special session Archives

Two Republicans collide on latest Missouri special session

June 13, 2017 By Alisa Nelson

Senator Ryan Silvey (photo courtesy, Missouri Senate Communications)

Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, could be the only Missouri GOP legislator to publicly condemn Republican Governor Eric Greitens for his special session approach. Silvey, who’s the Senate Appropriations Committee vice chairman, tells Missourinet there are more efficient ways Greitens could be calling extraordinary legislative sessions.

“He could issue multiple concurrent calls,” says Silvey. “He could issue another call on the same issue for the legislature to adjourn at the same time. If you were really a fiscal conservative, you would call a special session to run concurrent with veto session.”

Greitens wants lawmakers to block a St. Louis city ordinance that would bar employers from penalizing or firing women who have had an abortion, are pregnant out of marriage or use birth control. It also prohibits landlords from denying housing to women for the same reasons. Greitens’ call also includes passing annual inspection requirements for abortion clinics.

Silvey says the session is a waste of time and money.

“While the political rhetoric and the soundbites are that this is saving lives and this is pro-life, I think the reality is whatever we pass, we’ll probably get sued over, a judge will probably put an injunction on it, and it probably won’t be resolved by January. When January rolls around, my prediction is we won’t have saved any lives,” says Silvey.

Gov. Greitens

He says he’s not attacking abortion measures.

“I’ve got a 13 year legislative record that shows I’m pro-life. That’s not a question,” says Silvey. “But I also think that we should respect our constitution and I don’t believe that we should be called back on every whim.”

Greitens tells Missourinet he hopes the state legislature understands how vital and urgent his call is. He goes on to say that the life and health of thousands of Missourians is at stake.

The Senate’s special session work is underway. The House will begin on June 20.

Meanwhile, the governor signed a bill into law on Monday that gives Missourians the option of a REAL ID to get onto planes, military bases and into federal buildings. Silvey, who co-sponsored the measure, says he was not invited to the bill signing. The House sponsor, Rep. Kevin Corlew, R-Kansas City, attended.

Silvey says the governor has not communicated directly with the legislature very well. According to Silvey, leadership and the Senate learned about this year’s first special session via Facebook. Silvey says he and leadership also learned about the current special session on Facebook.

Gov. Nixon will veto proposed changes to student transfer law

May 23, 2014 By Mike Lear

Governor Jay Nixon (D) will veto legislation that proposed changes regarding Missouri’s 1993 student transfer law.

Governor Jay Nixon (D)

In a statement Nixon announced that he would reject the legislation over concerns that it would allow the diversion of tax money to private schools without accountability to voters, and says it would not address issues resulting from the existing transfer law. He also criticizes the bill for eliminating the requirement that unaccredited school districts pay for the transportation of their students who transfer.

Nixon calls the “private option” in the bill a “dangerous voucher scheme that would undermine the core principles and protections enshrined in Missouri’s constitution.

“Throughout the legislative session I repeatedly made it clear that any effort to send public dollars to private schools through a voucher program would be met by my veto pen,” Gov. Nixon said. “The General Assembly ignored my warnings, and this veto will be the result.”

The statement does not address whether a special session will be called for the legislature to address the transfer situation. Critics of the bill have urged Nixon to call one and express optimism that different results could be reached, despite having the same lawmakers work on the proposal.

See Nixon’s statement

Weighing in on whether to veto the transfer bill and call a special session

May 19, 2014 By Mike Lear

Critics of the bill that proposes change to Missouri’s student transfer law say it doesn’t fix anything, and want Governor Jay Nixon (D) to tell lawmakers to try again.

The bill lawmakers sent to Governor Nixon includes a provision that after three years of a district in St. Louis City or County and Jackson County being unaccredited, would allow its local tax dollars to go to a nearby private school if its students transfer there.

Opponents like Representative Genise Montecillo (D-St. Louis) say that’s all the bill was about, and they want Nixon to veto it.

“I’ve heard from all of my superintendents, I’ve heard from my constituents. I don’t think there’s a superintendent in this state that supports this plan,” says Montecillo. “Those people that understand education and what it takes to improve education outcomes opposed this plan, and yet they continued to refuse to take vouchers off the table. If that’s not about agenda, then explain to me what it is about.”

Nixon has said he opposes any legislation that would let tax dollars go to private schools, but hasn’t said what he will do with this bill.

Some lawmakers say Nixon has indicated to them a veto and special session are coming

He tells reporters he knows he must act soon, with one school district bankrupt and another close to it because of the cost of student transfers.

“We’re going to expedite a review of this bill,” says Nixon. “Obviously I’ll have to make a decision on it relatively quickly because of the fiscal timeframes involved.”

Opponents of the bill want Nixon to call a special session so that a new bill can be created. He has not said whether he will.

House Speaker Tim Jones (R-Eureka) says if that happens, he wants to see more involvement from the Governor in a solution.

“If the governor vetoes this issue, then he owns it and he has to come up with a solution,” says Jones. “I will challenge him to propose and work with us, like he did in the Boeing special session. You saw that when this governor wants to, he can actually engage with the legislature, be a leader and get things done in a short period of time.”

Montecillo says it’s not up to the Governor to propose a plan.

“We have a plan,” says Montecillo. “The problem that [Republicans] have and what they dislike about that, it is a clean transfer fix. It addresses a single problem facing the state. It is void of the agenda that they want to push and promote.”
Opponents of the bill say the Governor has some leverage over what lawmakers might or might not attempt to put into a bill in a special session through the call he would issue for that session.

Lawmakers: Nixon’s office indicates special session coming on transfer bill

May 16, 2014 By Mike Lear

House members who oppose the transfer legislation that has been sent to Governor Jay Nixon (D) say his office has indicated to them that he will call a special session for a new bill to be created.

