Politics & Govt

Legislature passes increased restrictions on public sector unions

May 17, 2018 By Jason Taylor

The Missouri Legislature has passed a bill to place new requirements on public sector unions.

The move comes after frantic action took place on the measure within a 24-hour period as the Legislative session winds down.

The bill calls on public unions to hold recertification elections every three years. A majority of employees in a workplace would have to vote in favor of the unions in order for them to remain certified. Correction workers, police, firefighters and other public emergency personnel would not be subject to the recertification process.

The measure also allows for 30% of a work place’s employees to call for an election to create or break-up a union.

Republicans, who mostly supported the measure, say it would make public sector unions more accountable to the employees they represent and would better protect workers’ rights. Democrats, who almost universally oppose the plan, say it could diminish unions’ ability to negotiate for higher wages.

The bill originally approved in the House would prohibit public sector unions from deducting employee pay to cover union dues or fees. It also would bar them from using dues or fees to make political campaign contributions.

The measure would further require public labor organizations to keep financial records, identical to those required by federal law for at least five years. The records would have to be available to employees in a searchable electronic format.

A flurry of activity in a short period of time will send the bill to the governor’s desk. The measure passed the Senate 21-11 late Wednesday after being debated and set aside last month. The bill then came back with changes to the House, which passed it 87-62 Thursday.

Republicans move union backed right to work ballot measure to Missouri’s August primary

May 17, 2018 By Jason Taylor

Missouri lawmakers have moved the voting date of a ballot measure supported unions from November to the August primary.

Missouri-House

The resolution, which passed in the Senate at roughly 5 a.m. last Friday after a nearly 12-hour filibuster, cleared the House Thursday morning. The current legislative session ends this Friday at 6 p.m.

The Republican-dominated legislature started moving aggressively to get the resolution across the finish line after an effort to get a right to work ballot measure before voters failed to rally enough support.

A Right-to-work law would ban union membership as a requirement for employment at workplaces.

By moving the union-backed ballot measure to August, Republicans contend they’re trying to get the issue settled earlier to give businesses certainty moving forward.

But they may also be looking at conditions they perceive as favorable: Primaries in August historically have had lower turnout and there’s research showing Republican voters tend to be more conservative in such elections.

They may also have calculated that pro-union voters, who tend to be Democratic, will be more motivated in the general election when Democratic U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill is up for reelection.

Republicans appear to be fast-tracking another proposal to thwart union efforts.

A bill endorsing right to work as a Constitutional amendment was ignored until the pro-right to work ballot measure collapsed. The day after it failed to meet a deadline for signatures, the Constitutional amendment proposal was rushed through committees and approved on the House floor last Thursday.

It’s now awaiting action in the Senate as the session winds down. If it clears the legislature, Republicans would have two ballot measures as Constitutional amendments also require a public vote.

A right to work law has been in a holding pattern since last year when unions were successful in getting their ballot measure finalized before the statute was scheduled to take effect August 28. During the 2017 session, Republicans passed a right to work bill which GOP Governor Eric Greitens swiftly signed into law.

Previous right to work legislation had been vetoed by Democratic Governor Jay Nixon.

Senate passes bill to place new requirements on public sector unions

May 17, 2018 By Jason Taylor

The Missouri Senate passed a bill Wednesday that would place new requirements on public sector unions.

Photo courtesy of Tim Bommel, House Communications

The Senate increased regulations on a measure passed earlier by the House to call on public unions to hold recertification elections every three years.

A majority of employees in a workplace would have to vote in favor of the unions in order for them to remain certified.

The Senate further changed the measure so that 30% of a work place’s employees could sign-on to call an election to create or break-up a union. Votes from 50% plus one of workers would be required to certify or decertify the organizations.

Republicans, who mostly supported the measure, said it would make public sector unions more accountable to the employees they represent and would better protect workers rights.

Democrat Jake Hummel of St. Louis thinks the measure would unfairly push unions out of public sector workplaces.

