Members of the state House Budget Committee have told the Greitens Administration they aren’t pleased with how it paid to keep operating metal detectors in the State Capitol.
House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
The state legislature passed a budget that approved paying for additional police officers to patrol the Capitol while the metal detectors, which were installed shortly before Eric Greitens (R) became governor, would be removed. Greitens’ administration has paid contract workers to continue operating those detectors using money out of a fund for building maintenance.
Lawmakers on the budget committee expressed frustration not only at how the administration is paying for those contract workers, but also at Greitens’ continued support for using metal detectors.
Representative Kathie Conway (R-St. Charles), who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Public Safety, was critical of the administration’s decision to use money from the maintenance fund to pay to staff the detectors – a step that was done without the legislature knowing about it or approving it.
Not all budget committee members were as upset with the administration’s actions.
Kansas City Democrat Greg Razer asked Greitens’ Office of Administration Commissioner, Sarah Steelman, what would happen if the detectors are removed and an incident occurs at the Capitol.
Sarah Steelman is the Commissioner of the Office of Administration, under the administration of Governor Eric Grietens. She testified to the House Budget Committee that the administration wants to keep metal detectors in the Capitol. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications).
Fitzpatrick said he is, “somewhat indifferent,” about the metal detectors being in place, but he remains frustrated about the administration funding the staffing of those without the legislature’s approval.
He did say he does not want to see Capitol Police officers staffing those detectors after the legislature approved money for more officers to be hired so the Capitol halls would be patrolled.
The Missouri legislature did not act to override any of Governor Eric Greitens’ (R) vetoes of its legislation in the veto session that began Wednesday at noon.
Representative Deb Lavender came up with an earlier version of a “fund sweep” plan when the House was working on a proposed state budget. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
The House was asked to consider overriding one veto; that of House Committee Bill 3. That bill would have reduced cuts to reimbursement rates for nursing homes and in-home care providers by taking $35-million from surpluses in multiple state funds. Governor Greitens called the proposal unconstitutional and a one-time fix to a long-term issue.
House and Senate leadership confirmed Wednesday those chambers would work together to create within three weeks a new funding solution to preserve care for the more than 8,000 Missourians who would be impacted by those cuts.
The House voted not to overturn that veto, 49-106, with most Republicans voting to sustain.
Kirkwood Democrat Deb Lavender was the chief architect of the idea of a “fund sweep,” as called for by HCB 3. She made the motion to overturn the veto.
House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick is charged with representing the House in developing a new funding plan to preserve services for more than 8,000 disabled and elderly Missourians. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
House Republicans said voting to override the veto wouldn’t accomplish anything because the wording of HCB 3 gives the Greitens’ administration the option of sweeping those funds, so he could still elect not to do it even if the bill were passed.
If they are successful, the legislature would next be asked to consider voting to call itself into special session to consider that plan. That would require approval by at least three-fourths of the legislators in each chamber.
Democrats were not convinced that the answer is to wait for a new plan to be developed.
The House adjourned with no motions having been made to consider overrides on any other vetoes. The Missouri Senate did not send the House any veto overrides to consider.
A recent report from Missouri Auditor Nicole Galloway (D) found that former governor Jay Nixon (D) overspent on his office and used taxpayer money for personal food and security.
House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
The audit said Nixon delayed paying bills and shifted costs to other government agencies – practices legislative budget makers in both parties often criticized Nixon for.
The audit found that, for example, flights by Nixon or his staff were paid for by the Department of Economic Development, though not all business on those flights was related to DED and Department officials often weren’t on those flights.
Fitzpatrick, who began serving as budget chairman in August, 2016, said this year’s state spending plan aims to prevent future governors from using similar tactics.
Those changes were made under a Republican-controlled legislature even though a Republican – Eric Greitens – is now governor. Fitzpatrick said he wants to see all future governors prevented from similar uses of state dollars.
Fitzpatrick said Governor Greitens’ staff was very “cooperative” in making those changes in the budget, and he hopes the Greitens administration will never get to the point at which the legislature must respond to inappropriate use of state dollars.
Fitzpatrick believes the state Constitution is clear regarding how the governor’s office can and cannot use tax dollars. He thinks previous budget chairmen and legislatures were not stern enough in taking Nixon to task over the practices found in the audit.
The state budget that went into effect July 1 could lead to fewer impaired driving checkpoints but more periods of increased law enforcement presence on Missouri roads.
Representative Scott Fitzpatrick (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Under language the House proposed no money controlled by that budget can be used on checkpoints. Specifically, $20-million available for grants that law enforcement agencies have used to fund various efforts now cannot be used for checkpoints.
Supporters said data from the Department of Transportation show that periods of having more officers on the roads, often called “saturation efforts,” get more results for the money invested.
MODOT reported that in the year that ended July 1, 2016, saturation efforts resulted in 3,055 arrests at a cost of $704 per arrest, compared 1,201 arrests at checkpoints at a cost of $1,047 per arrest. Over the three years through July 1, 2016, saturation periods yielded 9,288 arrests at $704 apiece compared to 4,152 arrests at checkpoints costing $919 each.
A comparison by House staff of states in which checkpoints are legal with states in which they are not found that the latter had a slightly lower number of drunk driving fatalities per capita.
House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) said the new language was about making the most effective use of Missouri budget dollars and taking the most effective action toward making roads safer.
Representative Kathie Conway (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
The prohibition was strongly opposed by St. Charles Republican Kathie Conway, who chairs the budget subcommittee on Public Safety. She argues it’s misleading to say saturation patrols yield more arrests.