Representative Tommie Pierson (at podium) is joined by Representative Clem Smith (left) and other House Democrats who oppose the proposed transfer legislation.

The Chairman of the legislative black caucus, Representative Tommie Pierson (D-St. Louis City), urges Nixon to veto the bill that has been passed as soon as he receives it.

“Hopefully we can come closer to solving the problem if not solve the problem during a special session,” says Pierson.

Representative Velda Village Hills (D-Clem Smith) says the bill does nothing to help schools in danger of going bankrupt and shouldn’t be called a transfer bill. He says it is really about pushing school vouchers, and does so in largely black school districts.

He blames leadership in the House for pushing that issue and says a special session will reveal their motives.

“Is this truly about the education of these children in these districts? If the majority party fails to do something in [the special session], that answers the question right now,” says Smith.

Representative Chris Kelly (D-Columbia) says just because the same lawmakers would likely be dealing with the issue again does not mean a different result can not be expected.

“Nixon vetoes it … the voucher people will know they can’t get their stuff unless they compromise,” says Kelly. “The compromise is fixing the problem in Normandy, not using the problem in Normandy as a screen behind which to hide vouchers.”

A request for comment from Governor Nixon’s office is pending at the time this article is being published.

SPECIAL SESSION: Boeing tight-lipped about what it wants in Missouri proposal to build 777x

December 2, 2013 By Jessica Machetta

Boeing is keeping its cards close to its vest in the negotiations for an assembly contract with the Boeing plant in St. Louis, the center of this week’s special legislative session called by Gov. Jay Nixon. So close, in fact, the company declined to go on tape or camera to discuss what it’s looking for in anchoring production of the 777x series.

A spokesman for Boeing’s commercial hub in Seattle, Wash., would say only that the company is looking closely at more than a dozen locations to assemble the 777x, but those locations are not being publicly identified. It’s not clear at this point if all of those dozen or more locations are in the United States.

It is clear Missouri is one of those locations, and that it would have preferred to keep production of the commercial aircraft in Washington.

“We approached the union in Seattle with a contract extension that would have secured the assembly, all composite wing, in Puget Sound,” Boeing spokesman Doug Alder tells Missourinet. “That contract extension was voted down.”

He says the 8-year contract extension would have made sense to both Boeing and its customers, who would have been assured a steady supply chain with no threat of a strike.

“Also, in our eyes, it would have been good for workers here,” he said. “It would have sustained thousands of local jobs here through 2022.

Alder says Boeing has a lot of attractive facilities, including the one in St. Louis, “but we’re also looking at all options, outside the company as well. In the end, we’re going to do what makes sense for us to make sure we stay competitive in the marketplace.”

Staying competitive means, among other things, staying ahead of Airbus, based in Blagnac, France.

“We’re looking at our competition, namely Airbus, which is striving to take more and more of the market-share,” he said. “And unless we’re able to offer the best product at a price for our customers, then we’ll be in trouble.”

Alder says that means taking into consideration location, final assembly, work-force needs, supply chain, and more.

Boeing has put out a request for proposals, and Missouri will answer that call when legislators hammer out a deal on corporate tax breaks sometime this week. The deadline to submit a proposal is mid December. Boeing will then make a final decision around the first of the year.
Alder says Missouri could get the bid to produce all or some of the plane.

For instance, he said, if you look at the 737, the fuselage comes by rail from Wichita, Kansas, to Washington. The wings come from Japan.
The company has already promised more than 250 of the planes to four airlines, three of them in the Middle East.

Emirates Airlines, based in Dubai, has ordered 150 of the aircraft. Qatar Airlines and Etihad in Abu Dhabi have ordered 50 and 25 planes, respectively. Germany’s Lufthansa has committed to purchase 34.

Alder says Boeing expects the popularity of the 777x aircraft to grow in both foreign and domestic markets, noting they are designed for an eight-hour flight.

“You can get almost anywhere in the world in eight hours,” he said, “and the 777 is perfect for that.”

The going price per plane for a 777-8x, the smaller version, is $349 million. The 777-9x, which is larger, costs $377 million.

Photos courtesy of Boeing.

House Republican floor leader: car tax veto override unlikely, wants special session

September 12, 2012 By Mike Lear

As the beginning of the annual veto session nears, there is growing doubt that the veto on a bill dealing with sales taxes on certain vehicle purchases will be overturned.

House Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones (R-Eureka)

The bill would allow the collection of sales taxes on purchases made from private Missourians or made out-of-state. It passed the House with 122 “yes” votes in May, including 44 from Democrats.

Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones (R-Eureka) said this morning that he doesn’t yet know if enough members of his caucus will vote for an override that he would even want the bill brought up on the floor. He adds, he doesn’t “have the faith” that enough House Democrats will vote for an override for it to succeed.

Jones says there is some “great concern” in his caucus about the bill, much of it stemming from the issue raised by the Governor of a tax being raised retroactively. “It’s not something our party is wont to stand upon. I think we have to be realistic about the problem before us and also be cognizant of the fact that even if we were able to override this bill, we may have done nothing other than kick the can down the road because this bill could very easily, I believe, be challenged in court again. It has a constitutional problem.”

Jones says if he can’t find the votes in his caucus for an override, he wants to see Governor Jay Nixon call a special session to address the issue. “I’ll say it right now and I’ll reiterate this after the veto session today. I’ll challenge the Governor to lead for once as the chief executive of this state, call us back into special session, and he can either come up with a proposal to fix this problem or we can engage our experts in this area. I think there’s a number of solutions that would work.

Jones says he believes his caucus is “completely united” in favor of overturning the Governor’s veto of SB 749, a bill that would allow employers and individuals to opt out of insurance coverage for abortion, sterilization and contraception.

The veto session begins at noon.