House passes ‘Valentine’s Law,’ increasing penalties for fleeing, resisting, or interfering with arrest

      The Missouri House this week voted to increase the criminal penalties for resisting or interfering with an arrest, or fleeing from law enforcement.  The bill is named in honor of a St. Louis County Police Detective who was killed by a fleeing suspect, in 2021.

Detective Antonio Valentine

      “On December 21, 2021, Detective Valentine, my colleague and my friend, gave his life when he was killed by a fleeing felon who was purposely driving in oncoming traffic, fleeing from police.”

      That was the opening statement from Representative Justin Sparks (R-Wildwood), the sponsor of House Bill 1692.  Sparks was with the St. Louis County Police Department for nearly 15 years.  He knew Detective Tony Valentine personally, and was on the scene when he died. 

      “That felon, who had been arrested multiple times for violent felonies, took off and decided to drive his vehicle as fast as it would go, into oncoming traffic.  Well, in that oncoming traffic was Detective Valentine, and I believe that he saw what that fleeing felon was doing, and he willingly gave his life to stop that vehicle, that 2,000 or 3,000 weapon, from hitting the school bus that was behind him down the road.”

      Sparks was certainly not the only House member to speak in favor of the legislation with passion borne of personal experience.  Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin), whose career in law enforcement spans decades, including as Joplin Police Chief and the state’s Director of Public Safety, said he knows what it’s like to lose friends and to lose those under his command. 

      “When you look at their faces and you see the pain and you hear the anguish, and then you’re given an opportunity like this to actually do something about it, it would be irresponsible to the point of dereliction for us to fail to do something about it,” Roberts said. 

Representative Justin Sparks spoke at a media conference on 02/14/2024 backed by St. Louis area law enforcement, in support of Valentine’s Law. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “The idea that you can run down the road at 100 miles an hour in 4,000 pieces of metal and call it a misdemeanor is like saying that pointing a gun at somebody is a misdemeanor.  It’s a dangerous weapon and you’re putting people at risk, and there’s absolutely no excuse for it.  It is conduct that should be a felony.”

      In a display of the bill’s bipartisan support, Representative Robert Sauls (D-Kansas City), agreed.  His career includes time as both a Jackson County prosecutor, and as a public defender. 

      “There are a couple of offenses that I think, maybe, the penalty might be too harsh, and there are some where I think it is too light, and this is one that I think is, in particular, too light, because of what the ultimate harm may potentially be,” Sauls said.  “This offense has the potential to kill and harm people and I just think … it’s one of the few that I think is too soft.”

      “This applies to the violent felons who know exactly what they’re doing and who accelerate at extreme speeds into oncoming traffic, putting everybody at risk,” Sparks explained. 

      “This bill will make fleeing from police a felony, but only when doing so puts the public at risk of serious physical injury or death.  This will not apply to folks that are looking for a place to pull over, this will not apply to folks that are confused, this will not apply to folks that are a little unsure if it’s a legitimate police officer behind them.  They can continue at the speed limit until they find a well-lit place to pull over for the traffic stop.”

Representative Robert Sauls (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      A person would violate Valentine’s Law if they reasonably know law enforcement is trying to stop them and they flee at a speed 10 miles per hour or more greater than the posted speed limit, and if, in doing so, they pose a risk of physical harm or death to any person. 

      The offense would be a class D felony with a one-year minimum prison sentence.  It would increase to a class B felony if, by fleeing, they cause serious physical injury to another person.  It would become a class A felony if by fleeing they cause another person’s death.

      The bill also adjusts the circumstances for when resisting or interfering with arrest is a class A misdemeanor and when it is a class E felony.  If such an act is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, or involves taking someone hostage, it would be a class A felony.

      The House voted 107-25 on Wednesday to send HBs 1692 & 1748 to the Senate, where versions of Valentine’s Law have been advanced out of a committee and a bill that includes it has been passed and sent to the House.

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.

‘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. 

Representative Bill Owen (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      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.

      “We are now addressing their concerns so that not only in future land banks, but to go back to the ones that they’re complaining about, they will now fall under this statute and it will clean up the issues that the detractors have been talking about,” Owen said.

Representative Joe Adams (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      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.

      “We do have to move it forward.  It’s a way to rehabilitate communities, neighborhoods, and everything else, and to get rid of some of the blight of buildings, housing sitting there and having demolition by neglect,” Adams said.

      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.

Representative Melanie Stinnett (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      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. 

      “Some people know that if they are presented with or given an opioid within their care, that they are at a higher likelihood of becoming addicted to that, and we want to give people as many choices as possible to say, ‘I want to choose something else,’ and so if they don’t know that there are other options, then they don’t know that they can provide that other option when they’re talking with their physician,” Stinnett said.

