House votes to renounce Dred Scott decision by Missouri Supreme Court

      The Missouri House has again voted to renounce the 1852 decision by the Missouri Supreme Court that denied Scott and his family their freedom.

Representative Raychel Proudie is moved to tears after the House votes unanimously to renounce to the 1852 Dred Scott Decision by the Missouri Supreme Court. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      Scott had argued that he, his wife, and his two children were free because they had lived in the state of Illinois, where slavery was not legal.  The Missouri Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling and said they were still slaves.  The case preceded another suit in which the U.S. Supreme Court also found against Scott and his family.

      Representatives Raychel Proudie (D-Ferguson) and Dottie Bailey (R-Eureka) both filed resolutions to denounce that decision. 

Proudie has often spoken about how for many reasons it is significant for her to be a state representative, including that she is an African American woman and the ancestor of enslaved people.

Representative Dottie Bailey (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “I can’t believe I’m standing here at the mic.  I can’t believe I have an office key that unlocks this door.  Every day I can’t believe it. I am the descendant of slaves, ya’ll. I can’t believe I’m standing here,” said Proudie.  “We say that we are our ancestors’ wildest dreams.  I don’t even think that Dred Scott could have conceptualized it because he tried and they told him, ‘No.’”

Bailey said she had followed versions of this measure in previous years, including in 2018 when House Concurrent Resolution 86 was passed by the House.

The bust of Dred Scott in the Hall of Famous Missourians, in the Capitol. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “The federal government, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 came out of that and so that has kind of been recompense and healing for that, but the State of Missouri has never done anything,” said Bailey.  “This is a gesture, yes, but it’s monumental.”

“Dred Scott should never have been compelled to appear before any court of this state or government body to appeal his God-given freedom.  Neither the state nor any person ever had the right to impede upon that.  This state and its government should have risen up to defend Dred Scott and to ensure his freedoms as well as the freedoms of all mankind,” said Bailey.

      Representative Rasheen Aldridge Jr. (D-St. Louis) said the amendment in the House and its counterpart in the Senate have moved forward on the strength of lawmakers from different parties and ethnic backgrounds coming together.

      “We don’t agree on a lot of stuff up here but I think this sends a strong message from us to the state to let them know that we all really, really try to make sure we do what’s right and rewrite some of the wrongs and not be afraid to talk about it,” said Aldridge.  “We have some scary things in our history and we must talk about it.  We must address it and we must rewrite it and do it the correct way.”

      The legislation was written with the help of descendants of Scott.  The House voted 152-0 to send it to the Senate.

House votes to allow state inspections of religious-based youth homes

      House lawmakers voted this week toward ending abuse of children in residential care facilities managed by religious organizations – abuse that lawmakers called “horrific,” and amounting to “torture.”

Representative Rudy Veit (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      House Bills 557 & 560 would eliminate the exemption from state supervision for such homes. 

      “There’s no background checks, there’s no right to go in and check on the children, there’s no requirement they keep medical records, there was no right to go in and have eyes on the children, and there was absolutely no control over these homes,” said bill sponsor Rudy Veit (R-Wardsville).  “These homes, all you had to say was it was a religious organization … and you couldn’t even check into whether it was a recognized religious organization.”

      Lee’s Summit representative Keri Ingle (D), who filed an identical bill, said Missouri is one of the only states that doesn’t oversee religious-based youth homes.  Because of that, bad actors have been coming here and then seeking out children with behavioral issues, mental issues, or whose needs weren’t being met.

      She said parents would send their children to these homes, “I think, most of the time, with the full intent of getting a child out of a really desperate situation and getting them the help that they needed.  Unfortunately, that trust was completely violated and these children were tortured.  There’s really no other way to describe it.”

      She and other lawmakers heard in committee hearings from children who had been abused in these homes.

Representative Keri Ingle (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “The things that have been told to me by survivors across the country … described rape, described forcing children to have abortions, described stripping children of their dignity and their self-respect, their belief in God, their belief in love, forced children to fight other children, locked children in closets, forced children to stand in manure and forced children to do hard labor,” said Ingle. 

