Mike Colona Archives - Missourinet

Legislator files proposed amendment to allow same-sex marriage in Missouri (VIDEO)

March 27, 2014 By Mike Lear

A state representative has filed a proposal that would revisit the 2004 decision by Missouri voters to define marriage in the state Constitution as being between a man and a woman.

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) has filed HJR 85, a proposed constitutional amendment that would ask voters to add language saying that a marriage may exist between a man and a woman and a same-sex couple.

71 percent of Missouri voters approved Constitutional Amendment 2 in 2004 that said to be valid and recognized in Missouri, “a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.”

Colona says he thinks the time is right to put the issue back before Missourians.

“That’s a different question than do I think it will happen,” Colona tells Missourinet.

Colona, who is openly gay, says he doesn’t think the proposal could clear the legislature and reach a ballot this year.

“But if we don’t start some time,” says Colona, it’s never going to happen, and I think now is the time with two cases pending in our court system dealing with marriage equality for the General Assembly to return and address this issue again.”

He says before courts rule on the language currently in the Constitution he wants to use his position as a state representative to call attention to the issue.

See the language of HJR 85

He notes other recent events that have kept it in the public mind, such as Governor Jay Nixon (D)’s in his State of the State Address calling for passage of the Missouri Nondiscrimination Act and statements that the General Assembly should give voters the chance to reconsider same-sex marriage.

“My thoughts are,” says Colona, “ten years after the passage of that marriage ban, we very well could have a much different outcome.”

House committee hears five takes on ethics reform

February 25, 2014 By Mike Lear

The House Committee on General Laws spent an hour-and-a-half Tuesday afternoon hearing five different proposals that all take different approaches at ethics reform. Lawmakers left that hearing appearing to agree that ethics reform is needed. Governor Jay Nixon and Secretary of State Jason Kander have also called for ethics reform, and legislation on the issue was also heard in a Senate committee Tuesday afternoon.

Three of those bills include a limitation on how quickly after leaving office a former legislator can become a lobbyist. That was one provision that drew criticism from some lawmakers.

Representative Rocky Miller (R-Tuscumbia) questions the need for such a provision.

“Everybody wants to limit what somebody does for a living. I thought the whole point of being a free nation was that we could grow up and become adults and go to work and do what we want to do for a living.”

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis County) says such provisions could cause the law to be thrown out by a judge.

“You’re telling me I can’t work in an industry that I’ve been in for the last 8 years, or 6 years, or 4 years, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Representative Kevin McManus (D-Kansas City) says one problem with lawmakers immediately becoming lobbyists is that those individuals would be allowed to convert campaign contributions to personal use for someone else.

He explains to one committee member, “If you employ me to work on your campaign and you pay me $10,000 and I don’t do one thing, you’ve just transferred your campaign funds to me and we’ve gotten around this whole issue of converting campaign funds to private use.”

Committee Chairman Caleb Jones (R-Columbia) suggests that rather than one, comprehensive proposal, the committee should consider sending out several bills that address different ethics issues.

“My concern is,” Jones says, “that this would go before a judge on one piece of [a large bill], the judge is going to throw the whole bill out and we’re stuck back where we are, where the public keeps having concerns about how we operate.”

McManus, whose proposal is the largest of the five heard Tuesday, told Jones he would be open to breaking its provisions up into a series of bills.

Policy Director John Scott with the Secretary of State’s Office commended the committee for taking on the ethics issue.

“I think it speaks well of the committee … I think Missourians around the state who have expressed support for ethics reform would really appreciate that.”

The committee has not voted on any of those bills.

The five proposals are:

HB 1340 (McManus)

HB 1440 (Randy Dunn)

HB 1258 (Caleb Rowden)

HB 1260 (Jones)

HB 1267 (Robert Cornejo)

Openly gay lawmaker discusses impeachment effort over same-sex tax filing (AUDIO)

February 7, 2014 By Mike Lear

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) says he doesn’t think there is any legal question about the executive order filed by the governor regarding same-sex joint state tax filings.

Representative Mike Colona (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

A fellow lawmaker, Representative Nick Marshall (R-Parkville), has filed two articles of impeachment against Governor Jay Nixon (D) for issuing that order, alleging Nixon mislead Missourians in saying the action was necessary, and that Nixon violated the state Constitution.

Colona thinks the legislature is not the place to bring up the issues Marshall seeks to raise.

