from The Democrat seeking comment.

“I talked to Chris today — we would not still be having a dialogue if Medalist wasn’t still interested, but they made it clear that they would back away if the governor did not address the issue,” Weiss said.

Bennett said that with the commission’s budget cut to a slim $13.9 million, the $1 million the Legislature requested for the race would be better spent supporting programs with broader effect, like co-op marketing with about 40 Missouri communities, and it does not intend to fund the race.

Hugh and Weiss argue that the Missouri General Assembly agreed on the use of the funding and believe the allocation represented broad, bipartisan support for the race amongst lawmakers. Organizers believe Nixon is trying to score political points against Tour supporter, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, a likely Republican challenger in 2012.

Organizers caused a flap with the governor’s office last week after a Nixon spokesman, Sam Murphey, told a St. Louis newspaper that the office “was unaware of any meeting requests,” and then passed the request back to the Tourism Commission.









“The governor is positioning this politically. What does it take to have the will of the General Assembly and a vocal audience be heard? The answer: It is more important to Jay Nixon to score points than have sincere dialogue,” Weiss said.

Bennett contends that the commission’s decision is not politically motivated.

“This isn’t political. We just don’t have it and we expect more cuts coming through because the governor has to come up with an additional $350 million,” Bennett said.

Bennett cited last week’s announcement by Nixon calling for an additional $350 million to be trimmed from the budget and noted the $13.9 allocated in the appropriation bill might be reduced even more.

Bennett also pointed out that the only specific allocation in the final version of HB 2007 is $70,000 set aside to fund the Missouri State Fair.

Weiss conceded in a telephone interview that “the General Assembly can not force the executive branch to spend the money,” but believes the race, which generated $38.1 million last year brought about 500,000 spectators to the 11 host cities, including Sedalia, is worth the investment.

“They say tourism dollars return $2 for every $1 spent, but we produce $38 for every $1 we spend. If they are trying to generate more revenue for the state this is a sound way to do that,” Weiss said.








Missouri Senate to hold hearings on last-ditch legislative move

Missouri State Senator Jason Crowell, 27th District, Cape Girardeau, listens to discussion on the last day of the annual legislative session in Jefferson City. (Christian Gooden/P-D)By Tony MessengerPOST-DISPATCH JEFFERSON CITY BUREAU05/27/2010

JEFFERSON CITY — A state senator plans summer hearings to investigate a colleague's end-of-session attempt to make major changes to a bill dealing with how much sales taxes cities can collect.

Sen. Chuck Purgason, R-Caulfield, said he is "deeply concerned" that fellow Republican Sen. Jason Crowell, of Cape Girardeau, tried to rewrite a bill while it was in a conference committee, a small group of senators and representatives that is often the final stop for bills in the session's last days.

Typically, no major changes are made to bills in conference committees unless the House and Senate separately approve.

But no such approvals were given in this case, and that's why the president pro tem of the Senate, Sen. Charlie Shields, R-St. Joseph, has given permission for

Purgason to hold hearings on the matter.

"I won't say it's never happened, but I don't remember any recent examples," Shields said. "It would certainly fall into the category of bad form."

Both Crowell and Sen. Victor Callahan, D-Independence — the sponsor of the underlying bill — say they didn't try to pull the wool over anybody's eyes.

"I don't get it," Crowell said of Purgason's criticism.

The dispute is largely over tradition and trust. There is nothing in statute or the state constitution that stops elected officials from making wholesale changes to legislation once it is in a conference committee.

So what, exactly, happened?

All session, Crowell had been blocking an attempt by the Missouri Municipal League and various cities statewide to change a law related to city sales taxes.









The cities sought the change because of a series of lawsuits brought by Republican fundraiser and former state Rep. Tom Burcham of Farmington. Burcham's lawsuits alleged that about 75 cities, including St. Joseph and Joplin, had levied sales taxes in excess of the maximum allowed by state law.

Legislation proposed by Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, and Rep. Tim Jones, R-Eureka, sought to negate the effect of Burcham's lawsuits. The measure would clarify state law to allow all cities to increase a specific kind of sales tax up to 2 percent.

A similar bill sponsored by Jones in 2009 had been blocked by House Majority Floor Leader Steve Tilley, R-Perryville. Burcham runs a political action committee that has funneled tens of thousands of dollars to Tilley's campaign. Tilley and Crowell are friends and political allies.

Tilley has said he did nothing wrong by opposing Jones' bill in 2009. But Jones said FBI agents investigating pay-to-play allegations asked him about the failure of that bill during a conversation last fall.

This session, the Nodler-Jones bill was attached to an unrelated bill proposed by Callahan.

In the last week of the legislative session, after the bill was in a conference committee, Crowell changed the wording so that the additional sales taxes would be allowed only in the handful of cities that already had adopted them. Crowell's proposal would have been applied retroactively to those cities that already passed the additional sales taxes in question.

Crowell added his provision to Callahan's bill the night before the session's final day, May 14. Callahan was on the conference committee and allowed the changes.

Some lawmakers and lobbyists said such changes could have made the bill unconstitutional and also could have opened up even more lawsuits from Burcham.

Crowell said his opposition to Nodler and Jones' bills had nothing to do with Burcham. He contends he is blocking other cities from being given the OK to seek a tax increase.

The state Supreme Court has previously ruled such legislation is unconstitutional, said city of Joplin lobbyist Gary Burton.

