REGENT PELTS BACKS HANCOCK II

While Southeast Missouri State University administrators view Hancock II with fear and loathing, Southeast Regent Mark Pelts embraces it with open arms.

He hopes voters approve Constitutional Amendment 7 at the ballot box Nov. 8. He dismisses predictions of draconian budget cuts as nothing but scare tactics on the part of Gov. Mel Carnahan and Hancock II opponents.

Dr. Mark Scully, a former president of Southeast, isn't saying how he will vote. But he agreed with Pelts that Hancock II won't be a financial nightmare for the university and state government.

"I think we need more fiscal restraint," Scully said Tuesday. "We have got to tighten up one way or another.

"The people who are doing all the weeping and wailing, every one of them has their nose in the public feed trough," Scully said.

The views of Pelts and Scully stand in contrast to the doom and gloom being projected on the Southeast campus.

Pelts' fellow regents view Hancock II with alarm.

Based on figures from the governor's Office of Administration, it is projected the state would experience budget cuts of $1 billion to $5 billion if Hancock II passes. That would include an estimated $11.5 million cut in the annual state appropriation to the university.

School officials say the university might have to eliminate 276 jobs or raise incidental fees by more than $60 a credit hour. They also say that the Office of Administration has indicated that passage of Hancock II would kill state funding for construction of a university business building.

But Pelts, a Kennett lawyer, dismisses all those predictions; he believes the business building could be constructed even if Hancock II passes.

Pelts said Tuesday that opponents assume wrongly that state government will stand still if Hancock II passes.

Pelts said there are other options: The legislature could put a series of tax proposals on the ballot next year or it could declare an emergency and exceed the Hancock limits.

Pelts said Hancock II is a taxpayers' revolt. "Many taxpayers in this state believe that government has become so irresponsible that the voters need some control of taxes."

Pelts said it isn't surprising that Missouri's state agencies and universities are opposed to Hancock II.

"No government agency or institution wants to make do with less money," he said. "That is a fact of life. No taxpayer wants to pay higher taxes either, and you've got to have some balance between the two."

"It is becoming the rage to raise taxes and not submit it to the voters," Pelts said.

"When you stop asking the people who are pulling the wagon, and you just ask the people in the wagon, do they want to go faster, the people pulling the wagon will eventually get mad," he said.

Pelts said it is important to consider retired people and other taxpayers.

"Sometimes you have to say those people are more important than a professor having a pay raise this year," said Pelts. "Government is a balance and you can't have it all one way."

Pelts blames the governor for much of what he views as Hancock hysteria. He said agencies are under the gun to present a "sky-is-falling" view of the constitutional amendment.

"Any institution that does not stand up shoulder-to-shoulder with the governor knows they are going to be punished. Once the governor gives them the marching orders, they don't have a lot of choice," he said.

But other Southeast officials defended what they say are the best available analyses of the impact of Hancock II on the state budget.

"When you talk about cutting $11.5 million, that gets everybody's attention," said Art Wallhausen, assistant to the university president. Wallhausen said the university administration wants to inform the public about the ballot measure.

"If that are scare tactics, then so be it," he said. "Based on what we know, there is definitely a reason to be scared."