A proposed Constitutional amendment proposed by Representative Jay Houghton (R-Martinsburg), HJR 29, would make the Missouri Department of Agriculture an elected position instead of a position appointed by the governor. It would weaken the governor's powers. There are currently 12 other states that have an elected Secretary of Agriculture position, including Iowa.
The Secretary of Agriculture would have the same qualification requirements as the governor. He or she would oversee all state agricultural programs that are established by law. The General Assembly shall provide the Secretary of Agriculture appropriations to carry out his or her duties and protect, foster, and develop the agricultural resources of the state.
If passed, the Secretary of Agriculture would be elected for a term of two years at the General Election of 2016 and his or her successors shall be elected for subsequent terms of four years. There would be no term limits. Currently, the governor and the treasurer are the only two statewide positions subject to term limits.
The Missouri Times quotes Houghton as saying that the state needed to do a better job of promoting its agricultural resources and envisioning the new director as a liaison between the state and the people. However, the state's farm groups are divided on the issue with the Missouri Soybean Association in favor and the Missouri Farm Bureau against it according to the article. The Farm Bureau said in the article that while they could see the benefits in the new legislation, there was a risk in what could happen when urban voters get to vote on farm issues that mostly affect rural Missourians. They expressed concerns about what might happen to agriculture if someone were to get elected who had nothing to do with Missouri farmers or ranchers.
The Missouri Net quoted other opponents to the proposed amendment. They quoted Representative Linda Black (D-Desloge) as saying that the cluster of population comes from urban areas, which would carry a vote in a statewide election. She is the wife of Jon Hagler, the current Secretary of Agriculture. A few years ago, the Humane Society of the US successfully pushed through a ballot measure regulating dog kennels. It was heavily opposed in rural counties and heavily supported in urban counties. The legislature later modified the initiative. However, the article quotes Missouri Soybean Association Dale Ludwig as being more supportive of the idea, saying that it was just as likely that the governor might appoint someone to the Department of Agriculture as a political payoff who had no background in farming or ranching.
If passed, the initiative would go on the ballot in November 2014 or a special election called by the governor for that purpose.
Showing posts with label ballot measures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ballot measures. Show all posts
Saturday, March 23, 2013
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Five Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation for 2012 Ballot
Secretary of State Robin Carnahan today announced that one initiative petition relating to early voting, two initiative petitions relating to early voting and election procedures, and two initiative petitions relating to the Missouri House of Representatives met state standards for circulation.
The ballot title for the petition relating to early voting reads:
Shall Missouri law be amended to expand options for voters by allowing them to cast ballots in person prior to federal general elections without the current absentee ballot excuse requirement?
It is estimated state government entities would reimburse election authorities for incurred costs of at least $974,016 in fiscal year 2015 (one-time costs of $676,800 and on-going costs for each federal election of $297,216). Those costs may be higher depending on the compensation, staffing and planning decisions of affected election authorities.
The ballot titles for both petitions relating to early voting and election procedures read:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to allow early voting prior to federal general elections and include certain procedures relating to voter identification affidavits, voting address updates, and provisional ballots?
It is estimated state government entities would incur unknown potential costs and local governments would incur costs of at least $1,256,256 (one-time costs of $676,800 and on-going costs for each federal election of $579,456). Those costs may fluctuate depending on the compensation, staffing and planning decisions of election authorities.
The petition related to early voting, which would amend Chapter 115 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, and the petitions relating to early voting and election procedures, which would amend Article VIII of the Missouri Constitution, were submitted by Mr. Matt Cologna, 2923 S. Chantilly Lane, Springfield, MO 65804, 573-424-7382.
The ballot titles for both petitions relating to the Missouri House of Representatives read:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to reduce the number of members and districts of the Missouri House of Representatives from 163 to 103 beginning with the 2023 General Assembly?
Annual estimated savings to state government would be at least $4.7 million. No fiscal impact is expected for local governments.
The petitions relating to the Missouri House of Representatives, which would amend Article III of the Missouri Constitution, were submitted by Mr. Russell C. Purvis, 10104 N. Helena Ave., Kansas City, Mo., 64154, 816-769-4559.
