harassment – Missouri House of Representatives Newsroom

As swatting incidents spike House weighs tougher penalties

False reports of school shootings and other crimes have been rampant for months throughout the United States, and the state House is considering a bill to deal with such crimes.

*Representative Lane Roberts (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)*

The practice is commonly called “swatting:” making a false report of a crime so that law enforcement – particularly a SWAT team – will respond to an address. It is often used as a revenge tactic, as a way to cause unrest, or in the minds of some it is even seen as a joke.

It isn’t funny to Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin), who has a lengthy career that includes time as Joplin’s Police Chief and Director of the Missouri Department of Public Safety. He said such reports create needless danger for the public and for law enforcement.

“Frequently people will make a false call for the purpose of harassing someone, discriminating against someone. It affects their reputation, their business, there’s a lot of consequences to some of these false reports and some of it’s pretty darn malicious,” said Roberts. “The difficulty is that the penalties for doing that now are pretty mild compared to the potential for injury that goes with a call like that. It’s just not something that we can put up with.”

For several years he has proposed legislation to address swatting. This week his latest such effort was heard by the House Committee on Public Safety, which he chairs.

He stressed to the committee that the key to House Bill 302 is how it would define the crime. That is, to give a false report to law enforcement, a security officer, a fire department, or other such organization, “with reckless disregard of causing bodily harm to any person as a direct result of an emergency response.”

Roberts explained, “This specifically says the person who makes the false report for the purpose of doing any of the enumerated things … we’re talking about, what’s the intent of the call?”

Under HB 302 those who make false reports that result in a person being killed or seriously hurt could be charged with a class-B felony, punishable by 5 to 15 years in prison. Falsely reporting a felony crime would be a class-E felony (up to four years in prison). Any other false reports would be a class-B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000).

Juveniles making false reports for the first time would be guilty of a status offense. Any further offenses would be class-C misdemeanors and would require a juvenile court appearance or community service and a fine.

The bill would hold any person convicted under its provisions liable for the costs of any emergency response caused by their false report. They could also be sued by any victims. Roberts said that is because swatting can cause, “damage to someone’s business, their reputation, their ability to make a living, their livelihood, so if someone engages in that kind of conduct for the purpose of causing harm to someone’s livelihood, then by all means they should be accountable.”

Jordan Kadosh with the Anti-Defamation League spoke in favor of HB 302. He reiterated that instances of swatting have been spiking, especially after many of the recent shootings at schools throughout the nation. He said after the recent shooting that killed six people at The Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, Missouri law enforcement was “inundated with false reports.”

“These were later confirmed in the press to be attempts at swatting against schools. The act of swatting turns law enforcement officers against the population that they serve,” said Kadosh.

He said the bill is narrowly crafted to help prosecutors make cases against swatters and at last create real penalties for maliciously making false reports.

The committee has not voted on HB 302. Last year the House passed similar legislation 142-0, but it did advance out of the Senate.

Pronunciations:

Kadosh = kah-DOEsh

House panel recommends changes in Missouri Corrections to fight harassment, bullying, and favoritism

The state House is recommending the Department of Corrections make several policy changes to battle sexual harassment, bullying, retaliation, and favoritism among its employees.

Representative Jim Hansen (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

After news articles last fall brought such issues to light, as well as millions of dollars in settlements with the state by former Corrections employees who had been victims, the House formed a subcommittee to investigate the work environment in the Department.

Read the subcommittee report by clicking here.

Representative Jim Hansen (R-Frankford) chaired that subcommittee. He and other members heard what they called “disturbing” reports of harassment and treatment of employees over the last few months, as current and former Corrections employees offered testimony.

Hansen said some of the subcommittee’s key recommendations are the implementation of a zero tolerance policy toward harassment; a change in how complaints are handled; the creation of a hotline for taking employee complaints with a mandated 24-hour response to calls; and a review of how employees are promoted and trained.