“We’re shifting this from the employees being able to have someone speak collectively for them, to try to have better outcomes in collective-bargaining, to just having to struggle to maintain the right to have that representation,” said Hummel.

Under the Senate plan, correction workers, police, firefighters and other public emergency personnel would not be subject to the new requirement in the bill.

Democrat Jill Schupp said the exemptions raise questions. “If this is not good public policy for first responders, why is this bill good public policy for all of our other public employees,” said Schupp.

This bill further requires public labor organizations to keep financial records, identical to those required by federal law for at least five years. The records would have to be available to employees in a searchable electronic format.

The measure passed the Senate 21-11 with three Republican joining eight of the chamber’s nine Democrats to oppose it. The bill will have to return to the House for another vote after the upper chamber made changes.

Approval will have to come quickly if the measure is to go to the governor’s office as the legislative session ends Friday at 6 p.m.

Several other labor-related bills are moving through the Republican-dominated legislature at the last minute. The House could finalize a bill to move up a public vote on a labor-backed ballot measure from November to August while the Senate could approve a House-backed plan calling for a public vote on a Constitutional amendment to make right to work the law of the land.

The Senate could also finish off approval of a measure to repeal Missouri’s prevailing wage law, which requires that workers on public works projects receive pay equal to similar contract work in a given region.

Massive utility bill passes Missouri Legislature

May 17, 2018 By Jason Taylor

Missouri lawmakers have passed a far-reaching utility bill that satisfies the state’s largest electric companies after years of haggling in the legislature.

The bill changes the way regulated utilities negotiate rates with the state by allowing them to more quickly recover the cost of infrastructure upgrades. It would give them more flexibility to change customer rates by introducing new accounting practices.

The measure would impact roughly 2 million customers of the state’s large investor-owned utilities, including Ameren Missouri, Kansas City Power & Light, and Empire Electric District.

Ameren has claimed the plan opens up the power grid to $1 billion in long-needed infrastructure upgrades while limiting rate hikes. The bill caps rate hikes at 2.85 or 3% per year, depending on the service area.

An analysis from state regulators says the legislation could lead to an almost 10% increase in customer rates over the next 10 years.

The measure also calls on the utilities to reduce rates by roughly 5% to compensate for a large federal corporate tax cut the companies are realizing.

Ameren says its customers will see the rate reduction within 90 days after the bill is signed into law. But consumer groups contend the adjustment was held up by the legislation itself, which they say was used as a bargaining chip to pass the bill.

The bill was approved by the House Wednesday 125-20. It cleared the Senate back in February after an all-night filibuster from chamber members who are critical of the motivations of Ameren Missouri. Ameren has a strong presence in the legislature with nearly 50 lobbyists in Jefferson City.

The measure now goes the Governor’s Office for consideration.

Is impeachment a done deal for Greitens? Not so fast!

May 17, 2018 By Alisa Nelson

The Missouri Legislature will enter an unprecedented phase on Friday evening – a special session to consider if impeachment proceedings should be launched against Governor Eric Greitens.

Photo courtesy of Tim Bommel, House Communications

If a special House committee investigating the governor chooses to begin the impeachment process, the House would need 82 members to vote in favor of impeaching Greitens for the next step in the process to occur.

If that figure is met, the state Senate would then select seven “eminent jurists” made up of Missouri circuit and appellate court judges to decide whether to convict the governor. At least five of the judges would have to favor convicting Greitens in order for him to be removed from office.

The Missouri Constitution does not require a criminal conviction for impeachment.

Of the 138 signatures on a petition to call the state legislature in for a special session, 109 of those came from House members. An argument is swirling around about the figure indicating there are more than enough votes to impeach the governor. The number does not automatically mean members who signed the petition will support the impeachment of Greitens.

Some of the 115 House Republicans have argued they did not sign onto the petition to impeach Greitens. Rather, they inked the document to let the process play out. They want a special House committee investigating the governor to have time to finish its work. They want sufficient time to debate the issue on the House floor. They don’t want to make a rash decision – one of historic proportions. Republicans hold a super majority in both chambers of the General Assembly and the face of their party is in the hot seat.

