JACKSON CHAMBER OPPOSES HANCOCK II AMENDMENT

JACKSON -- After an hour of debate, the Jackson Chamber of Commerce voted Monday to oppose Amendment 7, the Hancock II Amendment on the Nov. 8 election.

The vote was close, with 13 in favor of Amendment 7 and 16 against. But Steve Elefson, chamber president, asked members to accurately represent the group's view to the public despite personal opinions.

"I knew it was a closely debated issue with strong opinions on both sides," Elefson said following the vote. "But I think it was extremely important to take a stand, because there are so many things that potentially will be affected."

Hancock II is a constitutional amendment to Article X, which was passed in 1980 to limit tax increases. Supporters say a loophole in the initial measure, passed in 1980, makes it ineffective. Hancock II would close that loophole.

Opponents predict the amendment's passage will result in $1 billion or more in cuts in Missouri's $12 billion budget, taking money from schools, prisons, roads and other items.

Sikeston attorney Jim McClellan spoke for Amendment 7, accusing the media of "blitzing" the public with unclear information about the legislation.

He views Hancock II as a credit card: If government wants to go over its budget limit, it has to get the voters' permission.

He denied that the measure had a retroactive effect on taxes and user fees, and he denounced the Amendment 7 opposition for using scare tactics to turn people against it.

For example, McClellan said, one Missouri school had students march around town to protest the measure. Students then were sent home to tell their parents how to vote.

"If you are for Amendment 7, you are for the taxpayers and the voters," McClellan said. "If you are against it, you are for politicians and bureaucrats."

Jackson Public Schools Superintendent Wayne Maupin said his district would lose over $1 million in state aid should Amendment 7 pass.

He said the district would be forced to seek a local tax increase, because it couldn't sustain the loss and keep all the district's programs.

Maupin said Hancock II was indeed retroactive and might affect tax issues already voted on by the public.

"I have a question for Hancock II supporters," Maupin said. "If we are looking at a $1 billion cut from the budget, how can that occur without cuts in services? I don't think Mel Hancock has answered that question."

Dr. T. Wayne Lewis, school board president, sided with Maupin.

"You might be enticed by this amendment's warm and fuzzies, but it's really a monster," he said.

When Elefson initially suggested the group take a stand on the issue, a long silence followed. Eventually, the group decided to vote by ballot, allowing only chamber members present at the meeting to vote.