Hansen said some of those recommendations have already been implemented under the Department’s new director, Anne Precythe.

“Some of them have. Not all of them,” said Hansen. “She’s also looked at the training and her approach to training new leaders. She’s got some ideas in the works there.”

Hansen expresses a lot of confidence in Precythe to improve the environment in Corrections.

“It’s in the bottom of the first [inning] or to top of the second – however you want to look at it – but so far she’s made a lot of the right moves,” said Hansen. “There’s a lot of good employees out there and we’re asking them to be part of the solution and not the problem, to help her, and with time I think that she’ll get the changes done that need to be done.”

Hansen hopes House Speaker Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) will keep the subcommittee active so that it can follow-up on the Department.

“We want to have the director come and report to us on a quarterly basis and give us updates, so I don’t see any reason to disband this committee,” said Hansen.

Other recommendations included standardizing policies and procedures across all institutions except with department director’s approval, and increasing the minimum age of employment from 18 to 21.

Hansen thanked the members of the subcommittee and said each of them took seriously the task of hearing what was going on in the Corrections Department and recommending changes.

Some earlier stories:

Number 2 Corrections official faces committee investigating sexual harassment, retaliation in department

House votes to require monthly reporting on settlements in cases against Missouri

Panel on Corrections Department environment hears of ‘vague’ harassment policies, working in ‘hell’

Subcommittee on harassment in Corrections Department frustrated by Department’s structure, process

New prison system director talks to House committee about harassment, more

Legislature’s budget aims for transparency in settlements with the state, agency workplace environments

The legislature has passed a budget that aims to make state agencies more accountable when lawsuits against them cost taxpayer dollars.

House Minority Leader Gail McCann Beatty made creating transparency with the legal expense fund one of her priorities this session. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Lawmakers learned last fall that the Department of Corrections had reached millions of dollars in settlements in recent years with employees who had been harassed, discriminated against, and in some cases retaliated against. Legislators said they didn’t know about apparent ongoing issues in Corrections because of how money for settlements was identified in the budget.

Settlements had come out of a single line in the budget called the legal expense fund, which had no spending limit. That meant legislators did not know how much money was being spent on settlements each year, and agencies didn’t have to explain to the legislature what was behind lawsuits against them.

The budget for the year starting July 1 would cap that line at $16-million. If settlements exceed that, the Office of Administration can pull up to $10-million from other funds it controls. If that isn’t enough, OA can then take money directly from the budget of the department involved in a given settlement.

The Attorney General has said he will also report to the legislature every month on the activity of the legal expense fund. House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) said that’s why even if OA has to go to any of those additional places for settlement money, it must all pass through that fund.

House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“So it still has to go to the legal expense fund and then it has to be paid from the legal expense fund, so that shouldn’t impact [tracking that fund’s activity],” said Fitzpatrick.

Meanwhile the House has passed a bill that would require by law those monthly reports from the governor, but with the process moving slowly in recent weeks, House Democrat Leader Gail McCann Beatty (Kansas City) said she’s looking for other bills to which she can add that language.

“The Attorney General has been very cooperative and is now posting that information on his website so it is there for the first time. I will be asking those other departments that don’t fall under the Attorney General to do the same voluntarily until we have the opportunity to actually pass this legislation,” said McCann Beatty.

Legislators believe that with the new budget provisions and reporting by the attorney general any future situations like that uncovered at Corrections will be exposed.

Meanwhile, a House subcommittee launched to investigate corrections and recommend changes in that department is close to releasing its report.

The legislature’s budget proposal is now awaiting action by Governor Eric Greitens (R).

Legislature coming down to the wire this week on FY ’18 budget proposal

The legislature’s top responsibility enters its final push this week, as Friday is the constitutional deadline for it to propose a budget for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

Beginning tomorrow, selected House and Senate members will work to negotiate a compromise between each chamber’s budget proposals. Any compromise the two sides reach must then be voted on by 6 p.m. Friday to be sent to Governor Eric Greitens (R).