      “It almost looks like you’re reading something from a script of a horror movie, but it’s not,” said Representative Dave Griffith (R-Jefferson City).

      The legislation would require those homes to provide background checks for all employees; notify the state of their location; and allow Social Services to see children when abuse is suspected. 

It would not allow the state to change a home’s religious teachings or foundation.  Viet said he believes that religious-based youth homes, when run properly and honestly, can benefit children.

“I actually know some children who have been in some of these homes and I’ve talked to judges, and they do a great service, but if we don’t take care of and prevent the bad apples they’re going to ruin it for everyone,” said Veit.

The bill would go into effect immediately upon being signed by the governor. 

      The house voted 148-0 to send it to the Senate. 

House votes to restrict seclusion, restraint of students

      The Missouri House has voted to tell schools in the state to enact guidelines on when students may be secluded or restrained, and to require that when it happens, the student’s parents or guardians must be notified.  The bipartisan effort began when practices that one lawmaker called “archaic” came to light.

Representative Dottie Bailey (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      The chamber approved 149-1 House Bill 387 filed by Representative Dottie Bailey (R-Eureka).  It would require schools to have policies in place for when a student can be placed in seclusion or restrained, and that those things only happen when there is imminent danger of harm to the student’s self or others.

      In addition to the notification requirement the bill also includes protections for those who report violations of that policy.

      “Unfortunately … some of these school districts have used seclusion and restraint for discipline and time outs and punishment.  So imagine a child that already has problems interpreting the world – a kiddo with autism – then being punished for that non-interpretation and disciplined, and thrown into a box,” said Bailey.  “Not only are these archaic … and need to be done away with for punishment, there are many, many other alternative therapies that have been used, that have been proven to be adequate and without hurting the child and hurting their growth and not traumatizing them further.”

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

      Representative Ian Mackey (D-St. Louis) brought the issue to the legislature after seeing reporting on the practices in some schools.  He and Bailey worked to bring the legislation forward.  He said most schools in Missouri haven’t been doing anything wrong and won’t have to change any practices because of this bill.

      “This bill goes after a handful of irresponsible bad actors who regularly misuse these rooms and who regularly put kids in these rooms as punishment, which violates their own policy but up until now there’s no remedy for that.  This is a remedy for violations of those policies,” said Mackey.

      Similar legislation passed out of the House last year and was approved by a Senate committee before COVID interrupted the normal business of the 2020 session.

      Bailey said it was important to add to this year’s bill the protection for those who bring to light misuses of restraints and seclusion.  She said teachers who brought evidence of violations to a House committee last year faced retaliation.

House members saw photos of seclusions rooms that had been used on Missouri students in this 2020 press conference. (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      “We saw urine-filled, stained rooms.  We saw drab, horrible things, and then you hear from the teachers telling this story, and I give those teachers so much credit because they took their own careers in their hands because they care about these kids,” said Bailey.  “I’ve kept in touch with a couple of them and yes, retaliation has occurred.”

      Hazelwood representative Paula Brown (D), a retired school teacher, said she saw retaliation against teachers who spoke out against seclusion.

      “I, for one, was not retaliated against when I reported to the school administration that a kid was locked in a dark closet but I do know that it does happen, and I was probably only not retaliated against because I happened to be president of the teachers’ union at the time,” said Brown.  “I’m urging the body to support this bill.  It is a wonderful bill and it will protect children, and it will protect teachers.”

      HB 387 also adds a prohibition to “prone restraint,” not seen in last year’s legislation.

      The bill now goes to the Senate.

Earlier stories:

VIDEO: Parent speaks about bipartisan legislation on restraint and seclusion of students

House to consider restrictions on student restraint/seclusion in Missouri public schools

House proposes Capitol security changes

      The Missouri House has passed a plan to make the Capitol safer for those who work and visit it. 