Burton first caught Crowell's changes after reading the conference committee report on the bill. He alerted Nodler, Purgason and other lawmakers, who told Callahan that if he didn't take the wording out, they would seek to kill the measure.

Crowell's measure ultimately was dropped, and no changes were made in the law governing city sales tax.

Crowell said the controversy is much ado about nothing.

He said that Callahan drafted the conference report — not he — and that senators knew that he was seeking to block any bill that had Nodler or Jones' "tax-stacking" language in it. Callahan said he thought the "tax-stacking" provision was fair game for changes in his conference committee because it had been mentioned in the House version of the bill.

"That would be my interpretation," Callahan said. "But if somebody wants to come up with more specific definitions of what you can and can't do in conference, that's great."

Generally, once a bill is there, the members of the committee don't attach new measures to the legislation unless both the House and Senate vote to allow the committee to "exceed the differences."

In the case in Senate Bill 808, Crowell's language is a complete rewrite of the underlying provision, Purgason and Shields said.








Purgason said that it might be time for the Senate to adopt a rule similar to one in the House, where a bill has to sit on the calendar for 24 hours before lawmakers can take it up for further debate. That would give officials more time to examine the wording.

"The problem with these omnibus bills is you don't have the time to read them properly," Purgason said.

Rep. Stephen Webber, D-Columbia, agreed.

He was the only member of the conference committee on the bill in question not to sign the report. He said he refused because the conference committee didn't even meet.

Purgason said it's all too common for conference committees to operate that way. He said his hearings will focus on whether the Senate needs rule changes to prevent a repeat of what happened with Senate Bill 808.

"I think we have to look at making changes to the way we do things on the Senate side," Purgason said. "I am concerned that we need to make the process as transparent as possible."

Purgason compared Crowell's move to the controversial "village law" provision that passed a few years ago.

In 2007, then-speaker of the House Rod Jetton, an ally and good friend of Crowell's, was accused of sneaking a provision into a 200-plus page ominibus local government bill that benefited one of his major campaign contributors. The law allowed a developer to bypass county authorities and create his own village near Table Rock Lake.

Angry lawmakers repealed the law the next year, but only after defeating a filibuster led by Crowell and Callahan, the minority leader of the Senate.








Group says Mo. liquor control cuts pound foolishMegan Lynch Reporting

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (KMOX) -- After our stories last week on massive cuts to liquor control in the state of Missouri, KMOX News received a number of e-mails from citizens and organized groups concerned about what the reductions might mean.

One coalition told us, Missouri lawmakers will lose a lot of money, to save a little.

Mike McBride represents Citizens for a Safe Missouri -- a coalition that includes law enforcement officials.

"You want to save maybe a million dollars by cutting the budget of Alcohol and Tobacco Control and basically getting rid of just about all of their law enforcement agents, you're going to pay the price somewhere down the road."

McBride cites what happened in the state of Maine. When lawmakers there slashed the liquor control budget in 2003, the results were almost immediate. A Tax Policy Center review shows alcohol tax revenue in Maine dropped by 30-million dollars the next year. (see a link to that chart below)

McBride says that's ominous for Missouri, "obviously in a state that's so strapped for cash, we could not stand to lose that much money in such a short amount of time."

Liquor license and other fees brought in roughly $38 million last year.

It would have cost the state a little over a million dollars to keep liquor control fully staffed.

The budget just passed in Missouri eliminates 24 of 41 jobs within the Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control. Only one field agent will remain in each of 5 regional offices. KMOX News asked McBride if that's enough. "There's no way that five agents will be able to cover the 13,000-plus alcohol licenses in the state of Missouri. That's inconceivable that would even be a possibility."

McBride says the liquor control agents awaiting pink slips were key for public safety when it came to training servers to watch for over-consumption, policing underage drinking, and monitoring retailers. "Local law enforcement cannot do administrative action, they cannot shut down a bar, they cannot take away their liquor license."

In 2005, a national study looked at the Maine cuts and concluded they threatened effective alcohol law enforcement and dumped more responsibility on cash strapped local agencies. (see a link to that study below)

The Chief of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Dan Isom, told KMOX News last week the reductions could have an impact on alcohol enforcement at major events in the city, including Mardi Gras and Fair St. Louis.

The Public Policy Liaison for Mothers Against Drunk Driving in Missouri has called the liquor control budget "government at its worst". Mike Boland says it flies in the face of the Governor's call to get tough on drunk driving.






http://www.kmox.com/Group-says-Mo--liquor-control-cuts-pound-foolish/7331205#%23

http://www.kmox.com/Group-says-Mo--liquor-control-cuts-pound-foolish/7331205#%23



UM president says tuition freeze shows commitment

Maria Altman, St. Louis Public Radio (2010-05-26)

ST. LOUIS, MO. (St. Louis Public RADIO) - Despite a state funding cut the president of the University of Missouri says the system is holding up well.

The University of Missouri has held tuition costs steady in exchange for a relatively minor five-point-two percent funding cut from the state.

UM president Gary Forsee says given the state's budget situation the cuts could have been much deeper.

"I think bodes well that Missourians are going to be sure that we have access and affordability in mind as we think about the students," Forsee said.

Forsee says faculty and staff salaries will be frozen for the second year in a row.

He says the UM system's salaries are currently below market and making them more competitive will be a challenge.

But the president is staying mum about the school's chances of joining the Big Ten athletic conference.