The House proposed that the state should for the first time fully support the formula for funding K-12 schools. Early discussions in the Senate suggested it would do otherwise, but it decided to follow suit. That was the top priority for House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob), and with both chambers agreeing on it, he says his priority now is clear.

“A balanced budget,” Fitzpatrick said.

Getting there by Friday, however, will be challenging. The difference between the two chambers’ budget proposals is somewhere beyond $100-million.

Fitzpatrick said much of that difference is in projects the Senate added when they were planning not to fully fund the K-12 education formula. When the Senate voted to instead fund the formula, it didn’t remove those projects.

“Now that the formula is funded, I think the projects are going to be tough to [pay for],” said Fitzpatrick.

Another substantial difference between the two proposals concerns “Es.” For several years, legislative budget makers have used an “E” at the end of a budget line to represent an open-ended spending limit. This was often used in places where predicting how much would be needed over the course of a fiscal year was particularly difficult, and it would allow an entity to exceed the budgeted amount if necessary. The effort to remove Es began several years ago, and the House proposed a budget that completed that removal.

The Senate restored some Es to various places in the budget. Fitzpatrick wants to remove those in the final compromise. He said their presence in the Senate’s proposal also distorts how far apart the House and Senate plans are.

“So like for the budget reserve fund, we put a $25.5-million number in there. The Senate put the E back on and made it $1, so that makes their budget actually appear $25.5-million smaller,” said Fitzpatrick. “So really to compare apples to apples you have to add $25-million to their budget to see the difference.”

Fitzpatrick said he doesn’t know how many more such examples exist throughout the budget plans.

One line of particular importance to Fitzpatrick and others in the House is the state’s legal expense fund, which has had an E on it. That line has been the focus of great legislative attention this year after the revelation that the Department of Corrections has settled millions of dollars in lawsuits in recent years in cases of employee harassment, discrimination, and retaliation.

With an E on that line – the line from which comes the money for all settlements with the state – Corrections never had to come before a legislative committee to explain what was behind the multiple, large settlements. Lawmakers say that kept them in the dark as to the environment and repeated issues in the Corrections Department.

The House’s proposal replaced that line with lines in the budgets of each state agency. That meant any future settlement would come out of the involved agency’s budget, and if it had so many that it exceeded what the legislature appropriated, it would have to explain why to lawmakers. The Senate returned the legal expense fund to being a single line in the budget. Fitzpatrick and House members strongly want to see the House’s version restored.

House and Senate conferees begin meeting Tuesday morning. Their goal is to have a compromise ready for each chamber to vote on by Friday. Failure to meet the state Constitution’s deadline could mean legislators will have to meet in a special session, after the regular session ends on May 20, to complete a budget.

House votes to require monthly reporting on settlements in cases against Missouri

The House has voted to increase transparency when lawsuits against state agencies are settled. The legislation was prompted by the revelation that millions of tax dollars were paid out over several years in settling harassment and discrimination cases against the Department of Corrections.

Representative Paul Fitzwater (R-Potosi) carried HCB 7 on the House Floor. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Committee Bill 7 would require the attorney general to report every month to the legislature and others about how the state’s legal expense fund – the fund from which money for settlements is taken – has been used.

Those cases against Corrections came to light late last year when an article on Pitch.com detailed several of them, and outlined how employees who complained about being harassed or discriminated against were victims of retaliation by fellow Corrections staff members.

House members said after the article came out that they were unaware of the settlements because those have been paid out of a line in the budget that has no spending limit on it. That meant departments never had to come to the legislature and justify how much their settlement agreements were costing the state.

St. Charles Republican Kathie Conway, who chairs the appropriations committee that oversees Corrections, said this bill is needed.

“This is something that needs to be in statute so that the legislature is not caught unaware of all the goings on in different departments,” said Conway.

