Tag: Scott Cupps

House votes to bar hair-based discrimination with passage of ‘CROWN Act’

The House has voted to bar discrimination based on how people style their hair, specifically natural hair textures and cultural styles.

Representatives Raychel Proudie, LaKeySha Bosley, and Ashley Bland Manlove (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

For several years now, legislators have been asked to pass the “Missouri Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair,” or “Missouri CROWN Act.” House Bills 1900, 1591, & 2515 would specify that no person may be discriminated against based on hair texture or protective hairstyle if that style or texture is commonly associated with a particular race or origin. The measure applies to any educational institution that receives state funding.

It was carried on the House Floor by Representative Raychel Proudie (D-Ferguson), whose bill was combined with those from Representatives LaKeySha Bosley (D-St. Louis City) and Ashley Bland Manlove (D-Kansas City).

“Every freedom- and liberty-loving patriot in Missouri should be in favor of this bill, especially those of us who believe that children should be able to exist the way in which God created them,” Proudie said. “Simply put, that’s what this does. Any constitutional, tax-paying citizen of Missouri should agree to this bill because all students and their parents should have access to the things which their tax dollars go to sustain.”

Proudie is a teacher as well as a school counselor certified in three states. “Students can’t learn when they’re not in class learning. As a teacher, I can say, and have said, we must be much more interested in what we are putting in a student’s head than what’s going out of it. If we’re distracted by someone’s hair, then maybe that’s something we need to take up with a physician, but it’s not the child’s problem,” Proudie told her colleagues.

Each year that the legislation has been considered, legislators have heard testimony, especially from people of color, who said they have faced discrimination based on their hairstyles. Again this year, Missourians told the House Committee on Urban Issues that their hairstyles have been politicized; they have been discriminated against in job interviews and classrooms; and they have been made to feel like they cannot style their hair how they choose.

“We have a lot of conversation about bullying, and we think of it as peer bullying. Sometimes the big bad bear is the adult that is charged with the protection. Sometimes the classroom bully is the teacher, the classroom bully is the institution itself, and we have to make sure that we’re paying attention to that, and often times we don’t hear that enough, that sometimes we, as the adults, as the practitioners, are the problem, and in this case, we absolutely are,” Proudie said.

Representative Raychel Proudie (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The proposal has evolved over the years. The version passed on Wednesday by the House includes exceptions for the use of things like hairnets or coverings for safety purposes. This was a change pursued by Representative Scott Cupps (R-Shell Knob), whose background includes time as an agricultural education teacher.

He says in that curriculum, in particular, students need protection.

“You work with rotating equipment, you work with flammable equipment, and so there was a concern of mine that if this could be used to say, ‘No, you can’t ask me to do something with my hair to protect my own safety,’ and so that was not only addressed but addressed in the correct manner, in my opinion,” Cupps said.

He said changes like that could very well lead other states to mirror versions of this legislation off of this.

“I want everyone to know this is a bipartisan effort, has been a bipartisan effort, and so this is something that I think everybody should feel comfortable in voting for,” Cupps said.

More bipartisan support came from Imperial Republican Renee Reuter, who said, “I do have naturally curly hair, and I promised people in my district before I came back from the interim that I was going to represent the curly-haired girls when I was here, and I’m so proud that this bill is here and I support it.”

Echoing Proudie, Reuter added, “Women and men need to be able to just be who they are and express their hair the way that they are given it from God.”

“I’m really happy, I was very surprised, not surprised [that they liked it] but surprised that some of my colleagues from across the aisle were compelled to stand up and speak to the importance and what it meant to them. It was very endearing to hear, and I’m glad that it would cover and touch their children, too,” Proudie said.

“It’s not just something that impacts African American students or students of color. It impacts anybody who deserves to go to their public spaces, their public school, and learn and to not get bullied, picked on, singled out, or made to feel less than what God blessed them with.”

The House voted 144-0 to send the legislation to the Senate, where a similar bill was recently passed out of a committee.

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.

Representative Tim Taylor (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      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.

Representative Bruce Sassman (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “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.’”

Representative Scott Cupps (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      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.

Representative Jason Chipman (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “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 votes to waive federal unemployment overpayments, told Department of Labor will ‘call off the dogs’

      The Missouri House has voted to waive the biggest portion of unemployment overpayments that some 46,000 Missourians were being told to repay.  House members also heard that Governor Mike Parson (R) now supports the effort, and his Department of Labor will “pause” efforts to collect the federal portion of those overpayments while the legislation is moving.

