AREA OFFICIALS EXPRESS GRAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT HANCOCK II

Several area officials said they have serious reservations about Hancock II's impact on the state's ability to provide basic services to citizens.

Late Thursday, the amendment pushed by Southwest Missouri U.S. Rep. Mel Hancock, R-Springfield, was placed on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Opponents of the proposal -- many of them affiliated with agencies that rely on state funding or with local governments that could see major changes in fiscal policies -- warn it could have a devastating affect.

John Oliver, a Cape Girardeau attorney who is vice chairman of the Missouri Highway and Transportation Commission, called the amendment a potential disaster. He warned the state's highway system would revert to a system of the 1920s.

"This amendment is so poorly written that no one can say with certainty what it can do, including the authors," said Oliver. "Most probably it would result in the loss of our 6-cent gas tax."

Oliver said the amendment would not only bring new construction to a halt on highways, but also severely cut maintenance.

"It is impossible to overplay the devastating effect of this thing," Oliver said.

Art Wallhausen, assistant to the president at Southeast Missouri State University, said based on a projection developed by former state budget director Jim Moody, the amendment could result in Southeast losing about one-third of its state appropriation. That would be about $10 million.

But not everyone was proclaiming a gloom and doom forecast from Hancock II.

John Lichtenegger, a Jackson attorney and member of the University of Missouri's board of curators, said he has not read the amendment and is undecided how he will vote.

He voted against a motion passed by the board several months ago expressing concern about Hancock and its impact on higher education in the state.

"I don't have a problem with letting people vote on these issues," said Lichtenegger. "I'm not one of these alarmists that say there will be massive closures or anything like that. We have moved forward greatly in higher education and I don't think this measure will lead to the closure of any college campus in Missouri."

Lichtenegger said the amendment is a backlash from Democratic Gov. Mel Carnahan forcing a tax increase through the legislative in 1993 after promising a vote of the people.

Rep. Mary Kasten, R-Cape Girardeau, said the amendment is poorly written and will be a "legal bucket of worms." She feels there will be perpetual litigation over its meaning.

Kasten said she has no problem having voters decide tax increases, but believes Hancock II would be an additional confinement of legislative decision-making.

Cape Girardeau City Manager J. Ronald Fischer said Hancock would lead to votes on user fees which would make them decided not by actual costs but by a fee's popularity with voters.

He feels it would not only impact new taxes, but existing revenues as well.

Wallhausen said the university will tell voters about the impact on Southeast.

"We are very concerned that voters won't understand the full implications of it and hope that during the next few months we will be able to explain what the university and region would have to lose from passage of Hancock II."