Conway said saturation efforts and checkpoints work together, first by publicizing checkpoints on social media and traffic announcements.
From now through June 30, 2018, Missouri law enforcement agencies can still conduct checkpoints, but would have to pay for them through means other than these grants.
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)
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.
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).
Missouri drivers could see fewer impaired driving checkpoints under the budget proposed by the legislature.
House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (left) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Dan Brown (right) conduct a budget conference committee hearing in the House Lounge on May 3, 2017. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Language added by the House would prevent money in that budget from being used on checkpoints. It could still be used for other enforcement efforts, and many lawmakers said they would prefer to see it used for saturation efforts – periods of increased numbers of law enforcement personnel on the roads.
House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) said saturation efforts are more effective.
Representative Kathie Conway (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
The shift was strongly opposed by the Representative Kathie Conway (R-St. Charles), who chairs the subcommittee on the Department of Public Safety’s budget.
Several House Democrats agreed that they would rather have seen law enforcement allowed to continue using state appropriated funds for checkpoints, however the change was supported by several members of the legislature with law enforcement backgrounds.
Fitzpatrick said he wants to at least see some results.
The change means that for the fiscal year beginning July 1, law enforcement agencies can still conduct DUI checkpoints, but they cannot use funds allocated by the state budget to pay for them.
The House and Senate voted Thursday to send that budget plan to Governor Eric Greitens (R), one day ahead of its constitutional deadline.
The state legislature has passed a budget proposal that for the first time fully funds the current form of the K-12 education funding formula. The $27.7-billion spending plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1 would pump $48-million more dollars into the state’s public schools, providing them with nearly $3.4-billion.
Representative Scott Fitzpatrick (photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
The inclusion of full funding of the formula was a personal win for House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob).
House Democrats including Representative Deb Lavender (Kirkwood) say they are pleased with the funding increase, but point out that the legislature passed last year a bill reinstating a cap on how much the formula can grow year-to-year.
The legislature’s proposal would also restore funding for school transportation, which Governor Eric Greitens (R) had proposed cutting.
The House and Senate voted to send that budget to Greitens Thursday, one day ahead of the constitutional deadline, and one day after selected House and Senate conferees finalized a compromise between each chamber’s proposals.
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.
House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
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.
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.
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.
The single biggest change the House made during floor debate of its budget proposal this week would continue a program that aims to help low-income youth enter into the workforce.
Representative Bruce Franks (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
St. Louis City Democrat Bruce Franks, Junior, saw that Governor Eric Greitens (R) had proposed cutting all funding to the Summer Jobs League within the Department of Economic Development. Franks proposed taking $6-million from unused funds in two programs within Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to restore it, and the House voted to accept Franks’ proposal.
The Summer Jobs League gives 16- to 24-year-olds from low-income homes in the St. Louis or Kansas City areas the chance to work in a business in a field they’re interested in.
The largest portion of the state’s appropriation to the Summer Jobs League will pay the salaries of the youth participants – up to $8.50 an hour for up to 240 hours. Franks said that is part of the incentive for businesses to participate.
Participating businesses often hire the Summer Jobs League youths after their League term has expired.
Franks said Summer Jobs works in conjunction with other programs such as Prison to Prosperity, which helps youth in the St. Louis region transition out of prison.
Many of Franks’ fellow lawmakers commended him on being a freshman member of a superminority who secured a large change in the state’s budget, but Franks said that’s not what he felt good about.
The House’s budget proposal has been sent to the State Senate, which will propose its own changes. Once the two chambers agree on a spending plan, it will be sent to Governor Greitens.
If the House’s budget proposal stands, Missourians might see fewer DUI checkpoints on state roads over the next fiscal year.
Representative Galen Higdon opposed language in the House’s FY ’18 budget proposal that would keep state and federal funds allocated by that budget from going to DUI Checkpoints. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
The House proposed language that would prevent money controlled by that budget from going to such checkpoints. House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) said this is largely because of data indicating checkpoints aren’t effective enough compared to other enforcement methods.
Lake St. Louis Republican Representative Justin Hill, who formerly worked for the O’Fallon Police Department, also said saturation efforts are more effective. He encouraged fellow lawmakers to give those a try for the twelve months of Fiscal Year ’18.
Representative Galen Higdon (R-St. Joseph) is a former Buchanan County Sheriff’s Deputy. He coordinated checkpoints for the last four years before his retirement. He believes checkpoints have reduced crashes in his district, so he opposed the new language.
Representative Justin Hill supports language in the House’s FY ’18 budget proposal that would discourage DUI checkpoints for what he believes are more effective efforts. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)
Representative Kathie Conway (R-St. Charles) chairs the budget subcommittee on Public Safety. She said when the idea to bar state funds from going to checkpoints came up she heard from numerous law enforcement agencies, victims groups, anti-drunk driving groups, and others who opposed the change and were “upset” about it.
She said checkpoints and saturation efforts can work in conjunction, and said the latter actually work better when the two are used together.
Proponents of the change also said there are questions of whether checkpoints violate Missourians’ rights, and said saturation efforts are also more effective at dealing with other violations of the law besides impaired driving.
If the language becomes law, nothing in Missouri law would prevent law enforcement agencies from conducting checkpoints. They simply would not be able to use money allocated by the state budget to do so.
The House’s proposed budget plan next goes to the state Senate for its consideration.