Before any constitutional changes can be brought before Missouri voters in the November 2012 election, signatures must be obtained from registered voters equal to eight (8) percent of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts. For statutory changes, signatures must be obtained from registered voters equal to five (5) percent of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts.
Signatures on behalf of all initiative petitions for the 2012 ballot are due to the Secretary of State’s office by no later than 5 p.m. on May 6, 2012.
Before circulating petitions, state law requires that groups must first have the form of their petition approved by the Secretary of State and Attorney General. The Secretary of State then prepares a summary statement of no more than 100 words and the State Auditor prepares a fiscal impact statement, both of which are subject to the approval of the Attorney General. When both statements are approved, they become the official ballot title.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Ballot Initiative would Create Right to Pray
A ballot initiative would clarify religious freedoms to include the right of people to pray in a public setting. The measure is currently in the Missouri Senate; if passed, the measure would go before the voters in the 2012 General Election or at a special election called for that purpose by the governor. The initiative would ensure that "any person shall have the right to pray individually or corporately in a private or public setting" provided that it is not disruptive. The bill would protect students against discrimination based on the religious content of their work. It would require all schools, including Worth County and Northeast Nodaway to display the text of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution in a prominent place.
Conservative Christian groups have long attacked public schools for what they see as schools creating a hostile environment for public prayer and for excluding creationism, or the belief that God created the world in seven literal days and that the world is less than 10,000 years old, from public schools. They argue that there is scientific basis for the creation of the earth based on the work of groups like the Institute for Creation Research. Other groups argue that this bill is simply a backdoor attempt to force schools to discuss creationism and amounts to the establishment of religion in schools.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
County Commissioners Answer Ballot Initiative Questions
The Worth County Commissioners have provided the Sheridan Express with written answers to frequently asked questions about the road rock fund as well as the brush removal ordinance which are both on the ballot on August 4th. Poll information is on Page 5.
How much is needed to pass?
Both measures require a simple majority to pass.
Why should the voters of Worth County vote for and pass the Gravel Tax and Brush Enforcement Law?
There are several reasons why the residents will benefit if these two issues are approved. One is to improve Worth County roads. This will allow for absentee landowners to contribute and help maintain our roads. They typically use these roads for recreation on a regular basis, but have had no responsibility in the maintenance of these roads. Worth County is one of the few places in the country that does not have the benefit of the two proposals. The positive impact of these two issues would have numerous benefits to families living here in the county.
Better and safer roads should be a concern to everyone, not just parents whose children are bussed to school. We feel that people who live, work, and raise their families here should have the same benefits of living elsewhere. We feel that it is past time to level the playing field and find a more equal and fair way to maintain and improve our roads in the county for which we live.
At one time, almost all of the land in Worth County was once owned by hard-working people who resided here. They farmed, raised their families, sold their livestock, and purchased supplies and machinery all locally. The problem now is that purchasing and selling locally is not always an option and that means our tax dollars are leaving our area and are benefiting and supporting some other county’s roads. Every dollar spent locally works several times over to benefit all. There is a high percentage of farmland in Worth County that is owned by people or corporations that do NOT live in or work in the area. This situation puts more burdens and responsibilities on the people that do live here and do their business locally. As the trend continues of land purchases for recreation and hunting, it hurts our local economy.
Mowing, brush control, and road rock has always been on the “honor system” for lack of a better term. The “honor system” worked fairly well at one time, but things are much different now. If a landowner decides not to control the brush by mowing or spraying or buying gravel for the road, then someone else has to either take up the slack and do more than his fair share, or the road becomes neglected and soon will become a large problem. School busses, emergency vehicles, and other vehicles all need to have the ability to travel all of our county roads. We see no way that this will cure itself and only foresee it getting worse if we do not act and vote YES on August 4th and pass both of these issues.
We believe that all of the elected officials and employees of the county should be and are committed to doing the best and most efficient job for all of the county. We are looking for ways to make the most of what we have to work with. These are trying times economically. The Road and Bridge Department must become more efficient to meet existing goals and to use and maintain equipment and machinery safely. Breakdowns because of brush and trees are a constant threat.
