The SB40 flap

Among those who reside in any county, the ones who deserve tax-supported services more than anyone else are those who are unable to fend for themselves. This need was recognized years ago when the Missouri Legislature passed Senate Bill 40, a piece of legislation authorizing voters in each of the state's 114 counties to impose on themselves a special tax of up to 40 cents per $100 of assessed valuation to pay for services to the developmentally disabled.

In the ensuing years, 79 counties have adopted the tax. Among the traditional services provided from tax proceeds are housing, training and sheltered workplaces for developmentally disabled men and women. Cape Girardeau County's Senate Bill 40 tax is 7.7 cents per $100 of assessed valuation. In Scott County it is 4 cents, Perry County 8.98 cents and Bollinger County 10 cents.

News stories in the Southeast Missourian in recent weeks have focused attention on the SB40 Board, an advisory group authorized by the Legislature. Senate Bill 40, among other things, gave county commissions the authority to appoint members to these special boards. But the boards are creations of the state, not the county. There is, for example, no mechanism in Senate Bill 40 for county commissioners to remove any SB40 Board members. And an attorney recently consulted by Cape Girardeau County's SB40 Board says property purchased using Senate Bill 40 tax funds should be owned by the SB40 Board.

This has become a point of contention in Cape Girardeau County. The exclusive provider of services funded by the Senate Bill 40 tax is VIP Industries, a not-for-profit agency whose mission is to meet the needs of the developmentally disabled. For years VIP has had an exclusive contract with the SB40 Board to provide those services. It also has retained ownership of property purchased using funds from the Senate Bill 40 tax. County commissioners think the property should be owned by the county. An agreement was struck many years ago to transfer the property ownership from VIP to the county. Recently, it came to light that the deeds for the transfer had never been recorded, which means the property is still owned by VIP.

Another development in recent months has been the issue of the SB40 Board's role. Some members of the board have expressed an interest in ending VIP's exclusive contract. All of the allocations from the Senate Bill 40 tax have always gone to VIP. There is an interest in providing more services to the developmentally disabled, and some on the board want to consider other possible providers of those services.

There certainly is ample funding to provide more services. Over the years, the SB40 Board has been able to set aside nearly $3 million in reserves -- money from the Senate Bill 40 tax that was not spent on services to the developmentally disabled. In addition, as the sole beneficiary of the tax, VIP has amassed more than $15 million in reserves -- again, money not spent on the developmentally disabled.

These reserves -- both by the SB40 board and by VIP -- are staggering. And they beg the question: Should the SB40 Board temporarily suspend collecting the Senate Bill 40 tax, or should it continue to collect the tax but find ways to provide additional services? And how much funding should the SB40 Board give to VIP when that not-for-profit has $15 million in idle funds?

These are tough questions to grapple with. Some members of the SB40 Board have sought guidance from members of the county commission. Several weeks ago, four SB40 Board members met with Gerald Jones, presiding commissioner, and Paul Koeper, 1st District commissioner. The meeting -- an apparent violation of Missouri's Open Meetings-Open Records Law, because there was a quorum of the commission discussing county business -- did not satisfactorily resolve all the issues raised. The SB40 Board members then turned to 2nd District Commissioner Jay Purcell, seeking an advocate on the commission. Purcell has since participated in several meetings.

In the meantime, Presiding Commissioner Jones has made it clear he doesn't like the squabbling going on. Jones has more than a passing interest in services for the developmentally disabled. As an educator, he taught special-needs students. He helped form the SB40 Board. But what appears to be threats to replace SB40 Board members he considers to be too contentious is out of line.

The SB40 Board is an oversight board. It should be asking tough questions. And it should be resolving tough issues. To label an honest discussion of how the SB40 funds should be spent and who should own Senate Bill 40 tax-funded property as "controversy" misses the mark. Where's the controversy? The board, by asking questions, appears to be doing its job.

As for the property ownership, this is something that needs to be resolved quickly. Why has this lingered in limbo all these years? Why wasn't anyone paying attention?

There isn't just one good answer to these questions. Surely, however, a meeting of the minds among the SB40 Board, the county commission and VIP Industries can be worked out -- if that is everyone's goal from the start.

More important, though, is to never lose sight of who needs the most help: the developmentally disabled. Is there more that can be done? Then do it. It's certainly not a question of too little funding.