HOW LAWMAKERS POSTPONE PRIORITIES

Like Gaul in the time of Julius Caesar, all legislation in the Missouri General Assembly can be divided into three parts. In the political idiom, they might be divided into (1.) Mandatory and emergency; (2.) Needed and essential; and (3.) Desirable and generational. This division is based on the premise that no measure introduced in a legislative session is without some degree of desirability and credibility, if not to the public in general then to individuals and groups seeking relief and/or redress.

There are several interesting and germane observations to be made about these three legislative classifications that determine, far more than is generally recognized, the work of any representative body elected by the voters to write and revise their laws. For example, when a legislature convenes, it is automatically handed an agenda that is certain to include all measures within the first category: mandatory and emergency. These include such matters as the next fiscal budget, any emergency appropriations required for the current fiscal period, and any corrections or revisions of past legislation. Such measures generally receive a lion's share of the group's time, particularly in the early stage of the session.

Much of the remainder of a session is dedicated to bills falling within the second category needed and essential for these are usually measures the various members would like, for a number of reasons, to enact in the time remaining. Sometimes this category will include pledges made to the public by one of the political parties or even one or several members of the legislative body. For example, the ranking member of the Missouri Senate, President Pro Tem James Mathewson, announced at the start of this year's assembly last January that additional revenue for state-supported colleges and universities was needed and essential. This assured that the 1991 session would spend at least some time on devising methods to meet the senator's priority.

As it turned out, Mathewson's priority was adopted by several other lawmakers, including House Speaker Bob Griffin, and considerable amount of time was devoted to meeting this need.

The result was that other measures fitting the second category had to be neglected. They were deemed, properly or not, less essential to the state's welfare. These included such issues as campaign and election reform, term limitations for state officials, more restrictive anti-drug statutes, and even some plan to meet a growing health insurance need. All of these neglected measures fell into the category of needed and essential, yet members generally conceded they were less so than the ones dealt with.

Let's face it: the painfully slow legislative process plus the proclivity for procrastination combine to limit the ability of virtually every session to deal with those measures that fit the third category: desirable and generational. A note of explanation is needed for this grouping.

There are long-standing problems within any state that do not lend themselves to easy or painless solutions, and thus, while their solutions are desirable, they do not meet the requirement of being either mandatory-emergency or needed-essential. Some defy immediate solution, and so these are viewed as worthy of being passed to subsequent sessions, thus becoming generational dilemmas. There is little political mileage to be gained from studying, much less solving, needs in this category and so they are almost invariably passed over. Often, they are not even viewed as worthy of attention from an interim study.

Several issues fitting the desirable-generational grouping come to mind. One is the problem of deteriorating county services caused by substantial population losses in fully one-half of the state's 114 units. The tax base is growing smaller and smaller in not only half of the state's counties but even in urban centers such as the City of St. Louis. The political danger of coming to grips with this problem is substantial, thus it becomes generational. The unnecessarily large membership in the House of Representatives in Jefferson City sometimes reduces the ability of this body to function effectively, and an estimated half of the membership spends its time planning how to move to the smaller, more influential Senate.

It makes sense to devise ways to make the House more effective and more career-centered, but the solutions are politically hazardous and thus the question becomes generational. A third dilemma is worthy of mention: the practice of increasing the state's future liabilities through building leases and lease-purchase agreements impinges on the ability of future assemblies to meet problems in categories 1 and 2. Yet the practice continues because the problem is never faced.

Numerous other difficulties dealing with budgets and constitutional hectoring fit category 3. Despite their steady proliferation, our elected officials pass over these problems, ignoring the fact that most Missourians will shortly have to come to grips with the generational issues now being slighted.