House votes to expand definition of ‘service dog,’ criminalize faking a service animal

The Missouri House has voted to expand the state’s legal definition of what qualifies as a “service dog,” and to make illegal the faking of having a service animal.

A service dog, with training that includes waiting patiently for long periods, lays next to its master during a meeting in a hearing room in the Missouri State Capitol. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

House Bills 1369 and 2031 are aimed at making life better for those who legitimately have service dogs and service animals, according to sponsor Chrissy Sommer (R-St. Charles).  She said such people make up a growing segment of society, as the list of conditions dogs can help with continues to grow.

“There are a lot of soldiers, there are a lot of seniors who either have, say, PTSD or some ailment or disability that’s not visible that when they go into the public, even though ADA says these are service dogs, entities or businesses or even individuals don’t understand that because you don’t see a disability; it’s not visible,” said Sommer.

HB 1369 changes the definition of “service dog” to include psychiatric service dogs and mental health service dogs.  The definition covers dogs that serve individuals with conditions including panic attacks, anxiety, autism spectrum disorder, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Sommer said the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has left the definition of what is considered a “service dog” in kind of a gray area, so HB 1369 will make clear what animals qualify as service dogs.

HB 2031 would add to Missouri’s law against impersonating a person with a disability the crime of misrepresenting a dog or animal as a service dog or assistance animal.  It would make those misdemeanors punishable by up to fifteen days in jail, or up to 6 months for repeated violations.

Backers of HB 2031 said when people fake having a service animal it casts doubt on individuals who really do have them.  Sommer said such fraud causes other issues as well, when untrained dogs have been, “attacking service dogs in training, them attacking patrons of a restaurant; airplanes are starting to crack down too because what happens is a service dog goes through training – how to handle and airplane, how to handle that pressure, how to handle the different noises, how to handle that small little area they have to be in, whereas a pet, if you try to bring them on a plane and say, ‘Oh, this is a service dog,’ I mean think of what it does to a person.  They’ll freak out,” said Sommer.

St. Louis Democrat Tracy McCreery said she initially thought HB 2031 was not necessary, but has reversed that opinion.

Representative Chrissy Sommer (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

“I think a lot of us see now, when we go out to eat or out into social settings, there seem to be a lot more dogs in places where normally animals are not permitted, like restaurants and things like that, so we need to kind of get a handle on things, if you will.  Several states – I think there have been about 19 states that have cracked down on these fake services dogs,” said McCreery.  “What the lady’s bill will do, I think, is help make things more comfortable for those families and people that actually have legitimate service dogs.”

HB 2031 would require the Commission on Human Rights to use its existing complaint hotline to take reports of individuals believed to be faking having a disability or a service animal.

It would also require the Governor’s Council on Disability to design a placard that restaurants and other businesses could display stating that service dogs are welcome and that misrepresentation of a service dog is illegal.  A brochure would also be created to help business owners know what questions are allowed and guidelines on how to behave around service animals.

Each bill received only one “no” in the House’s vote to send them to the Senate for consideration.

Additional audio:

“Because people are taking untrained pets into public areas and telling people, ‘This is a service dog,’ what happens is the dog that’s not trained, in some situations, they’ll panic, they’ll attack the people around them, they’ll go to the bathroom, they’ll bark, they’ll be disruptive,” said Sommer.

 

 

House passes ‘pain capable’ abortion ban

The state House has proposed barring abortions in Missouri of any fetus a doctor determines is capable of feeling pain.

Representative Donna Lichtenegger (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

House Bill 1266 would prevent such abortions unless they are found to be necessary to avert the mother’s death or if there is a serious risk to the mother of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.  In such cases a doctor would be required to end the pregnancy in a way that gives the fetus the greatest chance of survival without posing such risks to the mother.

The bill requires reporting of such abortions to the Department of Health and Senior Services, and would make a doctor who performs an abortion in violation of the bill’s provisions subject to discipline.

Sponsor Donna Lichtenegger (R-Cape Girardeau) calls it the “Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”  She and other backers of the bill argue there is scientific evidence that a fetus can feel pain at 22 weeks.