Representative Ron Hicks (Photo: Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

      One provision of House Bill 784 would allow the Speaker of the House and the Senate President Pro Tem to appoint marshals in their respective chambers.  These marshals would have at least five years of experience in law enforcement, be licensed as a peace officer, and have to have continued training as required by the Missouri Peace Officer Standards and Training commission.

      Bill sponsor Lane Roberts (R-Joplin), a former Joplin Police chief and former director of the Department of Public Safety, said the agencies responsible for Capitol security are “fragmented” and the legislature needs a security force that falls under its control. 

      “It’s sad that in this particular day and time we would have to do a thing like this, but given the environment that we unfortunately had to watch in Washington D.C. it’s a prudent move.  These individuals would be focused on the security of the two chambers and the membership,” said Roberts.

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

      Another provision would move control of the Capitol Police out of the Department of Public Safety and to a new Capitol Police Board.  Representative Ron Hicks (R-St. Charles) has been working on this plan for several years.  He shares Roberts’ concern that the public officials who work in the Capitol have no say in its security.

      “This is just one of those steps that we are taking forward to make sure that the safety and security of the people that visit this building, not to mention ourselves and our families that come to visit us, are safe and secure in this building.  As you know we’ve been left alone in this building as far as our security and our safety goes,” said Hicks.

      The new Capitol Police Board would be made up of members appointed by the House Speaker, the Senate President, the Governor, the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, and the chair of the State Capitol Commission.

      The bill passed on a nearly unanimous vote, 155-3.  St. Louis representative Donna Baringer (D) and other Democrats backed the ideas.

      “Unfortunately during these trying times we need security and this will do just that for us as we sit here on this floor,” Baringer said.

      The proposal now goes to the Senate.

Pronunciations:

Baringer = (BARE-in-jerr)

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)

Domestic abusers could not legally have guns under House proposal

      Those under a full order of protection or convicted of a crime of domestic violence would no longer be able to have or buy guns under a proposal now in the Missouri House.  Supporters say the bill would mirror Missouri law to federal law and fix a gap unintentionally created by 2016 legislation.

Representative Ron Hicks (Photo: Mike Lear, Missouri House Communications)

      House Bill 473 would require a court, when issuing an order of protection, to order that the subject of that order not be able to have firearms.  Law enforcement would be notified, to make sure the order is followed.  Those convicted of 2nd degree stalking and 4th degree assault would also not be able to possess a firearm.

      “This bill … is not about taking the 2nd Amendment rights away from you, to bear arms.  It’s about protecting the women and children and even men in our state.  This is an issue I believe all of us can agree on,” said bill sponsor Ron Hicks (R-St. Charles).

      House Bill 473 would address an issue with Missouri state law that was exacerbated with the passage of Senate Bill 656 in 2016.

      “This is something that [the House] has tried to tackle for years.  In 2016 I sat in this body when a promise was made by our former speaker … to have this put back in.  It was stricken out of a bill and all I want to do is put it back in,” said Hicks.

      Judy Kile has testified in past years on previous versions of this language.  For six years she has been the Executive Director of COPE, a shelter in Lebanon.  She told the House Committee on General Laws her twin sister was murdered by her abusive husband. 

She said at her sister’s funeral many people told her they wished there was something they could do.  She told lawmakers, “I’m gonna put that on you all.  There’s something you can do.  You can get the guns away during that time that’s so volatile.”

      Kile said that in her work at the shelter she has seen the patterns to domestic violence.  She said for a variety of reasons, a victim often goes back to an abuser a number of times even after an order of protection or conviction has been secured. 

      “If I took a poll I would say that 90-percent of the people – it’s women, mostly, in our shelter – that come into our shelter have had a gun held to their head in their home, and sometimes, a gun held to their children’s head.”

      The Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence has been pushing for passage of this change for years.  Public Policy Director Jennifer Carter Dochler said even before SB 656 in 2016, Missouri had not mirrored the federal Violence Against Women Act.  It gave direction to judges and law enforcement about removing guns from the hands of abusers. 

