Missourinet

Your source for Missouri News and Sports

You are here: Home / Archives for Missouri House of Representatives

Family, colleagues of fallen St. Louis County policeman lobby for highway memorial

By

The St. Louis County Police Department, Representative Doug Beck and the family of Officer Blake Snyder are working toward honoring the fallen police officer with a highway memorial. Nearly 20 people from the police department and several members of the Snyder family attended the House Committee on Transportation the morning of Wednesday, Feb. 21 to speak in favor of House bill 2330.

The bill would designate the section of Highway 30 in front of the Affton Precinct where Snyder served between Tesson Ferry Road and Mackenzie Road the “Officer Blake Snyder Memorial Highway.”

“To have this road renamed after Blake would be a further testament to the sacrifice that he made for his St. Louis community,” wife Elizabeth Snyder said. “He loved St. Louis, he loved his job and he did it proudly and he gave his life proudly and he’d do it again.

On October 6, 2016, Officer Snyder was killed when he responded to a disturbance call. The shooter, Trenton Forster, 18, was charged with first-degree murder and armed criminal action, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

He was 33 years old and left behind a two-year-old son Malachi Snyder.

About 2,000 people attended his funeral, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

“I’ve unfortunately attended several police funerals in my career but I’ve never seen anything to compare to what I saw that day,” Deputy Chief of Police Kenneth Cox said. “Blue ribbons as far as you can see, school children lined up in Missouri and Illinois, every overpass packed. All of this was to honor a police officer who made the ultimate sacrifice.”

During the Missouri House hearing, Elizabeth Snyder’s brother and fellow officer, and his mother Peggy Snyder spoke in favor of the bill, urging the committee to not only rename the highway but also to take more action for the safety of drivers.

“When I see that sign or when I see signs of Blake, I don’t want it only to be about a change in a name,” Peggy Snyder said. “As Blake often put on his badge, he wanted to make a difference. So I will ask of you today please don’t let this stop here with only the name change but as you consider things that you do throughout your careers make the laws and the rules of our highways, our railroads, our passing ways, our traffic restrictions fair and right.”

Reported by Waverly Colville

Missouri House overturns unemployment limits bill veto

By

The state House has voted to overturn Governor Jay Nixon’s (D) veto of a bill that would shorten the length of time Missourians can receive unemployment benefits, but the question might not even be considered in the Senate in the final three days of the session.

Scott Fitzpatrick (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Scott Fitzpatrick carried the unemployment bill in the state House.  (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The Republican-controlled House mustered just enough votes to overturn the veto of a bill that would link the length of time workers can get unemployment benefits to the unemployment rate, shortening it to as few as 13 weeks if that rate stays below 6-percent. The current time period is 20 weeks. The national standard is 26.

Representative Margo McNeil (D-Florissant) said the measure will only hurt people who need help.

“We’re going to vote to be the absolute lowest state in the nation? The absolute stingiest state in the nation, with this override?” McNeil asked fellow representatives during debate, Tuesday. “Where is our humanity?”

Representative Keith English (I-Florissant) said the bill would hurt him, his family, and anyone who works a seasonal job.

“January 1 starts unemployment, Mr. Speaker, so the second week in April is the thirteenth week,” English told his fellows. “So we might get a job at Labadie Powerhouse, Meramec Powerhouse, somewhere where we’ve got about a 20- to 30-week shutdown, but then what happens is as the work starts to come down we get laid off. Well, if we used our 13-weeks of unemployment, Mr. Speaker, guess what, when we get laid off we go down to the bottom of the list, and there’s no work coming around the holidays … when we cut from 20 to 13 weeks there is no money left, so now what happens? We go on [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program].”

Republicans say shortening the length of time people can receive benefits reduces the amount employers have to pay into it. This bill would also make it more difficult for a former employee who is getting a severance package to receive unemployment, and would increase the amount the state could keep in its unemployment insurance trust fund.

Backers say the state has had to borrow federal money when that fund has run dry. Sponsor Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) says that practice has hurt Missouri businesses.

“It makes employers less competitive across state lines to states that have better unemployment trust funds that work right,” said Fitzpatrick. “It just makes sense to make this thing solvent. It makes no sense to leave it the way it is right now.”

It is now up to the Senate whether to vote to override Nixon’s veto, but after Republican leadership in that chamber forced a vote on a so-called “Right to Work” bill, Democrats in that chamber say they will make it as difficult as possible to move any legislation in the final three days of the session.

 

Chamber applauds bill that redefines ‘misconduct’ becoming law

By

The state Chamber says a bill that will make it harder to get unemployment benefits will benefit both employees and employers.