Representatives Jered Taylor (left) and J. Eggleston (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Legislators learned that many of the Missourians who applied for and received unemployment assistance last year were then told that the state erred in finding them eligible.  They were told they had to pay back the money, often months after it had already been spent on necessities.  Some Missourians owed more than $20,000.

      The bill that was passed on Thursday would waive the federal portion of those repayments, which amounts to roughly three quarters or more of what most owed.  The legislation was the product of a broad, bipartisan effort.

      “The amount that the folks will get to keep from the federal portion amounts to $668,000, on average, per House district.  So every one of our districts, on average, $668,000 will stay here in Missouri rather than going back to Washington, D.C., if we pass this,” said bill sponsor J. Eggleston (R-Maysville).

      Republic representative Jered Taylor (R) chaired the committee that held hearings with the Department of Labor about this issue.  He said waiving this portion is the right thing to do for Missourians who were and are struggling, and were encouraged to apply by the state and federal governments.

      “Now they’re being saddled with thousands of dollars of money that they have to repay when they don’t have the money.  They spent it.  We know that they spent it on important things – on food, on housing, on transportation, on clothing – to get through a difficult time when they didn’t have a job, and they still may not have a job and [the state has been] asking them to pay thousands of dollars back,” said Taylor.

      Democrats supported the bill, though some say Missouri should also waive repayment of state unemployment overpayments.  Republicans say to do that would jeopardize the integrity of the state’s unemployment trust, and lead to higher payments for the small businesses that pay into it – business which are also struggling due to the COVID crisis.

      St. Louis representative Ian Mackey (D) said some of those Missourians will be confused by hearing about this legislation and think they no longer owe anything.

      “Someone who got a bill for $5,000 from the state is going to see that we passed this legislation is going to take the letter and the bill they got from the state and tear it up and throw it away … and then a few weeks later they’re going to get a bill from the state for $800, and the same people who couldn’t afford the $5,000 bill are not going to be able to afford the $800  bill and the crisis is going to start all over again for them,” said Mackey.

Representative Ian Mackey (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      He and other Democrats say the state could use CARES Act money to waive the state’s share of these overpayments and keep small businesses from being impacted.  Shell Knob Republican Scott Cupps said he’d be good with that.

      “If this bill were to come back from the Senate with the state portion included and we were able to fund that with CARES Act funding, as opposed to it hurting the integrity of the unemployment fund system within the state, then that is something that I, personally, would be in favor of,” said Cupps.

      The House rejected an emergency clause – language that would make the bill effective immediately upon being signed by the governor.  Instead it would take effect August 28.  Eggleston said this was part of an effort that’s developed in the last few days to ensure the governor’s support.  He said the Department wants time for training and the creation of paperwork that would go into issuing up to 46,000 waivers.

       “Due to the work in the committee and due to our work the other day on the floor they have agreed to call off the dogs,” said Eggleston.

      He read from an email, “‘The Department of Labor is working to pause the collections processes as you requested,’ so this means that they will not be hassling folks for the federal portion.”

Eggleston continued, “For the 47,000 thousand folks in this the Department will not be hassling them from now until the end of August 28, including billing statements.  That’s the nasty letters folks were getting about, ‘We’re gonna be garnishing your wages and put a lien on your house.’  That’s stopping.”

      Taylor said he and Eggleston were skeptical, but he supports removing that emergency clause. 

      “This isn’t something that can be done overnight.  The concern is that if we do this quickly, if we do this as fast as what we’re asking that mistakes are going to be made and maybe people aren’t going to get the waiver that should deserve the waiver,” said Taylor.  “We want to make sure that the state isn’t going to mess up again, that these people aren’t going to be screwed another time by the state government, and we have been giving assurances in writing [and] in verbal communication.”

      Democrats maintained that the bill will be “pointless” without the emergency clause and most voted to keep it. 

      Cupps said since the House held hearings on the issue the Department has been working with him and other lawmakers, and the House’s actions Thursday are based on those discussions.

      “We just need to use this as an example to say, ‘The deal was made.  You better hold true to it.  If you don’t hold true to it, then I hesitate to say what we would do but I promise you, we’ll do something.’”

      The legislation was sent to the Senate with a vote of 157-3. 