“The most significant reason that [an abortion after that stage is painful for a fetus] is because at 5-months this child literally needs to be torn apart, limb for limb, in order to be aborted.  It is much safer for the mother and for the fetus to be able to have a C-section and it’s much faster than the abortion,” said Lichtenegger, “so there are other ways that this baby can be delivered without tearing it from limb to limb.”

Representative Cora Faith Walker (D-Ferguson) questioned proponents’ arguments about when a fetus can feel pain, and argued that there is an “abundance” of scientific data to the contrary.

Representative Cora Faith Walker (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

“The actual pathways – the neurological pathways – that are necessary to feel pain in fetuses is typically not developed until well after the 20-week development state,” said Faith Walker.

St. Louis Democrat Sue Meredith said when the bill was heard by a committee, lawmakers heard from parents who had abortions because their children were not forming properly in the womb and faced short and/or painful lives if brought to term.

“These people weren’t getting these abortions because they were getting rid of an unwanted pregnancy … we are telling people who have these abnormally developing fetuses that you have to carry this fetus full-term.  You have to put that baby through that agony of whatever it is – not being able to breath, not being able to think properly – not being able to do the things that one needs to do to live,” said Meredith.

Harrisonville Republican Rick Brattin said he “begrudgingly” supports HB 1266.  He is frustrated that the legislature is debating at what times during a pregnancy it can be terminated rather than seeking to make abortion illegal altogether.

“It’s just mind boggling to me that we are having to even go with something like this and that there’s even debate on a bill like this,” said Brattin.  “I just look for the time and I pray for the time that people are actually awakened by the egregious act of this horrible procedure and this life-ending act and actually ban abortion, not just pain capable.”

The House voted 117-31 to send HB 1266 to the Senate for consideration.

House budget plan would restore FY ’18 funding levels to colleges, universities

The Missouri House has perfected a budget proposal for the next fiscal year including an agreement to hold down college tuition, while restoring $68-million that Governor Eric Greitens (R) proposed cutting from colleges and universities.

House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

The House is proposing putting that money back into the core funding for those institutions, putting them back at the level of state support they are receiving in the current fiscal year.  In exchange, the state’s institutions will increase tuition by no more than one-percent in the fiscal year that begins July 1.

House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) proposed an amendment that completed the restoration of that $68-million dollars.

“I think that this is the appropriate thing to do,” said Fitzpatrick.  “I think a one-percent tuition increase is manageable for the folks in this state.”

Under the agreement between Fitzpatrick and the institutions, the schools must receive the money the House has proposed appropriating.  If the appropriations are withheld by the governor or otherwise do not reach them, they can increase tuition based on the Consumer Price Index.

The agreement is supported by Democrats, including the top Democrat on the budget committee, Kip Kendrick (D-Columbia), whose district includes the University of Missouri’s flagship campus.

“I appreciate this and the whole conversation we’ve had in budget committee and working with the chair on reaching an agreement.  I think everyone in here has the intent of … wants to hold tuition increases to a minimum to make sure college remains affordable and accessible for all,” said Kendrick.  “Higher education institutions have taken it on the head in the last few years with some major budget cuts, so glad that we can do all that we can this year.”

Representative Kip Kendrick, the top Democrat on the Missouri House Budget Committee (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

Until the agreement was reached, Fitzpatrick had proposed putting $30-million of the money that is now going to core funding into the Access Missouri scholarship program, which would have fully funded it.  Kendrick is glad to see that money going back to the core, but he hopes Access Missouri receives additional funding in future years.

“I love Access Missouri.  It is a fantastic, needs-based scholarship program in the State of Missouri.  It is our only needs-based aid program in the state and for a brief moment of time it had 30-million new dollars in it, and I hope that we can do what we can in the future also to make sure that we appropriately fund that line as well,” said Kendrick.

Budget committee member Crystal Quade (D-Springfield) agreed.

“While I wish that we could be funding Access Missouri and I hope that we try to do so in the future, representing Missouri State, one of the institutions who is a big part of this agreement, I was thankful for the budget chair to have the discussion and have everybody at the table and come up with this solution,” said Quade.

The tuition agreement does not extend to Missouri Southern in Joplin.  Fitzpatrick said their financial situation is dire enough that he agreed to let them opt out of the one-percent tuition cap requirement.

