Missouri’s St. Louis Roots
Today marks the 191st anniversary of the first meeting of the Missouri general assembly:
“September 18, 1820:Â The first session of the general assembly of the state of Missouri met in the Missouri Hotel in St. Louis to administer the affairs of a state still awaiting statehood. In March jubilant St. Louisans had received news that the Missouri State Bill had passed Congress, and, despite the fact that debate over the Missouri Compromise caused a delay of more than a year in its ratification.” (St. Louis Day by Day p178)
Missouri became the 24th state in the Union on Aug. 10, 1821 (source). Missouri’s origins were in St. Louis:
The present Capitol, completed in 1917 and occupied the following year, is the third Capitol in Jefferson City and the sixth in Missouri history. The first seat of state government was housed in the Mansion House, Third and Vine Streets, St. Louis; the second was in the Missouri Hotel, Maine and Morgan Streets, also in St. Louis. St. Charles was designated as temporary capital of the state in 1821 and remained the seat of government until 1826. (Wikipedia)
The Missouri Hotel was razed in 1873. The poll question this week: “Missouri legislators are “part-time” public servants, should we have full-time legislators to manage the state?” The poll is in the right sidebar, final results on Wednesday September 28, 2011.
– Steve Patterson
No. Legislators set policy, civil servants / state employees manage the day-to-day operations. Legislators are supposed to represent the people that elect them. If they become full-time, they would spend a lot less time “back home”, becoming more disconnected (see our federal Congress) and even more dependent on lobbyists, party and staff. Plus, as in many things in life, most people need deadlines. The ONLY reason I can see for a full-time legislature, assuming full-time pay, would be encouraging a few more people to run for office – unless one is retired, is independently wealthy, has a working and very-understanding spouse, is on disability or a is well-established business owner, most working-age people can’t afford to take the time off from work to serve in the legislature, nor do most have bosses willing to give them multiple weeks off. Plus the downside is creating true professional politicians, who move from position to position, relying on name-recognition, being able to say the right things and to mount effective, well-oiled campaigns using established donors and campaign funds.
No. Legislators set policy, civil servants / state employees manage the day-to-day operations. Legislators are supposed to represent the people that elect them. If they become full-time, they would spend a lot less time “back home”, becoming more disconnected (see our federal Congress) and even more dependent on lobbyists, party and staff. Plus, as in many things in life, most people need deadlines. The ONLY reason I can see for a full-time legislature, assuming full-time pay, would be encouraging a few more people to run for office – unless one is retired, is independently wealthy, has a working and very-understanding spouse, is on disability or a is well-established business owner, most working-age people can’t afford to take the time off from work to serve in the legislature, nor do most have bosses willing to give them multiple weeks off. Plus the downside is creating true professional politicians, who move from position to position, relying on name-recognition, being able to say the right things and to mount effective, well-oiled campaigns using established donors and campaign funds.
No. Legislators set policy, civil servants / state employees manage the day-to-day operations. Legislators are supposed to represent the people that elect them. If they become full-time, they would spend a lot less time “back home”, becoming more disconnected (see our federal Congress) and even more dependent on lobbyists, party and staff. Plus, as in many things in life, most people need deadlines. The ONLY reason I can see for a full-time legislature, assuming full-time pay, would be encouraging a few more people to run for office – unless one is retired, is independently wealthy, has a working and very-understanding spouse, is on disability or a is well-established business owner, most working-age people can’t afford to take the time off from work to serve in the legislature, nor do most have bosses willing to give them multiple weeks off. Plus the downside is creating true professional politicians, who move from position to position, relying on name-recognition, being able to say the right things and to mount effective, well-oiled campaigns using established donors and campaign funds.
Valid points except that becoming a state rep/senator would disqualify someone for disability. Just like the first years of Social Security, those of us on disability can make a small amount of money before being penalized or being determined we aren’t disabled.
Valid points except that becoming a state rep/senator would disqualify someone for disability. Just like the first years of Social Security, those of us on disability can make a small amount of money before being penalized or being determined we aren’t disabled.
At one time in our country’s life, it was considered an honor to serve the people. Now it is just a way to screw a lot of people all at once and change/enact laws that impose someone’s beliefs on another, restrict freedoms, or are self serving rather than having the long-term best interests of the Country and society in mind.
At one time in our country’s life, it was considered an honor to serve the people. Now it is just a way to screw a lot of people all at once and change/enact laws that impose someone’s beliefs on another, restrict freedoms, or are self serving rather than having the long-term best interests of the Country and society in mind.