House Democrat Leader Gail McCann Beatty hopes to prevent state employees who have complained of harassment or discrimination from having to sign gag orders as part of court settlements. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Democrat leader Gail McCann Beatty (Kansas City) proposed that the reporting should cover all state agencies and not just the Department of Corrections. She said the reporting requirements could lead the legislature to make changes in policies or laws to address issues resulting in lawsuits in other agencies.

She hopes the legislature will go further and address the signing of gag orders by state employees who complain of harassment or discrimination, as some in the Corrections cases did under the terms of their settlements.

“While we can sunshine and get this information it does not give that employee the opportunity to give their side,” said McCann Beatty.

Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley (R) announced in March he would begin monthly reporting on the activity of the legal expense fund. Legislators praised his decision but said HCB 7 is still needed to ensure future attorneys general will follow suit.

Hawley’s first such report comes out April 30.

HCB 7 would also require the Department of Corrections’ director to meet with the House’s committee overseeing that department twice each year to discuss issues with that department.

The House voted 150-1 to send the bill to the Senate, but only two weeks remain in the legislative session for that body to consider it.

House budget plan aims to improve harassment investigations in Department of Corrections

The latest version of the House’s proposed budget would restructure the Department of Corrections, in light of how it handled cases of harassment and retaliation against employees.

House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) said his plan would redirect money that goes to the Department’s offices of Inspector General and Human Resources, and create an Office of Professional Standards.

Fitzpatrick said he worked with Corrections Director Anne Precythe in developing his proposal.

“She’s making significant changes to the Department,” said Fitzpatrick. “The Department of Corrections has an inspector general, currently, which I think has been doing a sub-par job, and that’s what I’ve gotten from the director.”

The House in January announced the creation of the Subcommittee on Corrections Workforce Environment and Conduct after a news article revealed the Department had settled numerous lawsuits filed by former employees who had been harassed. Those settlements were costing the state millions of dollars.

The subcommittee’s chairman, Representative Jim Hansen (R-Frankford), said the committee came to a similar conclusion about the job that the inspector general had been doing.

“In the hearings it appeared to me like there was a lot of confusion concerning who’s doing what when it comes to [human resources] and the investigators handling the cases, of who’s handling what, who knows what’s going on. The right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing,” said Hansen. “I think it needs to be streamlined … there needs to be adjustment made and a review of everybody’s responsibility, and maybe be able to put this under one silo on who’s going to handle it and who’s reporting to who, and how fast it can get to the top.”

Fitzpatrick’s spending plan would reallocate within the Department’s budget more than $2.3-million to create the new office.

“We’ve created that in its own section in the budget, and [Director Precythe’s] plan is to use that to try to build more trust in the institution of the Department of Corrections, and to better deal with the personnel issues that they’ve been having, that have been creating these large claims,” said Fitzpatrick.

Missouri Department of Corrections Director Ann Precythe (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Precythe did not speak to House Communications for this story, but the Department did supply a memo from her dated March 14. In that, she said the Office of Professional Standards will be made up of the Civil Rights Unit (formerly Human Resources), the Employee Conduct Unit (formerly the office of Inspector General), and the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Unit.

She said new processes would “begin soon” and, “we are still fine tuning the remaining details,” but said, “We are changing our investigative processes to allow institutions to handle most offender-related incidents. This change allows us to reallocate resources into the Civil Rights Unit. The Civil Rights Unit will conduct investigations into allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and unprofessional conduct. With additional resources, the Human Relations Officers will be able to conduct and complete investigations even faster than they do now.”

“In addition, Human Relations Officers will soon be conducting training statewide for all employees and will be doing additional outreach and follow up with employees who feel that they have been subjected to discrimination, harassment, retaliation or unprofessional conduct. More Human Relations Officers also means more opportunities for them to visit institutions and offices throughout the state and interact with employees outside of the investigative process.”

Precythe explained the Employee Conduct Unit would investigate employee violations of procedure, unexpected offender deaths, suicides, and potential homicides. Those investigations would be assisted by law enforcement in certain cases.

