THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY MIRRORS THE STATE

Before Missourians get too angry over the too obvious failures of this year's session of the General Assembly, they should remind themselves that their legislative branch is a mirror of society in general. Regardless of the talent or lack of it in any state assembly, good legislation is not enacted in a vacuum, which is one way of saying that legislators are fairly accurate reflections of their constituents. Which, in the case of the 1992 session of the Missouri Legislature, goes a long way in explaining why this year's record of achievement was on the short side.

For Missourians who are disappointed, with just reason, over the failure of lawmakers to enact improvements in public education programs in the state, including a more equitable distribution of the School Foundation plan, consider the state's reaction last fall to the comprehensive Proposition B proposal. Voters went to the polls in droves to defeat that plan, despite its almost unanimous support in the General Assembly, because of the costs involved and because of the failure of many citizens to understand its provisions.

Missourians spoke last year on what they wanted to do about improving their local schools and the state's colleges and universities. Unfortunately, the answer was: Nothing.

Which is what Missourians got from this year's session of the Legislature.

Education is not the only subject in which the public is ambivalent and undecided. Another good example is health care, arguably the second most important subject before the 1992 Legislature. It wasn't that this year's session had any lack of suitable plans and proposals; one needed a program to keep track of all of them, and most were reasoned and even a few were reasonable. But when the General Assembly ended May 15, there had been no progress in this area, again mirroring the public's lack of support for one that suited its needs.

We find it difficult to forgive the assembly's ~failure to enact Gov. Ashcroft's comprehensive drug-abuse recommendations, which we believe has widespread support among the public. Unfortunately, the Legislature chose this piece of legislation to use as this year's Velcro bill, sticking scores of special-interest amendments on its tail to prevent gubernatorial veto. By the time the drug bill was ready to be submitted for third reading, it had 32 amendments attached to it. It had become such a monster that it even shocked its creators.

The high point of the session came last February when the executive and legislative branches agreed that something needed to be done about Missouri's decaying highway system. When both groups finally agreed on the measure's final provisions, they found a surprising lack of opposition to a graduated, six-year tax increase amounting to $192 million. The reason was quite simple: Missourians had already decided they wanted to improve their highway system, and Jefferson City was only mirroring what had already been decided earlier by the capital's constituents.

The General Assembly was able to do virtually nothing when it came time to amend, improve and strengthen Missouri's welfare system. It wasn't that there was any paucity of suggestions, for there were literally scores of proposals on virtually every social service provided in the state, ranging from infant care to mental health to welfare payments. And there was even more lip-service paid to improving social services, although there was a striking absence of serious leadership in making these improvements. The best that could be salvaged from the session was a "reorganization" of children's services within the Department of Social Services. The end result, without major new funding, will be no more significant than rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

Reflecting their growing influence on the third floor of the Capitol, the cities fared much better than did outstate areas. For one thing, those promoting urban interests were better prepared, knew exactly where they wanted to go and sent their lobbyists to Jefferson City to do what was necessary to get the job done. As a result, cities received most of the favors dispensed in this session, while outstate lawmakers returned home after May 15 still wondering what had happened to their own interests. Once again this demonstrates the difference between intense public support in one area and the widespread lack of it in other areas.

In 4 months 197 members of the Legislature approved 157 bills, which is just about par for the course. Many of the measures are relatively insignificant, but there's little indication Missourians wanted anything more.