Missourinet

Your source for Missouri News and Sports

You are here: Home / Archives for Todd Richardson

House proposes change to budget restriction process in Constitution

By

The state House has passed measure that would ask voters to change Missouri’s Constitution regarding the powers of a governor to withhold money in the state budget.

If approved by voters the proposal would have a governor issue a proclamation to the legislature any time he or she would reduce an appropriation of money because actual revenues are less than the revenue estimates on which that appropriation was based. That reduction could then be reconsidered by the General Assembly any time it is in session.

The resolution, sponsored by Representative Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff), would also bar governors from reducing an appropriation that pays public debt and from basing part of their budget proposals on legislation proposed to the General Assembly but not passed.

It next goes to the state Senate for consideration.

The legislation is HJR 72.

Proposed change to governors’ budget powers gets bipartisan committee approval

By

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)

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)

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.

 

Legislature could ask voters to define governor’s budget restriction powers

By

Some state lawmakers have taken issue in years past with the withholding of money appropriated in the state budget by Governor Jay Nixon. Now, one plans to ask voters to weigh in on the issue.

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

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

The Missouri Constitution states the governor, “may reduce the expenditures of the state or any of its agencies below their appropriations whenever the actual revenues are less than the revenue estimates upon which the appropriations were based.”

Representative Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) believes there is no definition for what “estimates” that clause refers to.

“Unfortunately there’s been no real interpretation of that provision because despite efforts to do so, it’s been very difficult to get the merits of those cases heard before Missouri courts.”

He plans to propose an amendment to the Constitution to clarify the powers of a governor and when they can be used. How exactly that will be worded, Richardson says, still hasn’t been decided.

“I’m going to introduce an approach that continues to give the flexibility for the governor to reduce expenditures when there is an actual need to do that based on the revenue,” says Richardson, “but one that also gives the legislature the ability to remain relevant in that process.”

Richardson says the lawmakers that have raised concerns aren’t all Republicans.

“There have certainly been Democrats who have questioned the governor’s actions in withholding money … I think there’s pretty broad consensus that there’s a problem. I think the question is how we fix it.”

If the legislature approves such a measure it would go to Missouri voters.  He thinks the question they would have to ask themselves is a basic one.

“Do Missourians feel like the governor should have unchecked power to decide how the taxpayers’ money gets spent, or do they believe that as with all areas of government there ought to be checks and balances?”

Richardson hopes to have at least a draft of a proposed amendment ready by some time before the end of business on Thursday.

Lawmakers want voters to consider reigning in governors’ withhold powers

By

Two state lawmakers want to ask voters whether the power of governors to withhold money should be changed. Representative Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) says questions regarding the limit of that power have remained unanswered for too long.

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

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

“Everybody, I think, agrees that the Governor needs the ability to withhold funds when there is an actual decline in state revenue and an actual downturn in the economy, but that needs to be the extent of it.”

Richardson accuses Governor Jay Nixon of making politically motivated withholds to influence the actions of the legislature. He cites $400-million withheld in June pending the fate of Nixon’s veto of a tax cut bill, HB 253. That veto was not overturned during the veto session Wednesday, then yesterday the Governor released about $215-million of that money.

“There was absolutely no financial reason for the Governor to put every school district in the state in the middle of the discussion of HB 253. Every higher education institution, every nursing home, every home health agency … all of those groups, and others, were put into the middle of a political fight purely for political purposes.”

Richardson plans to propose a constitutional amendment in the 2014 legislative session that would clarify the definition of a governor’s withholding authority. Senator Ryan Silvey (R-Kansas City) will offer a similar proposal in that chamber.

The state Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this year by lawyers for State Auditor Tom Schweich (R), who sued Nixon for withholding funds in the fiscal year 2012 budget. The Court has not handed down a decision in that case.

Legislature overwhelmingly approves fix to workplace injury issues

By

The state legislature has passed a bill meant to cover two issues regarding workers hurt in the workplace.

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

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

The bill seeks to right the state’s Second Injury Fund, from which settlements are paid out to workers who have a disability and then sustain a work-related injury. Legislation passed and signed in 2005 capped at 3 percent the surcharge that supported the fund, paid by all businesses on their workers’ compensation insurance. Since then the fund had become insolvent by more than $20 million dollars, with more than 30,000 claims against it still pending.

The legislation proposes doubling that surcharge from 2014 to 2021, long enough to pay down pending and outstanding claims. It would also restrict the fund to cover only the most serious claims.

The House handler of the bill, Representative Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) says that should keep the Fund from becoming unbalanced again.

“By limiting the number of claims that go into the Second Injury Fund, everybody that looks at it believes that current surcharge will be sufficient to cover the ongoing liability.”

Richardson says if the bill is signed, the first step will be for the increased surcharge collections to begin after January 1, 2014. Then the backlog of claims will begin to be paid down.

“It’ll start with the permanent total disability benefit cases first. Those are the people that have the most extensive injury. They’ll pay that money out as it becomes available.”

