Voter ID arguments set for Oct. 4

JEFFERSON CITY The battle over Missouri’s voter identification law is heading quickly to the state’s highest court.

The Missouri Supreme Court Thursday set Oct. 4 as a date to hear arguments in the case.
A Cole County judge last week threw out the law, which required voters to present state-issued photo IDs at the polls.

Circuit Judge Richard Callahan declared the law to be an infringement of the fundamental right to vote, ruling that the law placed an extra burden on the elderly, poor, minorities, women and others who have a harder time obtaining a state-issued ID.

In appealing the ruling, Attorney General Jay Nixon’s office Thursday asked the state Supreme Court to put the case on a fast track as the Nov. 7 general election approaches.
“Changing rules in the weeks leading up to an election is problematic,” Nixon’s office wrote in the appeal. “Voters need certainty as to what the requirements for voting will be. Also, election authorities need to be able to train poll workers and election judges with a single set of requirements. The alternative will assure confusion for voters and poll workers, resulting in chaos on Election Day.”

The high court agreed to set a hearing for Oct. 4, the same day it will hear an appeal of a ruling that forced a proposed cigarette tax increase back on the Nov. 7 ballot.

Also Thursday, Callahan denied efforts to allow the state to continue to issue free non-driver’s license photo identification cards to prospective voters. When Callahan threw out the voter ID law, the Department of Revenue said that, as of Monday, it stopped issuing the free IDs to voters as required by the law.

The agency began charging $11 for the IDs.

Nixon’s office asked the judge to clarify his ruling as to whether it prevented the Department of Revenue from issuing the free IDs. Callahan denied the motion.

To reach Tim Hoover, call 1-(573)-634-3565 or send e-mail to thoover@kcstar.com.

Read full post and comments:
"Voter ID arguments set for Oct. 4" >>

MOHELA Gaining Proper Authority

By HENRY J. WATERS III, Publisher, Columbia Daily Tribune
Published Tuesday, September 19, 2006

On Sept. 27 the board of directors of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority is scheduled to vote on the controversial plan to sell part of its portfolio to finance college and university capital projects around the state.

Gov. Matt Blunt insists this action is legal and financially sound. It would provide some $335 million for campus buildings and $15 million to translate university research into commercial projects. At the same time, because of ongoing bonding authority promised by the Department of Economic Development, he says the ability of MOHELA to provide low-cost student loans will not be impaired.

Attorney General Jay Nixon and others question whether the governor or the board has the authority to do any such thing without action by the Missouri General Assembly. Count me among this band of skeptics. Yet the governor refuses to send the matter to the legislature, and lawmakers acquiesce.

If the deed is done unilaterally, it will represent an excessive assumption of executive power and almost certainly will invite a lawsuit. A court will enjoin the MOHELA board from proceeding and, in my view, probably find no authority in the original statute passed by the legislature creating MOHELA.

Judging from a plain reading of the legal language one would believe proceeds of the loan authority can be used only for student loan purposes, not college buildings. If the agency’s authority is to be broadened to accommodate Blunt’s plan, an option worth serious consideration, the legislature should do it.

General Nixon says four of the seven MOHELA board members might have conflicts of interest laying them open to individual lawsuits. They represent education institutions that would receive transfers of money if MOHELA assets were sold. This possible danger would be mitigated if the board has legislative authority to proceed.

In recent days MOHELA staff members have tried to show the complicated deal would not interfere with student loan benefits. This is a debate worth having, but until the loan agency has the legal ability to do the deal at all, it is moot. To clarify this ability, legislative action should be undertaken.

Finally, legislative prerogative should be preserved and exercised. Lawmakers should have asserted their role in this matter instead of letting the administration go for it alone.
If MOHELA and the governor send this matter to the General Assembly before taking further action, they might well hurry rather than hinder the process. With proper enabling legislation, the deal can go forward without lawsuit delays and the real possibility of a permanent courtroom injunction.

In a monarchy, the king and his court get to make decisions like this unilaterally. In a democracy, the legislature has a co-equal role. In the MOHELA question, the legislature has not yet performed its duty.