The bill changes the definition of “misconduct” in relation to employment, so that it is harder for people to get unemployment benefits after doing things like violating an employer’s rules or even state standards that could get an employer in trouble.

Lawmakers backing the bill gave examples during debate including employees who urinated off of buildings or fell asleep on the job, yet were still able to draw benefits, and said the bill is needed to keep such things from happening again.

Vice President of Governmental Affairs with the Missouri Chamber, Tracy King, says fewer people getting benefits takes pressure off the unemployment trust fund.

“I think this is a common sense first step in what we need to do to try to shore up the unemployment trust fund and the system that’s out there,” says King, “so that it is out there for the people who truly need it.”

King says it was a series of compromises that led to Governor Jay Nixon (D) allowing the bill to become law this year, after vetoing similar legislation the past three years.

“There was some opposition with the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys last year. We worked with them on trying to compromise on this legislation, as well as the unions,” says King. “We felt like we found common ground.

She says the bill also includes language Governor Nixon wanted.

“The Governor vetoed a similar provision last year and in that veto message he stated that he needed some additional language in order for us to be in compliance with the U.S. Department of Labor. We included that this year.”

The bill takes effect August 28.

Gov. Nixon vetoes ‘extreme and disrespectful’ bill to lengthen abortion waits

By

Governor Jay Nixon (D) has vetoed legislation that would have tripled the waiting period for an abortion in Missouri.

Nixon called the legislation “extreme and disrespectful” for not including an exemption for women that have been the victim of rape or incest.

In a statement, Nixon said the bill “demonstrates a callous disregard for women who find themselves in horrific circumstances and would make Missouri just one of two states in the nation to take such an extreme step.

He adds, “Lengthening the already extensive waiting period serves no demonstrable purpose other than to create emotional and financial hardships for women who have undoubtedly already spent considerable time wrestling with perhaps the most difficult decision they may ever have to make.”

The Senate sponsor of the legislation, David Sater (R-Cassville), says he is disappointed with the veto.

Sater issued a statement saying abortion, “is an irreversible and permanent decision, and taking the time to think about the consequences is not unreasonable or a burden.

Sater says the law would not change the availability for victims of rape of medical treatment of contraception.

The legislation passed the House and Senate with majorities that would be great enough to overturn the Governor’s veto. Sater says, “I am confident my colleagues will again vote in (the September veto session) in support of life.”

Planned Parenthood issued a release praising Nixon’s action. Paula Gianino, President and CEO of the organization’s political arm in St. Louis, said, “Governor Nixon knows this bill would not help women. It would block access to safe, legal abortion and makes it more difficult for women to get the care they need.” The veto is also supported by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Missouri Democrat leader discusses focus on state legislative races (VIDEO)

By

The Missouri Democratic Party hopes to take some of the seats currently held by a large Republican majority in both chambers of the state legislature.

Chairman Roy Temple says there is a real opportunity for his party to make headway in those races. One issue that he thinks works in his party’s favor is Medicaid expansion.

“Medicaid is just a great example of where the current majority has worked around an ideological agenda instead of focusing on practical problem solving that would benefit Missouri families, Missouri communities and Missourians,” says Temple. “I think Medicaid is a great example of that but it’s not the only one.”

Several House Republicans have said they support some level of Medicaid expansion, perhaps coupled with reform. Temple thinks they’re only trying to defuse that as an issue in their races.

“They’ve come to realize that is a case that can be made against them, that they can be held accountable for their failure to act and for the harm that they’ve inflicted on Missourians in terms of healthcare,” says Temple.

He expects support from key, current Democratic office holders in state legislative races, and that includes support from Governor Jay Nixon (D).

“Governor Nixon clearly understands the harm that’s being inflicted by the current supermajorities in the General Assembly,” says Temple. “In fact there’s a fair argument that he understands it better than any other person in the State of Missouri because he has to deal with the consequences of their actions more directly than perhaps anyone else.”

Nixon has been criticized in the past for not coming to the aid of fellow Democrats in campaigns. Temple doesn’t comment on such critiques.

“I really have no interest in looking behind me or watching in the rear view mirror. I’m interested in looking forward,” says Temple. “We have an opportunity before us and I’m trying to marshal every available resource and every person who’s willing to assist us in that effort.”

Nixon vetoes ten bills he says would have hurt state, local budgets

By

Governor Jay Nixon (D) has vetoed ten tax cut bills that he says could have reduced state and local revenues by more than $776-million dollars.