The bill also moves coverage for occupational disease back into the state’s workers’ compensation system. A court interpretation of a 2005 law had led to those cases being handled in the courts.

Richardson says the House and Senate recognized the need to include an enhanced benefit for specific diseases, and one specific to mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos.

“We’ve included what amounts to a $500,000 enhancement for mesothelioma cases, but we’ve also given employers the ability to choose to avail themselves of the workers’ comp system and that $500,000 remedy or continue to operate under the status quo and have those cases tried in civil court.”

Richardson says another mechanism guarantees a benefit to workers suffering diseases due to toxic exposure including berylliosis, coal worker’s pneumoconiosis, brochiolitis obliterans, silicosis, silicotuberculosis, manganism, acute myelogenous leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndrome.

House Minority Leader Jake Hummel (D-St. Louis) spoke against the legislation. Hummel has said on the House floor before that his grandfather died of poisoning due to exposure to asbestos.

“I don’t believe that when someone is suffering, that someone who is dying a slow, painful death should have a price tag put on their life. I think that needs to be done in the courts.”

House Speaker Tim Jones (R-Eureka) called the bill’s passage “historic,” and noted it passed out of the House with 135 votes.

“My entire caucus. I think the Governor’s going to sign that, for all indications, but if he does not for any reason I think we have an easy override on that.”

The proposal on Tuesday cleared the Senate 32-1.

Jones says Attorney General Chris Koster also sent him a text message on Thursday to thank him for the work he did on the Second Injury Fund issue. Koster has joined other politicians in saying the fund needed to be addressed.

House approves asking voters to approve right to raise children

By

The House has approved a measure that would ask voters whether the right of parents to raise children should be laid out in the state Constitution.

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

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

The proposal is sponsored by Representative Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff). He says it is based on principles already assumed to be law.

“The court discussion of that right has been a product of a general right to privacy, which has been the subject of much litigation and much uncertainty over just how far a right to privacy really goes. I think in this area, at least, I see the need to take it out of that realm and put it in the written Constitution rather than have it be the product or result of another right.”

Richardson says the language is written carefully to not interfere in protecting children who are being abused or neglected, and to continue to require that they receive an education.

“The same rules for educational neglect and laws that exists for educational neglect now will continue to apply.”

If passed by both chambers the resolution would put a ballot question to voters in November. It is scheduled to be heard by a Senate Committee on Monday, but it would require quick action to be passed with the legislative session set to end on Friday, May 17.

The proposal is HJR 26.

House version of workers’ compensation, Second Injury Fund bill passed

By

The state House has passed its version of workers compensation reform and a Second Injury Fund fix, setting the stage for a conference with the Senate.

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

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

Both versions of the bill would have claims made by workers who incurred a disease because of their job fall under the state’s workers’ compensation system, to protect employers from lawsuits. They include a plan to create a fund to pay for part benefits to people who suffer from diseases related to exposure to toxins.

Representative Kevin Engler (R-Farmington) says the Senate proposal would have every employer in the state pay into that fund, an idea he opposed when he was in the Senate and still opposes.

“Whether you deal with chemicals or deal with anything else, every employer in the state will have a tax to take care of the fund that was caused by the people that brought chemicals in that caused these occupational hazards.”

The House proposal would support that fund with a surcharge to the workers’ compensation insurance premiums of only employers with 15 or more employees.

The state’s Second Injury Fund compensates workers with disabilities who sustain job-related injuries. It is supported by a surcharge on employers’ workers’ compensation insurance premiums that the state capped in 2005 at 3 percent. The fund is now insolvent, and the bill proposes raising that cap to 6 percent to replenish it.

The House sponsor of the bill, Representative Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) says that fund is more than $20 million out of balance.

“There are more than 800 claimants right now that aren’t getting paid and there are more than … 30,000 unresolved Second Injury Fund claims.”

Richardson says the House and Senate are in agreement on the portion of the bill dealing with the Second Injury Fund. He expects the Senate to request a conference to work out differences on the workers’ compensation and occupational disease language.

House Committee digs into welfare contract

By

A state representative says he’s completely dissatisfied with a contract between the Department of Social Services and a Boston-based firm that he says would trap some Missourians permanently in a life of poverty.

Representative Jay Barnes (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Jay Barnes (photo courtesy; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The House Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability, chaired by Representative Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City) has heard testimony on a contract the state has with Public Consulting Group to evaluate state public assistance recipients to see if they are eligible for federal disability programs. The company says it can save Missouri up to $80 million a year. The contract would pay PCG $2300 for every Missourian moved onto disability payments from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

Barnes says unlike on TANF, where recipients must meet certain work requirements, people on the federal program are not likely to look for work because that would hurt their eligibility for federal benefits. He says that calls into question the morality of the contract.

“Should the State of Missouri be paying a private company be paying money for a private company to shift folks who are down on their luck into a program that will trap them in poverty, likely forever?”