Another problem is that the state will not allow a county credit for roads that fall below a certain standard. Our county has already lost credit on some roads which equals a loss of money and we cannot afford to lose anymore. Our county needs to recapture some of these credits and increase our inventory of safe and reliable roads. Not only would we have safer roads, but we will not have to pay the majority of the price tags. The new system would spread it out to all landowners equally, whether they live here or not. We cannot depend on the absentee landowners to donate to help keep our roads to a decent standard. While a few have helped to donate, most have not. Every time we purchase something out of the county, we help to maintain that county’s roads and schools. It is time for us to stand up and take a stand for ourselves and take care of our county. Today, Worth County has an “honor system.”
How are roads funded now?
Currently, we operate under the CART (patron gravel) program, which is generated from the State Vehicle Tax, other state fees, and the state's gas tax. This is the county’s primary source of gravel. This is money that the state collects and reimburses the county based on the number of miles of county roads. With the current economic conditions, the state reimbursements have drastically dropped and could drop in the next few years as well. What this means is that the county's cost-share for gravel would continue to drop every year. For instance, last year, the county's cost-share for CART gravel was 100%; this year, the county could only match 75%. As state funds decline, the county will have to make further reductions.
What can the voters expect if these two issues are not passed?
We can only project that the county’s share of the patron gravel will decrease and the road conditions will deteriorate. Cost share budget on brush removal will need to be reduced as well.
Will the Patron/CART Gravel system still be used if the new system is passed by voters?
Yes, it will still be utilized to the best advantage of the residents of Worth County. This system can be used on a cost-share basis to bring a road up to specs to qualify a road to the newly-passed system or if a road for some reason does need more rock.
Will all roads in Worth County be graveled?
Only roads that have had patron gravel applied recently or is brought up to spec will qualify. This means that if the road has not been graveled for years, it must be brought up to spec, improved, and inspected after base rock is applied before normal road stone could be applied and qualify for the newly-passed gravel system.
By passing the Brush Enforcement Law and Gravel Tax, do you think that this is the best way to maintain our road system?
No, but it is much more fair and equal than the system we currently have, and will be the best system that is, or will be available for Worth County at this time. We would like to see some changes made at the state level that would make it possible for Worth County landowners who live here in the area to not have the full burden of purchasing all the gravel on our roads. But until changes can be made, this is the first step that has to be made before better ways of improving the system can be made for the residents of Worth County.
If the voters pass the Brush Enforcement Law and the New Gravel System Tax, what can they expect to change?
Better and safer roads. Approximately 70 tons for every mile of rocked road would have been applied at the 2009 delivered price if the new system had been in place for this season. This would have been applied to every mile of all of the current graveled roads.
As for the Brush Enforcement Tax, roads will be maintained and clear of trees to a standard that at a minimum will allow road maintenance equipment to properly blade, keep gravel on, and allow water to drain off the roadways and autos and farm machinery to pass down a road. The cost share program will still be in place and will be expanded as funds are available for brush removal.
How much is needed to pass?
Both measures require a simple majority to pass.
Why should the voters of Worth County vote for and pass the Gravel Tax and Brush Enforcement Law?
There are several reasons why the residents will benefit if these two issues are approved. One is to improve Worth County roads. This will allow for absentee landowners to contribute and help maintain our roads. They typically use these roads for recreation on a regular basis, but have had no responsibility in the maintenance of these roads. Worth County is one of the few places in the country that does not have the benefit of the two proposals. The positive impact of these two issues would have numerous benefits to families living here in the county.
Better and safer roads should be a concern to everyone, not just parents whose children are bussed to school. We feel that people who live, work, and raise their families here should have the same benefits of living elsewhere. We feel that it is past time to level the playing field and find a more equal and fair way to maintain and improve our roads in the county for which we live.
At one time, almost all of the land in Worth County was once owned by hard-working people who resided here. They farmed, raised their families, sold their livestock, and purchased supplies and machinery all locally. The problem now is that purchasing and selling locally is not always an option and that means our tax dollars are leaving our area and are benefiting and supporting some other county’s roads. Every dollar spent locally works several times over to benefit all. There is a high percentage of farmland in Worth County that is owned by people or corporations that do NOT live in or work in the area. This situation puts more burdens and responsibilities on the people that do live here and do their business locally. As the trend continues of land purchases for recreation and hunting, it hurts our local economy.