Forsee says it's been a source of intense speculation, but one the university is stepping away from.








Mo. gambling regulators set schedule for license JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- Missouri gambling regulators will start accepting applications for a new casino June 1.

All applications are due along with the $50,000 filing fee on Sept. 1. The Missouri Gaming Commission approved the schedule Wednesday. Economic development officials plan to complete studies of possible casino locations this summer.

Several communities and companies have expressed interest in obtaining the license. It becomes available when the President Casino in St. Louis closes on July 1. Missouri voters in 2008 capped the number of casino licenses that are available, so the only way to get one now is for an existing facility to give one up.

Gambling regulators have said they expect a license to be awarded by the end of the year.








Napolitano: Ariz. law stems from frustration By HEATHER HOLLINGSWORTH

Associated Press Writer

LIBERTY, Mo. (AP) -- Congress's inability to pass comprehensive immigration reform has fueled the frustration the led to Arizona's strict new law against illegal immigration, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday.

The former Arizona governor and top prosecutor told a group of college scholarship recipients in Missouri that she understands the frustration but believes the law is a mistake. Napolitano, who was invited to Williams Jewell College to receive an award, said she vetoed similar proposals while governor.

"I don't think they are good law enforcement," Napolitano told students at the small liberal arts college in Liberty, a suburb of Kansas City.

Arizona's law makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally. It directs police during traffic stops or while questioning people about possible legal violations to question individuals about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they are illegally in the country.

Napolitano said most law officers oppose such laws "because they force everybody to deal with immigration work as opposed to serious violent crimes, serious property crimes, other kinds of offenses that they may wish to prioritize in their own community. And that's not what law enforcement wants to do."

Napolitano was at Williams Jewell College to receive the Elmer Staats Award, an honor given to Truman Scholars who make significant contributions in the public sector. Napolitano was named a Truman Scholar in 1977. The scholarship encourages community service and provides recipients - 60 of them this year - with $30,000 for postgraduate studies.

She talked about her own life and exhorted young people in the crowd to consider running for public office or take other steps to transform their communities. She also took questions from the crowd on a host of topics, including the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy than bans gays from serving openly in the military and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

But she spoke at greatest length about immigration policy, reiterating her stance that building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is not enough to deter immigrants from entering the U.S. illegally.

"I was the U.S. attorney down there (in Arizona) and then the attorney general. I have ridden that border. I have walked it. I have flown it. I know that border. I really know every inch of that border," she said. "I have done ladder cases. I have done tunnel cases. The notion that you are going to build a wall or a fence from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas, and that is an immigration policy is a myth."

Napolitano said what is needed at the border is a combination of manpower, better and more efficient use of technology, such as ground sensors and mobile radar systems, and some fencing and infrastructure so it's easier to see what pathways people are taking to illegally cross the border.

The border efforts need to be married with effective and strong enforcement of the nation's immigration laws, she added.

Napolitano has largely focused her efforts in President Barack Obama's administration on illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes. But she finds the current laws a source of frustration.








She stressed repeatedly that a bipartisan group of lawmakers must come together and make changes. She said attention needs to be paid to workers who want to come to the U.S. temporarily as well as those already in the country illegally.

"The notion that we are going to capture and deport 10 million people is not realistic," she said. "To say that, that has to happen before we get immigration reform is to say you don't want immigration reform really.

"Look, they need to pay a fine, they need to register, they need to provide biometrics so we know more about their identities. That's a security issue from my standpoint. And then we need to move forward as a country."








Conference focuses on immigration issuesCOLUMBIA DAILY TRIBUNE By Janese HeavinWednesday, May 26, 2010

Fixing the border to solve immigration problems without addressing other issues is a little like solving just one side of a puzzle, an immigration policy expert said yesterday.

“You fix one side of a Rubik’s Cube, but the rest is a mess,” Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, said.

Giovagnoli spoke at the ninth annual Cambio de Colores conference in Columbia. The three-day event focuses on Hispanics and immigrants in Midwestern communities and is co-sponsored by the University of Missouri System, MU, MU Extension and the Cambio Center.

This year’s conference comes on the heels of Arizona’s controversial immigration policy that requires law enforcement officers to question individuals about their immigration status if there’s reason to believe they’re in the country illegally. Various polls conducted by national media outlets show slightly different results, but for the most part, the majority of Americans say they support Arizona’s law. Giovagnoli said she suspects the support is more that Arizona is taking action when the federal government isn’t than support for the specifics of the law.

She also pointed to studies that show most Americans would support comprehensive immigration reform that allows immigrants to register legally, work, pay taxes and learn English.

That’s not to say those here illegally aren’t already doing some of those things, said Domingo Martínez Castilla, director of the Cambio Center.

“A common misperception is that they don’t want to learn English,” he said. “We’re doing research with area families, and when you ask them, they say the first thing they’d like to do is learn English.”

But, he added, after people work 10 hours a day in a factory, the last thing they want to do is take an English class.

Castilla also countered the notion that illegal immigrants don’t pay taxes. When they purchase goods, they pay sales taxes, and when they pay rent, their landlord pays property taxes, he said. In some cases, employers also take Social Security and income taxes out of their paychecks, money that won’t be returned, he said.

One problem with the immigration debate, Castilla said, is that neither side has enough data to develop an effective system. For instance, some argue that immigrants boost local economies, but there’s no research to back that up, he said. On the flip side, there’s no data to support the argument that immigrants are hurting the economy, Castilla said.