Fitzpatrick’s budget also removes the “E” found on many lines in the budget. Those Es represents an open-ended spending limit on funds in which legislators expect money beyond what they allocate might be needed before the next budget is created. One such E was found on the budget line from which comes money for settlements the state must pay.

Fitzpatrick and others have said it is because that line had an “E” that legislators were unaware for years of the settlements involving the Department, and the harassment and retaliation issues that caused them. By removing the E, agencies must now come to the legislature and explain why they would need additional money for court settlements. That could shed light on recurring problems such as the Corrections Department had.

Fitzpatrick said he also proposes putting an appropriation for legal expenses in the budget of each state agency, whereas before the money for settlements across all agencies came from one line.

“It’ll make sure that we can still pay claims and judgments against the state, but it’ll also put some skin in the game from the departments’ perspective so that the effects of their actions aren’t something that they don’t feel,” said Fitzpatrick.

The House continues work this week on a budget proposal to send to the Senate. Once the House and Senate agree on a spending plan it must still go to Governor Eric Greitens (R).

Number 2 Corrections official faces committee investigating sexual harassment, retaliation in department

A top Department of Corrections official has told a House subcommittee poor training, bureaucracy, and the Department’s growth have contributed to problems with harassment and retaliation among Missouri prison employees.

Dave Dormire is the Director of Adult Institutions in the Missouri Department of Corrections. After more than 40 years with the Department, he will retire April 1, amid allegations his department's culture was rife with sexual harassment and retaliation against those who complained. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications) — Dave Dormire is the Director of Adult Institutions in the Missouri Department of Corrections. After more than 40 years with the Department, he will retire April 1, amid allegations his department’s culture was rife with sexual harassment and retaliation against those who complained. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Dave Dormire is the Department’s Director of Adult Institutions and has been in the Department more than 40 years. He has announced he will retire April 1.

He talked to the House Subcommittee on Corrections Workforce Environment and Conduct after it had heard testimony from several other department officials, employees, and former employees.

The subcommittee was formed after news articles shed light on cases in which Department employees alleged they’d been harassed and, in some cases, retaliated against. Several of those cases have gone to court, and several of those resulted in settlements costing the state millions of dollars.

Since September, 2011, Dormire has been responsible for some staff appointments, overseeing the safety of staff and inmates, and for disciplinary decisions.

Dormire was asked why some of the people who had been involved in those incidents still work for the Department. He told lawmakers some allegations go unsustained, and some efforts are made to correct employees rather than fire them after a first incident.

“I’ll blame the culture a little bit. As you know, correction officer is a tough job,” Dormire said. “We train them specifically to continue to watch and address behaviors. Then they become supervisors, and that’s the behavior they’ve learned – to address behaviors. They’re not well trained – I acknowledge that – not well trained on being a good supervisor.”

Representatives Bruce Franks, Junior (left), and John McCaherty (right) (photo, Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Dormire told subcommittee member John McCaherty (R-High Ridge) the Department has not tolerated its employees committing harassment or unprofessional behavior repeatedly.

“I know that’s your feeling, but we do tolerate it,” McCaherty responded. “It’s going on in the Department, it’s going on now, and that’s why we have a committee because we’ve been tolerating it, so I know your hope is that we don’t tolerate it but as a department we do tolerate it.”

“I understand your opinion, sir. Obviously when I have my records to show what we’ve done and how we’ve addressed things,” Dormire said.

“And we have court cases to show the other side of it,” said McCaherty.

Dormire said the Corrections Department has grown to eight times the size it was when he started there, to more than 32-thousand inmates and roughly 8,000 staff throughout the prison system.

“That’s created all kinds of bureaucracy and things like that, and management issues. I’m not here to make excuses but other departments have not faced that type of growth,” said Dormire.

Subcommittee members told Dormire it has been reviewing reports of harassment and retaliation that date back as much as 20 years.

