As readers of the St. Louis MetroVoice know, we are non-partisan and do not endorse candidates or political parties. Issues however, are a different story.

On November 5th, voters in Missouri are being asked to go the polls to vote on six very important ballot issues that will effect their pocketbooks, their private property, how their tax dollars are spent and how they are to be governed.

Getting to the bottom line, the MetroVoice is urging voters to vote "NO" on Constitutional Amendment numbers 1, 2 and 4, as well as Proposition A and the issue of holding a Constitutional Convention to potentially rewrite Missouri's Constitution. We are however encouraging voters to vote "YES" on Constitutional Amendment #3.

The following is our justification for our recommendations for each of the six ballot issues, preceded by the official ballot language on each issue that will appear on the November 5th ballot.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Joint Resolution No. 11 (Proposed by 91st General Assembly)

Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended so that the citizens of the City of St. Louis may amend or revise their present charter to provide for and reorganize their county functions and offices, as provided in the constitution and laws of the state?

The estimated fiscal impact of this proposed measure to state and local governments is $0.

St. Louis City is the only city in Missouri that is not located within a county. Every other city, town and village is within a county. (A few cities are, however, split by two adjoining counties.) This unique situation creates a wide variety of advantages and disadvantages for the City of St. Louis. Constitutional Amendment #1 seeks to minimize the disadvantages while allegedly maintaining the advantages through a concept often referred to as "home rule".

In short, home rule would expand the scope and depth of independent political function to the city and further divorce St. Louis from accountability to the state.

On the surface, Constitutional Amendment #1 seems to empower the individual citizens of the City of St. Louis to have better collective control over the governing functions of their city’s administrative structure. However, a nagging question begs to be answered. Why would the politicians currently controlling St. Louis City go through the expense and trouble of lobbying and pushing the state legislature to adopt a state constitutional amendment that would transfer greater control back to average citizens?

While claiming that this transfer of political control would supposedly diminish the influence of their current political offices, we need to remember who is pushing this proposal. These are the same politicians who are known as the single most arrogant of Missouri’s 500+ incorporated city and township leaders.

Prudence demands to know why those who have the reputation of conducting and orchestrating a continual pattern of political corruption and election fraud would seek voter approval for their plan to make government better?

Wisdom demands to know how any Christian citizen could possibly support the plans of evil-doers who oppress the poor and calculate unjust scales for political self-gain?

Righteousness demands to know when Missouri's leading city, recognizing and promoting homosexual special rights, defending abortion mills and leading the state in all areas of social degradation became qualified to assume more political power and self-rule?

Scriptural principles teach that only a person who proves themselves faithful in smaller matters may be qualified with the stewardship of larger ones. St. Louis City has failed in the former and cannot be entrusted with the latter. In every area from education to sanitation, from infrastructure to political integrity, St. Louis City has maintained a long history of unfaithfulness.

Thanks to the dominance of their own brand of unchecked and unbalanced single party control, St. Louis City is unqualified to govern itself via ‘home-rule’. As a political sub-division of the Great State of Missouri, St. Louis City needs to become MORE accountable to the state, not less! The St. Louis MetroVoice is calling upon voters statewide to vote NO on Constitutional Amendment #1.

Shall Article XIII of the Missouri Constitution be amended to permit specified firefighters and ambulance personnel, and dispatchers of fire departments, fire districts, ambulance districts and ambulance departments and fire and emergency medical services dispatchers of dispatch agencies, to organize and bargain collectively in good faith with their employers through representatives of their own choosing and to enter into enforceable collective bargaining contracts with their employers concerning wages, hours, binding arbitration and all other terms and conditions of employment, except that nothing in this amendment shall grant to the aforementioned employees the right to strike?

The annual costs to paid fire departments and districts, ambulance departments and districts, and dispatch agencies to enter into collective bargaining contracts are approximately $251,600 to $3,145,000, depending upon the number of entities entering into such contracts.