“I’m from St. Louis,” Colona asserts, “and we might have a few things going on here like, oh I don’t know, a school transfer issue, a school district that’s about to go bankrupt, we’ve had two public health clinics closed because we haven’t expanded Medicaid, yet we’re supposed to take the time to do something like this in the General Assembly?

“If Representative Marshall thinks that this is truly an issue where the Governor has overstepped his bounds, then the true forum for this should be the courts, not in an impeachment hearing in the General Assembly.”

Colona, who is openly gay, says he doesn’t feel personally slighted by the actions of his fellow lawmaker, Marshall.

“I don’t feel as if I’m being personally attacked. Representative Marshall is an attorney, he’s a prosecutor and to use the vernacular language, he doesn’t pull any cheap shots. I don’t think he holds any animosity toward the LGBT community.”

Colona calls the situation an opportunity for education, particularly if the issue reaches the House Floor, but he questions whether it will go that far.

Listen to the interview with Mike Colona: 9:59

Articles of impeachment filed against Governor Nixon over action on same-sex tax filing

Governor’s Office, state lawmakers react to impeachment effort

Proposed change to governors’ budget powers gets bipartisan committee approval

February 5, 2014 By Mike Lear

The House Committee on General Laws has given its approval to a proposed change to Missouri’s Constitution regarding the power of a governor to restrict money in the state budget.

Representative Todd Richardson (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The committee passed the proposal that would ask voters to give the legislature the power to review the withholding of money in the budget by a governor. It is offered by Representative Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff), who told colleagues it was inspired by budget scenarios like what he says is happening now.

“The governor is still withholding $147-million dollars that we as a legislature appropriated,” says Richardson. “There’s no financial justification for that and the legislature ought to have some say in whether the governor can continue to withhold that money.”

The resolution would have a governor issue a proclamation when he or she restricts expenditure of or reduces the amount of money appropriated in the budget because actual revenues are less than the revenue estimate an appropriation was based on. The legislature could then reconsider that appropriation.

“This is a power that I expect would be rarely used,” Richardson tells the committee. “It’s no different than the power that we have over the governor making a line-item veto in the budget.”

Representatives Mike Colona (left) and Jeremy LaFaver confer before voting on the resolution. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, House Communications)

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis City) told Richardson he was concerned the proposal would have unintended consequences. He asked Richardson what would happen if a legislature appropriates money based on projections that turn out to be too high.

“How does this address that,” Colona asks, “Because what I envision is … I gotta call a special session of the legislature to come in and in essence to a supplemental budget to fix it.”

Richardson told Colona the proposal would not take away any of a governor’s authority to withhold money in a budget.

“In the situation that you describe,” he tells Colona, “I would trust that there would not be a two-thirds majority of the general assembly that would override the governor’s decision in that case.”

Colona remains unconvinced. He tells Missourinet, “We’ve had a budgetary process that has worked for decades. If we throw a monkey wrench in there, who knows about the unintended consequences? I’m not about to take that risk.”

The resolution did get one “yes” vote from a Democrat. Representative Jeremy LaFaver (D-Kansas City) told the committee he liked the idea.

“The legislative branch is where I think the power should be,” he told Richardson.

The proposal would also stipulate that the governor could not reduce appropriations for the payment of public debt.

If approved by the legislature it would go on the November ballot.

Legislation to create the crime of ‘revenge porn’ brought back for 2014 session

January 23, 2014 By Mike Lear

The state legislature again has the opportunity to put on the books a law to deal with something called “revenge porn.” That is generally defined as when someone posts intimate photos or videos of a former significant other on the internet to embarrass or harm that person.

Representative Kevin Engler (Photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“They’re out there,” Representative Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) says of websites dedicated to this particular genre of pornography, and he tells a House committee there is nothing in Missouri law that defines posting images or videos of an ex on them as a crime.

“In several cases, women knew that [their former partners] were going to do this,” Engler tells fellow lawmakers. “They were in a long-term relationship and maybe they took a video, or they had taken pictures, or they had taken one of these glamor calendars in semi-nude, and the lover or spouse had told them they were doing to do that. They go to the police and the police have no basis to stop them.”

Engler says he knows of a case in which it happened to a teacher in his district.

“Now if you’re going to live in a town my [town’s] size,” says Engler, “and you’re going to be a grade school teacher and you had this happen, tell me that would not be devastating to you. Yet, we have no law that deals with it.”

Engler says it is because of the extent of embarrassment and damage that can occur to people in these instances that in his bill (HB 1203) he proposes making the crime a class “D” felony, which carries a maximum penalty of four years in prison.