“It looked like our employees would’ve been better off behind bars,” said Chairman Jim Hansen (R-Frankford). “They would’ve been safer there than they would from some of their supervisors, and it’s disturbing.”

Committee members also asked Dormire about reports they’ve heard of nepotism in the Department’s hiring and promotion practices. At an earlier hearing, they heard from a former employee that wardens often ignore the recommendations of panels assigned to recommend employees for promotion. The system was described as one of “good ol’boys” hiring and promoting friends and relatives.

Dormire told lawmakers the Department used the state’s Merit system, created in state law to prevent favoritism, political influence, or arbitrary decisions in hiring and other employment decisions.

Representative Kathie Conway (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Kathie Conway (R-St. Charles), who said she has heard of, “so much nepotism,” in the department, challenged Dormire on that claim.

“We have to use the Merit system,” said Dormire.

“You have to not sexually harass people, too, but that didn’t seem to be the case,” said Conway.

Committee members asked Dormire about allegations raised by recent articles by Pitch.com suggesting that he had been involved in retaliation against employees, and had been deceptive in his answers in some investigations. Dormire denied those allegations.

Asked specifically whether he testified that disciplining two guards accused of harassing two nurses would have been “moot” because the nurses had quit, Dormire said, “I don’t remember making that statement in particular. I don’t normally use that word. It’s possible. I don’t remember that.”

Committee members again indicated they are looking to those at or near the top of the Corrections Department’s hierarchy – wardens and administrative officials – as being largely at fault.

Hansen said of the cases of harassment he’s read about wardens seemed to be involved in some, and “totally incompetent,” in others.

“I think you’ve got good wardens,” Dormire told Hansen. “Some of them need some help.”

“They need help? We don’t have time. This is costing the state taxpayers millions of dollars,” Hansen responded. “We got people who are supposed to be head of the parade that are playing out of tune and out of step with the marching band.”

Representative Bruce Franks (D-St. Louis City) said he feels the committee still isn’t being told who it must talk to, to get to the nucleus of issues in the Department.

“We talked about the culture, we passed the buck today two or three times, we said we can blame the culture, we can blame the growth, we can blame all of these different things, except for blaming ourselves – the people who are actually in charge,” said Franks. “We have a lot of people up top who aren’t held accountable and who aren’t holding those right up under them accountable, who make 90-thousand, 50-thousand, 100-thousand, 85-thousand, so maybe we need to take about seven or eight of these particular jobs out and distribute their salaries to those who are making nothing to do most of the work.”

Panel on Corrections Department environment hears of ‘vague’ harassment policies, working in ‘hell’

A week after being frustrated by two Department of Corrections officials’ responses to questions about harassment, members of a Missouri House subcommittee heard from two Department employees who described an environment of nepotism, harassment, and retaliation in the state’s prison system.

Members of the House Subcommittee on Corrections Workforce Environment and Conduct listen to testimony (file). (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Travis Case, who is three years away from retiring from the Department, told lawmakers, “You come in every day and the negativity, it’s like you’re walking into hell.”

Case works in the Northeast Correctional Center in Bowling Green, in its canteen – a store where inmates can purchase items including snacks, drinks, and tobacco products.

He told legislators that prison has seen a high rate of turnover with many veteran staff members leaving – an issue he believes likely exists department-wide. He said morale is low and complained that he believed prison wardens have too much power.

“This came out of a deputy warden’s mouth and I agree with him wholeheartedly,” said Case. “’We give these wardens the keys to the kingdom and we let them run it however they see fit, and that’s a big problem.’”

Case was talking to a panel formed to look into the environment in the Corrections system after reports came to light of employee-on-employee harassment and retaliation against those who reported problems. Some cases resulted in lawsuits, some of which the state has settled resulting in millions of dollars in payouts. Other cases are still pending.

Case said the Department’s policies, including its policy regarding harassment, are too vague.