The funding for higher education is found in House Bill 2003, which itself appropriates more than $1.17-billion.  The House is expected to vote on that and the rest of the budget bills on Thursday.

If passed, they will go to the Senate, which will spend the coming weeks developing its own budget proposal based on the House’s plan.  The two chambers will then attempt to compromise on a final spending plan to send to the governor in May.

House approves bipartisan collaborative effort to extend Medicaid coverage for postpartum substance abuse care

A bipartisan, collaborative effort to extend Medicaid benefits for postpartum substance abuse treatment has been approved by the Missouri House.

Representatives Marsha Haefner, Martha Stevens, Cora Faith Walker, and Jay Barnes (photos; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

House Bill 2280 extends MO HealthNet benefits for pregnant women who are receiving substance abuse treatment within 60 days of giving birth for up to 12 additional months.  Any participating woman must follow the treatment in order to benefit.

Bill sponsor Marsha Haefner (R-St. Louis) said extended treatment has been proven necessary for success.

“Opioid and substance abuse during pregnancy is on the rise, with opioid use during pregnancy mirroring that of the general population,” said Haefner.  “The current time offered for substance use disorder treatment, which is 60-days for these new moms, does not allow for enough treatment for most women to experience success with recovery.  If a new mom is doing well then loses support and treatment for her abuse she will often relapse.  Another risk of pulling treatment too soon is after a period of non-use, women experience an increased risk of overdosing because their tolerance is low.”

HB 2280 was combined with similar bills filed by Representatives Cora Faith Walker (D-St. Louis), Martha Stevens (D-Columbia), and Jay Barnes (R-Jefferson City).

Stevens told lawmakers she was glad that the bill will cover a full range of treatments.

She said that one thing that came out of the committee hearing on the bill was that, “new moms need not just substance use disorder treatment.  That we really need to have comprehensive, wrap-around services, and so I’m very pleased that this bill is full Medicaid coverage so that these new moms can get substance use disorder treatment, they can get mental health care, they can go see a primary doctor, and really support them that first year after giving birth.”

Representative Faith Walker commended the lawmakers involved in the legislation for the bipartisan effort that led to its passage.

“It is a very common sense, evidence-based approach to dealing with the opioid epidemic here in the State of Missouri and it will both save taxpayer dollars as well as save lives,” said Faith Walker.  “I want to encourage the body to look at this effort that was put forward by all the bill sponsors moving forward for the rest of the session.”

Representative Keith Frederick (R-Rolla) said the bill represents something the legislature should do to help the most vulnerable in the state.

“The bottom line is that if we have ladies that are pregnant and have the struggle of addiction, they are in a special, vulnerable situation, as is their child,” said Frederick.

The bill’s projected cost is more than $4-million dollars through 2021, but Haefner noted it would save the state money that would have gone to caring for children who could go to state care if their mothers aren’t afforded treatment, and other cost avoidance.  She said the budget the House is debating this week also includes money to pay for the projected costs to extend this coverage.

The bill has been sent to the Senate for its consideration.  If it becomes law, the state will have to seek a waiver from the federal government to allow for the program to be created and implemented.  Missouri would be the first state to seek such a waiver.

Haefner is hopeful the state could get an answer from the federal government by the beginning of 2019.

House proposes tougher regulation of auto dealers, dealer plates

The Missouri House has voted to make it tougher for people to illegally use dealer license plates.

Representative Kevin Engler (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

House Bill 2122 would limit the issuance of dealer plates based on the number of vehicle sold annually.  A dealer selling six vehicles per year could have one plate.  Twelve sales per year is enough for a second, 20 per year for a third, and each additional 10 sales per year beyond that would allow a dealer another plate.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Kevin Engler (R-Farmington), said those plates are being abused, most notably by a dealer’s family members and friends using one daily and avoiding paying taxes on the vehicles those are on.

“They’re using the system and they’re shirking the responsibility of taxes to the schools just by using that, and it needs to stop,” said Engler.  “Every time you see that … remember it’s about a $2.5- to $5-million cost to the state, to the local schools, because we don’t get sales tax and we don’t get personal property tax off those dealer plates, so we tried to make it more reasonable; that you really have to be in the business to get them.”

