Kevin Engler Wants To Preserve What Makes Jefferson City Great

Sen. Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) does not like the proposal from Sen. Jason Crowell (R-Cape Girardeau) to create a two-year waiting period for legislators before they can cash in as lobbyists or accept appointments to state positions.

While Crowell may have his own self-serving reasons for proposing the ban and making his colleagues squirm, a revolving door ban of at least one year seems like a basic good government policy.  Among other things, such waiting periods would make it hard for legislators to negotiate the terms of their next job while still in public office. For example, fellow Sen. John Griesheimer (R-Washington) has made it public knowledge that he wants someone to hire him as a lobbyist when he's done with the Senate later this year; it would be shocking if a prospective employer hasn't broached that topic with the Senator at some point. 

Engler sees things differently.  In his mind, Crowell's proposal would restrict service in the Missouri General Assembly to the unemployed, retired and independently wealthy.  Moreover, he says "we want people in the halls" to have "experience," and says (half?) jokingly that a ban might open lobbyist gigs and state appointments to "retired, un-business-like people who don't have jobs."

Rebecca Berg in the Globe-Democrat:

Opposition to Crowell's amendment came largely from legislators who expressed concern that restricting former legislators from accepting lobbying jobs would jeopardize the quality of state government operations.

Majority Floor Leader Kevin Engler, R-Farmington, said he worried that making it too difficult for former legislators to become lobbyists would compromise the institutional knowledge of the state government and open up important positions to amateurs.

"Why would we want elected officials to have any experience?" Engler said sarcastically [in response to Sen. Scott Rupp's (R-Wentzville) amendment that would make sure statewide officeholders aren't subject to the same waiting period] . "Give us retired, un-business-like people who don't have jobs. Don't give us anybody with any experience."

Emphasis added.

Listening I think Engler's remarks, I get the sense that he's far more concerned that Crowell's proposal would jeopardize his ability -- and the ability of his enterprising colleagues -- to cash in on their Capitol connections than he is about any jeopardizing of "the quality of state government operations."

I've pulled two clips from Wednesday's debate in the Senate.  First, Engler complains about how the revolving door ban would "force this body that's supposed to be citizen legislators to only become retirees, or only become wealthy."

Later, he offered the following sarcastic response to Rupp's amendment (quoted in the Globe-Democrat story excerpted above). 

It's really an absurd argument augment.  For those of you without speakers, here's a partial transcript of his remarks:

I'm gainfully employed, unlike a lot of the members in the House and Senate.  And it was a tough decision whether to come up here...

But what we're doing is we're going to create with some of these actions that we're about to talk about, an institution that the only reason you come here is if you're unemployed, or you're retired, or you're wealthy and you can afford to do so....

If you're going to force this body that's supposed to be citizen legislators to only become retirees, or only become wealthy, or take the biggest part -- I'm fortunate that my company lets me serve and continue to work. But it costs me enough money to be here.

But if you're going to take people at the prime of your career, and say give us eight years, get out, and don't ever -- we don't ever want you to ever have anything you to do with the legislative process, at least for the period of time that you might be able to be influential, I think we, we've crossed the wrong ground.

In Engler's mind, the only way to " have anything..to do with the legislative process" is to be a registered lobbyist or appointed official. 

Engler's colleagues may also be interested to learn that "a lot" on them are not "gainfully employed."

Senators currently earn an annual salary of about $36,000, and Representatives received a salary of about $31,300 -- not counting their expense reimbursements, lobbyist-financed meals, etc.  That isn't as much money as many members of the General Assembly could make as full-time workers elsewhere, but it's not bad for a part-time gig that's supposed to be about serving the people of Missouri.  It's also a lot more than many unemployed Missourians are making right now. 

More importantly, as I understanding Engler's argument, he's assuming that in order for service in the General Assembly to be worthwhile for him and many other people, we must preserve legislators' rights to cash in upon leaving office. In his words, you need the ability to "serve" as a lobbyist during "the period of time that you might be able to be influential."

Image credit: St. Louis Business Journal