As the Missouri House began its 2026 regular session, Representatives Lane Roberts (R-Joplin) and Jim Schulte (R-New Bloomfield) were presented with pins recognizing their service in Vietnam. They received their pins from fellow veteran and Chairman of the House Veterans and Armed Forces Committee, Representative Dave Griffith (R-Jefferson City), who was introduced by Representative Don Mayhew (R-Crocker).
Tag: Don Mayhew
Attempt to stem catalytic converter thefts to return in 2024 session
Legislators will again this year be asked to stem the thefts of catalytic converters from Missourians and in doing so, it is hoped, get some people into drug treatment programs that could improve their lives.
The House in the last two years has given overwhelming approval to bills that would make such thefts a felony, while requiring additional reporting to the state from entities that purchase catalytic converters. The same proposal will be among those filed for the 2024 session after prefiling begins on December 1.
Representative Don Mayhew (R-Crocker) says that the bill has been refined over several sessions.
“I think at this point we have vetted this thing to death,” said Mayhew.
The proposal’s bipartisan support includes Representative Aaron Crossley (D-Independence), who has himself filed a portion of that language. He said the issue has impacted his neighborhood and workplace.
Mayhew has become adept at explaining the issue, having presented it to his colleagues several times over the years. It begins with the two very different ways catalytic converters are valued: their value when stolen and scrapped, and the value to replace them.
“To me it’s also a working person’s issue,” Crossley said. “When somebody has to go out and replace their catalytic converter and those can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000 to replace, that’s a big chunk of change for a working person to have to go put down just to get a small part for their car replaced.”
Converters are an easy and profitable target because an experienced thief can steal one in as little as 30 seconds, and because they contain rare and valuable metals they can be sold to a salvager for anywhere from $50 to $900.
Even in the case of a new vehicle with full coverage insurance, the deductible cost is usually more than the cost of replacing the converter. Mayhew says most people who are victims of such thefts have liability coverage only.
Democrats have been very vocal in recent years in opposing legislation that would increase sentencing in other areas of law. Crossley says in this case, however, stiffened penalties make sense.
Mayhew said there would be an element of compassion in increasing these penalties. It could get more people into the drug treatment programs of the state’s courts, which have historically been very effective.
“Most catalytic converters are stolen because the person who’s stealing it has a drug problem. Well until we make it a felony then we can’t get that person to drug court. On a misdemeanor, they don’t go to drug court, but on a felony, then our local prosecutors can, in those cases where it was a person who was simply trying to feed this habit that they’ve acquired, if we can get them to drug court maybe we can kill two birds with one stone,” explains Mayhew. “We can help this person, turn them into a productive citizen, but also reduce the amount of crime that’s happening in our county.”
Mayhew said the proposed changes in reporting requirements for salvagers would also increase accountability for those buyers.
That includes getting a photocopy of the seller’s driver’s license and recording the license plate number of the vehicle that brought in the converter – both of which are already required – and the proposed new requirements of getting the make, model, and serial number of the vehicle off of which the converter came; and providing a signed affidavit saying the converter wasn’t stolen. These new requirements would only apply to individuals, rather than established businesses.
Crossley supports the additional reporting requirements, and it is this area with which his legislation filed in the 2023 session dealt.
Mayhew said such reporting would also let Missouri at last know how many catalytic converters are being salvaged, and “keep honest people honest.
Mayhew notes that in the last two years, legislation dealing with this issue has passed out of the House 153-1 and 143-2, and in at least one of those cases, he said a “no” vote came from someone who thought he was voting on a different amendment. He said the legislation isn’t just a caucus priority, it’s a legislative priority.
He and Crossley hope that 2024 proves to be the year that the measure makes it into statute.
“It’s a growing issue that we have to tackle because nobody is served by not doing anything,” said Crossley.
The new legislative session begins January 3.
Families no longer have to pay for highway memorials for fallen first responders and service people
Memorials for fallen veterans, police officers, and firefighters, and for those missing in action, will no longer be paid for by the families of those individuals, under legislation that became law this year.