Barnes says PCG is looking at three categories of recipients, one of which he agrees includes people whose medical records confirm their disability status and that they will never work again.

“The second two categories are people for whom PCG is being paid to build an administrative law court case to get these disability benefits.” He adds, many of those decisions would have to go to appeal to be finalized.

Social Services Department Deputy Director Brian Kinkade

Social Services Department Deputy Director Brian Kinkade testifies to the House Committee on Government Oversight and Accountability

Representative Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) argues the shifts from state to federal benefits will also pile on to a program the federal government can’t afford.

“You can call it revenue maximization or getting people onto the right program. At the end of the day, if we take the spin off of it, the state is spending money to put people onto a broke federal program.”

Social Services Deputy Director Brian Kinkade says his department and the contract deal with the laws as they are written.

“I think the question is whether they are eligible for the benefit under federal law, and if they are then they should receive it.”

Barnes says following Monday’s hearing, he isn’t sure what his next action will be.

House Democrat: broader focus needed to protect Missourians’ personal information (AUDIO)

By

A state lawmaker says legislation meant to stop the Revenue Department from scanning and keeping Missourians’ information misses the larger mark.

The House has given initial approval to HB 787, a bill to stop the Revenue Department from scanning and keeping copies of personal information from driver’s license and concealed carry permit applicants.

Representative Chris Kelly (D-Columbia) says there is a bigger target.

“The State of Missouri, because the General Assembly told the Department of Revenue to do so, sells our information every day in the private sector to … count them, folks, and I have … 4,700 different buyers.”

Kelly says what is sold is all information from Missouri driver’s license holders. He describes its buyers as “Peggys.”

“Remember the TV commercial where the guy’s calling about his credit card problem and the Eastern European person on the phone says, ‘Hello, this is Peggy?’ … That’s who’s getting this information: Peggy.”

During debate of HB 787 on the floor Kelly criticizes the sponsor, Representative Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff), saying he and other supporters overplay the significance of the legislation.

“We are selling [personal information] to 4,700 Peggys and you folks are trying to deceive yourselves and the people into the fact that we’re doing something about privacy … This year and in 2011 I sponsored a bill to kill [that selling of information]. Nobody wanted to hear it because the lobbyists didn’t want it. You guys didn’t want privacy then, you don’t want privacy now.”

Richardson defends his legislation to Kelly.

“The Department’s new policy is increasing the risk of an invasion of privacy, and that’s what we’re stopping.”

Kelly says he agrees with Richardson on that point and supports HB 787.

AUDIO:  Hear Kelly and Richardson from floor debate, 6:10

House Republican reaction to CCW scans carries into budget, legislation

By

House Republicans are moving to stop the scanning of source documents provided by applicants for driver’s and non-driver’s licenses and concealed carry permits.

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

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

That includes a change to the House’s budget proposal. Representative Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) was successful in moving to strip $156 thousand from the Office of Administration’s information technology budget, that goes to pay for those scans and their handling.

Richardson told the House the change would protect Missourians.

“As the Department testified in our committee, the inability to scan and retain these documents will not in any way change their ability to issue a driver’s license, however it will prevent the Department (of Revenue) from creating a database that by the end of the year may have as many as 1.7 million documents. Documents that they don’t need, and documents that don’t do anything to improve the security of our driver’s license issuance process.”

The House also adopted an amendment offered by Richardson that put in the budget $1 each to fund the scanning and retention of those documents, and for the purchase of a related photo validation system. He says that will keep the Department from finding another way to pay for those processes.

“To put a further line item in … that says, ‘Under no circumstances can you spend more than $1 for scanning or for photo validation.’ Which means whether they have a grant, whether they have another line item of General Revenue, whether there’s highway money, whether there’s money from another department, the Department or Revenue can’t spend more than $1 on on those services.”

The House Budget Committee already pulled $85,000 from the Department of Revenue over dissatisfaction with the Department’s explanation of the scans.

A House Committee has also endorsed Richardson’s legislation, HB 787, that would strengthen state law barring scanning and retention of those documents, and require copies the Revenue Department has, be destroyed.

“Anybody that’s recently gone into a licence bureau and had their documents scanned as part of issuing a license, the documents that were scanned and are now being retained by the Department are required to be destroyed.”

An change to that bill also specifies that the Department cannot require the scanning of source documents from applicants for concealed carry permits, and would have the Department issue separate cards for those permits. Currently concealed carry endorsements are put on driver’s and non-driver’s licenses.

The Department told a House committee it is scanning and retaining the documents in an effort to weed out fraud. Richardson doesn’t buy that.

“I don’t believe that justification to be a good one because we’re only canning 50 out of 20,000 documents a week. 99.8 percent of these documents never get scanned, and so we’re creating a big huge database full of personal information that’s potentially at risk for, in my view, no benefit.”

The House is likely to vote today on whether to send its budget proposal to the Senate.