A state lawmaker has advanced a proposal to expand the membership of Missouri's Conservation Commission.
The specific proposal also raises a broader issue regarding differences between independent commissions and elected lawmaking bodies.
The Conservation agency is governed by a constitutionally independent commission of four members, appointed by the governor and approved by a vote of the state Senate.
In that regard, the commission is not unlike the nine-member Board of Curators that governs the University of Missouri system. Turmoil involving the system's flagship Columbia campus also has been a topic of legislative discussion and proposals this session.
Because both governing boards are established in the state constitution, proposed changes to their structures must take the form of constitutional amendments approved by Missouri voters. With regard to money matters, suffice it to say the university is more dependent on legislative appropriations than Conservation, which collects a voter-approved sales tax.
State Sen. Brian Munzlinger, R-Williamstown, has proposed a constitutional amendment to increase the Conservation commission from four members to six members.
Although Munzlinger has voiced disagreement with some Conservation policies during past sessions, he contends his proposed increase in membership would reflect the increased scope and responsibilities of the commission.
His argument has some merit. The four-member body was established in 1936. In its 80-year history, the commission's land holdings, duties and budget have grown significantly.
But we also find merit in praise from other lawmakers about the commission. Sen. Scott Sifton, D-Affton, reasonably asked: "What is broken with the commission now that adding members is going to fix?"
A compelling reason must exist to propose amending the state constitution. Sadly, proposed amendments have become rampant, often as unnecessary substitutes for approving a state law.
Although an amendment would be needed to increase the number of commissioners, we find no compelling reason for the change.
Sometimes, elected legislators must recognize the limits of their authority and not try to micromanage appointees.