It’s called the “FA Paul Akers, Junior, and LCPL Jared Schmitz Memorial Sign Funding Act,” and it stemmed from the efforts to memorialize those two men, both of whom died while serving their country. When legislators learned that their families were billed for the signs honoring them, they proposed the language that would have those costs paid for by the Department of Transportation.
“Most people in Missouri didn’t like the idea, just like I didn’t … that once we honor a fallen hero, we didn’t realize the paper trail behind the scenes was to send these invoices to their family members,” said Representative Tricia Byrnes (R-Wentzville).
Representative Don Mayhew (R-Crocker) said what was happening was “a shock to, in fact, everyone who’s ever gotten a memorial sign done. A lot of times what they have to do is they go around and they get donations from the VFW and other places in order to pay for the sign because, many of them, they don’t have $3,000 laying around for a memorial sign for the highway.”
Lance Corporal Jared Schmitz, of St. Charles, was among 13 U.S. Service Members and more than 100 others killed in a suicide bombing at a Kabul airport during the American withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. His family wanted to honor him with signs to designate an overpass on I-70 in Wentzville as a memorial bridge bearing his name.
His father, Mark Schmitz, said the family got a bill for those signs.
Schmitz, who lives in Byrnes’ district, said he supported her legislation not so much due to his family’s experience (donations covered their $3,200 cost in a matter of hours after an online fundraising effort was launched).
Schmitz said the passage of this legislation is, for him, in honor of his son.
Mayhew’s experience with the issue began with an effort to honor Fireman Apprentice Paul Akers, Junior, who was killed in the January, 1969 explosion and fire on the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, CVAN-65, off the coast of Oahu, Hawaii. Akers was also from Crocker.
Mayhew is just glad the proposal finally became law.
“I also want to apologize to those families who have lost loved ones in service to our nation and our state who had to pay for these signs over the years. I hope that they can take solace in the fact that no other family will have to suffer from the cost of these signs ever again,” said Mayhew. “These Gold Star families have already given all in service to the country. The least we could do is pay for a memorial sign.”
Byrnes said the legislation was the subject of very little opposition, and for good reason.
The family of LCPL Schmitz isn’t finished honoring him. His father said they are now working to raise money for a series of 100-acre recreational retreat camps, one in each state, for veterans and their families to use for free. Each will have 13 available houses, one for each of the U.S. service people killed in the attack in which his son died.
Advocates who deal with veteran suicide and mental health issues say one of the best outlets for veterans, especially those who have experienced combat, is other veterans.
Byrnes and Mayhew sponsored identical bills. When Byrnes’ version, House Bill 882, came to a House vote, it passed 153-0. The language later became law as part of Senate Bills 139 and 127.
Bills would have MODOT, not families, cover cost for highway memorial signs
The families of fallen veterans, police officers, and firefighters, and of those missing in action, would no longer have to foot the bill for highway or bridge memorial signs honoring those loved ones under a bill approved by a House committee.
Legislation sponsored by Representatives Tricia Byrnes (R-Wentzville) and Don Mayhew (R-Crocker) would require the Department of Transportation to cover those costs.
“Keep in mind, folks, these are the folks who gave all to represent our country … if we’re going to have honorary signs, the very least that we can do is pay for it,” said Mayhew when presenting the legislation to the House Committee on Transportation Accountability, which he chairs.
Byrnes joined Mayhew in proposing this change in response to the effort to honor Marine Lance Corporal Jared Schmitz, a Wentzville native, who was one of 13 U.S. military members who died in a 2021 bombing at an airport in Kabul, in Afghanistan. She learned that when Corporal Schmitz’s family wanted to have a section of highway named for him they received an invoice from the Department of Transportation for more than $3,000.
Schmitz said he talked to the families of the other 12 personnel who died at the same time as his son. None of them had to pay the cost of having a memorial sign placed in honor of their loved on, on a highway in their respective states.
The Department of Transportation did not oppose the legislation but offered information on how the system currently operates. Chief Safety and Operations Manager Becky Allmeroth said the Department has to consider other signage.
Allmeroth told legislators, “We have 830 memorial designations across the state highway system. The number is expected, with this bill, to increase exponentially if the current participation fee is removed.”
