COUNTY OFFICIALS LAMENT BUDGET CUTS

JACKSON - Cape Girardeau County Auditor H. Weldon Macke and County Clerk Rodney Miller have walked the halls of the state capitol for many legislative sessions, working for new laws to help county government.

Over the years, they have had a hand in convincing lawmakers and state officials to support legislation that has had a positive impact on county government. And, over the years, they have seen a lot of hard work go down the drain because of an inability to get bills through the legislative process.

When the 1991 session adjourned May 17, Macke, Miller and many other county officials around the state were hailing this session as a productive one for county governments with most major bills winning approval of lawmakers.

But by the time Gov. John Ashcroft finished exercising his veto power making budget cuts and withholding some funding the euphoria of a few weeks ago was history.

"It was a pretty good year and then all of a sudden the boat sank, the plane crashed," moaned Macke.

"I think at the last minute, most of the priority issues were put in shape and supported by the Senate and House," added Miller. "It seemed like a majority of the people felt like these were good bills."

Among the actions taken by Ashcroft was the veto of a bill that would have increased the per diem, paid by the state to counties for housing its prisoners, from $14 to $17 a day; the withholding of an appropriation to fund the next 5 percent step in the 10-year, 50 percent phased-in state assumption of the costs of operating the juvenile court system; and the veto of a retirement plan for elected county officials.

Still awaiting the governor's action is a bill that would have the state pick up worker's compensation insurance costs for juvenile court personnel. Macke said based on the governor's other actions, it seems unlikely he will sign the bill.

"I guess it's just tough all the way around when you don't have money," said Macke. "You can't blame him (Ashcroft) for vetoing money if it's not there. But sooner or later, we will have to sit down and talk with the state about assuming some of the costs they are passing on to counties.

"There are a lot of problems but not many answers. Somebody will have to take care of it one way or the other eventually."

Cape County Presiding Commissioner Gene Huckstep charged that Ashcroft's actions reflected a continued disregard for the needs of county government and county officials.

"I don't know that Gov. John Ashcroft has ever lifted a finger to help county government," snapped Huckstep. "If he has, I sure don't know what it's been."

Macke and Miller are past presidents of the Missouri Association of Counties and serve on the organization's board of directors.

Miller said the time has come for the state to start reimbursing counties for expenses because counties are also in a financial crunch. He pointed out that it costs counties $30 to $40 a day to keep state prisoners and the governor vetoed a meager increase in the per diem.

"The state wants to go ahead and play a game and play it on the county seal," said Miller. "They don't want to accept their responsibility for it. I understand the problems with the budget; certainly this is a year in which everybody did not expect additional revenues due to the tightness of the budget. But this has been going on for years and years and years.

"The real task is to get the state to accept their responsibility."

Another bill that would have required the state to reimburse counties for medical expenses incurred by prisoners was not approved this year. Macke said that this is a big liability for counties and could virtually break a county overnight.

Macke, Miller, Huckstep and County Treasurer Bill Reynolds, who is on the MAC board because of his position as president of the Missouri Association of County Treasurers, all took issue with Ashcroft's veto of the retirement bill.

In his veto message, Ashcroft said officials in 60 counties were already covered with retirement plans under the LAGERS program. He said the bill did not deal with retirement plans for county employees, and he questioned the use of some new fees for helping fund the plan. He said that rather than create a new plan, all officials should be brought under the LAGERS system.

But the four county officials said it was more of a fairness issue because sheriffs and prosecutors already have a separate retirement system and many of them are also on the LAGERS plan as well.

"If he is going to treat certain county officials one way, he should treat all equally and fairly," declared Miller, adding that the retirement bill did not cost the state anything and required county officials to buy into the plan.

Macke said he could not understand why the governor signed a special retirement plan for prosecutors two years ago and then ignored other elected officials.

Reynolds added, "I never heard the reason why he signed the prosecuting attorneys bill and excluded everybody else. I'm still waiting for an answer. The veto did not surprise us but we just want everyone treated alike."

Reynolds noted that county officials had agreed to address some of Ashcroft's concerns, which would include support for future legislation to have a retirement plan for employees and putting a cap on the amount of pension a county official could receive.

Macke said that even drawing from both LAGERS and the new retirement plan, most officials would only be receiving a modest retirement.

He also noted that with this bill, county officials would have paid into the plan for years of prior service, something sheriffs and prosecutors did not have to do when plans were approved for them.

"In comparison to plans that other government officials have and prosecutors, this plan would have provided retirement benefits that would have been less than they receive," said Miller.

"I'm not saying the retirement bill was a perfect bill," added Miller. "But it was a bill that had been worked on for a number of years and would have offered 52 counties that do not have retirement an opportunity to have one."

Miller also complained that Ashcroft did not raise his concern about not having included county employees in the plan until near the end of the session when it was too late to do anything about it.

"The county officials said they would work with the governor on including employees next year if that was his concern. But the problem of employees was never brought up during any writing of this bill and it would appear the whole purpose of raising the employee issue was to kill the bill," said Miller.

Huckstep said Ashcroft had some flimsy excuses for vetoing the retirement bill, much like he has had on other legislation he has declined to sign in the past.

In his veto message, the governor pledged to work with supporters of the retirement bill to pass a version next year that is acceptable to him.

The Cape County officials were skeptical about being able to resolve differences with Ashcroft next year and expressed doubts that the governor's staff was sincere about working toward a reasonable compromise.

"With the strong support that was in the House and Senate this year and then the negative reception of the governor's office, it will take some deep thoughts on how to approach this next year," said Miller. "Especially, since it is an issue with such strong feelings."