Missouri House Democrats spoke to reporters after the close of legislative work for the week:
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.
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.
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.
He said changes like that could very well lead other states to mirror versions of this legislation off of this.
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.”
The House voted 144-0 to send the legislation to the Senate, where a similar bill was recently passed out of a committee.
‘Land Bank Act’ seeks to boost revitalization of blighted areas, address housing shortage
The Missouri House has voted to allow the use of “land banks” in all parts of the state, so that more of Missouri can utilize them to restore neglected properties to use and public benefit.
Land banks are nonprofit entities that acquire, manage, refurbish, and resell stagnant properties so that they are again productive and useful. Such restoration benefits regions by eliminating blight, bolstering property values, reducing crime, and making more land available for residential or commercial purposes.
Missouri has land banks in St. Louis, Kansas City, St. Joseph, and Blue Springs. House Bill 2065, the “Land Bank Act,” would allow them to exist in all communities of 1,500 or more. They could also be established all Missouri counties except Jackson (which includes Kansas City) and Buchanan (which includes St. Joseph), effectively making them a possibility statewide. HB 2065 specifically deals with residential properties.
“People in the business understand the value of this because it impacts all the homes around it. It’s not just this property. You bring this one up, the other properties around it, now the properties around it, their value just went up. This is a good way to do it, to raise property values,” said bill sponsor Bill Owen (R-Springfield).
Owen said in those communities of fewer than 1,500, it makes more sense for the county to be the managing entity, “Because, quite frankly, you get into smaller communities, there’s just not the resources, and so we’re allowing the county to be able to be the entity, to be able to handle the transactional activity of a land bank.”
Owen said the option to have a land bank could be a game changer in rural parts of the state.
“Look at northern Missouri, look at the reduction in population. I remember when there were two congressional districts in northern Missouri, now there’s just one, we’ve had such a flood of people out of that area. We want to repopulate that,” Owen said. “With rural broadband there’s the opportunity now to go back, and so there’s a lot of properties up in rural Missouri that we need to repurpose, fix up, and help repopulate these rural, agricultural communities.”
One of the greatest functions of land banks is to “clean up” the titles of a given property. Neglected properties often have financial barriers that discourage buyers, things like liens, fines, or other fees. Land banks have some ability to clear these issues to make way for new ownership, and HB 2065 would build on that, “so that now someone’s going to be more interested in buying that property, because they’re not looking at it going, ‘Okay, how long is it going to take to clean that up, how much money is it going to cost?’ They’re going to start thinking about time, value of money and going, ‘There’s too many easy properties I can buy. Why would I mess around with this?’ and that is a big reason why so many of these properties go untouched. Nothing happens with them. They just sit there and continue to deteriorate.”
Owen said as important as any other aspect of HB 2065 are the new tools it would create, for the management of land banks. In part, they are provisions that are answers to the problems critics have had with existing land banks.
One such complaint has been that too many people involved with these entities have been “insiders,” such as people who sit on the bank’s board or are in an advisory capacity. HB 2065 would establish that no one within two degrees of consequenity can be involved in land bank transactions.
Another oft-heard complaint has been that speculators will buy property from land banks and then do nothing with them. HB 2065 gives buyers three years to redevelop and repurpose a property or turn it back over to the land bank. The bill would also allow that sales of properties be conditional to certain improvements being made. If that condition is not met, the land bank may sue the purchaser for damages and seek a foreclosure, under which the property would revert to the land bank.
HB 2065 received bipartisan support throughout its House journey. Representative Joe Adams (D-University City) said he was supportive when the bill came through the House Committee on Local Government, on which he is the top Democrat.
In his final remarks before the House voted on his measure, Owen noted a 2022 study that found that the average net worth of renters in the U.S. is $8,400, while the average net worth of homeowners is more than $216,000, most of that in the value of their homes. He told his colleagues, “If we are really serious about trying to bring people up, this is one way, not only can we improve neighborhoods, but we can instill net worth into these people, and to me that’s real social justice.”
The House voted 119-33 to send HB 2065 to the Senate.
Guidance on non-opioid pain management options would be offered under House proposal
Many Missourians want to avoid opioids when given an option for dealing with pain, and one state representative wants to make sure they know what their choices are.
House Bill 2182 would require the Department of Health and Senior Services to create an educational pamphlet on the use of non-opioid options for pain management. It would cover pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments and related advantages and disadvantages.
It’s sponsored by Springfield Republican Melanie Stinnett.
To Stinnett, this would be a continuation of the legislative efforts that have surrounded opioid abuse for many years.
The proposal has not been referred to a committee. With the session entering early March, Stinnett knows that isn’t encouraging, but she’s hopeful the one-page provision can be added to some other legislation. Even if it does not gain traction this year, she said the Department has been receptive and could create a pamphlet anyway.
