MISSOURI WATCH: WHERE DOES THE TIME GO?

Year after year and session after session, Missouri legislators approach the final fortnight of an annual convening with an agenda that would choke a horse, confound a genius and disgust the average working person who is expected to turn in a good day's work for 40 hours a week.

This political proclivity to procrastination is created from a number of sources, not the least being the partisan advantage to be gained from last-minute horse trading. It is also the result of a tradition of long debate and delay, a most common practice 50 years ago when lawmakers were paid only for the time they were deliberating in the state Capitol. In those days, our elected representatives were paid the munificent sum of $5 a day, plus another buck for daily living expenses.

Granted the pay was lousy, but back then, $5 every day was not to be sneezed at, and if one was paid for spending long hours on what was often described as "due deliberation" and "careful counsel," the salary check was even fatter. Besides, in those days, it took many legislators long hours to get to the capital city, and there was considerable incentive for hanging around as long as possible before returning home.

Given the tenacity of bad habits, many lawmakers have continued this tradition of delay and procrastination if for no other reason than to convince the public that their business was not only important, it required the genius of politicians.

A long-needed witness immunity law, sought since 1981, was finally approved less than three weeks before adjournment. Yes, that date is correct: 1981.

One would have to look long and hard for an abundance of genius in the "finally agreed to" list of bills that had been completed during the first four months of this year's annual session. A majority of the bills dealt with such "critical" issues as allowing one county to vote on a tourism tax, adjustments in existing civil laws that did not meet the needs of clients of lawyer-legislators, acquiring or bestowing state land for single jurisdictions, creating auto licenses for a particular constituency or minor changes in the criminal code that had been incorrectly drawn during an earlier year's session.

The first four months did see passage of a small number of appropriation bills that had already been studied, amended and finally approved by lawmakers involved in the budget process, but as the deadline snafu of May 9 embarrassingly revealed, not all of the bills would pass muster before the constitutional deadline approached. And when that deadline passed, legislators were left with egg on their faces, having created yet another blemish on the history of state government.

The explanation offered by some lawmakers as they returned home after the May 9 debacle was, "we ran out of time." No, the General Assembly did not run out of time, for the process was delayed, and probably purposefully, for political expediency. Issues that are presented for consideration and final vote, submitted late enough, will create an atmosphere of hurried panic that works to the advantage of proponents. Regardless of matters being discussed, the first priority must be thoughtful debate and discussion, ample time for clarification and a sense of unhurried questioning before final decision. This goal is not always realized, and when there is failure, there is a lessening of public support and a continuing disillusionment of representative government. We have enough of this already, without adding to it through tactics employed by proponents or opponents of pending measures.

There is probably nothing the vast public majority in Missouri can do to correct this pejorative display of delay and procrastination except to recognize its presence and demand that its worst features be eliminated. Neither shortening nor lengthening annual sessions will suffice, for the present constitutional rules are nothing more than past attempts to correct the same abuses. When voters are approached by legislative candidates in the future, one of the most important questions should be how he or she feels about speeding the legislative process so that it will better serve the best interests of the citizens of Missouri. Without expressed public concern, little will change. With expressions of citizen disapproval, a great deal can be accomplished. It's one issue in which voters should not emulate their elected representatives in Jefferson City. Let's make lazy lawmaking illegal.

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