Most committee members voiced support for making the change in policy.
“Personally I don’t care about the costs. I just think we need to do this. I don’t think the family should pay,” said Republican Bob Bromley (Carl Junction). “If we’re making the Slim Pickens Highway or Mark Twain Highway at Hannibal I understand having a fee. If we’re doing it for fallen soldiers I think [having a fee is] ridiculous.”
The committee voted unanimously in favor of the bills, House Bill 882 (Byrnes) and 518 (Mayhew), advancing them to another committee for consideration.
Legislators to MODOT and Conservation: get dead deer off the roads
Two House lawmakers say there are too many dead deer on the state’s roads and it’s hurting economic development and tourism. They say it’s time the legislature steps in and gets the Departments of Conservation and Transportation to do something about it.
Hazelwood Democrat Paula Brown and Mexico Republican Kent Haden have each filed identical legislation that would require the Department of Transportation to move dead deer from roadways and bury them at least three feet deep on Conservation land, and would have the Department of Conservation pay for that removal and burial.
Both representatives say this is an issue driven by constituent concerns. Brown shared with the Committee on Transportation Accountability some of the reports she’s gotten from people throughout the state: “There’s 22 deer on this stretch of road … I hit a buzzard because it was eating a deer … then one of my other representatives from my side of the aisle called and said, ‘Have you been hearing about dead deer?’ and I was like, ‘It’s time to do something.’”
Haden had a similar experience.
“We are open to solutions,” said Brown. “This is not to punish anyone but when constituents call you and tell you how disgusted they are, and they’re from all over the state, it’s time for us to do something.”
“ … the problem’s gotten worse, not better.”
The issue came before a House transportation committee four years ago when its then-chairman, former representative Tim Remole (R-Excello), said he counted 75 deer on Highway 63 in the roughly 30 mile distance between Moberly and Columbia. Remole filed legislation about the problem then, and Haden said the committee was told by the Departments of Conservation and Transportation that they would work something out and a legislative solution would not be needed.
Transportation Accountability Committee Chairman Don Mayhew (R-Crocker) said he was on the committee then, “I was a participant in that [hearing] and that was four years ago and I can tell you from my own personal experience the problem’s gotten worse, not better.”
“If the two groups would do what is right for the State of Missouri and not argue over, ‘It’s our money. You can’t tell us what to do,’ then this wouldn’t be an issue,” said Haden. “We have two commissions with adequate funding who … have not yet done what is correct for the betterment of the whole State of Missouri, for a relatively small amount of money.”
The Departments told lawmakers a combination of things has led to the large number of dead deer remaining along the state’s byways. One of those has been staffing.
Department of Transportation Legislative Liaison Jay Wunderlich said the Department is down about 300 maintenance workers. Also gone are hundreds of incarcerated individuals who, pre-COVID, helped remove carcasses and trash along highways.
“ … right now what we’ve been asked to do is just turn the deer around and to leave it on highway right-of-way … ”
Another factor has been chronic wasting disease (CWD), a fatal neurological disease in deer and other cervids. Department of Conservation Deputy Director of Resource Management Jason Sumners said the Department is concerned about the movement and disposal of deer carcasses in relation to controlling the spread of that disease.
Wunderlich said Transportation crews have been following Conservation Department guidance on what to do with a dead deer.
He said between Conservation directions and financial concerns, leaving the deer on the roads made more sense to his Department.
“To make it a priority to go out picking up dead deer our number one focus for the particular day, that’s just not good [use of] taxpayers’ dollars in our minds. We’ve got to take care of the roads so that people are driving safely,” said Wunderlich. “Do we have the choice of picking up dead deer for that particular area or do we have to go out and fill potholes, fix a bridge that has a hole in it, put up guardrail, what have you. We’re doing the best we can with what we’ve got but right now the best that we have is to just go out there to remove the deer as we see them, as it becomes a health or a safety factor.”
At least one Committee member, Lakeshire Democrat Michael Burton, sympathized with the Transportation Department’s argument.
“ … somebody’s going to have to say, ‘What’s good for the State of Missouri and who’s going to do it?’”