Colleen Coble is the CEO of the Missouri Coalition Against Domestic & Sexual Violence. She testified that revenge porn is a real problem. “For a lot of women, primarily, in abusive relationships, it may seem that those pictures were taken with their consent, but it was under duress with coercion and threat of violence.”

Not everyone agrees with Engler, however. Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis City) says a new law is not necessary.

“If I took the picture of you and I didn’t have your permission to take the picture and I go out there and put it on the internet, I’ve committed a crime. You don’t need this law,” Colona tells Engler. “If I take a picture of you and you’ve given me permission to do that, it’s my picture. I can do with it what I want.”

Colona says such a crime would be particularly hard to prove in domestic dispute cases.

No vote has been taken on the legislation.

No attempt made to override veto of sex offender legislation

September 12, 2013 By Mike Lear

Legislation that would have given some sex offenders an opportunity to get off the state’s registry has died in the House without an attempt to override its veto.

Representative Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) Photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications

The sex offender registry language was attached to a bill sponsored by Representative Kevin Engler (R-Farmington). He says there are problems with the registry that must be addressed, but says too many people were not comfortable with the way the bill was written.

He used the opportunity to criticize the Governor for not working with the legislature on the bill during the session.

“We finally got the second floor to admit there is a problem. I would challenge the Governor to work with this body to come up with a bill that we can introduce this December that will address the problem. You need to lead from the front, not from the rear.”

Representative Mike Colona (R-St. Louis City) says he is encouraged that the Governor has reached out to lawmakers about working with them on the issue. He says the registry as it stands denies a second chance to young offenders that is supposed to be afforded by the juvenile justice system.

“You’re no longer moving to reforming. Instead … no rehabilitation … instead it’s more like retribution. You’re telling those kids that they can’t go forward and succeed because their name is always going to be there on that registry for something … for the most part … something stupid that they did years ago. Granted there are some of those egregious crimes but those are the exception more than the rule.”

Some groups that had supported other versions of sex offender registry changes agreed with the Governor in opposing this bill, calling it too broad.

Lawmakers discuss status of bullying issue

June 17, 2013 By Mike Lear

Legislative attempts to set in state statute how school districts should define and deal with bullying have come and gone for another session without a bill being passed.

Representative Mike Colona (left) talks to Representative Sue Allen (right), whom he praises for her work on the bullying issue, saying it is a real issue for her and not politics. (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The key dividing issue remains whether to allow schools to enumerate, or to list groups of individuals that are protected from bullying based on things like sexual orientation, race or religion. Several versions of the bill would preserve current statute that disallows such lists of protected classes.

Democrats maintain that such lists are necessary to deal with issues that vary from district to district across the state. Republicans say enumeration would give preference to certain groups and argue that current statutes protects all students equally.

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis City) says in the final days of the session there was agreement reached between the two sides on letting local school districts decide whether to enumerate. He says that would be a good compromise.

“Every school district’s unique … as to their geographic location and, in essence, their constituencies. The folks that go to school in the City of St. Louis is a different constituency than the folks that go to school in Ladue, than the folks that go to school in Springfield, than the folks that go to school in Liberty. The issues are different.”

Sponsor of bullying legislation Representative Sue Allen (R-Town and Country) says she suspects the only

reason some of her fellow House Republicans were willing to vote for a bill that would let local school districts choose whether to enumerate was because they expected enumeration to be rejected in the Senate.

“I think the fact that we passed it in the House may be a bit deceptive.”

Senator Ed Emery (R-Lamar) confirms there is still division in the Senate, saying he will block any bill that allows enumeration.

“The identification of special groups by local school districts is not allowed is the language that is currently in statute and I am in favor of leaving that language in statute.”

Senator Jolie Justus (D-Kansas City) on the other hand says she will block any bullying bill that does not allow enumeration. She says leaving that up to local control is the right approach.

“I think it makes no sense to pass a state law that says a specific school district can address a specific issue, and it’s not just a gay and lesbian issue. It’s the disability issue, it’s poverty. It’s all sorts of different things.”

Allen says in days after the session ended she was ready to give up on the issue, calling it a “lose-lose” situation. Now she says she’s contemplating a different approach in 2014.

“Maybe next year, just look at the definition of bullying and cyberbullying and make it short and sweet, and not make it as all-encompassing as what we had, but try to come up with a way that everybody is going to see what is really important here. In my opinion it’s a safer school environment for all kids.”