Any analysis of Constitutional Amendment #2 would be lacking if it did not first clarify that basic collective bargaining is a clear benefit for employees and their families. It is good for society to keep industry and management accountable for its treatment or mistreatment of employees. Two problems however have always plagued the system; bargaining practices and the potential for abuse on the side of the union. These concerns are magnified when the employer/employee relationships in question are being funded through tax dollars.

Constitutional Amendment #2 effects much more than the firefighters, ambulance personnel, and dispatchers singled out in the ballot language. The people directly impacted by this proposal are all public employees paid with public funding. But we should not forget that all taxpayers are indirectly affected as well! What is strange is the fact that even our pro-labor union state legislature has refused to adopt any version of this proposal for over a generation!

To start with, the wording of this proposed amendment is misleading. There is not a law in the State of Missouri that prevents any group of employees from engaging in collective bargaining. In addition, there are also no laws, which address three bottom line problems found in this proposed amendment, should it become law.

First and foremost is the inclusion of the term "binding arbitration" as an element of an absolute right in collective bargaining for these public employees. Industry wide, across the United States, those who turn to the profession of ‘arbitrators’ predominately come from the ranks of pro-union forces. Arbitrators commonly display a strong bias against employers and rarely qualify as neutral third party arbitrators. This is especially true when the employer is a government entity perceived to have the power to tap into, or to create, additional tax revenues to cover collective bargaining demands.

In states and other political subdivisions where binding arbitration is practiced, governing boards are squeezed out of their budget parameters and forced to either cut vital services in other areas or forced to propose higher tax rates to cover the demands of the employees union. This unbalanced approach leaves everyone unhappy as services decline, costs increase, taxes climb, and other groups of public employees see themselves as underpaid.

Second. The first item ALWAYS negotiated is what is called a "union security agreement" in which no employee may opt out of the union. Systematic payments of union dues, or other funds, will be withheld by the employer and transferred directly to the representing union. Under this agreement no firefighter, ambulance personnel or dispatcher would have the right (as they currently do!) not to join the union.

These check-off dues withheld by the employer guarantees the collective bargaining agency (the union) that it does not have to collect their own dues. This puts the employees at a disadvantage in that they cannot hold the union accountable for its performance. The end result is forced membership and the biggest winner is the union, which collects large sums of taxpayer’s dollars.

Third, and most deceptive, is the inclusion of "the right to enter into enforceable collective bargaining contracts…concerning wages, hours, binding arbitration and all other terms and conditions of employment and such contracts…" While the last part of this ballot question seems to guarantee that no right to strike will be part of the law, such a prohibition is canceled out with the right of "enforceable collective bargaining"! When arbitration fails and employees make a case for contract violations, or in the case of a failed attempt to renegotiate a contract, "enforcement" is defined to include the equivalency of an employee strike!

While these issues are hotly debated in the private sector, with justification from both sides, they clearly violate public trust and stewardship within the public sector. Some firefighters, ambulance personnel and dispatchers already utilize collective bargaining in Missouri (most do not). However, they do not have the three items enumerated here. These three items are at stake and no more. With these three items in place, additional complications now come into focus. Firing or otherwise removing a bad employee for such causes as stealing, drug use, sleeping on the job, negligence, insubordination or other problems can become quite difficult. The cost of fighting the union lawyers may be higher than that of retaining the offending employee. This places a further drain on tax dollars needed for other services.

Last, but not least, the employer/employee relationship is destroyed. It is undermined by the disillusionment of unreal expectations. It is overshadowed by the disappointments of disgruntled employees. It is blindsided by the frustrated maneuverings of managing boards and agencies trying to balance their responsibilities to the taxpaying community.

As a matter of financial and moral stewardship, the St. Louis MetroVoice recommends a NO vote on Constitutional Amendment #2.

Shall Article III, Section 8 of the Missouri Constitution be amended to exclude, from the calculations of term limits for members of the General Assembly, service of less than one-half of a legislative term resulting from a special election held after December 5, 2002?

The estimated fiscal impact of this proposed measure to state and local governments is $0.