The conference aims to promote education about the issues. This year, 110 participants attended Cambio de Colores, most of whom work with immigrants in their respective communities.

“The purpose of the week is to help the process of integrating newcomers into their receiving communities,” Castilla said. Attendees “are not just advocates — they’re helping communities.”






http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/26/

http://www.columbiatribune.com/staff/janese-heavin/



McCaskill Details U.S. Role in Korea TensionsKSMU Written by Justin Lux Wednesday, 26 May 2010

Following an unprovoked attack on a South Korean naval vessel by its neighbor to the north, the United States has been outspoken in its disapproval of North Korea’s action. KSMU’s Justin Lux has the story.

The Obama administration expects China to join in the international criticism of North Korea’s attack on a South Korean warship that led to the death of 46 sailors in March.

Senator Claire McCaskill says the U.S. Navy is an important factor in this equation.

“This is where the strength of our navy and our carriers are very important. Our ability to be strategically available is so important to stability in the world because we can move carriers into place and our FAA teams that are on those carrier decks, that are built by the great men and women in St. Louis, area very important right now,” she says.

Following discussions between the U.S. and China this week, a senior American official commented that China is expected to move closer to South Korea’s position that the North must be held accountable for the torpedo attack.

As the situation continues to develop, McCaskill says she fully expects that the United States will have an active involvement in the affairs between the two countries.

“We are going to be monitoring very carefully what is going on between North and South Korea. It is unfortunate that North Korea is clearly governed by someone who doesn’t respect the world in terms of peace and stability and I think South Korea is in a very difficult position,” she says.

While China is North Korea’s closest ally, the U.S. administration expects China to begin its shift away from North Korea this weekend, when Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visits Seoul.

An international investigation into the torpedo attack found that North Korea was to blame. North Korea denies attacking the ship.

For KSMU News, I’m Justin Lux.






http://www.ksmu.org/component/option,com_contact/task,view/contact_id,53/Itemid,38/



Corn growers to burnish image with $1 million in DC adsBy Bill LambrechtPost-Dispatch Washington Bureau

One of the corn growers' ads to start running next week.

WASHINGTON — Kurt Hora, pictured with family in accompanying ad, summed up how corn farmers want Congress to view them after a high-dollar ad campaign in Washington starting next week.

“We want people to make sure people know we’re doing the right thing out here,” Hora said this morning in Washington, 800 or so miles from his farm in southeastern Iowa.

St. Louis-based National Corn Growers Association and growers from Missouri, Illinois and 12 other states from Maryland to Colorado are anteing up hoping to leave impressions on lawmakers and the Obama administration at a key time.

Decisions on corn-made ethanol — which keeps corn prices high — are pending, among them proposals to extend a long-running tax break for another five years and to allow significantly hire blends of ethanol with gasoline.

Brazil is knocking on America’s door with sugar cane ethanol. People are asking again about farm subsidies given the government belt-tightening going on. And health advocates continue to make links between childhood obesity and high-fructose corn syrup sweetener.

Nevertheless, the $1 million ad campaign is aimed at no particular issue, observed Mark Lambert, who directs the two-year-old Corn Farmers Coalition.

Lambert, an Illinoisan and former newspaper reporter in Peoria, said the coalition conducted focus groups with the goal of hitting all the right notes in the ads.

“What we found is that most people still hold farmers in high esteem, but didn’t think many of them are left,” Lambert said.

“If you look at the broad spectrum of farmers out there, they’re using the best technology to do more with less. But people just don’t get it,” he said.

“We’re trying to reach just about everybody in the Capitol Hill community … It’s a very simple concept.”







http://images.stltoday.com/blogzone/political-fix/files/2010/05/corn.jpg



BLOG ZONEMissouri can expect spike in Medicaid recipients under new health-care law, predicts studyBy Robert Joiner, Beacon staff

Posted 5:23 p.m. Wed., 05.26.10 - In a timely addition to Missouri's debate over the new health-reform law, a new Kaiser Family Foundation study projects a sharp rise in the number of Missourians eligible for Medicaid under the new law, with the federal government picking up a large share of the cost of covering them.

The study, released Wednesday by the foundation's Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, offered one of the few state-by-state reviews of the law's Medicaid reforms -- showing what they might cost each state and how many residents might be helped.

Overall, Kaiser projects that Medicaid enrollment will increase by 15.9 million nationally by 2019 under the new rules. The study looked at two scenarios for projecting cost and enrollment levels. The first is based on a Medicaid participation rate similar to earlier projections by the Congressional Budget Office. Under that scenario, Kaiser projects that Missouri would see an increase of 307,800 enrollees in 2019. The federal government would cover $8.3 billion of the cost for new enrollees between 2014, the year many health reforms take effect, and 2019. During that same period, Missouri's share of the cost would be $431 million, the study says. Proponents of the law say states have time to figure out how they are going to cover their share of the cost in 2014 beyond.

On the other hand, the study said it was possible that Medicaid enrollment in Missouri could rise by 437,700 in 2019, costing the state $773 million and the federal government, $10.2 billion, between 2014 and 2019. The higher enrollment would occur if Missouri and federal officials did aggressive outreach to insure the effectiveness of the new federal mandate that everyone have insurance.