Pronunciations:

Eggleston = (EGG-ull-stun)

Bipartisan effort seeks best way to help Missourians who owe for unemployment overpayments

      One week after hearing from the Department of Labor about the state’s efforts to seek repayment of erroneous unemployment payments from struggling Missourians, a bipartisan slate of House members is debating the best way to provide relief.

      The Special Committee on Government Oversight has heard that of roughly $150-million in overpayments, only a small portion – roughly a quarter or less – came from the state’s unemployment trust.  State statute requires the Department to get that paid back. 

Representatives Scott Cupps and Jered Taylor (photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      The larger portion comes from federal covid relief, the repayment of which the federal government has said states can choose to waive.  Missouri Governor Mike Parson (R) has told his Department he wants it to be paid back.

      The committee held a hearing on six bills – three filed by Republicans and three by Democrats – and a resolution filed by a Democrat, to deal with the issue.   

      The big question before lawmakers is whether to require that Missourians pay back overpayments out of the state fund.  Committee members from both parties say they would like to waive all repayment, but some are questioning whether that can be done.  They are unanimous about finding a way to waive the federal repayments, but some think the state portion might have to be recouped.

      Shell Knob Republican Scott Cupps said a priority for the Department is to maintain the integrity of the state’s unemployment trust.  His bill is one of those that would waive repayment of federal funds, but require Missourians to pay back state overpayments.

      “If you’re sitting there staring at a letter that says you owe $4,200 back that’s probably not something you’re going to be able to digest real easy.  Where if it says, ‘Hey, you owe $500 back and we’re going to be able to put you on a payment plan where you pay $50 a month for a couple of years, that’s probably something you can digest a heck of a lot easier,” said Cupps. 

      Cupps, who sits on the House Budget Committee, is one of those concerned that to waive the repayment of state benefits, the state would have to replenish the fund.  This could come from other core budget functions, such as schools or transportation. 

      St. Louis Democrat Peter Merideth, also a Budget Committee member and sponsor of the resolution, noted that Governor Parson has proposed putting $500-million in federal CARES Act relief funds into the state’s unemployment trust.  He suggests that would be a way to waive repayment of state overpayments while maintaining the fund.

Representatives LaKeySha Bosley, Ian Mackey, and Doug Clemens (photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “I think that we need to not wrap ourselves in circles trying to figure out where this money’s coming from and simply recognize that if we think this is an important form of the relief, well the federal government has given us $2-billion in relief money to use right now.  Let’s use that,” said Merideth.

      Cupps and other Republicans said they would consider that option. 

“The main thing that I talked to the Department about was maintaining the integrity of the trust,” said Cupps.  “If it’s already been discussed that we were gonna throw some CARES Act money in there … it is something that could be a tool in the toolbox … it’s something we maybe should look at.”

      Five of the six bills filed are largely the same.  Committee Chairman Jered Taylor (R-Republic), the sponsor of one of them, said his intention is to pare them down into one bill and to have the committee vote next week on that and the resolution.

The legislation dealing with unemployment overpayments includes: House Bill 1085 (Taylor), House Bill 1083 (J. Eggleston – R, Maysville), House Bill 1050 (Cupps), House Bill 1036 (LaKeySha Bosley – D, St. Louis), House Bill 1035 (Doug Clemens – D, St. Ann), House Bill 873 (Ian Mackey, D-St. Louis), and House Concurrent Resolution 30 (Merideth).

Earlier story: House Members Denounce State’s Seeking Payback of Unemployment Benefits

House members denounce state’s seeking payback of unemployment benefits

      House members from both parties are not happy that Missourians are being asked to pay back unemployment assistance they received in error through no fault of their own.

      Department of Labor Director Anna Hui told the Special Committee on Government Oversight overpayments are “kind of built into” the unemployment system.  The Department is expected to make an eligibility determination and get a payment out to an applicant within 14 days, generally based solely on information provided by the applicant.  As additional information comes in, often from the applicant’s current or past employers, it could prove he or she was not eligible.

Missouri Department of Labor Director Anna Hui (photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

She said for 2020 that amounted to about $150-million in benefits that the Department paid out and now wants back.

Hui told the committee Governor Mike Parson (R) has made clear that he wants the Department to seek collection of those overpayments, viewing them as taxpayer dollars that went to ineligible individuals. 

      Several legislators said they have heard from constituents who have been asked to pay back thousands of dollars in state or federal relief, sometimes months after they received it.  One constituent was asked to repay about $23,000.

