- Filed Under
Jefferson City News Tribune, March 16
Before elevating additional activity to a constitutional right, Missouri lawmakers may want to heed the advice of Robot B-9.
The robot, you may recall, was programmed to warn the stranded family of impending danger on the 1960s television program, "Lost in Space."
Some lawmakers - in past sessions and, notably, during this session - perceive attacks on what they consider traditional behavior and activities.
A tendency has been to repel those attacks by enshrining specific activities and behaviors as constitutional rights.
A partial list of proposed constitutional amendments includes:
? A right to farm.
? A right to hunt and fish.
? A right to hold a rodeo.
? A right for parents to raise their children as they see fit.
Are these proposals a reasonable response to a real threat or an overreaction fueled by paranoia?
Two factors aggravating this constitutional amendment fever, if we may call it that, are Proposition B and term limits.
Proposition B was an animal welfare law - not a constitutional amendment - approved by voters, but changed drastically by lawmakers before it became effective.
The action provided a compelling example of why a constitutional amendment is preferable; it is impervious to legislative tampering. In addition, term limits fuel a tendency among lawmakers to pass measures with greater durability.
The tendency to enshrine activity and behavior as a constitutional right, however, presents both short-term and long-term consequences.
The immediate concern is if a constitutional amendment permits abuse, the error cannot be rectified quickly.
The long-range consequence, as we wrote in this forum on Feb. 2, is: "If we continue on this inane path of continually amending the constitution, representative government eventually will become superfluous."
A constitution is a framework for governing; it is not a law book or regulation manual.
To paraphrase Robot B-9: Danger, Missouri legislature, danger!
Columbia Daily Tribune, March 17
Perhaps the most enduring canard regarding public governance is that good people won't serve in office unless surrounded in secrecy; its dichotomous cousin asserts officials can only do business openly behind closed doors.
By now we know the natural tendency of public officials doing public business to avoid publicity. If you notice a hopeless tangle of the "p'' word in the above sentence, you get the picture.
So, for years governments have built open meetings and records laws, and for just as many years operating officials have resisted. You can see a current version of this struggle in the list of groups - including organizations for cities, counties and other local government agencies - opposing a new law sponsored by Sen. Kurt Schaefer that would make long-needed improvements in Missouri's Sunshine Law.
The enforcement mechanism is one of the primary faults in the current Missouri statute. After proclaiming openness as the basic requirement, the law is routinely ignored because enforcement depends on lawsuits brought by private parties against the government to prove officeholder offenders "purposefully" or "knowingly" broke the law.
Schaefer's new version would retain larger fines for "purposeful" violations but allow small-fine application of the law without having to prove "knowing" violations.
The executive director of the St. Louis Municipal League raised the usual complaint: It's wrong to penalize volunteers on school boards and other public agencies for accidentally violating the law. But to follow this reasoning is to say any citizen can be excused from following any law out of ignorance.
The lowered fine for easier prosecution is a step forward, but the best move would be for prosecutors at state and local levels to assume responsibility. They wouldn't even have to file lawsuits to make a huge difference if, upon receiving and examining a complaint, they would summon the alleged public official offender for an explanation of the penalties involved if the offense is not acknowledged and corrected. If routinely followed, this tactic would quickly bring the desired result.
Schaefer's law should be passed. Let us commend Schaefer for doing the right thing and urge his colleagues to agree.