That mandate is the source of much debate in Missouri, so much so that lawmakers will let voters have their say. An initiative on the Aug. 3 ballot would let voters decide whether state law should be amended to "deny the government authority to penalize citizens for refusing to purchase private health insurance."

In addition to this proposal, Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder has talked about filing suit to challenge the reform legislation. While many Republicans say the federal law could set the stage for a legal showdown between states and the federal government, many Democrats dismiss both the ballot initiative and lawsuits as election-year rhetoric and politics.

Pointing to the state debates over health reforms, Kaiser acknowledges that "fiscal, political and administrative pressures" could result in some states not achieving the expected enrollment gains that the study projects.

Even so, the report says the reforms mean Medicaid coverage will be offered "to millions of low-income adults for the first time and help establish a national floor for Medicaid eligibility that contrasts sharply with the wide variation in eligibility across state Medicaid programs today." Until now, states have had the option of setting Medicaid eligibility levels so low that relatively few people qualified for the program. For example, a family of three in Missouri can earn no more than $292 a month -- roughly $3,500 a year -- to qualify for Medicaid.

By contrast, the reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, will allow Medicaid to cover anyone, including a childless adult, whose income is at or below 133 percent of the poverty level. The new rules mean a








Missourian with an income at or below $14,404 would qualify for Medicaid. Kaiser projects a 45-to-71 percent drop in the number of uninsured adult Missourians with incomes at or below 133 percent of the poverty level. The actual number, the study says, will depend on Medicaid enrollment levels reached in Missouri.

While some politicians in Missouri and other states have criticized the new health expansion law as being too expensive, one Kaiser official, Diane Rowland, said in a statement, "For a relatively small investment of state dollars, states could see huge returns in terms of additional coverage of their lowest income residents -- with federal dollars covering the bulk of the bill."

She was referring to the study's projection that the federal government would increase its share of Medicaid spending by $443.5 billion between 2014 and 2019, while states would increase their Medicaid spending by $21.1 billion during the same period. In other words, she says, the federal government would cover more than 95 percent of the cost.








Group out to change state's judicial-selection system expresses optimism, denies failureBy Jo Mannies, Beacon Political Reporter

Posted 3:20 p.m. Wed., 05.26.10 - Even though the ballot-petition signatures are now in the hands of Missouri's secretary of state, both sides in the battle over Missouri's judges continue to trade accusations.

ShowMe Better Courts, a group out to overhaul Missouri's judicial-selection system, is denying assertions by a rival group that it failed to submit enough valid signatures.

"I reject this as an effort by self-interested ambulance chasers to influence the secretary of state's count,'' said ShowMe chief James Harris. "Based on what the petition company reports, we believe we were able to overcome the trial lawyers' race-based suppression campaign and frivolous delaying lawsuits to collect the number of signatures necessary to put this before the voters."

Harris' group needs between 146,907 to 159,359 certified signatures from registered voters to get on the Nov. 2 ballot a proposal to do away with the state's 60-plus-year system of selecting judges for Missouri's higher courts, and in the state's urban and suburban areas.

The ShowMe proposal calls for electing all Missouri judges; now, only rural judges are elected.

ShowMe collected and spent $1.5 million its petition drive, and claims to have submitted well over 200,000 signatures. The number of signatures needed depends on where they were collected. The group needs to have a certain number from six of the state's nine congressional districts; the total number of signatures depends on which six districts are used.

The secretary of state's office has until Aug. 3 to determine whether adequate signatures were submitted.

The chief opposition group, the Missourians for Fair and Impartial Courts Action Fund, asserted today that it had conducted an analysis of ShowMe's submitted signatures and is convinced that "that insufficient signatures were collected to qualify the amendment and send it to the voters."

The Impartial Courts group made public its assertions on six congressional districts, all but one outside the St. Louis area.

Spokesman Ken Morley said in an interview that the group also questions whether ShowMe collected enough from the 2nd and 3rd congressional districts -- both largely in St. Louis County -- but didn't include them in today's release because the results are less clear-cut. Impartial Courts actually examined the signatures in all nine districts, he said.

In a statement, Morley contended:

"Missourians were presented a clear choice between preserving Missouri’s non-partisan court plan, a model for the nation, or scrapping it in favor of judicial campaigns full of partisanship, politics and negative campaigning. It appears that Missourians have rejected this proposal to inject politics and partisanship into Missouri’s courtrooms by refusing to even provide sufficient signatures to put this bad idea on the ballot."

Both sides battled in court for weeks during the signature-collection process. ShowMe accused its rivals of trying to intimidate the signature collectors and people approached to sign the petitions. Morley's group denied any wrongdoing. A judge declined to impose a restraining order.






http://mofaircourts.com/analysis-of-signatures/



In any case, Harris said today that ShowMe is doing its own analysis of the turned-in signatures, despite the assurances from the signature-collection firm.

While emphasizing optimism, Harris said that if his group's initiative-petition drive somehow failed, it will try again in 2012.








Nixon administration confronts E.Coli issues again at state park beachesBy Jo Mannies, Beacon Political Reporter

Posted 1:15 a.m. Thurs., 05.27.10 --Missouri’s E. coli bacteria problems at its state park swimming facilities -- which caused Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon a lot of headaches last summer -- have re-emerged in time for the Memorial Day weekend.

The state Department of Natural Resources has announced that swimming beaches at three state parks will be closed this holiday weekend "because of E. coli levels higher than the standards" set by the state for its beaches. E. coli is generally caused by human and animal waste getting into the water.