“Missouri supposedly has a zero tolerance policy for sexual harassment and discrimination, but the policies don’t reflect that. The policies are so vague that if you want to fire somebody for sexual harassment or discrimination or retaliation – whatever the case may be – you can do it if you want to, but if you don’t want to you also don’t have to,” said Case. “That’s where the favoritism comes in.”

The subcommittee also heard from Lieutenant Jason Horn, a corrections officer at the Farmington Correctional Center. Horn read off a litany of suggestions for improvements in the Department, including its handling of harassment.

“Send all claims of … discrimination, harassment, retaliation, to Human Resources. There should not be a choice. No passing the buck,” Horn recommended. “If we can have somebody with a nonbiased opinion come in and look at these problems and these issues in a way that they need to be looked at with no choice – with no choice of the warden or anyone else, then I think things would get dealt with a little more appropriately than they do.”

Subcommittee members expressed gratitude at the two men for coming to testify. After its previous hearing one panel member said it seemed as though department officials were, “passing the buck,” shuffling harassment claims back and forth between departments. Members expressed frustration at the answers they received from the Department’s Inspector General and its Division of Human Resources Director.

Chairman Jim Hansen (R-Frankford) said he wants to hear from more Department employees before the committee prepares its recommendations for changes in Corrections.

Other related stories:

Bill seeks better oversight of state settlements, after harassment in Corrections Department

Subcommittee on harassment in Corrections Department frustrated by Department’s structure, process

New prison system director talks to House committee about harassment, more

MO House subcommittee will investigate harassment in Corrections Department

Bill seeks better oversight of state settlements, after harassment in Corrections Department

House lawmakers shocked by what some have called an environment of harassment and retaliation in the Department of Corrections are considering a bill they hope will let the legislature know when such situations are present.

Minority Leader Gail McCann Beatty presents House Bill 858 to the House Budget Committee. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

An article on Pitch.com detailed numerous reports of employee-on-employee harassment in Corrections, including cases of retaliation against those who reported it. Some cases resulted in lawsuits that have cost the state millions in settlements and more cases are pending.

House Minority Leader Gail McCann Beatty (D-Kansas City) has filed a House Bill 858, which would require the Attorney General to report to the General Assembly every month on activity concerning the state’s Legal Expense Fund. That’s the fund from which the state pays all defense costs, including all settlements.

McCann Beatty and others say such reports would inform the legislature when there are problems in state agencies such as those coming to light in Corrections.

“We can’t possibly address the issue if we don’t know what’s happening,” McCann Beatty told the House Budget Committee, of which she was formerly a member.

As House Communications reported in December, lawmakers say they didn’t know about the repeated incidents of harassment in part because the Legal Expense Fund has for years had an open-ended dollar amount in it. The line included an “E,” for “estimate,” which meant if expenses in that line exceeded what the legislature budgeted, more money could be spent on it.

That meant even though multiple lawsuits stemming from harassment cases in Corrections were being litigated and settled, the Department never had to come before the legislature and explain or justify the additional expense.

Budget makers plan to remove that “E” so that similar situations will have to be explained to the legislature in the future, but McCann Beatty’s proposal would require further accounting.

“It allows us to monitor what is going out of that fund so that we can see patterns, and see if there’s a problem,” said McCann Beatty.

Lawmakers say such oversight could reveal similar recurring problems in other state agencies. McCann Beatty gave the Budget Committee information from the Attorney General’s Office showing the state had spent about $60-million on settlements in the past five years, though the legislature had only appropriated about $30-million for legal expenses.

In the fiscal year that began July 1, the Attorney General’s Office reports Missouri has expended more than $17-million in 24 settlements and 4 judgments. Those settlements include 16 discrimination or retaliation claims among seven state agencies.

“I think if you look at that list you will see that these lawsuits – it is not simply the Department of Corrections, but in fact it is a statewide issue,” said McCann Beatty. “As a legislature I think all of us want to see that climate changed.”

The budget committee is expected to vote on McCann Beatty’s bill tomorrow.