The bill would also double the bonding requirement for dealers from $25,000 to $50,000.  Engler said that requirement hadn’t been increased since 1984, and it needs to be changed to ensure protection for consumers.  During debate, Engler learned of a dealership in O’Fallon that folded, and cited that as an example of why dealers should have a greater bonding requirement.

“Twenty-something cars that don’t have titles, that the guys that just bought the cars that can’t get the titles are going to have to come back to them,” said Engler.

“You have to have somebody to be able to come back to, and [dealers] should be able to get at least $50-thousand bonding because $25-thousand in 1984 is worth a lot more than $50-thousand today,” said Engler.

Another provision limits sales events that happen off of a dealer’s premises to two a year, and taking place within a ten-mile radius of the dealer’s licensed location.

Opponents of HB 2122 said it would punish all dealers because of a handful of bad actors in the state.

Representative Delus Johnson (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for version)

Representative Delus Johnson (R-St. Joseph) said the bill would hurt the industry that generates the most sales tax revenue of any in the state.

“Unfortunately the only thing that’s going to happen with this bill is we are going to see multiple businesses in the State of Missouri close because of a couple of very restrictive requirements,” said Johnson.

“If many of you are like me and you promised your constituents that you were going to come to Jefferson City and you were going to support small business and then you turn around and double a business’ operating costs; when you told your constituents that you were going to create jobs and then you’re creating these small ten-mile circles around a dealership to prohibit them from operating outside those circles (or you give them a $1,000 fine, by the way); and you told your constituents that you were going to build the roads and you’re going to dramatically decrease the sales tax revenue that goes into the Missouri Highway Fund – if you made those promises to your constituents and you vote, ‘Yes,’ on this bill, then it’s my opinion that you don’t even deserve the honor to serve on this floor,” said Johnson.

The legislation also requires dealers to submit regular business hours, a phone number and an e-mail address and maintain the latter two for use by the Department of Revenue and the public; allows discretion for the suspension of dealer licenses for issues in which it is currently mandatory; and allows the use of motor vehicle inspections made within 90 days of an application for registration or transfer by new owners of a vehicle.

The House voted 119-31 to send HB 2122 to the Senate, where it has been referred to that chamber’s Committee on Transportation, Infrastructure, and Public Safety.

Missouri House proposes reform of sex offender registry

A bill that would update Missouri’s sex offender registry has been sent to the state Senate.

Representative Kurt Bahr (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

House Bill 2042 would classify the registry’s offenders into three tiers based on their offenses:  less-serious offenses would land an offender on the first tier, with those on the third tier having committed the most serious offenses.  Those on the first tier could petition the courts to be removed from the registry ten years after being placed on it.  Those on the second tier could petition after 25 years; those on tier three would remain on the registry for life.  Those who commit additional sex crimes or felonies while on the registry also could not petition for removal.

The bill’s sponsor, St. Charles Republican Kurt Bahr, said for some offenders to have the opportunity to come off of the registry will strengthen it, while giving those offenders a better chance at getting quality employment and jobs and put them at less risk of re-offending.

The bill was passed out of the House 144-2.  Bahr was surprised at the broad support it received.

“The issue at hand is controversial, but I think most people recognized that I worked very hard to keep it completely consistent with the existing federal law to begin with, and that it was a fair and balanced approach to deal with an issue that, while it’s something people don’t like talking about, needed to be addressed,” said Bahr.

The legislation’s supporters include the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, and the Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Bahr is optimistic that HB 2042 will have enough support to get through the Senate if that body chooses to move it before the session ends in May.

“The few senators I’ve talked to about the bill, like the representatives, have all supported the fact that this issue needs to be addressed, and so I don’t think there’s going to be any difficulty getting the bill through the because of the merits of the bill,” said Bahr

Representative Mark Ellebracht (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

The bill’s broad bipartisan support includes Liberty Democrat Mark Ellebracht, who said lawmakers and the public are seeing now that the registry has been in place for years, what needs to be changed about it.

“Fifteen years ago, twenty years ago, it was all pretty new stuff.  We had the idea, we knew it was a good idea, we just didn’t know how the machinery was going to work.  Now we’re getting the bugs worked out, we’re getting the kinks worked out, figuring out what’s just under the law and what may have been a little heavy-handed, figuring out what we can continue to do to keep children and families safe, and we’re perfecting a good idea over time,” said Ellebracht.

