MISSOURI WATCH: LEGISLATIVE REPORT CARD

JEFFERSON CITY -- Like lemmings in mass migration leading to their destruction, state legislators begin their journey in January and debate until May when they, too, self-destruct. Unless, it might added, they are called into special session, in which case the journey takes a bit longer.

This year's session of the Missouri General Assembly was, at times, more lemming than human, more ideological than practical, more political than pragmatic. It was, like most sessions in recent history, better than the press it received and worse than it should have been. It can also be noted that on occasion it was better than it might have been.

Taken in perspective, sessions can be divided into several indices of endeavor when evaluations are made. Anticipating the questions that will arise from this year's session, here are the inquiries that will most often be made and this reporter's responses:

1. How would you evaluate the overall record of this session: Excellent, Superior, Average or Just Plain Lousy.

A: Considering the fact this year's session was made up of many new and less-experienced lawmakers, the session performed better-than-average at times, below-average at other times. It deserves at least an average-plus score, for there were achievements as well as glaring disappointments.

2. What was the leadership like in this session?

A: Once again, we were dealing with almost entirely new leaders in both chambers, with House Speaker Steve Gaw having less than a full session of experience and Senate president pro tem Bill McKenna having no previous experience. The House also had the added advantage of having a hard-working majority floor leader, Rep. Gracia Backer. The Senate MFL, Ed Quick, had never served a day in his post before January. This lack of experience, always a contributing factor in achieving legislative excellence, will continue to influence the General Assembly's record in years ahead as a result of term limits.

3. Why didn't this session get around to more important issues, such as welfare reform, redistribution of desegregation funds, education progress and consumer protection?

A: No session can perform all of the tasks expected of it, if only because there is often no agreement of expectations. The welfare reform bill, for example, grew to become an almost incomprehensible mish-mash of rules, regulations and programs that neither the average lawmaker nor the average citizen could understand with any great degree of clarity. There were two conflicting proposals to redistribute deseg funds, again with no clear consensus. Consumer protection is seldom an overriding concern in most sessions, given the absence of massive fraud or unusual, validated public concern or anger.

4. Why wasn't more attention paid to campaign reform?

A: Again there were conflicting proposals to end some of the abuses that so discredit Missouri's campaign and election process. The state has seen two major efforts at reform, one enacted legislatively and the other through the initiative petition process. Some of these rules have- been negated by court rulings, and so in some respects the situation is worse today than when efforts were first begun. In addition, campaign reform is like asking the bank robber not to litter when he leaves the building. It may be asking too much to expect elected public officials to write the laws that will govern their actions in future campaigns.

5. Did the General Assembly use good judgment in approving Governor Carnahan's request for two new prisons?

A: If your name is on the next criminal court docket, the answer is probably no. If not, the question is where will the state incarcerate the rapidly increasing number of convicted felons? Neither answer, however, resolves the problem of disproportionate per capita spending of tax dollars on prisoners compared to college students. The state must eventually come to terms with its inadequate drug prevention and treatment programs and how to combat drug-related criminal activity.

6. What should the state do to produce better sessions of the General Assembly in the future?

A: The state is doing about all that can be done. The failure is not in Jefferson City but with Missourians who do little to inform themselves about public issues and the candidates who seek to resolve them.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.