HOUSE HAPPENINGS

by Representative Jim Whorton

(573) 751-1649 (660) 359-3988

Our schedule was very busy in Missouri’s General Assembly last week. We took final action on 69 bills in the House of Representatives, some of which were very significant, statewide; however, many apply only to specific localities or special interests. Sixteen of the 69 still require Senate agreement and all must be signed by the Governor before they become law. One of these (HJR 55) relates to compensation of public officials and, in addition, must be approved by a majority of voters in a general election.

At least two of these proposals appear to be unlikely to achieve an agreement on a single position by the House, Senate and the Governor. They are the Conference Committee Report for SCS HCS HB 1022 (MOHELA) and Conference Committee Substitute for SCS HB 1865, which would restrict higher education’s ability to raise student tuition in the future and establishes publicly-funded scholarship programs that could be used at private institutions of higher learning. Even though there has been widespread opposition to both issues within HB 1865, the Speaker and Speaker Pro Tem of our House took a position that HB 1022 (MOHELA) would not be referred to the Senate for consideration until the Senate passed HB 1865. Both sides were at an impasse and according to our “rules”, time for agreement ran out at 6 p.m. on Friday, May 5. There have been several occasions during the past few years when “rules” have been “changed”, for leadership’s convenience. Also, there have been a few times when they’ve been “ignored” and perhaps other times when they’ve been broken. I will not be surprised to see one or both of these issues resurface in this final week of session, and they may be wearing a slightly different skin.

Based on collective opinions throughout the 3rd Legislative District, I have never supported the legislature transferring truly public revenue toward funding for private institutions. In this case, there is some logic that a portion of the MOHELA assets were partly derived from servicing loans for students at private colleges. Are those assets truly public revenues? If MOHELA chooses to sell those assets and subsequently “donate” the proceeds to the State of Missouri for the “benefit of higher education”, do those donations, then become public revenue? Would it in fact be appropriate to distribute proceeds proportionately to benefit the institutions that were responsible for gains in the MOHELA program?

Things are seldom as simple as they seem, especially when there are about 200 elected politicians involved in decision making, along with inputs from numerous special interest groups, who continue to offer conflictive opinions. I tend to believe that any assets, whether it is public or private, should be periodically reviewed concerning continued ownership. When occasions arise that indicate other opportunities, with better yields, then it should be okay to dispose of current assets and reinvest the proceeds. The MOHELA plan, outlined in HB 1022, was originally to sell off a portion of student loan assets and reinvest in several opportunities, which would enhance scholarships and provide life science facilities for Missouri’s college students. The final plan for distribution of projected revenues resulting from MOHELA was certainly not “the best that it could be”. Information sources indicate that 30% to 50% of annual student loan business is with students attending the twelve community colleges in Missouri. The final distribution formula only contained 18 million for community colleges while 130 million was designated for purposes outside higher education. Perhaps it is best if the plan takes more time to evolve and we don’t rush into a series of mistakes this week. There is always next year, providing we don’t squander what we have.