Haden and Brown insist, though, that the current situation needs to be addressed. They said in addition to being eyesores, sources of odor, and potential road hazards, the carcasses are threats to economic development and tourism.
“A million dollars could very well be made up with one business settling in our state who could be turned off by the fact of, ‘What is the deal here?’ if they come from a state who does pick up their deer better,” said Haden. “You also have all the tourists coming through. How many of them want to look at a decaying, rotten carcass, with odor? What is that damage to the State of Missouri? In my opinion it’s very damaging … as Representative Brown said, it is a constituent-driven issue.”
The Committee’s top Democrat, Michael Johnson, hails from Kansas City which in coming years will host the NFL Draft and the FIFA World Cup soccer tournament.
The committee took in the concerns of the two departments but most members commented that something different needs to start happening. Representative Rudy Veit (R-Wardsville) said he doesn’t think the legislature should be having to deal with this.
The legislation is House Bill 501 (Brown) and House Bill 404 (Haden). The committee has not voted on either bill.
Pronunciations:
Remole = REM-oh-lee
Wunderlich = WON-der-lick
Veit = veet
House budget plan keeps Rock Island Trail development funds
The state House has voted to preserve more than $69-million in federal dollars to support development of another hiking and biking trail on a former railway. That funding survived two attempts to redirect it over concerns some House members have about its use.
Governor Mike Parson (R) recommended that appropriation, which would use funds from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). It would pay to revitalize a 78-mile stretch of the former Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Railroad corridor, commonly referred to now as the “Rock Island Trail.” Work would include the stabilization of tunnels and bridges.
Bunceton representative Tim Taylor (R) said his family owns property along the Katy Trail, Missouri’s other hiking and biking trail along a former railway. He said he’s seen how communities have benefitted from being along that trail.
“It has brought a sense of small prosperity to our community. When the railroad left, as it did on the Rock Island, much of the town ceased to exist. We have prospered and those towns and cities along the Rock Island are going to prosper just like the Katy Trail.”
The Rock Island corridor runs through Bland, hometown of Representative Bruce Sassman (R). He said hiking and biking trails are engines for economic development, and this is Missouri’s chance to expand them.
“I have been working on this Rock Island development project for 35 years, almost half of my life, and it’s a vision to create a trail system and a trail route that is unlike anything in the country and maybe in the world. I wish you could see this project through my eyes. I wish you knew the history of this project,” said Sassman.
Taylor and Sassman were among those who spoke against amendments that would have blocked that $69-million from going to the trail. One of those, offered by Chillicothe Republican Rusty Black, would have diverted that money to maintenance that has been deferred on other Department of Natural Resources’ properties.
“In my eight years up here, every year we have had this fight with DNR about maintaining what we already have. This is a one-time use of funds that, if we spend it on the trail, is going to further dilute the sales tax money that they get to use to maintain all of the other parks in the state,” said Steelville Republican Jason Chipman. “What we have already is in bad shape and we could put a big dent in the maintenance needed for all of the other parks that bring in a whole lot of people to Missouri rather than partially work on this one.”
“I think there’s arguments to be made for and against the Rock Island Trail,” said Representative Dirk Deaton (R-Noel), the House Budget Committee’s vice-chairman. “I think it’s compelling to me as a conservative, as a fiscal conservative, you’ve got to take care of what you’ve got before you start taking on new things – building new things, acquiring new things, setting up new things, and we do have a substantial maintenance backlog within our state parks and so I think we really ought to address that before we do this, and then you can get to the question of, ‘If we do this.’”
Another amendment was offered by Shell Knob Republican Scott Cupps. It proposed that the money be withheld from the project until lawsuits involving property owners along the Rock Island route are settled.
“The rationale for that is there is concern that we will spend millions and millions of dollars on this project and, depending on what happens in federal court, we may not be able to complete it until this is resolved,” said Cupps. “If you stand up for land owners’ rights and property owners’ rights … then you sure as heck better be a ‘yes’ on this.”
Cupps noted that there were similar legal disputes for people who owned property along the Katy Trail, which he says weren’t settled until 11 years after that trail opened.