The Missouri General Assembly is made up of 163 men and women elected to the House of Representatives. These House members serve two-year terms and must then face reelection. As with most other states (only one exception) Missouri has a bi-polar General Assembly with a House and a Senate. There are 34 members of the Senate. Senators serve four-year terms and are elected/reelected with half of them facing voters every two years. Even numbered senatorial districts and odd numbered districts alternate through each two-year election cycle.

Since voters adopted legislative term limits for both the Missouri House and State Senate in 1992, no member may serve more than eight years in either body. By holding office for the full eight years as a Representative and another eight years as a Senator, it is possible to accumulate a total of sixteen years in the Legislature.

An unforeseen problem with term limits now occurs when one of these 197 offices are vacated due to a member’s death, mid-term resignation (or prison incarceration). In these cases, which occur more often than most people realize, the Governor certifies a special election to fill the vacancy. However, the newly elected person filling the House or Senate seat becomes disqualified to run for an additional election if their first partial term causes them to exceed the eight-year limit.

As an example: If a senator is chosen in a special election to finish only the fourth year of a term for a vacated seat, the full four years of the term is counted against their eight year limit. This person only has the opportunity to serve five years.

Constitutional Amendment #3 provides a compromise between the spirit of the term limits adopted by Missouri voters and this inequity in election laws. Rather than swinging the pendulum too far the other way, this proposal does not suggest giving these individuals an almost full additional term. By dividing a House or Senate term in half, partial service would count against the full limit if more than half a term is served. Likewise, if less than half a term is served following a special election to fill a vacancy, such partial term would not disqualify the individual from serving their full eight year potential.

To completely pro-rate partial terms would create significant problems with the general election cycles. This proposal seems to be the best solution to the current problem. The St. Louis MetroVoice encourages voters to vote YES on Constitutional Amendment #3.

House Joint Resolution No. 47 (Proposed by 91st General Assembly)

Shall joint boards or commissions, established by contract between political subdivisions, be authorized to own joint projects, to issue bonds in compliance with then applicable requirements of law, the bonds not being indebtedness of the state or political subdivisions, and such activities not to be regulated by the Public Service Commission?

This measure provides potential savings of state revenue and imposes no new costs.

Under current law no joint government entities may be involved in the development of revenue producing utility projects unless the project is fully regulated by the Public Service Commission (PSC).

The Public Service Commission, while operating as a state government agency, is charged with representing the general public’s interest in regard to utilities. This Constitutional Amendment seeks to remove certain utility projects out from under the regulatory authority of the PSC.

Both, private and public utilities, as well as certain government bodies, have the legal rights of eminent domain. Under a variety of circumstances any utility service, including those addressed in this proposal, may condemn private citizen's property and take possession of the property!

Constitutional Amendment #4 is asking Missouri voters to allow a government entity with broad powers over the lives of taxpaying citizens to enter into utility projects, which also have broad powers over the property of tax paying citizens. These utility projects, issuing revenue-producing bonds, would no longer be regulated by the private citizen’s last hope of defense – the Public Service Commission.

The St. Louis MetroVoice recommends a NO vote on Constitutional Amendment #4.

Shall Missouri law be amended to impose an additional tax of 2.75 cents per cigarette (fifty-five cents per pack) and 20 percent on other tobacco products, with the new revenues placed into a Healthy Families Trust Fund to be used for the following purposes: hospital trauma care and emergency preparedness; health care treatment and access, including prescription drug assistance for seniors and health care initiatives for low income citizens, women, minorities and children; life sciences research, including medical research and the proper administration of funds for such research; smoking prevention; and grants for early childhood care and education?

An additional tax of two and three-quarters cents per cigarette and an additional tax of twenty percent of the manufacturer's invoice price for tobacco products other than cigarettes would generate net annual state revenues of approximately $342,636,000; local fiscal impact, if any, is unknown.

Proposition A creates almost $350,000,000 in new state taxes every year. Over half of these new funds may be used in unrestrictive ways which promote abortion, abortion related services, unchecked research on unborn babies, a host of bioethical violations, and contraception for minors without parental authority – just to name a few of its problems.