Allen says if she can pass a simpler bill in 2014, she might try for the broader legislation if she is back in the legislature in the 2015-16 term.

Nixon vetoes proposal to bar Islamic, other foreign law from MO courts

June 3, 2013 By Mike Lear

Governor Jay Nixon has vetoed legislation that would have barred the use of foreign laws, including Islamic Sharia law, in Missouri courts.

Governor Jay Nixon

Nixon says barring the consideration of foreign laws in Missouri could have interfered with the adoption by Missouri parents of children from other nations. That was also one of the arguments made by legislative Democrats speaking in opposition to the proposal when it came before the House.

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis) called it a waste of time.

“We’re talking about the boogeyman and sharialand having laws that we want to be prevented from even looking at.”

Representative Paul Curtman (R-Pacific) says the adoption concern is a false argument.

“This has already been governed by U.S. law through the Hague Convention, through the Uniform Child Custody Act, both of which are already American law, so that’s a non-issue.”

Nixon also says the law could have interfered with wills, trusts, marriage and divorce decrees and contracts, and enforcement of judgements made in other states when they involve foreign law.

The bill cleared the legislature with margins that could overturn the governor’s veto, if no lawmakers switch their votes.

The legislation is SB 267. View Governor Nixon’s veto message here.

Legislature moves to reign in big buys by Highway Patrol

May 16, 2013 By Mike Lear

The state legislature wants the state Highway Patrol to have to get its blessing before it makes any more big vehicle purchases.

Representative Diane Franklin (photo courtesy; Missouri House Communications)

The Patrol has a fund controlled by its superintendent that it can use to purchase cars, boats and planes. It used that fund in December to purchase a $5.6-million plane that Republicans suggest the Governor Jay Nixon told it to buy.

The General Assembly has sent the Governor a bill (SB 236) that would require the Patrol to get legislative approval to make purchases of any one vehicle that costs more than $100,000.

The House handler of the bill, Representative Diane Franklin (R-Camdenton) says it’s about fiscal responsibility.

“We want to be sure that we can demonstrate to the taxpayer of Missouri how money in excess of $100,000 is being spent.”

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis City) says the legislation is about House Republicans disapproving of the purchase of that plane.

“We have a history this legislative session of throwing temper tantrums. We’re only going to find the [Department of Revenue Division of Motor Vehicles] for eight months because we’re throwing a temper tantrum. We don’t like what’s going on. We don’t like the fact that the Highway Patrol bought a plane … so we’re going to throw a temper tantrum and say, ‘No, no, no! You’re going to ask me before you spend any money, dang it.'”

The Patrol testified to a House Committee that it had no objection to the change.

The bill also requires that the Patrol pay for maintenance out of that fund rather than just purchases.

The proposal has gone to the Governor.

House approves legislation to battle bullying in public schools

April 10, 2013 By Mike Lear

The House has sent the Senate legislation to have school districts add discrimination to anti-bullying policies.

Representative Sue Allen (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The proposal sponsored by Representative Sue Allen (R-Town and Country) says those policies should bar bullying on school grounds, at school events and on school buses, and defines cyberbullying. It also lays out what should go into a policy and would require the State Board of Education to develop model policies by September 1.

The debate in recent years in the House has centered on whether an anti-bullying bill should specify who it protects by listing factors for discrimination: things like sexual orientation, race or religion.

Allen’s bill does not. She says a blanket approach means no children will be left out.

“I contend there is no specific profile or picture of any student, girl or boy, who is potentially a victim of bullying.”

Representative Mike Colona (D-St. Louis City) references an unrelated piece of legislation filed last year in the House in arguing that enumeration is needed.

“Fifteen or twenty co-sponsors on a bill that says we can’t say ‘gay’ in school, and I’m supposed to trust school administrators to make sure that LGBT students aren’t bullied? It doesn’t fly. It doesn’t fly.”

Representative Margo McNeil (D-Florissant) says children would be made safer and better able to learn by a bill that includes specifics about who it protects.

“Because it fails to define who or what is considered bullying it leaves huge areas of gray. I maintain that murkiness is one reason why so many children are bullied because of their sexual orientation and religion.”

Representative Jeanie Lauer (R-Blue Springs) says attempting to list all possible factors for discrimination would surely miss some children who also need protection.

“If I see somebody hurting a child I’m going to be out there taking care of them and protecting them, and I don’t care if it falls in a category or not. That’s not the issue. The issue is that we’re supposed to be here protecting our children.”

The House voted 141-10 to send the proposal to the Senate.