      “You’re going to be hard-pressed to find a more fiscally conservative person in here than me, but I think we screwed up as a state government, to ask folks [for that money] back this late in the game,” said Representative J. Eggleston (R-Maysville).   

      St. Ann representative Doug Clemens (D) said for Missouri to ask people already struggling financially due to covid to pay back thousands of dollars is wrong.

      “Need I remind you of our median income in this state?  Most people in my district make $26,000 a year, and you’re asking for $11,000 payback?” said Clemens.  “We’re talking about keeping Missouri’s economy going.  We’re talking about equity and conscience … [It’s] taxpayers’ money, it’s these people’s money, and frankly we’re in a crisis.  They need to keep it. 

      “Because that money’s already spent on mortgage, it’s already spent on food on the table, and frankly we have a responsibility to the common welfare here.”

      Representatives, including Raychel Proudie (D-Ferguson), said the reasons given to individuals for their ineligibility were not always clear. She read a letter the Department sent to one of her constituents telling them they had to repay for a “miscellaneous reason.”  Proudie called that “unacceptable.”

      “As a State of Missouri employee and someone elected, I sincerely apologize that this was the caliber of correspondence you got from a state agency because it tells you nothing … how dare us do that?” said Proudie.

Members of the House Committee on Government Oversight, including (front row, from left) Reps. Tony Lovasco, Scott Cupps, Doug Clemens, (next row, from left) Richard Brown, Mark Ellebracht, and Raychel Proudie (photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Federal directives have given states the option not to require repayment of assistance from the federal government, which makes up the majority of the $150-million the Department overpaid.  Hui explained that Missouri is choosing to seek repayment of federal relief. 

Proudie thinks the state shouldn’t be expending its resources to pull money from Missouri’s economy just to send it back to the federal government, and Representative Scott Cupps (R-Shell Knob) agrees.

      “It may be as low as only $30-million of it’s from the [state] trust and $120-million of it is federal funds … you are not going to catch Scott Cupps in favor of rounding up money out of Missouri’s economy and sending it to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden in Washington D.C.” said Cupps.  “The feds are literally telling us, ‘Hey, forgive it.  Forgive it.’”

The Department is required by state statute to collect overpayments out of the state fund.

      Dan Thacker represents a union including about 500 school bus drivers and monitors.  He said many of them make salaries that would put them near the poverty level, yet roughly 400 are being asked to pay back thousands of dollars.

      “Now we want to take $9,000, $10,000 back from them?  Where are they going to get it?  These are hardworking individuals that did nothing wrong or fraudulent.  They simply did exactly what was urged for them by the Missouri Department of Labor.”

      St. Joseph Republican Bill Falkner said any legislative action will have to balance the waiving of repayment by Missourians with protecting businesses, as some of these overpayments are charged to them.

      “There’s consequences to every action that we want to do … we have to keep in mind what we can do for those businesses to protect them so we’re not asking them to pay for a mistake,” said Falkner. 

      Committee members also spoke directly to Missourians during the hearing.  Cupps said the repayment situation is adding to already heightened stress for struggling Missourians.  He wants them to know he and other legislators are paying attention, and are looking for a solution.

      “There’s somebody that could get a letter in the mail that could say that they owe the state $7,200 back, and there could be divorces because of this,” said Cupps.  “I want people to know this:  do not do anything dumb because the state has sent you a letter that says you owe them money.  Don’t do it.  If you’re stressed out about it stop being stressed.” 

Representative Jered Taylor chairs the House Special Committee on Government Oversight (photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Liberty representative Mark Ellebracht (D) asked Hui whether it makes financial sense for Missouri to seek these repayments.

      “If all of these people begin to appeal … how much money are we looking at spending here … are we tripping over the dollars to get to the dimes when it comes to actually recouping this money?”

      Hui told the committee that Missouri is on pace to need a loan to support the state’s unemployment trust, likely by around June.  She did not offer a projection of how great that loan might be.  She said this could cause employers to have to pay more, as that loan is repaid.

      Witnesses and lawmakers alike suggested that repayment decisions have seemed arbitrary and inconsistent, with some people being ordered to pay back only federal funds, some to pay back only state funds, and some told to pay everything or nothing. 

      Three Democrats have filed bills to address unemployment relief overpayments:  Clemens, LaKeySha Bosley (St. Louis), and Peter Merideth (St. Louis).  The committee’s chairman, Jered Taylor (R-Republic) and Representative Cupps are developing proposals.