LETTERS: DEOMCRAT OBSTRUCTIONS

To the editor

Newspapers all across Missouri are reporting on a hearing held Feb. 12 in the Missouri Senate Lounge regarding specific rules on the education standards that have been adopted by the Commission on Performance and the Missouri State School Board.

Having attended this meeting, I was surprised to see the omission of pertinent information in the reporting. It's not that what was reported wasn't correct. It's just that by omitting pertinent information it looks as if it wasn't proven that the law had been violated. The rules were supposed to include whether the standards were "measurable" and "academic" and whether they were from a consortium of other states' standards. Sen. Klarish, who was contesting the rules, had a specialist who spoke on the measurability and whether the standards were academic. He proved his points very well. As for the standards being taken from a consortium of other states, even the commissioner of education, Bob Bartman, admitted that they had violated the law on that point.

It is true that the meeting was adjourned without a vote on the rules, but that is only because, after testimony was given on both sides, the Democrats on the hearing board adjourned the meeting without discussion and without a vote on the rules they were there to review. The Republicans tried to get a discussion, but the Democratic chairman declared that the motion to adjourn took precedence over a motion for discussion. The Republicans then insisted on a roll-call vote on the adjournment. The only ones to vote to adjourn without discussion and without a vote were Democrats. All of the Republicans voted not to adjourn because they wanted to be able to vote on the rules. Because the majority of the hearing board were Democrats, they won the vote to adjourn. Talk about obstructionists.

I noticed in the paper a statement from Rep. Jason Klumb and Chairman Jerry Howard (both Democrats) that "the challengers did not make their case." If this were true, why would they be in such a hurry to adjourn? Could it be that the discussion would have proved that rules were violated and it is much easier to explain away an adjournment to their constituents than a vote that would have been an obvious breech of ethics?

VERONICA HUNT

West Plains