In any case, she wants to see her idea become law to make sure such pamphlets are created, maintained, and updated as an ongoing educational tool.
Even in the absence of a pamphlet, Stinnett encourages Missourians to talk to their doctors and ask about their options.
HB 2182 has been referred to the House Committee on Healthcare Reform.
House answers Jackson Countians’ call to elect their assessor
Jackson County residents are angry and frustrated by skyrocketing property tax bills, and the Missouri House has responded, voting toward a restoration of accountability to the office of the county’s assessor.
Jackson County, since a voter-approved measure was passed more than a decade ago, is the only charter county in the state whose assessor is appointed rather than elected. The County’s assessments have been the subject of criticism and anger for months, as property values have increased by about 40-percent since the last assessments were done in 2021. The situation has earned criticism from the state auditor and is the subject of a lawsuit filed by the attorney general.
The House last week approved putting to voters a measure to reverse their earlier decision. HJRs 68 & 79 propose an amendment to Missouri’s Constitution to restore the requirement that Jackson County’s assessor be elected.
It is proposed by Blue Springs Republican Dan Stacy.
“In 2023 Jackson County had over 50,000 appeals of real estate assessment value. Actually, 54,539 appeals. That’s almost one out of every five parcels filed an appeal in Jackson County,” Stacy told his colleagues.
Representative Robert Sauls (D-Independence), who like Stacy, represents a portion of Jackson County, said idealistically he would prefer not to have the entire state voting on an issue specific to Jackson County, but he supported these Resolutions.
“We have got a situation where property tax has become extremely high and people are asking for help,” said Sauls.
Another Jackson County representative, Ingrid Burnett (D-Kansas City), was among the few who voted against the measures.
“Our Jackson County Assessor, current assessor, was handed a mess. It was a mess, the way that the county personal property taxes were being assessed,” said Burnett. “For this body to decide that the rest of the state should decide how Jackson County manages their personal property taxes is just bad policy.”
In response, Stacy reminded his colleagues, “Just keep in mind that 97-percent of Jackson County residents, when polled, said they want an elected assessor. I ask my fellow legislators to support House Joint Resolutions 68 and 79 to give the citizens of Jackson County the same privilege that every other charter county and all smaller counties have in Missouri: an elected tax assessor.”
The House voted 116-10 to advance the measure. It now goes to the Senate. If approved there, it would go to voters on a statewide ballot.
VIDEO: House Republican and Democrat media conferences
Missouri House Republicans and Democrats addressed reporters and answered questions after the close of legislative business for the week:
House plan to create mental health courts advancing
A House committee has advanced a plan to create treatment courts in Missouri that would focus on mental health issues, and offer offenders treatment options as an alternative to incarceration. Its bipartisan supporters say it would be a meaningful expansion of the state’s successful treatment courts.
The mental health courts that would be created by House Bill 2064 would be similar to the already existing veteran courts, DWI courts, drug courts, and family treatment courts. In each of those, a defendant must go through a regimen of relevant treatment programs. Those who succeed, or graduate, can avoid prison time or having a crime appear on their record.
“The goal is that they receive treatment to help them overcome, have the tools that they are now aware of, that they’ve experienced, which they have available to them to maintain a lifestyle without the problems that haunted them,” said Representative John Black (R-Marshfield), the bill’s sponsor.
He said this would be a continuation of the existing treatment courts, which are widely viewed as an achievement by Missouri’s legal system and a cost-effective way to avoid incarceration. They allow offenders a chance to remain connected to and active in their communities while working and remaining with families. They are also associated with reductions in crime and the need for foster care, and with ensuring timely payment of child support.
Black noted that perhaps most importantly, “The percentages of those folks who are able to avoid recidivism … with those folks who have actually completed the treatment courts, are very impressive.”
The proposal is one recommendation to come from the Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention Task Force, created under legislation passed in 2019 and chaired by Black. That task force sought to get a handle on what is happening throughout the state of Missouri and across all agencies, to deal with substance abuse issues.
One of its recommendations was to see that existing treatment courts receive more funding, as well as the creation of mental health treatment courts.
Black said among the existing treatment courts there is already a lot of overlap with mental health.
Black said such courts would likely rely heavily on counseling that is specific to a given defendant’s circumstances, “and it is a tough program. It’s not something that’s easy. They have to invest a lot of effort in completing the program, so if there was a co-occurring problem – substance abuse would be the most likely – then the persons in that program would be referred not only to mental health professionals but also those folks that could help them with their substance abuse problem.”
The bill has been unanimously endorsed by the House Judiciary Committee, where it was praised by members of both parties. Ranking Democrat Representative Robert Sauls (Independence) said this is a subject that needs more attention.
