River Campus still a good investment

The butting of heads going on between Speaker Rod Jetton in the Missouri House of Representatives and top officials at Southeast Missouri State University has documented a rift that never should have occurred. Now that deep holes have been dug on both sides, it appears that all the bluster has accomplished is to raise questions about actions taken nearly three years ago without regard for the future of the university's River Campus for the arts, which is scheduled to open to students by the fall semester of next year.

At the heart of the debate so far is whether the university's board of regents made a prudent decision to sell bonds to pay for River Campus construction costs before it received the state's portion -- originally about 50 percent -- of the funding. The university correctly insists it had every good-faith indication three years ago, both from legislative leaders and the governor's office, that, barring a meltdown in state revenue, the funding would be available. After all, funding for the project was appropriated and reappropriated several times, including shortly before the university decided to go ahead with the bond sale.

Just as important is the fact that the university was keenly aware that delays in construction were adding millions of dollars of inflationary costs -- a trend that would only continue if the project didn't get underway as soon as possible.

Consistent push for state funding

Jetton is the state representative from Marble Hill who in a few short years has gained the trust and respect of House Republicans and currently holds the top House leadership position as speaker. To support his opposition to the bond sale, his staff last week generated a timetable that purported to show the legislature's support for the River Campus project was weak or nonexistent. The timetable contains numerous inaccuracies -- chalk that up to staff inexperience -- and is easily refuted by legislative appropriations bills and stories published in the Southeast Missourian.

Keep in mind that Jetton did not raise any objections to the bond sale three years ago when, as a rising star in the Republican ranks, he knew his party's legislative leaders were committed to the River Campus. That backing was further solidified by the assent of then-governor Bob Holden, a Democrat.

So why all the fuss now?

Jetton has expressed the view that, as House speaker, he must look at statewide interests, not just the needs and concerns of his rural legislative district. From that perspective, he believes his stance on the River Campus bonds and future legislative funding for the project will be closely watched as an example of what to expect at other universities in other parts of the state. While this is clearly the case, Jetton continues to represent a significant portion of the university's service area, and Southeast deserves to take advantage of the strongest representation possible in Jefferson City.

Rumblings of personality politics

Beneath the surface of all the rumblings of the past several days has been a darker undercurrent of personality politics at its worst.

It is disturbing, for example, to see the bonding flap interwoven with concerns -- expressed by a large number of constituents in state Sen. Jason Crowell's Cape Girardeau-based district -- that Crowell, another up-and-comer in GOP legislative circles, is adding fuel to the Jetton-Southeast firestorm.

It has unfortunately become all too clear that Crowell is unhappy with university president Ken Dobbins and that this has some bearing on the dispute over the River Campus bonds.

Crowell's recent reluctance to express his support privately for the River Campus -- even to the governor when shown a list of projects to be funded with a new revenue stream -- is in stark contrast to his public statements made in response to repeated questioning from the Southeast Missourian reporter covering this story.

Individuals who have had personal conversations with Crowell and others who are intimately acquainted with the legislative intricacies indicate Crowell's public promise to promote state funding for the River Campus may be offset by his expectation that Jetton will make sure any such appropriation never makes it through the House budgeting process.

Funding for bonds is guaranteed

Finally, the issue of a secure funding stream for the River Campus bonds needs to be laid to rest. There is no question university regents and officials have expected all along that state funding will eventually be appropriated as indicated by the numerous legislative maneuvers to keep the project intact from a budgeting standpoint.

But university officials also have known all along that there is no rock-solid guarantee from the state until funding is available to be spent on the River Campus project. The university's bond counsel, the state's bonding authority, legislative leaders and governors have all adhered to the standard requirement that a revenue stream must be available before bonds are sold. In this case, the university has said student fees would be increased, if necessary, to pay off the bonds. That was part of documentation that accompanied the bond sale, and it was a matter of what has been described as serious and prolonged discussion, both in public sessions and private meetings with bond counsel, by the board of regents.

For his part, Rod Jetton says the River Campus bond sale sets a dangerous precedent. It sets a precedent -- but one that should be considered highly advantageous to Missouri. When all the bills have been paid for the River Campus, the state's portion would be only 44 percent, not half as originally anticipated -- and certainly much less of a state commitment than most other capital projects funded and currently being considered by the legislature.

That's a strong case for making state funding available. And that should be the thrust of current discussions. All the rest is a waste of university and legislative resources.