Another argument has been made many times that the governor has not made many Republican friends in the General Assembly. He did not make many friends when his political action committee used attack ads to target members of his own party. He did not make many friends when he stacked the Missouri State Board of Education with interim members who would agree to vote in favor of firing then-Education Commissioner Margie Vandeven. He did not make many friends when he called lawmakers “career politicians”. He did not make many friends when he got involved in a proposed pay increase for state elected officials.

Greitens still has some hardcore backers in the legislature and around the state. Many, if not all, of the governor’s supporters see this week’s dismissal of a felony invasion of privacy case against him as a way to reaffirm their backing of the governor. They might also argue that impeaching the governor would overturn the will of the people.

Keep in mind that the governor’s political action committee – A New Missouri – pumped $500,000 last week toward Right-to-work measures that were slow to move in the legislature. During this final week of the regular session, those proposals are being fast-tracked. Right-to-work, which would ban mandatory union fees in the workplace, is widely embraced among Republicans. The move raises the question: Is the governor hoping for a favor in return during a potential impeachment process?

Mizzou political scientist Peverill Squire is not convinved.

“My guess is Republicans in the legislature have enough grievances with the governor and the way that he has treated them that I don’t think a large contribution, even on an issue about which most of them care, will probably change the dynamics of their relationship,” Squire tells Missourinet.

So where would the 82 votes come from? Let’s do some math. Expect all of most of the 47 House Democrats to vote in favor of impeaching the governor. That leaves roughly 35 favorable votes from House Republicans for impeachment to become a reality.

Watch how the five Republicans vote who serve on the House committee investigating the governor.

In March, Rep. Shamed Dogan, R-Ballwin, led an effort to have House GOP members support a letter encouraging Greitens to resign. There were 13 anonymous names involved in that move. He told Missourinet that the number of members who believe the governor should resign is much higher than the 13 involved in the letter, but they want the investigative process to play out. Keep in mind that the letter was delivered at the beginning of March – before other allegations emerged against Greitens.

A few other House Republicans have essentially said they have real problems with some of the allegations facing the governor. Whether their concerns will translate into support to impeach the governor is anyone’s guess.

“I’m sure some Republicans would much rather avoid having to go through this process,” says Squire. “But at the same time, they’re probably reluctant to have as their sort of leading official in the state, somebody who has so many different allegations that have been made credibly against him.”

The historic move to hold a special session stems from allegations that Greitens took and transmitted a graphic photo of his hairdresser-turned-mistress in 2015 without her permission and threatened to blackmail her with it. Greitens is also accused of violating federal campaign finance laws by taking international campaign donations, breaking open records laws by using a secret cell phone app for government business and obtaining a charity donor list without authorization to finance his political campaign.

All eyes will be on the Missouri House during this special session that gets underway at 6:30 p.m. on Friday. The outcome could impact an important mid-term election in November, not only for Republicans but for Democrats, especially Democrats serving in Republican-leaning districts. The final vote tally could be tighter than some might think.

House committee on impeachment spars with attorneys representing Governor Greitens’ office

May 16, 2018 By Jason Taylor

Two attorneys representing the governor’s office who spoke before a special committee Wednesday wouldn’t say if Governor Greitens will testify at possible impeachment proceedings against him.

House Committee investigating Governor Greitens holds a hearing to discuss impeachment procedures

The special House committee is investigating Greitens over alleged activities that led to criminal charges against him. Ed Greim of the Kansas City-based Graves Garrett law firm and Washington D.C. based attorney Ross Garber initially took “issue with the line of questioning they were getting from committee members.

Greim had submitted a proposal for rules to be used in hearings on impeachment Both attorneys became frustrated when they were peppered with inquiries instead about their pay and their contact with attorneys representing Greitens’ campaign and political non-profit groups.

Greim is being paid $340 an hour while Garber, who noted he is charging half his usual rate, is making $320 an hour.