For any who question the effectiveness of the treatment courts Missouri already has, or the desire to expand on them, Black said one need only be present at a graduation. He called them, “inspiring, humbling, you see people who are there fully acknowledging that the program has turned their life around for themselves and their families. They show great gratitude to the elements of the treatment courts, including the prosecutor’s office, they usually organize the effort … it’s one of the things Missouri is doing well.”
House panel asked to stem ‘medical kidnappings’ by the state
A House committee has been presented with stories of a parent’s nightmare: children being taken by the state based on false suspicions of parental abuse. Legislators are being asked to address the issue, but finding a balance is difficult when the safety of children is at stake.
The stories shared some similarities. Parents take a child to a doctor for care for a broken bone. A medical professional suspects the parent of abuse and contacts the state. The state takes the child and its siblings from the parents.
Months or more go by. Eventually, a medical diagnosis reveals an explanation for the broken bones that doesn’t involve abuse. After many frustrating circumstances, much heartache, and the passage of a lot of time, parents and children are reunited, but there are no apologies and much, much damage has been done.
“The bigger picture, again, is: we don’t have any rights at all, as soon as anybody says, ‘This is abuse,’” Rebecca Wanosik told the House Committee on Children and Families.
Wanosik was one of those who shared her ordeal with the Committee, as was Tessa Gorzik.
This is what Representatives Holly Jones (R-Eureka) and Jamie Gragg (R-Ozark) are trying to address with House Bills 2690 and 2691. They are proposing that when a child is placed into 24-hour protective custody due to suspicion of child abuse, custody cannot be extended if a parent or other authorized guardian presents proof that contradicts the allegation of abuse.
Jones said it would allow a parent to present a second opinion.
Wanosik said such provisions would have saved her a great deal of pain.
She said five of her children were taken from her in 2015 when the youngest, then nine weeks old, was found during a doctor visit to have three rib fractures and an arm fracture. She said her family was denied second opinions and denied access to her child’s medical records.
While her children were in state custody, the infant developed more fractures. Rather than see this as a possible sign that the parents weren’t responsible, the state said the parents could have caused these new fractures during visits, despite those visits being supervised.
Eventually, a medical diagnosis revealed another explanation for the injuries, but the allegations did not go away.
“They ruled by a preponderance of evidence that my baby was clearly a victim of child abuse and neglect but they couldn’t pin a perpetrator, and then they gave me my children back,” said Wanosik. “It’s very common, actually, because you’re not held to the same standard [of] the criminal court and there was never enough evidence for us to be criminally charged,” so they just kept running us through the family court system.”
Now, Wanosik is the Treasurer for a group called Fractured Families, a group that advocates for situations like hers.
The Committee’s members responded favorably to the proposals but expressed concern that the language needs to be refined.
Ferguson Representative Raychel Proudie (D) said it’s unclear to whom any kind of proof of a medical condition would need to be presented.
The Missouri Network Against Child Abuse (formerly Missouri KidsFirst), an entity respected by many lawmakers when considering child abuse legislation, spoke in opposition to the bills. Its Executive Director, Jessica Seitz, said the bills focus on one piece of an abuse allegation.
Further, Seitz said the “proof” the bill centers on is not defined, calling the language, “vague and problematic, and being unspecified puts us at risk of a child being left in an unsafe situation.”
Seitz challenged the premise of the bill, that there is a need for a state law to allow parents to get a second opinion when they are being investigated for child abuse.
However, Seitz emphasized respect for the efforts of Jones and Gragg, saying she wants to work with them to improve the system.
Jones said she remains adamant that something must change, because the damage done to children and their families when the state takes children away is long-lasting and runs deep.
Committee member Ed Lewis (R-Moberly) acknowledged Seitz’s concerns but told her, “We are going to move forward with this bill, if I have anything to say about it, but you need to be a part of the picture. Your organization needs to be a part of the picture because if you’re not, it’s not going to be the balanced, thread-the-needle approach that has to happen so that we both protect those children who are actually being abused and … I would say [just] as important, [is] protecting those families and those parents and those children who aren’t being abused but get caught up in the system.”
Gragg echoed Lewis’ sentiment, telling the committee he knew addressing this issue would be challenging.
House bill would increase cap on popular food pantry tax credit
House members are being asked to increase the cap on a successful benevolent tax credit that supports organizations that help the state’s homeless population. The sponsor says donors who apply after that cap is reached are being penalized.
Representative Phil Amato (R-Arnold) is the volunteer President of the Board for a food pantry in Arnold, and he said organizations like that one have benefitted greatly from the food pantry tax credit.
“It has worked so well it has exceeded its cap,” Amato told the Special Committee on Public Policy.
This tax credit has been in existence since 2013. It allows Missouri taxpayers who make donations to food pantries, soup kitchens, or homeless shelters to deduct an amount equal to half that donation from their state taxes.
The program is capped at $1.75 million. Amato said in the last few years Missourians have been donating enough to reach that cap. What happens to donors after that, he said, is alarming.