Ellebracht believes there are potential constitutional issues with the legislation that will have to be addressed in the Senate, but he supports the concepts in the bill, including an amendment that broadens prohibitions on sex offenders participating in Halloween-related events.

“We’ve been having a problem with folks that are on the sex offender registry being prohibited from participating in Halloween-related activities on October 31, but on the Saturdays prior to when families go to their Trunk-or-Treats, they weren’t restricted and we had creeps showing up at various family events on the weekends prior to Halloween, so we cleaned up that language so we could keep them away from that stuff too,” said Ellebracht.

The bill also requires anyone on the registry who is convicted of child molestation in the first degree to be electronically monitored if he or she moves to a different county or city not within a county until that move is completed.

The Senate has referred the bill to its committee on Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence.

Earlier story:  

Missouri house considering reform of state’s sex offender registry

HB 2042 would also broaden background checks on childcare workers.  It includes the same language found in House Bill 2249, which has also been sent to the Senate.

See our story on HB 2249 by clicking here.

Missouri House votes to extend child care worker background checks

The Missouri House of Representatives has voted to increase protection for children in the state’s childcare facilities by broadening background checks on those facilities’ workers.

Representative David Wood (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

Versailles Republican David Wood told his House colleagues the state is not conducting background checks including fingerprints of those who come from out of state and apply to be childcare providers.

“We want to make sure our children in Missouri are safe.  When you have a childcare provider and currently a fingerprint background check is not required so we’re only checking inside the state, so we could have a violent offender coming from another state crossing in and working in our childcare facilities … this is just a good safety issue for children,” said Wood.

Wood said his House Bill 2249 would put Missouri in compliance with federal regulations.  Missouri is currently operating under a federal waiver, and once that expires on September 30, Missouri will lose about $5-million in federal grant money.

Unless and until it passes, he said parents don’t have much ability to know the background of those workers taking care of their children.

“These smaller providers actually have more restrictions than the larger ones do.  They do the fingerprint background checks, but those that are receiving state money and federal money in the state of Missouri aren’t required to right now, so this fixes that,” said Wood.

Applicants undergoing background checks would be allowed to work in child care facilities while the check is being conducted, but could not be left with children unsupervised during that time.  A worker would have to undergo a new check every five years.

The bill’s requirements would not apply to facilities not getting state or federal money, to those taking care of children within three degrees of relation to themselves, or those who have four or fewer children in their care.

The House voted 131-4 to send HB 2249 to the Senate.  The same language is included in another bill, House Bill 2042, which has also been sent to the Senate.

The language of HB 2249 is also found in House Bill 2042, which reforms the sex offender registry.

See our story on HB 2042 by clicking here.

House budget committee votes to continue barring state funding for DUI checkpoints

The House Budget Committee has proposed a state spending plan that would continue to keep state-appropriated funds from going to impaired driving checkpoints.

Representative Kathie Conway (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

Last year the House proposed that $20-million made available for grants to law enforcement agencies not be allowed for use in checkpoints.  That proposal became part of the final budget plan for the fiscal year that began July 1, 2017.  Law enforcement agencies can conduct checkpoints but have to find other ways to pay for them.

The idea was controversial but has the backing of House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob), who cited data from the Department of Transportation showing saturation efforts – periods of increased law enforcement patrols on the roads – result in more arrests per dollar.

Representative Kathie Conway (R-St. Charles) remains adamant in her opposition to the prohibition.  She proposed letting $500,000 be used on checkpoints in the Fiscal Year 2019 budget, and argued that checkpoints are effective.

“Checkpoints are not really used to catch drunk drivers and impaired drivers.  They’re mostly to make the public aware of the risk of being caught,” said Conway.  “There’s been ten studies reported in five separate papers that the impact of sobriety checkpoints showed relative decrease in alcohol-related crash fatalities of 9-percent, and that’s just the fatalities.  Two of these studies showed a decrease of 64-percent in one and 28-percent in the other of blood alcohol content above the legal limit.”

Those who supported barring state-appropriated funds from going to checkpoints last year stood by their decision.  Representative Justin Hill (R-Lake St. Louis) said what’s happened in the last year shows it was correct.