The attorneys seemed surprised when the committee’s chairman, Representative Jay Barnes of Jefferson City, insisted they be sworn in under oath to testify.

Garber, who has represented three other governors who’ve been threatened with impeachment, was annoyed with continued questioning from committee members about subjects unrelated to the rules he came to discuss.

“The notion of being brought here to talk about one thing, and peppered with questions about another, I will tell you, is unprecedented in my experience in any jurisdiction,” said Garber.

Rep. Barnes and ranking Democratic committee member Gina Mitten said the questioning was relevant in that both attorneys in their function representing the governor’s office were being paid with state money.

Committee chairman Barnes sparred with the attorneys over several of their proposals, specifically their request for subpoena power and the right to cross-examine witnesses during impeachment hearings.

Barnes and Greim also engaged in a debate on whether due process protections apply to committee hearings on impeachment.

Barnes contended that it isn’t necessarily required because there’s no criminal penalty for impeachment, only removal from office. Greim countered that the penalty is not relevant. He said if the accusation is criminal, then due process is appropriate.

Barnes seemed to take it personally when Greim suggested that without due process a committee considering impeachment could fast-track proceedings without seeking the truth.

“This committee, from the start, has been out to get the truth,” said Barnes. “And we want to hear from every witness who has any knowledge of fact. We want to hear from Governor Greitens. We are begging to hear from Governor Greitens. And it’s really hard to listen to you say that about this process, knowing that Mr. Greitens has refused multiple pleadings for him to come and testify before us.”

Garber admitted that he hasn’t been able to convince any of the three state Houses he’s dealt with concerning impeachment that due process is a right in such cases.

The three other governors Garber assisted during such proceedings were Robert Bentley of Alabama, Mark Sanford of South Carolina and John Rowland of Connecticut.

The two sides ultimately agreed that they share a common interest in having a fair process moving forward.

Garber noted afterward to reporters in the other states where he’s taken part in proceedings, the House established rules under which committees considering impeachment must follow. He said he expected the same course of events to take place in the Missouri and added that nothing has been determined yet.

The special session on impeachment will last for a maximum of 30 days. The attorneys representing the governor’s office said they could possibly try to subpoena any of the witnesses who had already given testimony to the special House committee behind closed doors, including Greitens former mistress.

In the felony case against him that was dropped Monday, Greitens is accused of was accused of taking and transmitting a non-consensual photo of a woman who was undressed, bound and blindfolded.

The woman has repeatedly sought to keep her anonymity. Her identity has thus far been withheld. She likely would have been called to testify in public if Greitens trial had taken place, however.

The House special committee has also collected information about a second felony case involving Greitens. He’s charged with felony computer tampering for allegedly obtaining and transferring a donor list from his former charity without permission for campaign purposes.

A trial date has not been set for that charge but the special House committee has indicated that the case would be included in possible impeachment proceedings.

Would campaign finance allegations against Greitens be investigated without affair accusations surfacing?

May 16, 2018 By Alisa Nelson

Mizzou political scientist Peverill Squire says it’s hard to tell if state lawmakers would be investigating campaign finance allegations against Governor Greitens if accusations about Greitens’ affair would not have surfaced. A Missouri House committee continues to probe the Republican governor’s alleged federal campaign finance violations and whether he took a charity donor list without authorization to fund his campaign.

Mizzou Political Scientist Peverill Squire

“For the public, it’s much easier to understand the allegations made against the governor in regard to his affair and his behavior in that affair,” Squire says. “I think politicians were troubled by all these other allegations. I’m not sure they would have had the political motivation to pursue them as aggressively as they had in the absence of the concerns about the governor’s behavior with his affair.”

This week, a felony invasion of privacy charge was dismissed against Greitens that centered around his affair. St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner says she plans to re-file the charge and request a special prosecutor. The governor’s defense team consider the move a victory and say there was no evidence of an alleged picture at the center of the case.

The Missouri Legislature will gavel in at 6:30 p.m. on Friday to begin a special session. Lawmakers will decide whether the governor should be impeached based on the allegations against him.

