The Springfield News-Leader recently published an op-ed piece that I wrote about the actions of Council’s Plans and Policies Committee.  In it, I questioned both the haste and the manner in which an item was included in the City’s“Legislative Priorities.”

This committee had already met twice and had developed a list of four categories of major priorities for our lobbyists to use in their efforts in Jefferson City and Washington, D.C.  These were passed by Council two meetings ago.  The most recent Committee meeting was designed to decide how to “flesh out” the explanatory wording for the benefit of Springfield’s voters and City staff. 

The Mayor Pro Tem, in that meeting, introduced an amendment to include the following in Springfield’s priorities for the year:  “The Missouri Legislature should require Missouri LAGERS to offer a defined contribution pension plan option forall retirees in addition to their current defined benefit plan options.” After considerable discussion, the amendment passed 2-1, with member Scott Bailes not present.  I was the dissenting vote.

I had several objections to this amendment—the first being a matter of timing.  This topic will take much voter input and a lot of discussion before Council actually can develop a position.  This amendment was introduced at the last minute after the priorities had already been established and approved.  It would force our lobbyists to push for a state mandate to LAGERS before Council OR voters had really had the time to discuss the issue and ultimately decide on a position.

Secondly, there was a conflict of logic.  In one of our priorities, we asked the state legislature to refrain from mandating actions by cities and counties, especially when those mandates are unfunded.  It would be, in Mr. Spock’s words,“highly illogical” to turn around and ask for a state mandate on this issue.

And finally, the actions of former Speaker Rod Jetten have a number of us a bit gun-shy about the state legislature.  His actions of surreptitiously getting the village law passed with no knowledge by anyone were beyond belief.  I pointed out that it would take a very small change to get “in addition to” modified to “in lieu of”, and then all retirement plans would be nullified.

I don’t, in any way, question or doubt that we need to have this conversation.  It would be good for Council and good for the community.  However, I do object to declaring this idea a “Legislative Priority” before the discussion has even begun.  Let’s not act without sufficient knowledge. Let’s get things in the right order.

To do otherwise would be a classic case of governmental “Ready, Fire, . . . Aim.”