“We were pretty confident last year when we spoke about focusing this fund to methods that work and actually remove drunk drivers off the road because after all, that is the goal – to arrest drunk drivers and get them off the road to make our roads safer,” said Hill.  “In the first six months, without using these funds to use checkpoints, we saw an increase of 15-percent statewide in DWI arrests, and you know some may say that’s kind of a long shot to say that’s due to the lack of checkpoints, but I truly believe that sometimes this body has to make tough decisions to force the hand to do what not only is right, but to do what’s effective and efficient.”

Representative Peter Merideth (D-St. Louis) supported the partial opening up of state funds to checkpoints.  He said he believes checkpoints are effective, at least when used in conjunction with other things like saturation efforts.  He also believes checkpoints are fairer.

“What I would point out is that when we rely solely on individual officers pulling over individual vehicles we have significant research and evidence that those stops much more disproportionately impact poor and minority communities, and at the very least a checkpoint is a uniform way to check everybody fairly, regardless of your color, regardless of the type of car you drive,” said Merideth.

Representative Justin Hill (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

Many backers of the prohibition on state funds being used for checkpoints say checkpoints are unconstitutional because vehicles are stopped without probable cause.  Yukon Republican Robert Ross said while he supports law enforcement and knows Conway does too, he said the issue is one of due process.

“Checkpoints are a system of being guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.  That’s exactly counterintuitive to the way this country was set up and how we should operate,” said Ross.

The committee rejected Conway’s amendment.  If that decision stands through the completion of a budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2019, the prohibition on state-appropriated funds being used for checkpoints would continue.  Conway said she would continue to try to lift it.

“I’ve stood in crowds of 200 and 300 police officers that were going out to do saturation and/or DUI checkpoints.  They’re very enthusiastic about their programs.  I’ve stood and talked with parents and spouses and children of people that were killed by drunk driving and they’re very supportive of DUI checkpoints; in some places it’s up to a 70-percent approval of the citizens where checkpoints are used,” said Conway.  “For some it simply boils down to a constitutional issue and their minds will not be changed, but I think it’s also – since it has been found constitutional under both Missouri and United States Supreme Courts – that until that changes we have to go with the constitutionality of it, and I must say that public safety is always at the forefront of most things that I do.”

The full House, when lawmakers return from spring break next week, will debate the proposal that was passed out of the chamber’s Budget Committee.  The issue could be debated again then.

House budget committee adopts stiff cuts to DHSS over Bourbon virus data dispute

House Budget Committee leaders have proposed deep cuts to the office of the Department of Health and Senior Services’ director because the Department has not provided data on a recent virus outbreak that left a state employee dead.

Representative Justin Alferman (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House communications – click for larger version)

Committee Vice-Chairman Justin Alferman (R-Hermann) said prior to last week’s budget markup hearing that he would make such cuts if the information was not provided.  The Department continued to stand by its argument that it cannot release the requested data without violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

Alferman’s proposal would cut more than $239-thousand in state revenue and another $925-thousand in federal funds from the director’s office.  That represents the salaries of seven attorneys in the director’s office, the director, the assistant director, and the legislative liaison.

“We have very little resources at our disposal in order to put checks in with some of these departments, and one of the checks and balances is the power of the purse, and we are absolutely using it right here to get information for the six million Missourians who live in the state,” said Alferman.

Alferman and House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) say the information they want – the number of people in Missouri who tested positive for the antibodies to the Bourbon virus, indicating they have had it – would not include specific patient information that would violate HIPAA.

A department spokesperson on Wednesday night told the House Budget Committee two people in Missouri have tested positive for Bourbon virus, but did not offer information on how many have tested positive for the antibodies.  The superintendent of eastern Missouri’s Meramec State Park died last year after contracting the virus from a tick bite.  Alferman said he wants to know whether there is a risk to public health from the tick-borne illness.

“All of the released information up until this point, 40-percent of all cases of the Bourbon virus have happened in Missouri, so for a state parks worker to pass away from this disease, I don’t think it’s an unrealistic expectation for us … we know testing was done.  We want the results of that testing to know … we’re policy makers.  Do we need to make a policy change in the state of Missouri to combat this virus?  We don’t know because we’re not getting any information back from the Department,” said Alferman.