The three beaches at "Mark Twain State Park, the day use beach at Truman State Park and Public Beach 1 at Lake of the Ozarks State Park" will remain closed "until subsequent sampling results show E. coli levels below the department’s standard."

All three will have signs posted designated that they are closed.

Last summer, a political furor arose -- and legislative hearings were held -- after it was discovered that a beach had been contaminated at the Lake of the Ozarks, but the information was not made public for several weeks. The controversy ended with a longtime Nixon aide losing his job as deputy head of the department.

Here’s the details of the currently affected beaches:

· "Mark Twain State Park Public Beach had a single-sample maximum result of 260.1 mpn/100ml. The group camp beach met department standards and will open May 28. Members of the public looking for another state park beach might try the beach at Long Branch State Park , which met department standards."

· "Truman State Park Day Use Beach, had a geometric mean result of 162.1 mpn/100ml. The park’s campground beach met department standards however is closed due to high water. Missourians looking for another state park beach can visit the beaches at Stockton State Park or Hermitage Beach at Pomme de Terre State Park, which both met department standards and are open."

· "Lake of the Ozarks State Park Public Beach 1 had a geometric mean of 436.7 mpn/100ml. Public Beach 2 met department standards and will open May 28. Missourians looking for another beach to try can use Public Beach 2."








MISSOURINETPlenty of interest being expressed in the one license leftby Brent Martin on May 26, 2010

One license is left and there’s plenty of interest in who will get it.

It is the remaining license to operate a casino in Missouri. The Missouri Gaming Commission begins accepting applications Tuesday. The filing period ends September first. Missouri law allows 13 casino licenses. The President Casino on the St. Louis Riverfront is giving up its license. There seems to be plenty of competition for the 13th and final license.

Gaming Commission Executive Director Gene McNary says the commission will seek plenty of input before settling on who gets the license. Some of the input is likely to come from casino owners claiming their market is too crowded.

“We know that the existing casinos probably will show various economic data that the market is saturated and that all we will be doing is dividing the same pie in more ways rather than increasing the size of the pie,” according to McNary.

The commission has already laid a foundation for its decision. Commission members met with the industry on May 11th to discuss the overall health of the industry. They again met May 18th with communities, casinos and interested parties about the licensing process. By June 15th, licensed casinos in Missouri will have submitted their economic analysis to the State Department of Economic Development. The department should have a preliminary economic analysis on each applicant prepared for the Missouri Gaming Commission by the end of July.

Feedback should be available to applicants by August first. Those applicants not being seriously considered will be cautioned on proceeding. They can either heed the caution and not risk the $50,000 filing fee due September first or can look for ways to beef up their applications and forge ahead.

McNary says the commission will assess the effect on the region, the number of jobs projected, the revenue stream expected.

“With the cap on the casinos and only one available at the present time, there’s a lot of interest and it’s kind of a statewide consideration and that’s why the economic analysis is so important so the commission can be guided as to what serves the best interest of the state,” McNary says.

Interest has been expressed in St. Louis and St. Charles, but also in the Kansas City area community of Sugar Creek as well as Cape Girardeau.

Missouri car thefts a $120 million problemby Bob Priddy on May 26, 2010

The list of the top ten stolen cars in Missouri last year might contain a few surprises. The Highway Patrol says 17,751 vehicles were taken. That’s a little less than in 2008, but the total still represents about 120-million dollars in insurance payments.






http://www.mgc.dps.mo.gov/



About half of the thefts happen in our two largest cities. And you won’t find a luxury model on the top ten list. Spokesman Brent Butler with the Missouri Insurance Coalition sees cars on the list that can be easily parted out. “car”

Two Dodges, one Ford, Two Pontiacs, an Oldsmobile (Oldsmobile quit making cars in 2004 but their products remain popular among thieves), three Chevrolets. The only foreign car is a Honda Accord.

Butler says a lot of those cars might not have been stolen if owners had done something as simple as locking the doors and taking the keys or parking in well-lighted areas.

Missouri Virtual School closing after 12 years serving rural schoolsby Ryan Famuliner on May 26, 2010

After 12 years, the Missouri Virtual School will close for good this week.

The program offered distance classes for rural Missouri high schools. It taught classes like Spanish, Physics, and Chemistry, that schools couldn’t offer otherwise, through a videoconference piped into the schools.

“Courses that the school either could not find a teacher for, or because they have such low enrollment it’s cheaper to go ahead and hire us,” said Director Becky Baker.

Baker was one of the founders of the Missouri Virtual School, launched with a Department of Elementary and Secondary Education grant in 1998. It eventually became a Missouri State University program, and MSU has now decided to pull the funding.

“Unfortunately, I’m going to be real upfront, we did run into a deficit… It costs to do what we do because we do it as an individual service to the schools,” Baker said.

The program was hundreds of thousands of dollars in the red.

“We were still charging a very low fee, and it just wasn’t paying because we were doing so many low enrollment classes. For example, at one school I had two students, that’s it,” Baker said.

Baker says the program has served more than 100 schools and 3,000 students over the last 12 years, and some students have even gone on to Ivy League schools. She’s very disappointed to see the program she founded with two of her colleagues fall to the wayside.

