February 12, 2012

Governor-backed auto industry incentives introduced

The automotive industry incentive component of the Governor’s job creation strategy has found its backers in the House and Senate, and they come from both sides of the political aisle.
 
In his State of the State Address and stops around the state, Governor Jay Nixon has promoted his Missouri Works plan. It would expand on the provisions of the Missouri Manufacturing Jobs act of 2010, which helped promote expansion at Ford’s Claycomo Plant in Kansas City and General Motors’ plant in Wentzville. Legislation introduced this week basically targets those incentives at manufactures in the automotive industry.
 

Representative Chuck Gatschenberger (R-Lake St. Louis) is sponsoring HB 1455.

The House version, HB 1455, will be carried by Representative Chuck Gatschenberger (R-Lake St. Louis). He says, “Those manufacturers of vehicles … they need brakes, they need windshields, they need trim, they need engines … and not all of those are built right there on that spot.”

Parts makers qualify under the proposal if the products they make are used by an automaker. Companies with at least half of their sales coming from parts used to modify vehicles can also qualify for incentives.

Gatschenberger says it offers two options to those companies. “One is if you employee five employees, you’re gonna get the same benefits with withholding the taxes that you pay from the state for the benefit of the company. The other aspect of it … there’s a lot of companies in this state that are not going to be able to employ five people but they can employ two people. If they do two people and $100,000 of investment in their business, they can fall under the same guidelines.”

Gatschenberger says it also includes some clawback provisions.  ”Let’s say they have those two people but they lay two other people off. Then they lose the benefit. It’s not the specific people that they hire, it’s the total number of people.”

See the Governor’s Office’s release on the introduction of the legislation.

The package increases the standard incentive period to five years, from the three found in the 2010 language. Companies would get a tax break equaling 5 percent of their new payroll if wages are at the average for the county, 5.5 percent for wages that are 120 percent of that average and 6 percent for wages at least 140 percent of the county average.

Senator Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) is the sponsor of SB 691.

Gatschenberger notes the package opens up incentives to all auto manufacturers, not just Ford and General Motors, “So if Nissan thinks, ‘Hmm, we might want to put a plant somewhere but where are we going to put a plant,’ it’s making the carrot bigger and jucier.”

The Governor’s Office says the package boasts a lengthy list of bipartisan supporters. Also in the House are Speaker Steven Tilley (R-Perryville), Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones (R-Eureka), Jerry Nolte (R-Gladstone), Minority Leader Mike Talboy (D-Kansas City), Assistant Minority Floor Leader Tishaura Jones (D-St. Louis), Minority Whip Mike Colona (D-St. Louis), Representative Stephen Webber (D-Columbia) and Representative Bert Atkins (D-Florrisant). Senator Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) is sponsoring the Senate version, SB 691 with Minority Floor Leader Senator Victor Callahan (D-Independence) a co-sponsor.

Senate remains deadlocked on discrimination bill (AUDIO)

A proposed change of one word in Missouri’s employment discrimination laws is a contributing factor to a  deadlock on the issue in the state senate.

Debate on the bill has consumed most of this week’s floor time in the Senate.  Business groups claim courts have gone too far in making it easier for people to file employment discrimination suits.  Sponsor Brad Lager of Savannah wants to require those filing suit to prove discrimination was the motivating factor in their firing or lack of promotion.  The current standard requires only that it be a contributing factor.

                                        AUDIO: Lager :17 mp3

He says his proposal puts Missouri discrimination laws under the standard of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its 1991 amendments.

Democrats are tying up the bill, complaining the bill makes it too hard for employees to protect themselves from discrimination and tilts the system too much toward business.  Or as Senator Maria Chappelle Nadal of University City puts it.

                                        AUDIO: Chappelle Nadal :05 mp3

Democrats say Republicans don’t want to compromise on anything…so the Democrats won’t allow a vote on the bill.

 

Employment discrimination law changes debated in Senate (AUDIO)

Lines have been clearly drawn as the state senate starts work on a change in employment discrimination laws that one side says reigns in runaway courts and that the other side thinks will set back civil rights almost half a century.

Northwest Missouri senator Brad Lager says court rulings have taken Missouri’s employment discrimination laws far afield. He wants to limit who can be sued, how much damages can be, tighten the standard of proof and make whistleblowers show that something illegal has happened–not that it might. “This legislation aims at bringing Missouri law back into alignment with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the way that employment law has been practiced in this state for over forty years, ” says Lager.

But critics like Maria Chapelle-Nadal think the proposal is, as she puts it, “shameful.” She says it’s a “slap in the face” to apply a 1964 standard to changed conditions in 2012.

The senate wrapped up its first day of debate by arguing whether age should be a “motivating factor” or a “contributing factor” in a discrimination suit. Lager prefers the tougher “motivating factor” standard that opponents say limits workers’ rights.

