WHY LIMIT COMPETENCE IN GOVERNMENT?

Secretary of State Roy Blunt confirmed the other day that Missourians would vote in November on a proposal to limit terms of state legislators, a measure that has been placed on the ballot through the initiative referendum process. The proposed restriction was placed there through the determined efforts of an amazingly small number of citizens who did an exceptional job of harnessing volunteers in six of Missouri's nine congressional districts.

Preliminary surveys indicate Missourians will approve the proposed constitutional amendment by a margin far greater than the majority that is required, and nothing has occurred since these polls to indicate voters have changed their minds. Sentiment for limiting the length of stay of politicians has a populist undertone that is difficult to refute, and Americans have long been known to favor the concept of throwing the rascals out.

After all, it can be argued that for decades Missouri limited the terms of governor to four years, a restriction that was lifted only during the mid-1960s during the height of Gov. Warren E. Hearnes' first-term popularity. There is an amusing story about the final form of that revision, for when it was written in Hearnes' office, there was no mention of limiting the governor to only two terms. The lawmaker who carried the proposed legislation from the executive office up to the General Assembly's chambers on the third floor changed the bill while en route, adding the restriction finally adopted that a governor restriction on the terms to be served by the state treasurer has seen a wide turnover of personnel in that post, and it can be argued the state has not been harmed by frequent occupants of this important office.

It can also be argued by term limitation proponents that Missouri will not be harmed by passage of their measure, but there is a difference that should immediately be recognized. Voters first limited state treasurers to eight years in office because of an almost unbroken chain of candidates sponsored by the principal bank in Jefferson City. It was financially rewarding for a local bank to handle the bulk of the state's money, and so when it came time to elect a state treasurer, the bank's candidate was not only well connected but extremely well financed. Missourians finally woke up to the fact that state treasurers backed by Central Missouri Trust leaned over backward to favor their sponsors, sometimes at the expense of the taxpayers. Thus term limitations were inaugurated for the man whose signature appears on every state check and who deposits the state's billions of dollars of revenue.

The early populist views of 19th century Missourians sought to curtail the broad powers enjoyed by the state's chief executive, and thus came the long-time restriction on governors. But the truth is, the one-term limit kept the state from enjoying the benefits of experienced, competent officeholders who served the public well. It was a recognition of this fact that enabled John Ashcroft to seek a second term in the executive office back in 1988. Now Ashcroft believe~ it's a good idea to restrict experienced, competent legislators, or rather he believes it's a good idea to prevent the voters from returning such men and women to part-time jobs in the General Assembly.

As a matter of fact, most Republicans in Jefferson City believe term limitation has great merit, but it ought to be recognized that these so-called good-government sponsors are talking about a Legislature that is usually controlled by the Democrats. And, frankly, they'd like to end that skein even if it means ridding the state of scores of knowledgeable and competent lawmakers, including many who are Republicans.

Term limitation sponsors admit that their proposal would do exactly that, but they argue that public officials should not remain too long in Jefferson City. And here is where their argument grows a little weak. Just how long has John Ashcroft been in Jefferson City? He first arrived there upon his appointment to fill an unexpired term as state auditor. Failing to win election to that office, he moved from there to the office of attorney general, where he worked for John Danforth. Then when Danforth moved on, Ashcroft sought the office and won. As a matter of fact, he won two four-year terms before announcing his candidacy for governor in 1982. He was elected chief executive that year, and won another four-year term in 1988. In a period of 16 years, our incumbent governor has held the two most powerful jobs in the executive branch, and that's not counting his service as an assistant attorney general and as an interim state auditor.

We haven't heard anyone in the executive branch call for a limitation of service among the various offices in this part of government, but it stands to reason that if members of the part-time legislative branch are to be limited to eight years in total service, then some sort of limitation should be put into effect for the full-time executive side of government a branch where power is much more pervasive and likely to corrupt.

We dislike legislative term limitations and the reason is quite simple: it takes several sessions of the General Assembly to comprehend Missouri's multibillion-dollar state government. Anyone who says a legislator can comprehend the largest business in Missouri after one or two five-month sessions doesn't know what he's talking about. There are no quick learners when it comes time to understand the state budget and its hundreds upon hundreds of applications; there is no quick learn to complicated legislation that seeks to deal equitably with every one of the state's 5.1 million citizens; there is nothing at all simple about such diverse matters as public assistance programs, mental health treatment systems or school foundation allocations. Even if lawmakers attempt to specialize, and many do because they find it almost impossible to understand all areas of government, a few years are required to become knowledgeable in just one field.

We will, of course, throw out some lemons through a term limitation amendment, but we will discard far more competent, intelligent, honest and hard-working lawmakers in the process. And eventually we will be sorry.