“Both of those gentlemen, one of them died last year, the other one died last year. On top of everything else, seeing something that we all started, basically it’s just like a child that’s no longer here. We’ve nursed this thing for 12 years. So it’s been very difficult and I have teachers that I’m obviously having to let go,” Baker said.

Baker has recommended the rural schools that will be losing her services to use a similar program offered out of Arkansas. She’s confident that program serves the same goals her program did.

“Listening to their teachers, the passion that comes out in their voices is the same passion that comes out in my teacher’s voices,” Baker said.

She says the people running the program have Arkansas have assured her they will get their teachers certified in Missouri, and will offer courses at a similar subscription rate to what Missouri Virtual School charged.






http://mvs.missouristate.edu/41181.htm



EDITORIALS … & Letters to the Editor Health reform referendumA waste of time and energyCOLUMBIA DAILY TRIBUNE By Henry J. Waters IIIWednesday, May 26, 2010

Perhaps the most foolish action of the recent state legislative session would give Missourians the right to ignore federal health care legislation recently passed in Washington.

The bill is unconstitutional on both federal and state levels. It was passed merely to make a political statement, showing we Show Me State denizens won’t be pushed around by the likes of Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress.

The law fails even a state constitutional test because it includes two completely separate issues. The original bill dealt with state insurance reform. The referendum on federal health care was added in the Senate then ratified in the House.

Moreover, no state can overturn provisions in a federal law. The proposed Missouri law would prohibit government penalties against state residents who refuse to buy health insurance as required in the federal program. Such state-by-state flouting of federal law won’t pass muster.

But our thoughtful lawmakers gave large majorities in both House and Senate to this worthless measure, largely because they knew it would never become law. They can satisfy raging tea party hormones with an old red-district Missouri try.

Don’t get me wrong. I love independence. Often, government needs second-guessing, and it’s fair for some of us to oppose the federal heath care initiative. But for duly elected officials to misuse their power and prestige this way is a sad reflection on our state governance. If they were serious, they would have thrown this item off the agenda.

If there is a way to legally challenge this bill before we waste the electorate’s time, let’s do it. Maybe our old friend Hammerschmidt should take the field. We don’t need a federal test to throw out this loony move.







http://www.columbiatribune.com/staff/hank-waters-editor-and-publisher/



Cutting moreThursday, May 27, 2010seMissourianMissouri tax revenue continues to fall far short of budgeted spending. To stay within the constitutional requirement of a balanced budget, Gov. Jay Nixon has made six spending reductions -- totally more than $900 million -- in the current state budget for the fiscal year that ends June 30. In its recently ended session, the Missouri Legislature approved a budget that will require at least another $350 million in cuts to stay within anticipated revenue.

But even after well over a billion dollars in spending reductions, Missouri faces an even sterner test. The state budget for the fiscal year that starts July 1, 2011, will face another billion-dollar shortfall, mostly because federal stimulus funds flowing into Missouri this year won't be there next year.

Cutbacks of this size are manageable -- unlike some other large states wrestling with billions of dollars in spending reductions. Some of those states are considering huge borrowing options and tax increases as well as cuts to make ends meet. But taking another billion dollars out of spending on Missouri's programs and services will require critical decisions.

In short, the state will be forced to decide what taxpayers absolutely must pay for and which programs can either be eliminated or funded from other sources.








Anti-smoking funding needed for Missouri$3 million in budget will be money well spent for Missourians.MAY 27, 2010

We're becoming a bit of a joke. The quip going around is that we should be called the "Smoke-Me State."

The latest brown mark, as in tobacco stains, for Missouri comes in a dubious ranking: last among states in cigarette taxes.

With a move this month by South Carolina to increase its tax to 57 cents a pack, we now sit last (dead last, some say, and they're not joking) with a 17-cent-a-pack levy.

Of course, lower tax rates correlate with more smoking and that holds true for Show-Me state adults and teenagers.

According to a new Centers for Disease Control report, nearly one in four adults smoke in the state, and that puts us yet again near the bottom of the list when it comes to progress in tackling this public health challenge.

There's not all bleak news, however. State Sen. Kurt Schaefer, R-19 (Columbia), helped include in a budget bill an amendment that could result in millions of dollars in smoking-cessation help for Missouri's poor.

Schaefer's amendment to the budget would channel $3 million in state funds toward a pilot program for Medicaid recipients, leveraging another $5.3 million in similar, federal funds.

Gov. Jay Nixon holds the power to sign off on the spending, but staffers from his office as well as the Office of Budget and Planning are going through budget bills line by line looking for cuts due to the poor state of the state's economy.

Nixon should pass this amendment by as he embarks on his important and essential excising.

This anti-tobacco spending will pay for itself -- maybe even in its first year.

Schaefer points out that other states with cessation programs have seen savings, as expected when fewer people need treatment for smoking-related illnesses. Some dramatic reductions in the number of adults smoking were also reported, convincing experts that, with enough motivation, even those addicted can quit tobacco.

The Missouri State Medical Association is promoting a letter-writing campaign to show the governor that doctors support the funding for cessation programs.

Springfield's Dr. Jim Blaine, a noted opponent of smoking and secondhand smoke, predicts that the MSMA's Public Affairs Commission will help send to Nixon many letters from professionals who deal daily with the human toll of smoking.

Absent effective levels of cigarette taxes, Missouri needs to make strides on some other front to address this problem. The cessation funding is a start.