Nixon called the bills “secret, sweetheart deals so that the well-connected can pay less, while asking all Missourians to pay more,” and said they reflect, “priorities that are dangerously out of whack.” He says they would “undermine local public services and flout the will of the voters by eroding revenues that support services like firefighters and cops, libraries and ambulance services, snow plows and health inspectors, public transit and road repair.”

Republicans say Nixon is wrong in his assessment of those tax cuts, and say they would have a positive net impact on the economy.

See Nixon’s statement along with his veto letters on each of the ten bills

Nixon says because the legislature might overturn his vetoes he will make adjustments to the budget in case these bills still become law.

“I’ve got to assume that even though I’m vetoing them that I have to deal with them budgetarily. I don’t have the luxury of closing my eyes,” says Nixon, “So the negative impacts of these are going to be felt in the next few months because of the action taken by the legislature. I can’t not account for them.”

Nixon encourages city and county governments, who he says also stand to lose money if those bills become law, to also make adjustments to their budgets to account for the possibility that his vetoes get overturned.

“They’ve got to balance their budgets. The budget starts on July 1. Taking hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars out of local, voter approved levies must be dealt with by mayors, city councils, county councils, ambulance districts, fire districts, all of those folks now,” says Nixon. “They’ve got, just like I do … hard decisions to make right now.”

Nixon doesn’t say what actions he will take with the budget in relation to the ten bills vetoed Wednesday. That could include withholding money appropriated to certain parts of the budget, or making restrictions to some lines that are contingent on his vetoes being sustained.

Lawmakers return to the Capitol in September to consider whether to attempt to overturn any of Nixon’s vetoes.

The bills vetoed Wednesday by Nixon are SB 693, SB 584, HB 1865, SB 612, SB 860, HB 1296, SB 727, SB 662 and HB 1455 and SB 829.

Child abuse issues to receive attention during legislative interim

By

A children’s advocacy group and at least one state lawmaker say the 2014 legislative session has been a positive one for fighting child abuse, but they expect more work in the interim.

Representative Bill Lant (R-Joplin) Photo courtesy: Missouri House Communications.

Representative Bill Lant (R-Joplin) Photo courtesy: Missouri House Communications.

Awaiting action by Governor Jay Nixon (D) is a bill that would allow more time for the state Children’s Division to investigate reports of child abuse and allow for a review of differences in investigation processes. The legislature’s proposed budget also keeps Nixon’s proposal for additional money for that division to improve its efficiency and results.

Missouri Kids First Deputy Director Emily van Schenkhof says it was a good legislative session.

“When you identify any problem, sometimes you’ve just gotta do something,” says van Schenkhof. “You’ve got to try to make some changes and we’re going to be constantly adjusting those changes and asking for more and doing better, so this is really just the first step.”

The Joint Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect will hold a hearing tomorrow in the State Capitol.  Its vice-chairman, Representative Bill Lant (R-Pineville), expects hearings this summer to look at the Division’s career ladder for investigators, which was the target of a proposed 2.2-million dollar budget increase.

“What we’re wanting to look at is to see whether the money is going where it’s needed the most,” says Lant. “Or if we need additional allocations.”

Lant also anticipates the committee to spend time considering how investigators are trained, which was also a target for additional money in the proposed budget. Van Schenkhof says there are many questions there.

“What additional training do they need? What does high-quality training look like?” says van Schenkhof, who hopes for a collaborative discussion including state lawmakers, staff from the Children’s Division and others who deal with child abuse issues as a training program is designed.

Two years have expired among the six that were allotted to that joint committee. When Lant talks about the work that is yet to come, it is clear he expects to need more than the remaining four years.

“This needs to be a standing committee,” says Lant. “As far as oversight and investigation we need to complete as much as we can by the end of this next four years.”

Public perception of MODOT could be key in sales tax increase’s fate

By

Whether Missouri voters approve or reject a proposed three-quarters-of-one-cent sales tax increase to support transportation could have a lot to do with their memories going back about 22 years.

Senator Mike Kehoe (R-Jefferson City). Photo courtesy, Missouri State Senate Communications.

Senator Mike Kehoe (R-Jefferson City). Photo courtesy, Missouri State Senate Communications.

In 1992, the 15-year highway plan was enacted that included making all highways to towns of 5,000 people or larger four-lanes and a widening of Interstates 70 and 44 to six lanes. Six years later the plan was scrapped. The Missouri Department of Transportation later said it had been based on cost estimates that were too low, project inflation and growth weren’t accounted for and it planned on expending more money than was projected to come in.