I hope the funds finally will be available for capital projects on campuses without harming MOHELA functions, but to accomplish this end most surely proper governance process must be followed. Otherwise, it’s a fool’s errand.

Read full post and comments:
"MOHELA Gaining Proper Authority" >>

MOHELA Gaining Proper Authority

By HENRY J. WATERS III, Publisher, Columbia Daily Tribune
Published Tuesday, September 19, 2006

On Sept. 27 the board of directors of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority is scheduled to vote on the controversial plan to sell part of its portfolio to finance college and university capital projects around the state.

Gov. Matt Blunt insists this action is legal and financially sound. It would provide some $335 million for campus buildings and $15 million to translate university research into commercial projects. At the same time, because of ongoing bonding authority promised by the Department of Economic Development, he says the ability of MOHELA to provide low-cost student loans will not be impaired.

Attorney General Jay Nixon and others question whether the governor or the board has the authority to do any such thing without action by the Missouri General Assembly. Count me among this band of skeptics. Yet the governor refuses to send the matter to the legislature, and lawmakers acquiesce.

If the deed is done unilaterally, it will represent an excessive assumption of executive power and almost certainly will invite a lawsuit. A court will enjoin the MOHELA board from proceeding and, in my view, probably find no authority in the original statute passed by the legislature creating MOHELA.

Judging from a plain reading of the legal language one would believe proceeds of the loan authority can be used only for student loan purposes, not college buildings. If the agency’s authority is to be broadened to accommodate Blunt’s plan, an option worth serious consideration, the legislature should do it.

General Nixon says four of the seven MOHELA board members might have conflicts of interest laying them open to individual lawsuits. They represent education institutions that would receive transfers of money if MOHELA assets were sold. This possible danger would be mitigated if the board has legislative authority to proceed.

In recent days MOHELA staff members have tried to show the complicated deal would not interfere with student loan benefits. This is a debate worth having, but until the loan agency has the legal ability to do the deal at all, it is moot. To clarify this ability, legislative action should be undertaken.

Finally, legislative prerogative should be preserved and exercised. Lawmakers should have asserted their role in this matter instead of letting the administration go for it alone.
If MOHELA and the governor send this matter to the General Assembly before taking further action, they might well hurry rather than hinder the process. With proper enabling legislation, the deal can go forward without lawsuit delays and the real possibility of a permanent courtroom injunction.

In a monarchy, the king and his court get to make decisions like this unilaterally. In a democracy, the legislature has a co-equal role. In the MOHELA question, the legislature has not yet performed its duty.

I hope the funds finally will be available for capital projects on campuses without harming MOHELA functions, but to accomplish this end most surely proper governance process must be followed. Otherwise, it’s a fool’s errand.

Read full post and comments:
"MOHELA Gaining Proper Authority" >>

3 Depart Board as Key Vote Looms

Multiple resignations are the latest predicament for the proposal. One spot has been filled.
By KIT WAGAR, The Star’s Jefferson City correspondent

Gov. Matt Blunt’s staff was scrambling Tuesday after three board members resigned from Missouri’s student loan agency days before a vote on whether to give the state $350 million.
The loss of three people from the seven-member board of the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority raised doubts about Blunt’s plan to use the agency’s money to pay for a building spree at college campuses. Four affirmative votes would be needed to approve the plan, but one board member is on record as opposing it.

The board is scheduled to consider Blunt’s plan on Sept. 27. Blunt moved to plug one hole Tuesday by appointing St. Louis banker Tom Reeves to serve the last 33 days of an unexpired term on the board. But officials conceded that they have no way of knowing whether Reeves will feel comfortable voting for a multibillion-dollar transaction at his first board meeting.
The multiple resignations were the latest twist in the saga that has gripped the loan authority since January, when Blunt first proposed selling the agency to raise money for life sciences buildings and other improvements at state universities.

Blunt has touted the plan as a way to improve university research and the educational opportunities for Missouri students. But critics — most notably Attorney General Jay Nixon — have called the plan an illegal diversion of funds that would ultimately increase the cost of college for Missouri students.