The governor, budget-cutting pen in hand, must keep in mind this ominous sentence from the MSMA:

"For every tobacco-related death, 20 times more U.S. citizens, or 9 million people, suffer from tobacco-related disease ... contributing to reduced quality of life and additional costs to our health care system and economy."

Our Voice

This editorial is the view of the News-Leader Editorial Board








Taming the riverCOLUMBIA DAILY TRIBUNE By Henry J. Waters IIIWednesday, May 26, 2010

Once upon a time the Missouri River ran free, providing natural habitat for indigenous species and a vital avenue for waterborne transportation. Then mankind got busy taming the river for other uses. Dams were built upstream to impound water for drinking and recreation. Below, levees and wing dams controlled the flow, protecting against flooding and erosion and making straighter channels for navigation. Next thing we knew, the natural functions of the mighty river were lost. As downstream builders sought to manage the river for agriculture and transport, upstream managers, who had first crack at the water, held it in giant lakes for their own use. Ever since, downstreamers have pushed for rules forcing the dam builders to open their floodgates while natural species suffered as humans messed with their habitats.

Enter the Army Corps of Engineers, the hapless agency years ago given the impossible task of satisfying irreconcilable differences so many generations in the making. Finally the corps came up with a plan for water management, but after a few years complaining persists and Congress has commissioned a $25 million study. Nobody, including the group conducting the study, thinks it is likely to bring mutual happiness. Apparently Congress had to do something, so we shall have another study.

Meanwhile the lower river barge industry scrapes bottom and the pallid sturgeon looks harder to find enticing places for courtship. People in the Dakota neighborhood grouse because water is being sent downstream to satisfy a dying transport industry, and the sturgeon might not be that much better off.

Stand by for the 2010 version of the River War, coming soon.







http://www.columbiatribune.com/staff/hank-waters-editor-and-publisher/



Nixon savvy to bolster Chief IsomSTL AMERICAN

Thursday, May 27, 2010 2:28 AM CDT

The new board majority on the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners seems to be shunning its new place in the highly politicized spotlight of St. Louis media, after Gov. Jay Nixon’s three appointees voted en bloc to elevate one of their own, Bettye Battle-Turner, to board president. This move voted out of the board presidency the last of former Gov. Matt Blunt’s appointees – Todd Epsten, a liquor distributor – who promptly resigned from the board altogether in mid-meeting. The only other board member is Mayor Francis G. Slay, who serves in an ex officio capacity. A highly political operator himself, Slay immediately accused the governor of playing politics with the police board.

Of course, he was. Missouri law gives the governor four of the five appointments to the St. Louis police board. This archaic law creates a diplomatic relationship between the governor and mayor that can be used for good or ill. It is typical of this mayor and his leadership that he had a far better relationship with Republican Governor Matt Blunt than he has had with Nixon, a Democrat. Blunt’s various appointees and Slay presided over a humiliating decline in police governance that dominated the news for years and resulted in a series of scandals and a stinging State audit.

Slay, the only elected member on the board, participated actively in this decline in police governance. When numerous lapses in their collective leadership were laid bare in the State audit, Slay’s only response was to call for local control. Asking Nixon to join him in lobbying for local control was in effect challenging the governor to use his own political clout to surrender some of his own political power – something that is nearly impossible to imagine Francis Slay doing himself. In the most recent legislative session, Slay made the St. Louis police board a political issue for Nixon. If Nixon was indeed behind the coup staged by his new appointees, as Slay claims, then the governor has delivered a highly successful stroke of political payback.

Nixon then continued to make effective political capital out of his role in appointing the majority of the police board by speaking up for Police Chief Daniel Isom. Isom had the winning hand in the immediately prior act of political brinkmanship on the police board, when he effectively forced the resignation of one of Blunt’s Slay-friendly police commissioners, Vincent J. Bommarito. Bommarito had just moved aggressively to question Isom’s leadership, making it clear there is a good-old-boy faction in the department that wants Isom out. We suspect the mayor is well aware of the wishes of this faction and would have done his best to give them what they want. But Isom outsmarted the forces arrayed against him, and then Nixon flexed his muscles and put Slay on the sideline.

Slay still wears around his neck the albatross of a dignified, competent African-American civil servant in former Fire Chief Sherman George. Nixon seems to be reaching for a halo effect in bolstering a dignified, competent African-American civil servant in Chief Isom. We are impressed by the governor’s political savvy and bold leadership on this matter.








USA TODAY MISSOURI NEWSTUESDAY, MAY 25 -- St. Charles — Three teenagers are back in custody, but one had to be rescued from a small island in the Missouri River, after an escape from a detention center. The three escaped on Sunday night from the St. Charles County Juvenile Justice Center. Motorists spotted two of them near Interstate 70 asking for a ride. One went into the river and had to be rescued from an island

WEDNESDAY, MAY 26 -- St. Clair — A girl remains hospitalized in critical condition after she was pinned beneath a boat that capsized on the Meramec River. Paiton Hall, 4, was in critical condition at St. Louis Children's Hospital. Her brother Nathaniel, 2, was in good condition. In all, four people were in the boat.

THURSDAY, MAY 27 -- Jefferson City — Two more hiking and biking trails in the state have been officially designated as national recreation trails. The federal government awarded the designation to the Black River trail that winds through the woods below the Clearwater Dam and to South Creek Greenway in Springfield. The state has 16 other trails that have received the federal recognition.






Documents

May 27, 2010