AUDIO: Part one of debate :50:43 mp3\

AUDIO: Debate, part two 51:58 mp3

Convenience stores wary of I-70 toll road talk (AUDIO)

Talk about turning Interstate 70 into a toll road as the only way to pay for rebuidling it has some roadside business people jumpy.

Convenience store operators figure toll roads are not their friends. And the transportation department’s talk about having a private company turn I-70 into a toll road bothers the convenience store industry. Although the department talks about a system that would not eliminate any of the exits, convenience store representatives like Ron Leone worry about what the final contract would be.

AUDIO: Leone  :18  mp3

He says he almost fell out of his chair when he heard transportation department director Kevin Keith say as much as ten percent of the truck traffic that now uses 70 would like move to non-toll highways. He says that would be a major blow to the businesses he represents.

Joplin resident Joel Hamilton represents a company that has a major truck stop in Joplin and another one on I-70 at Oak Grove. He voices similar fears.

AUDIO: Hamilton  :10  mp3

An open system would retain the current interstate exit and entrance ramps. A closed system would limit access and exits–the turnpikes in Kansas and Oklahoma, for examples.

Hamilton argues toll roads also could hurt a lot of other people, not just operators like his company has.

AUDIO: Hamilton  :27  mp3

Legislators are considering law changes that would let the department contract with a private company to build and run I-70. Some critics of the idea question whether a public vote would be needed on a constitutional change clearing the way for that kind of contract. Keith says the department’s lawyers already have looked into that and feel no public vote would be needed.

Barnes: what patent attorney knew might have stopped Mamtek deal (AUDIO)

The Chairman of the House Committee studying the failed deal to bring a Mamtek sucralose plant to Moberly says there are many who could have halted that deal before its collapse, but did not.  Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City) says the City of Moberly relied on a series of third-party professionals and the Department of Economic Development to back the project and do due diligence on it.

Patent attorney Michael Wise testified by video conference from California at Thursday's hearing.

One person Barnes says could have stopped the project is Michael Wise, a patent attorney for Los Angeles, California-based law firm Perkins Coie. 

Wise testified under subpoena Thursday afternoon before the Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability. He said that he had been to Mamtek’s production facility in Wuyishan City in Fujian Province, China on three occasions: in November 2007, November 2009 and August 2010. The existence and status of that plant has been at question for those investigating the situation.

Wise says on the first visit he observed a production line capable of making 18 tons a year. By the second visit, a larger line had been added that was capable of putting out 60 tons a year. When he returned in August 2010, neither line was in operation and a cooling tower was being added to the larger line.

What those lines were making was less clear.  Wise says the Mamtek executives he worked with said it was sucralose, adding he drank tea they said was sweetened with product made there.  A sample was later sent to his firm in Los Angeles via its Shanghai office.  Wise says he never confirmed sucralose was being made at the site, however.

“I never questioned my client’s (Mamtek) representation to me that they were making sucralose because that’s the nature of the relationship.  I’m a patent attorney.”

It was before his last visit, Wise testified, and before the Moberly deal closed that he learned the plant’s future operation was in question. He explained the area had been put under a protected status he equated to that of a national park in the U.S. “The central government had decided that Wuyishan (City) was a protected area, kind of like Yosemite, and as a result of that they weren’t allowing new factories or new lines to be allowed to produce anything in that area, and I assumed it was because of the national park-like status of that area.”

Representative Jay Barnes (right) is joined Thursday by Senator Jim Lembke, who chairs the Senate version of Barnes' committee.

Barnes says, “If Michael Wise would have told people … the Chinese government has some problems with Mamtek’s operation it’s very likely possible that none of this would have happened.”

Wise noted in his testimony the disclaimer that he offered the City of Moberly in a letter to its attorney Tom Cunningham, making clear that he was working for Mamtek and suggesting that the City should do its own due diligence with its own patent lawyers, independently.

Barnes also points to Standard and Poor’s as an entity that could have delayed or stopped the project if it had evaluated the status of Mamtek’s China operation before giving Moberly’s bonds an A-minus rating. S&P Managing Director Geoffrey Buswick, also under subpoena, said the rating was based on Moberly’s promise to pay off the bonds.

The Chairman is now weighing whether to move on to considering legislation related to the Mamtek situation, or to call at least one more witness: former Mamtek CEO and project point man Bruce Cole.

“The conundrum is: our role as a legislative committee is to figure out what we can do to prevent this from happening in the future. I’m not sure what exactly Bruce Cole adds to that question. Given that we’ve spoken to so many other different fact witnesses, I think we’ve got a general idea of what the facts indeed were.” Barnes says he may call Cole if other committee members, or “Maybe I change my mind and think that maybe he (Cole) has something to say that maybe we need to propose X.”

AUDIO: Listen to the testimony of attorney Michael Wise – 1 hour, 26 minutes