Mowing, brush control, and road rock has always been on the “honor system” for lack of a better term. The “honor system” worked fairly well at one time, but things are much different now. If a landowner decides not to control the brush by mowing or spraying or buying gravel for the road, then someone else has to either take up the slack and do more than his fair share, or the road becomes neglected and soon will become a large problem. School busses, emergency vehicles, and other vehicles all need to have the ability to travel all of our county roads. We see no way that this will cure itself and only foresee it getting worse if we do not act and vote YES on August 4th and pass both of these issues.
We believe that all of the elected officials and employees of the county should be and are committed to doing the best and most efficient job for all of the county. We are looking for ways to make the most of what we have to work with. These are trying times economically. The Road and Bridge Department must become more efficient to meet existing goals and to use and maintain equipment and machinery safely. Breakdowns because of brush and trees are a constant threat.
Another problem is that the state will not allow a county credit for roads that fall below a certain standard. Our county has already lost credit on some roads which equals a loss of money and we cannot afford to lose anymore. Our county needs to recapture some of these credits and increase our inventory of safe and reliable roads. Not only would we have safer roads, but we will not have to pay the majority of the price tags. The new system would spread it out to all landowners equally, whether they live here or not. We cannot depend on the absentee landowners to donate to help keep our roads to a decent standard. While a few have helped to donate, most have not. Every time we purchase something out of the county, we help to maintain that county’s roads and schools. It is time for us to stand up and take a stand for ourselves and take care of our county. Today, Worth County has an “honor system.”
How are roads funded now?
Currently, we operate under the CART (patron gravel) program, which is generated from the State Vehicle Tax, other state fees, and the state's gas tax. This is the county’s primary source of gravel. This is money that the state collects and reimburses the county based on the number of miles of county roads. With the current economic conditions, the state reimbursements have drastically dropped and could drop in the next few years as well. What this means is that the county's cost-share for gravel would continue to drop every year. For instance, last year, the county's cost-share for CART gravel was 100%; this year, the county could only match 75%. As state funds decline, the county will have to make further reductions.
What can the voters expect if these two issues are not passed?
We can only project that the county’s share of the patron gravel will decrease and the road conditions will deteriorate. Cost share budget on brush removal will need to be reduced as well.
Will the Patron/CART Gravel system still be used if the new system is passed by voters?
Yes, it will still be utilized to the best advantage of the residents of Worth County. This system can be used on a cost-share basis to bring a road up to specs to qualify a road to the newly-passed system or if a road for some reason does need more rock.
Will all roads in Worth County be graveled?
Only roads that have had patron gravel applied recently or is brought up to spec will qualify. This means that if the road has not been graveled for years, it must be brought up to spec, improved, and inspected after base rock is applied before normal road stone could be applied and qualify for the newly-passed gravel system.
By passing the Brush Enforcement Law and Gravel Tax, do you think that this is the best way to maintain our road system?
No, but it is much more fair and equal than the system we currently have, and will be the best system that is, or will be available for Worth County at this time. We would like to see some changes made at the state level that would make it possible for Worth County landowners who live here in the area to not have the full burden of purchasing all the gravel on our roads. But until changes can be made, this is the first step that has to be made before better ways of improving the system can be made for the residents of Worth County.
If the voters pass the Brush Enforcement Law and the New Gravel System Tax, what can they expect to change?
Better and safer roads. Approximately 70 tons for every mile of rocked road would have been applied at the 2009 delivered price if the new system had been in place for this season. This would have been applied to every mile of all of the current graveled roads.
As for the Brush Enforcement Tax, roads will be maintained and clear of trees to a standard that at a minimum will allow road maintenance equipment to properly blade, keep gravel on, and allow water to drain off the roadways and autos and farm machinery to pass down a road. The cost share program will still be in place and will be expanded as funds are available for brush removal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)