AMENDMENTS WILL GET CONSIDERATION AT POLLS

Missouri voters are being asked to consider several constitutional amendments in Tuesday's primary election. In addition to Amendment 11, which earmarks lottery-generated dollars for education and whose passage was endorsed here previously, there are several other constitutional measures up for consideration.

The Southeast Missourian's positions on these issues are:

"No" on Amendment 7

The premise of providing proper school funding is sound, but Amendment 7 uses the wrong method to achieve this goal. The ends do not justify the means. We urge a "no" vote on this measure.

The destiny of any school district is best left to the local citizens. In Missouri, those districts that do not have a sufficient tax base are subsidized through a complicated state foundation formula. Amendment 7 would force all schools to adopt a $2 minimum operating levy. In addition, it would allow schools to pass tax levies by a simple majority up to $6, instead of the current two-thirds vote.

No matter what proponents say, Amendment 7 represents a tax increase for 179 of Missouri's 539 school districts, including schools in Chaffee, Leopold, Meadow Heights, Woodland, Kelso, Benton, Sikeston, and many others in Southeast Missouri.

If the amendment were to pass, levies could be raised in these 179 districts simply by a vote of the school board, not by a vote of the citizens of those districts. While we believe these schools probably need the $2 minimum to operate, if the respective school district's residents are not willing to support the schools it is not the right of the rest of the state to force them to do so. Indeed, perhaps a signal is being sent that the schools should be closed or consolidated.

Proponents say these districts should begin paying their fair share, and by moving the minimum to $2, levels of state education subsidization would balance more equally. This may be true in part. But it does not mean the rest of the state's residents would save any money. In fact, local tax dollars that already funnel to these schools through the foundation formula would not return home. Instead, they would be consumed by the black hole of bureaucracy, with no promise that they would be used for education or education reform.

Amendment 7 would also allow voters to levy up to $6 with a majority vote. Now, the level is $3.75. We oppose this change. Yes, it is tough to pass a school tax levy, but it can be done. When school districts show just cause why more money is needed, voters eventually come through. Moreover, a simple majority would make it too easy for a small group of people to pass a tax, given today's low voter turnouts.

Voters opposed Proposition B last November because people wanted local control and more reforms for their added dollars. This amendment offers neither. Local citizens should control the success or failure of their schools.

"Yes" on Amendment 8

With Amendment 8, voters have the opportunity to direct more of the recently enacted state fuels tax to county governments. As residents of a mostly rural area where county government has used its gas tax revenues responsibly in the past, Cape Girardeans should jump at the chance to bring in these additional dollars. We urge a "yes" vote on Amendment 8.

Statewide, county governments must maintain 70,000 miles of roads and 13,000 bridges. Cape Girardeau County has about 600 miles of county roads and several hundred bridges within its purview.

To care for these roads, officials in Jackson currently get about $200,000 a year from the County Aid Road Trust. This has come from a 10 percent share of the 11-cent fuels tax that Missourians paid before April. Tuesday's vote would give counties 15 percent of the new 6-cent fuels tax increase. This would shift $9.6 million from state road projects to counties by 1997, and the five percent increase for the new tax would mean an additional $75,000 annually for Cape Girardeau County.

Since 1973, Cape Girardeau County has built 44 bridges and maintained a praiseworthy system of roads. Drawing extra money to this county would be a good investment. For this reason, Amendment 8 should make good sense to voters here. We endorse Amendment 8's passage.

"Yes" on Amendment 5

Amendment 5 would give certain Missouri cities, counties and school districts the authority to expand their bonded indebtedness to retrofit public buildings against earthquakes.

The bonded indebtedness could by raised by 5 percent above the present limit of 40 percent of assessed valuation. The money could only be used for seismic retrofitting.

This is a sound move for the state of Missouri. Earthquakes represent a potential for vast devastation, especially in Southeast Missouri. The amendment simply allows the process; individual projects would have to be approved by voters in each community. If people want to make these improvements, the state shouldn't stand in the way.

Of particular concern are older school buildings located along the New Madrid fault. The vast majority of school buildings are not up to seismic codes, and that could lead to real tragedy.

Amendment 5 should help communities bring public buildings in line with seismic standards. But the choice remains with the local communities. We recommend a "yes" vote on this measure.

"Yes" on Amendment 9

Amendment 9 will assist many small businesses by rolling back the state's commercial property tax surcharge. It merits voter approval Tuesday. This surcharge was placed on the books in 1985 as part of the statewide reassessment. It replaced the merchants and manufacturers (M&M) tax, which was abolished in 1984.

The problem comes from the fact the rates have never been adjusted even though the assessed value of commercial property has increased through reassessment. That has placed an unfair burden on some businesses. Other tax rates are rolled back, with an allowance for inflation, to prevent a large windfall from increased assessed valuation. Businesses should have the same protection here.

This proposed amendment limits the total surcharge to 1992 receipts, plus an allowance for inflation and new construction. This amendment makes sense for business and Missouri. A "yes" vote is urged.