Lawmakers who want work on the trail to proceed argued that those lawsuits’ outcomes will have nothing to do with Rock Island’s development.
“This is not about converting it back to ownership by these folks who are suing. They simply seek to reclaim the money for land that was never part of their farm in the first place, whenever they purchased it,” said Representative Don Mayhew (R-Crocker). “These lawsuits, this is a red herring. It has nothing to do with it. The state can proceed with this.”
In the end the House voted down those amendments 53-81 and 62-70, respectively, and then voted to keep the money for the trail project in the budget.
Some, like Representative Jim Murphy (R-St. Louis), were glad to move forward that spending proposal.
“When I leave here I think it’d be nice if I could look at one thing and say, ‘We did this for the future. We did this for this state. It’s long lasting. We didn’t spend it on frivolous things. We didn’t buy shiny objects. We built something that our citizens can use now and in the future,” said Murphy.
The House voted today to advance that spending plan to the Senate.
House Budget Committee weighs proposed pay hike for state employees
The Parson Administration has made its case to the House Budget Committee for a proposed 5.5-percent pay increase for state employees.
The committee heard from the administration’s budget director, Dan Haug, who outlined the motivation for the plan that would cost about $72-million including $41-million in general revenue. It would set state employee pay at a minimum of $15 an hour and kick in February 1, if it can get through the legislature by then.
Haug said Missouri must do something to respond to recent and rapid changes in the labor market.
“We’re getting to the point where if we have more vacancies and more turnovers we’re not going to be able to operate our state facilities,” said Haug. He said some facilities with minimum staffing requirements, such as prisons and mental health facilities, have resorted to forced overtime to fill shifts.
“That’s not the way we want to run the state,” said Haug.
Haug said one reason for proposing a February 1 start date is that a stipend being paid out of federal money to state employees in some institutions came to an end at the end of December.
Most lawmakers seemed to agree with the desire to increase state employee pay.
“Let’s face it: we’re in competition with McDonald’s right now, so obviously something has to break there, without a doubt,” said Representative Don Mayhew (R-Crocker).
Excelsior Springs Republican Doug Richey agrees, but he has an issue with setting a new minimum baseline of $15 per hour for state employees’ pay. He said given existing pay structures that could set the income of some new state hires too close to the level of pay of long-term employees.
“Creating an arbitrary baseline prevents us from being able to be responsive to the market, as well as sends an unintended message that would be somewhat negative to those … who have been working for two decades,” said Richey. “You can work for 20 years in your job, have tremendous institutional memory and ability, but you’re really no different than a part-time custodial worker at 17 years of age with no experience.”
“I wanna get away from the $15 an hour because to me that’s just a number. That’s not what it’s going to take to get people in. I’m an employer … in unskilled jobs and I can’t get people for $17 an hour, so that $15 an hour is just a number we’re throwing out there and I believe that is for political reasons,” said Representative Richard West (R-Wentzville). “Let’s do realistic and what’s it going to take to hire? For one department it may require 15, for another department it may require 18, for another department it may require 22.”
Many legislative budget makers resist using federal funds to support ongoing expenses, like state employee pay. They refer to it as, “one time money.” Haug said this proposed pay hike relies only on state funds.
“Missouri’s revenues are doing very well. Right now the state’s economy is doing well. We have more people coming back to work. Our revenues are coming in very strongly. They came in very strongly last fiscal year. The consensus revenue estimate shows strong growth through fiscal year 23,” said Haug. “Even at a very conservative growth rate of 1.5-percent growth in general revenue we can easily afford this ongoing pay increase.”
Haug, who has worked with the state’s budget for more than 25 years, said, “I feel very confident that we can afford what we’re doing now and what we’re going to need to do in the future.”
Other legislators asked whether studies should be done to make sure the state needs the employees it has, or that pay increases would be going to the employees who are most needed or deserving. Haug said the state has reduced its workforce significantly in the past ten years, and said such an employee pay review could take months, and changes to the labor market necessitate a quick response. He said state employee turnover in some positions and pay levels has been as high as 55-percent.
The committee has not voted on the bill which includes the proposed pay plan, House Bill 3014.