      What lawmakers unintentionally struck in 2016 had denied those under orders of protection or convicted of domestic assault when they applied for concealed carry permits.  Under the 2016 law those permits are no longer needed.

      “We’re very appreciative of Representative Hicks’ leadership to close a loophole in Missouri’s law and to protect victims of domestic violence,” said Carter Dochler.

      Hicks said following the hearing he spoke to a representative of the NRA and he believes that organization will issue a letter of support for the bill.

      The committee has not voted on the legislation.

Bipartisan effort would create “Blair’s Law,” criminalizing celebratory gunfire

      Three Missouri lawmakers are leading a bipartisan effort to criminalize celebratory gunfire.  Their bills would create what is called “Blair’s Law,” in honor of 11 year-old Blair Shanahan Lane, who was killed by an errant bullet fired during a 4th of July celebration in 2011.

Michelle Shanahan DeMoss talks to the House Committee on General Laws. (Photo: Mike Lear, Missouri House Communications)

      Representatives Rory Rowland (D-Independence), Nick Schroer (R-O’Fallon), and Mark Sharp (D-Kansas City) have filed House Bills 722, 795, and 99, respectively.  Those were presented to the House Committee on General Laws, which heard from Blair’s mother, Michele Shanahan DeMoss.

      “It will be 10 years, July of 2021, since my daughter was fatally struck by a bullet,” said Shanahan DeMoss.

      She said her daughter died July 5 and donated six organs to five people. 

      “She gave, as I’m asking you to give the opportunity for this bill to be passed.  It’s a simple request to increase the penalty from a misdemeanor – basically, to me, a parking ticket.  A fine, and go on your way, and it happens year after year after year,” said Shanahan DeMoss.  “If we can increase the penalty of the crime maybe, maybe somebody doesn’t do it.”

Blair Shanahan Lane (courtesy; Michele Shanahan DeMoss)

      Representative Schroer said as he was growing up his family sometimes went to the basement during times of celebration because guns were being fired into the air in the region.

      “One of the pillars of responsible gun ownership is knowing where you’re pointing your gun and knowing where that projectile is going to go and where it’s going to land,” said Schroer. 

      Representative Sharp said between 6pm December 31 and 6am on January 1 in South Kansas City Missouri, at least 12 residences were hit by indiscriminate gunfire. 

He said the shot spotter technology employed by police, “indicated about 1,600 shots were fired in Kansas City alone.”

      Captain Kari Thompson is the Assistant Division Commander for the Homeland Security Division of the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department.  She said the legislation would make a common sense change in the law.

Representatives Mark Sharp (at left, holding newspaper), Rory Rowland (wearing mask), and Nick Schroer (right) have all sponsored a version of Blair’s Law. (Photo: Mike Lear, Missouri House Communications)

      “The question is not ‘if’ this will happen again, it’s ‘when.’  We want to remember that this is, for some families, a family tradition.  Let’s go out on the porch or in the back yard and shoot off our weapons in a celebratory manner for 4th of July, for New Year’s Eve, and now for Super Bowl Sundays,” said Thompson.

      Blair was hit in the neck by a bullet fired by a Kansas City man, who pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter.  He served 18 months in prison.  Had one of these measures been in place he could’ve faced additional prison time for the charge it would create.

      The committee has not voted on the legislation.

Pronunciations:

DeMoss = dee-moss

Kari = CAR-ee

Schroer = shroe-ur

Rory Rowland = roar-ee roe-land

Lifetime order of protection would be possible under House proposal

Victims of domestic abuse would be able to get lifetime orders of protection from abusers under a bill offered in the Missouri House.

      Missouri law allows for orders of protection that last for one year.  That means victims who want continued protection must go back to court annually to seek extensions.  This forces them to repeatedly face their abuser and relive what they went through.  Representative Lane Roberts (R-Joplin), former chief of the Joplin Police and director of the Department of Public Safety, says that’s wrong.

Lisa Saylor told House members this represents the paperwork she has accumulated since 2011, in dealing with the court system while working to protect herself from an abuser.