The latest predicament arose Monday when two loan authority board members resigned. Charles McClain automatically was off the board when he cited health reasons for stepping down as commissioner of higher education, effective at the end of this week.

Marilyn Bush, an executive with Bank of America in St. Louis, cited the upcoming vote on Blunt’s plan as the reason for her resignation. Bush wrote that since her term would expire next month, she wanted to “allow a new member who would serve on the board for the next four years to be given the opportunity to consider and vote on this matter.”

And James Ricks, a management professor at Southeast Missouri State University in Cape Girardeau, resigned Tuesday. His resignation letter was not available, but he previously had indicated he would probably abstain from voting because his employer would receive some of the benefits from the plan.

Blunt’s office announced Tuesday afternoon that the governor had appointed Reeves to replace Bush. Reeves is president of Pulaski Bank, based in Creve Coeur. By law, two of the agency’s board members represent lending institutions.

Raymond Bayer Jr., the loan authority’s executive director, said he set aside four hours today to meet with Reeves and go over Blunt’s plan in detail. Bayer said the loan authority’s management team has endorsed the plan, but the final decision lies with the board.
“I’m going to give Reeves a mountain of paperwork and provide him with everything he needs to make an informed decision,” Bayer said. Like all board members, Reeves will “need to look at the proposal and vote in the best interest of MoHELA,” Bayer said.

The new funding plan requires the loan authority to pay the state $30.3 million immediately and an additional $180 million within six months. That would be followed by payment of $140 million in quarterly installments for six years.

The state would use the money to build research facilities and business incubators at state universities, including an $85 million health sciences center at the University of Missouri-Columbia and $18.4 million for new buildings and equipment at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

Only one board member, retired banker John Greer from Marshfield, Mo., has publicly opposed the plan. He said Tuesday that the diversion of funds into university building projects violated the loan authority’s mission, which is to provide low-cost loans to college students.
“This is a money-grab, the biggest money-grab I’ve ever seen,” Greer said, comparing it to the robbery of a Brink’s armored car. “Tax money should go for buildings, not MoHELA money.”
The plan might be good for the state, but it would not be good for the loan authority or for college students, who would see higher interest rates and fewer loan-forgiveness programs, he said.

“They say they are doing these building projects without raising taxes,” Greer said. “But someone is being taxed — it’s the students … It will mean less loan forgiveness for students who were called away and are now fighting in Iraq. We always had plans to increase those programs, and there is no way this plan won’t affect that.”

To reach Kit Wagar, call (816) 234-4440 or send e-mail to kwagar@kcstar.com.

Read full post and comments:
"3 Depart Board as Key Vote Looms" >>

National Guard provission dropped

Bond and Leahy had sought to give the Guard a say in key Pentagon decisions.By LYDIA GENSHEIMER The Kansas City Star

Sen. Kit Bond’s efforts to enhance the National Guard’s status at the Pentagon was set back when House-Senate conference leaders pulled his provision from a defense bill.
The dropped provision, co-sponsored by Bond, a Republican, and Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, would have elevated the Guard chief to a four-star general and required that the No. 2 position in the U.S. Northern Command be a member of the National Guard. Bond has argued that the Guard has been shut out of key decision-making.

“They have supported us in the global war on terror, and the National Guard has earned a promotion,” Bond said. “It’s time the Guard had a seat at the table when plans are being made.”
The conference report on the Defense Authorization Bill also is expected to include a provision allowing the president more control over the National Guard, giving him power to call the Guard to action — without governors’ consent — in an event such as a natural disaster. Leahy said the bill now stands as a double setback for the Guard.

Thousands of National Guard members signed petitions presented Tuesday afternoon to Bond and Leahy. Both senators say they are still pushing for a change in the bill’s language.
A conference report is expected in the next several days, however, and a House vote is possible by the end of the week.

To reach Lydia Gensheimer, call 1-(202) 383-6011 or send e-mail to lgensheimer @mcclatchydc.com.

Read full post and comments:
"National Guard provission dropped" >>