“The donor gets a letter from the Department of Revenue that says we’re disallowing some of your tax credit and you need to make a remittance for the amount of money that we’re disallowing, and you owe us penalty and interest, on a donation,” Amato said. “When I tell that to people around the House, they’re shocked.”
His House Bill 1730 would increase the cap to $3 million annually. It would also extend its expiration date from the end of 2026 to the end of 2030.
Committee member Mark Sharp (D-Kansas City) was one of those who expressed support for the expansion.
The committee voted in favor of the increase, 6-0.
House approves multi-pronged human trafficking legislation
The state House has approved a comprehensive plan for combatting human trafficking in Missouri. The bill brings together the efforts of several lawmakers, and its sponsor says it is just his opening volley.
Representative Jeff Myers (R-Warrenton) told colleagues that the state has got to think of human trafficking in terms broader than those by how it is defined. He said it goes beyond, “using fraud, force, or coercion to exploit a person for labor, services, or commercial sex.”
Myers, a retired Highway Patrolman, said he launched the effort that became House Bills 1706 & 1539 at the end of the 2023 legislative session.
His legislation would require regular training in sex trafficking for EMTs, paramedics, nurses, prosecuting attorneys, juvenile officers, social workers, and law enforcement officers. The bill would establish, “a steering and vetting committee to make sure that this training is tailored and effective, and adapts over time.”
Myers said the training this bill would require is vitally important, as it reflects a recent and important shift in attitudes throughout the country about how first responders should interact with sex workers.
First responders and medical personnel are often the first people trafficking victims have a chance to talk to after becoming victims, who aren’t exploiting them and who might offer them a chance for escape, but by the time of that interaction victims are often already too traumatized or brainwashed to ask for help. Myers said this training, in part, focuses on recognizing a victim and how to offer help without further endangering them.
The provision in this legislation that is the most personal for Representative Jeff Coleman (R-Grain Valley) is one he has sponsored for the past two years.
It would allow courts to enter into evidence recordings of statements made by a victim of trafficking or sex crimes up to the age of 18, an increase from the age of 14 in current law. Allowing these recorded statements spares victims from another occasion having to relive their experience, this one in a courtroom in front of their abuser.
In the year since Coleman first offered that bill, it took on new meaning for him.
The intent of Coleman’s bill was always to spare victims, who already have to revisit the trauma of what they’ve been through multiple times as a case goes through the courts. Now he has a much deeper understanding of what they face.
“The first thing my 15-year-old daughter had to do was go to the hospital and get a rape test. She was there for eight hours getting probed and … all kinds of things that I won’t even tell you, eight hours. The next thing, she had to do a forensic interview, and that took another three hours … so she’s reliving it every time that she has to go do something,” Coleman said. “Then she had to talk to the prosecutor’s office and that was another hour-and-a-half interview, that she had to explain all over again, what happened.”
Coleman implored his colleagues, who approved this provision last year 149-2, to vote for it again this year on behalf of people like his daughter.
The bill would also build on an effort that began in 2022, with legislation carried by Moberly representative Ed Lewis (R). It created The Statewide Council on Sex Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation of Children.
Its goals included making sure that the state understands how big of a problem trafficking in Missouri is, and looking for ways to combat it.
HBs 1706 & 1539 seeks to extend that effort by creating the “Statewide Council against Adult Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children,” which will be very similar to the Statewide Council (for/on) Minor Sex Trafficking, except that it will fall under the authority of the Attorney General’s Office.
The legislation would increase from 15 to 17 the age a victim must be in order for an abuser to be charged with enticement of a child.
It would also would establish restitution to be paid by those guilty of trafficking and sex crimes as specified by the bill, in the amount of $10,000 in restitution per identified victim and $2,500 for each county in which an offense or offenses occurred.
That restitution would to go support local rehabilitation services for victims including mental health and substance abuse counseling; education; housing relief; parenting education; vocational training. It would also back local efforts to prevent trafficking, including education efforts and efforts to expand law enforcement efforts targeting trafficking.
HBs 1706 & 1539 passed out of the House 143-1 after several legislators expressed, passionately, how badly they want to see Missouri combat trafficking.
Rogersville Representative Darrin Chappell (R) said in his time as a city administrator in Chillicothe, Bolivar, and Seymour, this issue caused him more stress than any other.
“It was those children who I knew were suffering, but they lived just outside our jurisdiction. They would come to our schools, we would know what was going on in their homes, we saw the horror stories being played out in our lives, and because they were outside of our jurisdiction there was nothing we could do,” Chappell said. “I believe with all my heart we need to protect our citizens from this absolute travesty that we see in our society today, known as human trafficking, and I encourage everybody to support this bill with me today.”
While this legislation is on its way to the Senate, Myers is already thinking about his next effort.