Tune in Thursday evening from 6:30 to 7 p.m. on Missourinet.com, some Missourinet affiliates and ABC17 in Columbia to highlight the upcoming special impeachment session.

Missouri House endorses term limits for Congress

May 16, 2018 By Jason Taylor

The Missouri House has passed a resolution which would call for term limits on U.S. Congressional members.

Article 5 of the Constitution provides a pathway for it to be amended through a convention of states. Two-thirds of the states would have to pass a resolution for the gathering to take place.

The resolution specifically calls for a convention to set term limits on Congress. Some Article 5 resolutions in other states have more far-reaching goals, such as balancing the national debt.

Two-thirds of the states (38) would have to approve any Constitutional Amendment offered by a convention of states for it to become law.

The proposal in the state legislature was first approved in the Senate. It’ll have to go back to the upper chamber and be approved again to be passed by the legislature because the House made a change to the resolution. The lower chamber attached a five-year limit to the proposal.

The resolution introduced in the Senate by Denny Hoskins, R-Warrensburg, passed the upper chamber by a 22-9 margin with no particular party divide as no votes were spread among five Democrats and four GOP members. It was approved Tuesday by the House on a 101-34 vote.

The proposal does not specify the number of terms under which Congressional members would be limited.

It reflects priorities of the group Term Limits, which is focused on restricting the amount of time U.S. Senators and House members can spend in office.

Two other groups are actively seeking approval from states to assemble for the purpose of amending the Constitution.

Convention of States (COS) has three priorities. It wants to restrain federal spending, reduce the jurisdictional reach of Congress and impose term limits on many federal seat holders, including Supreme Court justices.

The organization Americans for a Balanced Budget Amendment (ABBA) hopes to bring together a convention of states to pass a balanced budget amendment.

Efforts to call for a convention of states have picked up steam in Republican-leaning states in recent years.

Missouri became the 12th COS member last year when a resolution from Sen. Mike Kehoe,R-Jefferson City, successfully passed both chambers.

State Auditor wants info on Greitens’ use of state money for private attorneys

May 16, 2018 By Jason Taylor

State Auditor Nicole Galloway is seeking information on Republican Governor Eric Greitens’ possible use of private attorneys to defend him in court and in the legislature.

Galloway, a Democrat, distributed a letter Monday her office wrote to the governor’s office. It asks whether state money is being used, or will be used, on private attorneys to represent him over possible disciplinary action in the upcoming special session.

The letter requests copies of proposals, bids, contracts and itemized billing connected to the use of public funds to retain private lawyers.

Greitens originally hired Washington, D.C. attorney Ross Garber in early April to represent his office, which means tax money is being used to pay Garber’s fee of $320 per hour.

Although a felony invasion of privacy charge against Greitens was dropped Monday, he faces an additional felony computer tampering charge and possible impeachment for his alleged activity related to both accusations.

Garber has previously represented three other embattled governors facing impeachment – Robert Bentley of Alabama, Mark Sanford of South Carolina and John Rowland of Connecticut.

Auditor Galloway’s office has requested a response to its inquiry by Friday. A special House committee investigating Greitens is holding a hearing Wednesday morning which could also include discussion over the governor’s use of private attorneys.

In the felony case that was dropped this week, Greitens was accused of taking and transmitting a non-consensual photo of a woman who was undressed, bound and blindfolded. He’s also alleged to have taken the picture without the woman’s permission and blackmailed her to keep quiet about their extramarital affair. The prosecution has said it plans to re-file that accusation.

In the felony computer tampering case, Greitens is alleged to have obtained and transferred a donor list from his former charity without permission for campaign purposes. A trial date has not been set for that charge.

The legislature will open a special session Friday evening to consider impeachment proceedings against Greitens following the end of the current legislative session.