Subcommittee on harassment in Corrections Department frustrated by Department’s structure, process

A House subcommittee appointed to investigate harassment and retaliation in the Department of Corrections thinks how the Department handles allegations is not clear, at best.

Representatives Paul Fitzwater (left) and Bruce Franks listen to testimony during a hearing by the Subcommittee on Corrections Workforce Environment and Conduct. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The Subcommittee on Corrections Workforce Environment and Conduct was formed in response to an article on Pitch.com that detailed incidents within the department that in some cases led to lawsuits, costing the state millions of dollars.

The subcommittee took testimony from the department’s Inspector General, Amy Roderick, and the Division of Human Services Director, Cari Collins. Representatives asked questions about who handles harassment allegations and who makes decisions about any disciplinary actions that might be the result of those allegations. They weren’t satisfied with what they heard, with members calling the Department’s administrative structure “confusing.”

“It appears to be a shell game to me in terms of where it goes, where it doesn’t go, who has a say in when it goes,” said subcommittee chairman Jim Hansen (R-Frankford).

Collins told the committee staff in her division deals with reports of harassment, and she was not aware of any complaints about how harassment had been handled.

“I don’t know of any examples where it wasn’t taken care of,” said Collins. “Whenever anything is reported to us, we investigate it. What is done with that investigation is not determined by human resources.”

She said decisions about discipline of most prison employees, including terminations, falls on the Director of the Division of Adult Institutions, Dave Dormire, who answers to the Department Director.

Collins told the committee changes have been made in the past five years in her division’s procedures and its number of staff members that conduct investigations. She said some changes also followed meetings involving legal counsel, about the number of harassment complaints and resulting settlements.

“We increased the number of ways that an employee can report allegations, the number of people they can report it to, we also expanded the definition of what needed to be reported,” said Collins. “We added unprofessional conduct because for a supervisor or even a CAO, we don’t want them trying to figure if something might be discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. If it’s unprofessional we want them to send it up. HR will look at it and make that determination … that’s one of the reasons the number of reports have increased, because we’ve expanded the definition of what needs to come to us.”

Representative Jim Hansen chairs the House Subcommittee on Corrections Workforce Environment and Conduct. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Roderick told the committee her office does not handle harassment, but would investigate anything with a criminal component to it such as assaults. The committee asked her if she was familiar with an incident described in the Pitch.com article in which an employee who had complained about harassment was allegedly poisoned when she returned to work. Roderick said she had read the article, but had no knowledge of the incident.

Roderick said it would have been up to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), more commonly called the warden, of an institution whether to notify her office of such an incident.

“So she could be poisoned on the grounds of the institution and there’s a warden out there that didn’t think that needed to go up the chain,” said Representative John McCaherty.

“It could happen,” Roderick told the committee.

The Department’s structure frustrated many of the lawmakers on the committee.

“We have an investigative body that’s technically not allowed to investigate everything,” said Representative Bruce Franks (D-St. Louis City), referring to the poisoning case not being referred for investigation by the warden at the institution where it took place. “I don’t like to speculate but I’m pretty sure this isn’t the only case. And so the checks and balances, they aren’t there.”

Franks expressed frustration at what the two Department officials explained about how allegations are handled, and passed among different parts of the Department’s organization.

“We bring two directors here, or two professionals here … but it really seems like it’s just passing the buck, or saying, ‘Oh well, we don’t do this. This person does this,’ and I just want to get the person in here who we need to be talking to,” said Franks. “It seems like we just need to cut a bunch of positions and provide more compensation for our correctional officers.”

“The objective of this board is to get to the bottom of it and help,” Franks added. “At the end of the day we just want it to be better, especially for our employees.”

Hansen said one of the subcommittee’s goals is to learn about how the Department is structured. After that hearing he expects one of the subcommittee’s recommendations will be that Corrections’ process of handling all types of complaints be streamlined.

The subcommittee is expected to hold its next hearing Thursday morning.