      “There are people who deal with abusive friends, ex-friends, ex-boyfriends, family members, and they never get respite,” said Roberts.  “Try to envision what it would be like to have to deal with something like this for two or three years and every year you’ve got to go back and get a protection order, repeatedly.  Then it dries up for a couple of years.  The protection order expires, the individual comes back, takes up where they left off, the police are called.  You get an officer who’s never heard of this before or you go in front of a judge who’s never seen it before, and the whole nightmare starts over.”

      “I can tell you from personal experience that when you have to look a woman in the eye and explain to her why the law won’t protect her, it is very difficult, and they shouldn’t have to live that way,” said Roberts.  “I think this is frankly a fairly significant step to correct what I think should be common sense.”

      Janice Thompson Gehrke is a survivor and now works with and for victims.  She told the House Committee on Judiciary people often ask her why they shake when they have to go to court, including the repeated appearances to renew an order of protection.

      “What’s happening is your body’s natural response of an adrenaline dump telling you, you are in danger.  You’re in danger because you’re putting yourself in the same place as a person that is a real danger to you.  In spite of every instinct in your body telling you to run, here you are doing what you have been told are the necessary steps to keep legal protections for yourself in place,” said Thompson Gehrke. 

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

      Lisa Saylor told the committee that since 2011 she has spent more than $45,000 in court costs, in part from having to repeatedly renew orders of protection.  If she doesn’t retain an attorney she runs the risk that her abuser could personally cross-examine her in a courtroom.

      “I was exhausted from my fight mentally, physically, emotionally, financially, just trying to stay safe from my abuser.  How much could one system put a victim through and expect them to survive this journey?” asked Saylor.

      The legislation, House Bill 744, would allow an order of protection to be in place through the life of the abuser.  The committee has not voted on it.

Pronunciations:

Gehrke = (GER-kee)

Bill would provide feminine hygiene products to Missouri incarcerated women

      House members are renewing an effort to make sure all county and municipal jails provide free feminine hygiene products to the women they hold. 

      Federal and state institutions, as well as some local jails, already provide those products to female offenders at no cost.  House Bill 318, sponsored by Representative Bruce DeGroot (R-Ellisville), would codify that requirement for state institutions, and county and city jails. 

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

      “You’re forcing women … to choose between using their commissary accounts to buy feminine hygiene as opposed to Kit Kats or even worse yet, making a choice between phoning home and talking to their children,” said DeGroot.  “This isn’t a Republican or a Democrat issue.  It’s an issue of human decency, human dignity.”

      Elizabeth Weiss, director of Missouri Appleseed, told the House Committee on Corrections and Public Institutions that the lack of proper products is a health concern.  Women were making their own products, often using material like toilet paper rolls.

      “In the Department of Corrections when tampons [weren’t] provided, over 80-percent of the women reported making their own homemade tampons, and of those 27-percent reported infections, and we had similar data from St. Louis County,” said Weiss.

      DeGroot noted that these health problems also increase the state’s costs for caring for incarcerated women, so passing this bill could save money for the state and local governments.

      He believes the cost to the state to provide these products would be less than $200,000 a year.

      “It truly is such an insignificant amount of money of our whole budget to give just a small amount of dignity to these women,” said DeGroot.

      DeGroot said some oppose the idea, saying women could use tampons to hide contraband.  He rejects that argument.

      “The federal penitentiaries all provide tampons.  Our Missouri Department of Corrections [facilities] all provide tampons, as do St. Louis County and St. Louis City, whose wardens have all written in support of this bill, so I just don’t know that it’s a huge issue.”

      Similar legislation in the past two years has not become law.  The effort began, in part, with the passage of the federal First Step Act.  Among other provisions, it provided for free feminine hygiene products in federal institutions.

      The committee has not voted on the bill.

News outlets:  Click on the hotlinks in the story for audio and more information.

Pronunciations:

DeGroot does not include the “oo” sound = [de-GROTE)

Weiss rhymes with mice = [wice]

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