The plan’s failure was blamed for the rejection by voters in 2002 of a $500-million transportation tax increase. Then in 2004 Missourians approved Amendment 3, shifting all revenues from the motor vehicle fuel tax to state and local highways, roads and bridges. The Department went to work on projects throughout the state and its public perception has improved.

Senator Mike Kehoe (R-Jefferson City) joined the Highways and Transportation Commission in 2005 and later became its chairman. He says perception was on the mind of Governor Matt Blunt (R) when Kehoe was appointed.

“One of the first things Governor Blunt went out and said was, ‘You need to try to work with some of our rural groups and tell them about the 15-year plan,” says Kehoe. “I said well that’s simple. MODOT screwed up. They didn’t do the right thing. They didn’t fulfill their commitment.”

Kehoe says the Commission and the Department, then directed by Pete Rahn, were committed to improving on the earlier failure and winning back the trust of the public. He says in partnership with contractors, they were able to do that.

Now it is that success that he says could help supporters of the transportation tax proposal sell it to voters between now and August 5.

“MODOT wants to take that reputation, said, ‘We messed up once in ’92. You told us we messed up. We listened. We got a second chance in ’04 with Amendment 3, and now we want to move forward under that same trust and relationship that we’ve built with you, Missouri, and deliver projects to you again,'” says Kehoe.

Listen to Kehoe discuss how the perception of MODOT since Amendment 3 relates to the proposed tax increase 

Governor Jay Nixon (D) on Friday announced action to put that proposed constitutional amendment on the primary ballot along with four other proposed amendments.  The plan would generate an estimated $534-million a year for ten years to support roads and bridges and other transportation infrastructure in Missouri.

Transfer bill sponsor: ‘No different bill would be passed’ in a special session

By

The House sponsor of the proposed change to Missouri’s student transfer law says a special session to revisit the issue would be a wasted effort.

House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Budget Committee Chairman Rick Stream (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Rick Stream (R-Kirkwood) and other lawmakers who worked on the proposed transfer law fix are waiting to see whether Governor Jay Nixon (D) will veto the bill and call a special session, as the bill’s critics have called on him to do.

Stream says if those things happen, the first thing lawmakers will try to do will be to attempt to overturn Nixon’s veto. He says the Senate has the votes for the overturn, though it’s not clear if the House does.

“If it did not happen, and then he expected us to pass a different bill, he’s mistaken,” says Stream. “No different bill would be passed.”

Critics have accused the bill’s writers of only being interested in enacting a law that would let private schools draw tax dollars with transfers. Stream says the goal of the bill was to let students get out of poor performing districts as quickly as possible.

“This was one of the ways to do it,” Stream says, “To put them into charter schools and private schools close to their home, so they didn’t have to make the hour-long bus ride out to Francis-Howell or Kirkwood or Mehlville or anywhere else for that matter.”

Governor Nixon has said he will act soon on the bill.

MU Law Professor discusses constitutionality of proposed transfer law (VIDEO)

By

The office of Governor Jay Nixon (D) has said the state Constitution prohibits the use of tax dollars to support private schools. Backers of the legislature’s proposed student transfer law fix disagree, and say the Constitution only says tax dollars can’t go to religious schools.

That legislation contains a provision that would allow money generated by local tax levys that support unaccredited districts in Jackson or St. Louis Counties or St. Louis to go to private schools that accept students transferring from those districts’ schools. Such transfers could only happen after approval by local voters, or after three years of the district being unaccredited.

Nixon’s office says that proposal would violate three sections of the Constitution that govern the use of state funds (Article III Section 38), money that goes into the state school fund (Article IX Section 5), and the levying of taxes (Article X Section 3).

Critics of the bill are urging Nixon to veto it and call a special session to create a new one.

An Associate Teaching Professor with the University of Missouri School of Law, Brad Desnoyer, discusses how each of those sections might be interpreted in the debate, and points to one he thinks might make for a better argument for opponents of the legislation.

Desnoyer thinks opponents of the bill would be better served by Article X, Section 11(g), which deals with the operating levy for the Kansas City School District.

“This says that in Kansas City the operating levy is for schools of the district, so I think right there you have a problem,” says Desnoyer, “because you can’t be sending money in Kansas City to private schools.”

Desnoyer says the lawmakers who worked on the proposal went to great lengths to try and make it fit the Constitution. He thinks that’s why it was changed so that it no longer covers the costs to transport students who are transferring.

“One reason to get rid of the bussing is if they included the bussing, then it’s unconstitutional because you can’t bus students to private schools [on public school buses]. We know that,” says Desnoyer. “So, if we’re being cynical, the reason they got rid of that provision was to put in the [private] school choice provision.”

The proposed transfer law is SB 493.