BIGGER NOT BETTER FOR STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION

Gov. Mel Carnahan says he believes the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission should be expanded to afford state citizens "greater representation" on the panel. Senate President James Mathewson says the action is necessary because the increased workload swamps the current six commissioners. Our feeling is that the commission functions well enough as currently constituted, and that adjustment in the number of members only supplies an opportunity for partisan gamesmanship. We do not favor the idea of expanding this body.

The commission is a bipartisan panel that governs the state Highways and Transportation Department. It is appointed by the governor, with the consent of the Senate, and members serve six-year terms. No more than three members can be of the same political party. Along with determining the priority of multibillion-dollar projects, the commissioners appoint the chief engineer of the department and some other officials. Though the appointments to the commission are considered political plums, the panel has most often managed to find a high road in considering statewide road and transportation needs.

Sen. Mathewson has a point in stating that the job of managing highways is more involved than it was 30 years ago, when the commission was last expanded from four to six members. Indeed, Missouri's highway system, with a total of 32,282 road miles at the beginning of 1993, is one of the largest in the nation. And it might be properly noted that with adjustments being made in Washington concerning the distribution of gasoline tax revenues, the chore of administering highway priorities has grown trickier.

However, the job of the commissioners is setting policy, not engaging in the day-to-day operation of highway administration. When Gov. Carnahan says the commission is wanting because of a "cry for representation," he is likely responding to a regional constituency whose slice of the highway revenue pie was deemed momentarily inadequate. Trouble is, expansion of this commission, or any other commission, is not a decision rightly made for short-run considerations; the panel will remain expanded for years, never to be reduced. Given the capacity to hand out several more commission jobs, the governor simultaneously increases his political capital.

The Senate bill, which got first round approval last week, calls for expansion of the commission to 10 members, mandating one commissioner appointed from each congressional district and the tenth member chosen at large. While the promise has been made this legislation is about "representation," this formula automatically gives one congressional district additional influence. If the General Assembly is going to start tinkering with the commission (and we would prefer legislators didn't), a more equitable system would be to appoint commissioners from each of the state's 10 highway districts.

One might question the worth of fighting a proposal that merely expands a governmental panel of non-paid citizens. However, if the commission is given a population-based formula for appointments (which would be the case under the legislation now proposed), it is inevitable that highway money would be shifted from projects in rural areas to those in urban areas. This is despite that fact that highway department District 10, which consists of most Southeast Missouri counties, has more road miles than any district in the state. The balance will shift, and it will favor MetroLink-type projects, not the highway and bridge needs of outstate Missouri.

We dislike this idea of expanding the highway commission and hope the legislature will likewise see its folly.