As the clock winds down for Missouri lawmakers to compromise on some of the most contentious bills of the legislative session, questions are being raised about closed-doors negotiations that allow a few key players to shape state policy out of the public's sight.
Those behind-the-scenes deals played a prominent role in last week's passage of the state's $26 billion spending plan for next year. At issue was a proposal by lead budget writer and Columbia Republican Sen. Kurt Schaefer, who sought to rein in spending by the Social Services, Mental Health and Health and Senior Services departments by granting those agencies a collective pot of money instead of individual program allotments.
Schaefer's budget proposal was significantly different from the House recommendations, which in some cases gave those departments more money than they had requested and followed traditional budgeting by divvying out money to specific programs and services.
A panel of lawmakers from the House and Senate was assigned to hash out a compromise.
But public meetings between those negotiators were repeatedly postponed as a few key lawmakers haggled behind closed doors.
Missouri's open meetings laws allow elected officials to privately discuss items that will be voted on as long as a quorum of members hasn't been met.
Schaefer and House budget chairman Rep. Tom Flanigan, a Republican from Carthage, unveiled the final product Wednesday night for the first time publicly.
Their deal eliminated the lump-sum method, and instead scaled back the House's recommended budget increases for individual agencies by millions of dollars.
The timing of that proposal's unveiling meant most lawmakers, particularly members of the Democratic minority not involved in the private negotiations, voted on the budget Thursday after only a few hours of review.
Democrats, who have little bargaining power in the Republican-controlled Legislature, criticized the process.
"Jamming through a budget while denying lawmakers and the public any chance to adequately review it is an irresponsible way to spend $26 billion in taxpayer money," Assistant House Minority Leader Gail McCann Beatty, of Kansas City, said in a statement.
Such negotiating tactics are common in statehouses across the country, said political scientists and several lawmakers. Even the U.S. Constitution was drafted behind locked doors in 1787.
Former Democratic Rep. Chris Kelly, of Columbia, who as House budget chairman during the 1980s and 1990s, recalls one year in which a single point of contention on the budget remained between him and with Senate Appropriations Chairman Roger Wilson, of Columbia: a position in the Department of Revenue.
Kelly and his counterpart wouldn't budge on whether to cut the job or keep it. So, while sitting in Wilson's basement, the two agreed that the winner of a game of billiards would have the final say. Kelly lost.
Schaefer defended the closed-doors negotiations on some major budget provisions by noting that the final product came after months of open discussion, contrasting the billiards wager made years ago.
Flanigan and Schaefer both pointed to numerous public hearings, legislative debates and public votes on earlier drafts of the budget package.
Ironing out a compromise with fewer participants is sometimes necessary to shield lawmakers from criticism from the many lobbyists and interest groups all vying for a piece of the budget pie, said University of Missouri-Columbia political scientist Peverill Squire.
Squire said private deals also could speed compromise with campaigning lawmakers such as Schaefer, who may be is running for attorney general in 2016 and is "playing to a different constituency."
Still, the secretive nature of the final budget negotiations stands in stark contrast with House and Senate discussions on a bill that would revamp the state's student transfer law for unaccredited school districts. Squire said policy-driven legislation, such as the transfer bill, relies more heavily on public input for legitimacy.
A negotiating panel on the student transfer bill met for the first time last week in public to discuss some of the major sticking points between the chambers.
A request by Sen. Jason Holsman, D-Kansas City, to break off in small groups and privately negotiate was denied. Instead, panel members agreed, meetings will continue to be open.