A Concord Republican who unsuccessfully challenged Rep. Genise Montecillo, D-Affton, for the Missouri House District 92 seat in 2012 is seeking to unseat her in the Nov. 4 election.

Albert “Al” Faulstich again is challenging Montecillo, who first was elected to the Missouri House in 2010 in District 66.

• “Career training for our youth — too many go to college and come out with huge debt and not employment, while the skilled labor requirements are not being filled,” Faulstich said.

• “I believe education is the single most important issue because education drives economic development, community stability, standards of living and overall mental well-being and satisfaction. In talking with numerous business owners — small and large — they tell me these are the crucial factors that recruit and retain their businesses in Missouri,” Montecillo said.

Faulstich, 73, 9815 Mar Ann Court, 63128, and his wife, Elfriede, have four adult children. He is retired from Anheuser-Busch.

Faulstich unsuccessfully challenged Cloria Brown for the Republican nomination for the District 85 Missouri House seat in 2010 and ran unsuccessfully for the Lindbergh Board of Education in the April election. He said he is seeking election to the Missouri House because he is “not pleased with my present representative, and I believe there are too many in Jeff City that are only interested in their own future and home district, not the entire state.”

Montecillo, 51, 7491 Hardscrapple, No. A, 63123, has one grown child. She is a former special education teacher who worked in the Special School District for 25 years, the last 18 in Lindbergh Schools.

Montecillo, who was elected in 2012 to the seat in the redrawn 92nd District, is seeking re-election because “I am motivated to run by civic responsibility and the greater good of the residents of the 92nd District and citizens of Missouri. Government should work for the people by being accessible to the people.

“I want to be an example of that and help restore the public’s faith in government, which is why I make our office available at all times. This job is about public service and serving those who hired me — my constituents and the citizens of the state of Missouri. I believe this is how to restore the public’s faith in government.”

The candidates gave the following responses to a Call questionnaire:

Faulstich said, “I believe in the right to life in all stages. I doubt we will ever eliminate abortion, but we need to teach birth control to our young people. I also want to establish controls on end of life and quality of life. Many have said this is coming next.”

Montecillo said, “I support women’s right to make their own medical decisions along with their family and physicians. We can prevent abortions through education and providing comprehensive sex education.”

Faulstich said, “I believe those that commit murder should themselves be put to death.”

Montecillo said, “I oppose the death penalty.”

Would you support placing a constitutional amendment before voters that, if approved, would repeal the supermajority requirement for school-district bond issues?

Faulstich said, “I do not want to see a change in this requirement. People who pay should speak.”

Montecillo said, “Yes, I would support the supermajority requirement for school-district bond issues. School districts need for flexibility in that the foundation formula continues to be underfunded.”

Faulstich said, “At this time, I will hold comment on Constitutional Amendment 3, since it will be voted on before I am elected.”

Montecillo said, “I oppose Amendment 3 as it infringes on local control and does nothing to improve educational outcomes.”

Faulstich said, “I will not support any legislation for such a merger.”

Montecillo said, “While I support means to cooperate for the good of the region and to cut expenses, I do not support a merger at this time.”

Faulstich said, “In the past, this system was underfunded, but now the state has caught up with the need. I do not see any need at this time.”

Montecillo said, ” I will continue to protect PSRS and all pensions, but would be open to cost-saving measures that would not take away or cut benefits.”

Faulstich said, “Student transfers have, for as long as I can remember, been allowed but not paid for by the residents’ school district, but by the student’s family.

“If this current program is to continue, then what about the tuition for private schools? Or are private schools not to be included in this ‘funding situation’?”

Montecillo said, “Clearly, a problem exists regarding current transfer laws. Unfortunately and sadly, legislation from last session did nothing to address the transfer crisis but rather pushed a voucher and privatization agenda which was not supported by our local schools/districts.

“Our focus should be ensuring that schools receive the necessary assistance such as early intervention/supports prior to loss of accreditation so that all students can achieve excellent educational outcomes, making transfers unnecessary. Myself and others filed ‘clean’ transfer bills supported by our local schools, which among other things, would have sent in support teams to schools early.”