Police to investigate St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s investigator in Greitens case

May 15, 2018 By Alisa Nelson

St. Louis Police Spokeswoman Schron Jackson says the department plans to investigate accusations made by the attorneys of Governor Eric Greitens. Lawyers Ed Dowd and Scott Rosenblum met with law enforcement officials today at police headquarters to file a police report alleging that the investigator for St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner committed perjury.

Former U.S. Attorney Ed Dowd speaks to reporters in downtown St. Louis on March 26, 2018 (photo from Missourinet St. Louis contributor Jill Enders)

Gardner dismissed the governor’s felony invasion of privacy case yesterday. She says she plans to re-file a charge and request a special prosecutor in the case. The move is in response to Judge Rex Burlison granting the defense’s request to call Gardner to the witness stand and question her about alleged misconduct.

“That case collapsed yesterday and was dismissed. It was dismissed because there was no evidence of any crime. But the misconduct in this case should be addressed,” Dowd said in a press release. “That includes the lead investigator lying about his methods and the evidence he collected. In fact, that lead investigator, William Tisaby, refused to testify in a deposition about his perjury and misbehavior in the case, and he pleaded the fifth in response to over 50 questions.”

Prosecutors initially said a recorder had malfunctioned during Tisaby’s questioning of the governor’s alleged mistress. A copy of the tape was released the same night a Missouri House committee unveiled initial findings of its investigation about the governor.

“Our defense team has over 100 years of experience combined, and we have never seen such outrageous misconduct. In addition to perjury, that includes $100,000 in secret cash payments for a witness or witnesses, payments that were concealed from our defense team by the Circuit Attorney’s Office. And if that weren’t enough, the Circuit Attorney and William Tisaby also met a number of times in secret with a major witness in the case. By law, both the Circuit Attorney and William Tisaby were required to testify about what was said and done in those secret meetings. Both refused to do so.”

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner (D)

Large amounts of anonymous cash have allegedly emerged to help to pay the legal bills for the woman’s ex-husband. Al Watkins, the attorney for the man, said two $50,000 payments arrived at his office in January. He identified Missouri Times newspaper publisher Scott Faughn as the man who delivered one of the $50,000 payments. Watkins, who initially said he did not know where the money came from, said a courier dropped off the other.

Faughn responded through Twitter and Periscope by saying the money was because he retained Watkins as an attorney for a book he is writing about Greitens.

Defense attorney Jim Martin, also a former U.S. attorney, said at a court hearing that Watkins testified in a deposition that Faughn made two additional $10,000 payments.

Gardner is firing back by saying the “continued theatrics from Governor Greitens and his defense team today should surprise no one.”

“I knew when I began investigating the Governor that his high-priced defense team would use whatever means possible to attack my team and me in court and through the media. How did I know? Twice Governor Greitens’ team of attorneys came to my office and threatened my staff and me with the continued barrage of insults and accusations if we continued to pursue charges against the Governor,” Gardner said in a press release.

“As Circuit Attorney, I am responsible for following the evidence to seek the truth, wherever it may lead. Sometimes the evidence leads us to hold public officials and powerful people accountable under the law, and that makes them uncomfortable. Oftentimes, powerful people use whatever financial means available to stop prosecutors from seeking the truth. This is not the first time (nor will it be the last) in American history when an elected official was under investigation and they attacked the investigation itself to redirect the focus from their client to something else.”

Gardner goes on to say what is happening in Missouri mirrors what is happening on a national level.

“Thankfully, the elected officials in Missouri have the courage to stand up for truth and for what is right, regardless of how messy things can get. The actions by the defense team today do not concern me. There is not one shred of evidence that any action by Mr. Tisaby was illegal or materially impacted any evidence in this crime. There is also no evidence that Mr. Tisaby was anything other than mistaken or confused during his deposition when he answered the questions improperly. Just as Governor Greitens did not want anyone to conclude that he was guilty if he refused to take the stand during the trial, Mr. Tisaby’s reluctance to answer questions during his second deposition was merely due to the fact he had not been given the opportunity to review his previous deposition, which all witnesses are legally allowed to do.”

« Previous Page