Local superintendents say gambling proposal carries deceptions

October 03, 2008 11:26 pm

— By Susan Redden
sredden@joplinglobe.com
Despite the title, the Missouri School Boards Association is taking no position on Proposition A, the “Schools First Initiative” on the Nov. 4 election ballot in the state.
Backers of the amendment say the measure, if approved, would boost public-school funding by an amount between $105 million and $130 million a year. It would also remove the state’s current $500 loss limit at casinos and restrict the number of casinos in the state to those in place or under construction.
The proposal rankles two area superintendents who say the measure “uses” schools to gain approval of law that primarily would benefit the state’s casino industry.
Ron Lankford, superintendent of the Webb City R-7 School District, said although the proposition would send money to his district, he is adamantly opposed to the measure, that it is just another in a long line of issues that use the guise of education to benefit private companies.
“It’s about gambling, not about education,” Lankford said. “There is a hard sell to pass this initiative, and education tends to be an area that people are interested in, so they will vote ‘yes’ on it because they think it will help the schools.”
New Carthage Superintendent Blaine Henningson said local talk about Proposition A is strangely quiet. But with pamphlets bearing the photos of schoolchildren and the name of “The Schools First Initiative,” Henningson said he is concerned that voters will think it was originated from by schools.
“This is a gambling initiative,” he said. “Let’s call it what it is, let’s tell it straight up. If it passes, let it pass. But this sits wrong with me.”
It’s true that the measure will increase revenues for casinos, but it also will give more money to schools, without local school boards having to ask voters for a tax increase, said Scott Charton, spokesman for YES on A Coalition.
“It will help schools trying to pay for higher fuel costs and keeping teachers’ salaries competitive,” he said. “And defeating it does not keep the status quo, because that means Missouri keeps its outdated gaming laws and loses more revenues to Kansas.”
He said the Missouri Gaming Commission has estimated that potential loss at “about $45 million in funds that would go to education. Granted, they’re casino revenues, but that’s what’s being taxed. It’s like a modern border raid.”
According to the YES on A Coalition, Proposition A would conservatively bring in nearly $3.4 million in additional education funding to Jasper County schools and more than $1.5 million in additional funding to Newton County schools.
The Missouri School Boards’ Association has not taken a position, and has some concerns about the measure’s guarantee of providing additional funding for education, said Brent Gahn, director of communications.
“It appears to be well written, with the needed guarantees, but we’ve been down that road before,” he said, noting lottery funds that went into education and supplanted school funding that was then spent for other purposes.
Lankford said he’s not convinced that won’t happen with Proposition A funding. Every time Webb City residents vote on a bond issue, he said, he still gets questions about the lottery money that was supposed to supplement Missouri school funding, but ended up replacing it.
Lankford said the goal of the issue appears to grant a monopoly to the casinos already operating in the state and remove loss limits. “It’s about the casinos, not schools,” he said.
The measure would remove the current $500 loss limit, which supporters say will put Missouri casinos on par with those in other states. They say Missouri is the only state with the limit and Missouri casinos are losing those gamblers — and revenues.
The Missouri Gaming Commission estimates that Missouri has already lost 30 percent of its casino patrons to neighboring states because of the loss limits. That same commission also estimates that Missouri casinos will lose $180 million to $200 million a year in revenues to the new destination casinos being built in Kansas if those loss limits are not eliminated.
The Missouri Gaming Commission has concluded that there is no direct evidence that loss limits deter people from becoming “problem gamblers,” citing findings from the Iowa gaming commission after limits were repealed there in 1994.
That statement is challenged by Casino Watch, a Missouri based casino watchdog group. Spokesmen for the group say monitoring that comes along with the limit helps enforce the Missouri Disassociated Persons list — people who voluntarily chose to exclude themselves from casinos because in most cases they are compulsive and addicted gamblers. They say the limits reduce the speed at which gamblers play the games and limit the amount of financial losses that families experience as a result of gambling addition.
Casino Watch has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the ballot initiative. It argues the measure addresses two subjects while the constitution requires voters be given a single subject to change in state law via initiative petitions.
Evilio Silvera, executive director of the group, also said the ballot title is deceptive in that it links the initiative to schools when the proposal is entirely funded by the casino industry.
In addition to revenues from lifting loss limits, proceeds from a higher casino tax also would boost school funding, proponents say.
It’s estimated that Proposition A would bring an additional $130 million to Missouri schools, raising the total taxes the casinos pay to schools to $410 million. Proponents say the estimates are conservative, because they do not include projected revenues from the Lumiere Place casino recently completed in St. Louis or the River City casino set for construction just south of St. Louis next year. And they say the measure specifies the money can be used only for education, and cannot replace other education funds.
That predicted annual funding boost would take full effect in fiscal year 2010. The estimates are based on revenue reports provided by the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.
The casinos estimate that Proposition A will raise casino revenues to $1.952 billion a year, with net revenues of $1.542 billion after paying the higher taxes to the schools.
The measure has been endorsed by the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, the Urban League of Greater Kansas City, the Port Authority of Kansas City, Partners for Progress nonprofit in St. Charles and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce.
Staff writer Melissa Dunson contributed to this report.


School proceeds
Area schools, and estimated additional annual funding from Proposition A: Joplin, $1,278,112; Neosho, $742,034; Carthage, $728,260; Webb City, $660,188; Carl Junction, $521,842; East Newton, $296,050; Seneca, $280,464; Diamond, $173,454; Sarcoxie, $149,424; Avilla, $38,668; Westview, $37,522.

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.