Language in the complete proposal (not found in the ballot question) specifies that the state legislature cannot restrict or otherwise place moral parameters on the uses of these funds. Moreover, none of these new taxes may be counted toward the Hancock Amendment, which would otherwise limit additional new taxes authorized by the Legislature.

The vast majority of the full body of Proposition A is dedicated to structuring a huge morass of public funded institutions created at least in part to deliver a perpetual barrage of attacks upon the sanctity of human life. Its anti-life, anti-family vehemence is cloaked in sugarcoated rhetoric that makes the proposal sound as if society cannot succeed without it. Yet, Proposition A will:

- Subsidize Planned Parenthood with millions of public tax dollars

- Allow health officials to make direct referrals to abortionist

- Allow schools to refer minors to abortion facilities with no parental notification

- Provide high volumes of free contraceptives to minors from school based ‘sex clinics’

- Provide massive funding for biotech research without bioethical safeguards

- Ingrain hyper-political correctness with comprehensive early childhood education and,

- Provide only the smallest block of funding for any one area to tobacco addiction prevention

This is all allowable under Proposition A because of the clause that directs the application of guidelines to be limited to only those previously established and in effect on January 1, 2002. Only the statutes and state constitutional provisions in effect on that day would be applicable. Every restriction voided by the courts on or prior to that day would not apply. Also, any restrictions not yet adopted or revised by the General Assembly related to bioethics or other pro-life, pro-family matters could serve to restrict these public funded offenses!

As the furthest reaching and most dangerous proposed policy initiative on the November 5, 2002 ballot, the St. Louis MetroVoice emphatically challenges voters to actively advertise the need to vote NO on Proposition A.

Constitutional Convention

Submitted by Matt Blunt, Secretary of State, State of Missouri

In compliance with the Constitution of Missouri, Article XII, Section 3(a)

Shall there be a convention to revise and amend the Constitution?

Our Missouri Constitution contains a self-perpetuating provision that requires voters to be confronted with the question of a state constitutional convention. This convention would reorganize and potentially completely re-write the state’s guiding document.

Secretary of State Matt Blunt is legally charged to enforce Article XII, Section 3(a) of the Constitution and submit this question to the voters. This is required every twenty years, as it has been done since the self-enacting provision was adopted in 1922.

Our current edition of the Missouri Constitution was adopted in 1945 after being written in 1943-44 due to the 1942 voter approval for a convention. This was in response to calls for modernization of the document since the previous version had been drafted in 1875 (prior to the advent of automobiles, air travel, electric appliances, and telephones). Missouri citizens agreed that a complete revision could assist in recovering from the ravages of WWII.

In both 1962 and 1982, voters rejected the call for a Constitutional Convention. Today’s supporters of a 2002 Constitutional Convention cite the 59 amendments that have been added piecemeal to our 1945 Constitution and that a reorganization of the document is long overdue.

Opponents of the Constitutional Convention question note that the amendment process is working fine and that a complete overhaul would be very costly with little or no benefit. Also adding to the debate to reject a state con-con is the fact that the State Legislature and citizen initiatives provide adequate access to proposed constitutional changes. Even Secretary of State Matt Blunt points to the adequate success of the amending process by highlighting such major policy issues as term limits, tax revenue limits and casino gambling, all constitutional amendments in just the last ten years.

The MetroVoice concurs with those opposed to a new Constitutional Convention. Additionally, we want to draw attention to the inherent dangers of a con-con in a post-modern era. Not one supporter of the provision to invoke a repeating 20-year cycle of this question would have had any idea that elected representatives would support public funding of abortions. They couldn't have even imagined that lawmakers, using the force of law, would one day codify special rights for homosexuals, institute no fault divorce, gun control, approve casinos and state operated lotteries and Keno, or permit prisons to show X-rated movies. In our post-modern era, where there are no absolutes, no right or wrong, what kind of constitution could our children inherit from us?

Not only does the St. Louis MetroVoice strongly recommend a NO vote against calling a Constitutional Convention, we honestly believe the fine folks who originated this question 80 years ago would agree!

Cut this out & take it with you

when you vote November 5th.