      “I think many of us are familiar with opioids and what opioids are and what they do, and maybe there are people who would say, ‘Well if an opioid’s my option, I want pain management when I go to the doctor for a certain procedure,’ but if they know there are other, non-opioid options that could present the same pain relief for them, then maybe they would make that choice instead.”

      To Stinnett, this would be a continuation of the legislative efforts that have surrounded opioid abuse for many years.

      “I think every step that we can take, when we’re talking about decreasing opioid use, is an important step toward making sure that our communities are safe and the people within our communities have options to choose for themselves, so they can maintain their safety.”

      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.

      “If a physician, or another provider, or maybe you talked with somebody who had a similar procedure and they said, ‘Oh, these are the pain medications that I took,’ ask about your options.  It’s important that we’re always inquisitive about what’s available or us in our healthcare so that we can make choices.”

      “I think it makes sense for us to be prepared consumers of health, so before you go into a doctor’s office before you go in for any kind of healthcare, you need to be prepared with any kind of questions or thoughts that you might have,” Stinnett said.

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.

Representative Dan Stacy (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      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. 

Representative Ingrid Burnett (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      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. 

      “Many people in Jackson County, Missouri, believe that their tax assessor is not accountable to the people of Missouri.  HJR 68 & 79 simply removes the carve-out and special treatment of Jackson County, and provides the Jackson County citizens the opportunity to elect their county assessor just like other charter counties, and all other second, third, and fourth-class counties in Missouri.”

      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. 

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. 

Representative John Black (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      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.  

      “In fact, it’s called, ‘co-occurring disorder,’ and if put the mental health courts in the statute, specifically, then they’re also available for funding.  There are some people who are in jail and have a mental health problem and they’re there for that problem, when in fact it is a co-occurring disorder involving substance abuse.  This just allows a more comprehensive treatment.”

      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.

      “I can unequivocally say that we do not do enough to address mental health in this country or this state.  I’ve seen it time and time again.  I’ve seen it as a prosecutor, as a public defender, I’ve seen situations where people, quite frankly, possibly, wouldn’t have committed crimes if situations were addressed prior to,” Sauls said.

      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.

Representatives Jamie Gragg and Holly Jones (Photo: Mike Lear, Missouri House Communications)

      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.

      Gorzik said, “It’s not a one-time thing and you’re done, whether you are convicted of it or not, or accused of it or not.  It’s ‘you’re guilty’ from day one and you have to fight your whole entire life to get those allegations overturned when there should have never been allegations from the get-go if they had done their job appropriately from the get-go.”

     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.

      “There are children that have never been diagnosed [with diseases that can cause injuries that resemble abuse], so there’s no proof to be had, as of yet.  That’s the spirit of the bill, is to be able to offer parents an option when some of these medical conditions could be happening and they’re being accused of child abuse when no such abuse is occurring.”

      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.  

      “I wholeheartedly believe that [HBs] 2690 and 2691 are going to open up the gateway to at least provide protection for families in the fact that we [could, if it passed,] access the child, the [medical] records.”

      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.

      “You’re at my house, I’m about to go to jail, you’re about to take my kids, I have the proof, who do I show?  Do I show the police?  The nurse?  It’s the weekend.  It’s a Saturday.  Court’s closed.  My kid has been in your possession now for over 24 hours and I don’t know to whom I am showing this proof.  How do we remedy that?”

      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.

      “In the overall investigation of an allegation of abuse, the medical opinion is not the arbiter, the decider of the outcome.  It is one part of the investigation.”  

      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.

      “A second opinion is always welcome in the court process, but just introducing a second opinion as a part of the overall investigation … should not short circuit the process and mandate the outcome, introducing one factor in the overall investigation.  We risk putting our kids in danger.”

      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.

      “That’s one of the reasons why we’re trying to move forward with this bill so quickly, is that our foster care system is not only so overrun and it’s such a huge part of the children and families organization throughout the state, this is really going to cut back on the mental health issues and the trauma to families,” Jones said.

      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.

      “There’s a very fine line that we’re trying to close the gap on, from protecting the kids that need protecting … and also not taking advantage, or overstepping, with those [cases of children with parents] that are falsely accused of something.  We’re trying to narrow that gap, and the problem with that narrow line, that fine line, is it ain’t straight.  That is for sure.”   

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 (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      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.

      “We have a food pantry in my district called Community Assistance Council, and they provide food, clothes, really kind of a one-stop shop … it’s just really important that we try to support these organizations.  They really are impactful to our communities,” Sharp said.

The committee voted in favor of the increase, 6-0.