He said the Department’s rationale is that releasing the number of people tested could allow someone to question park employees about whether they were screened and use a process of elimination to identify who was and was not tested – something Alferman called a “ridiculous” interpretation.

Representative Peter Merideth (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click for larger version)

Democrats on the budget committee said while they might agree with Alferman about whether the Department should release that data, they don’t agree with cutting the department’s funding.

St. Louis Democrat Peter Merideth said the proposed cut could result in the firing of people in positions which work to enforce laws protecting Missouri’s seniors.

Merideth told a DHSS spokesperson, “I know that [Representative Alferman] has said that he is not trying to be punitive with this but it strikes me as that is all this is.  It is punishing you for something that you did that you shouldn’t have done … Maybe there is a very real complaint here that we should have gotten more information from you on a timely basis, but I don’t see how this cut to your budget actually helps address the problem and it looks to me like all it actually does is hurts the people of our state.”

Other Republicans, however, agreed with Alferman.  Representative Don Rone (R-Portageville) told the DHSS spokesperson that with as long as this issue has been developing, the DHSS’ director should have been in front of the committee and not a spokesperson.  The director was instead in the nation’s capital that night.

“There’s nothing can be, in Washington D.C., any more important than letting the citizens of this state know that if there is a problem … we’ve got a job to do here and that is protect the people of the state of Missouri, and it’s not right that the director is not here, sitting here, taking these questions,” said Rone.

Alferman’s proposed cut was adopted as part of the committee’s budget proposal, which the committee has voted to send to the House floor.  It will be debated there next week when lawmakers return from spring break.

Term-limited House member hopes for, at long last, statewide 911 funding solution’s success

The latest effort in a House lawmaker’s years-long quest to address 911 funding in Missouri has been sent to the state senate.

Representative Jeanie Lauer, who is in her final term in the House, has worked during most of her legislative career to create a statewide funding mechanism for 911 services. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications – click photo for larger version)

Representative Jeanie Lauer has been working for six years on a statewide way to fund 911 services.  That’s because some counties in Missouri don’t have it, and many that have it don’t have the latest technology that can locate cell phones or accept emergency text and video messages.  As fewer and fewer people use landlines – charges on which are one of the primary ways 911 services are paid for – counties are having more and more trouble paying for even outdated 911 service.

Lauer said the issue has long been personal for her.  Each year she has heard more and more stories of people who have needed emergency help and didn’t get it in time because they were in an area with poor or no 911 service.

“It is not just a bill.  This truly is something that is dealing with people’s life and their wellness, and at the end of every session it truly hits me emotionally to not have it accomplished like we would like to because I know until the next session we’re still going to lose people through death because of this situation,” said Lauer.

The issue has been around for more than a decade, predating Lauer’s legislative career.  At its core is that cell phone use continues to increase but Missouri remains the only state that does not collect a fee on cell phone usage to pay for 911.  Previous efforts to institute a charge on cell phones met with resistance, but Lauer thinks she has finally arrived at the solution.

House Bill 1456 would allow counties and certain municipalities in Missouri to seek voter approval for a fee of up to $1.00 on any device that can contact 911.  That fee could go up to $1.50 per device with special justification and approval from the state 911 service board.  Areas adopting this new funding source would replace their current 911 funding source; they could not keep both.

The bill would create a 3-percent charge on the purchase of prepaid phones, to go toward 911 funding.  A portion of that money would go to 911 service in the county the phone was bought in; the rest would go to a statewide fund to support and improve 911.

The bill would also address the need for 911 facilities in many parts of the state to consolidate.  Lauer said in Missouri’s 114 counties there are 185 Public Safety Answering Points, or PSAPs.

“That is ridiculous.  These facilities are so small they’re not providing the level of service, they’re usurping moneys that the areas don’t have to fund it, so it’s inefficient, it’s ineffective, and we’re not getting the response times to people that we need,” said Lauer.  “It’s doing a disservice to our citizenry because constitutionally we are required to keep our people safe, and we’re not.”

Under the bill, where consolidation is needed, voters could not be asked to approve a new funding stream without a plan for consolidation.  Lauer says some locations are ready to consolidate but need the bill to be passed to make it possible.

In recent years the House has approved legislation similar to HB 1456 but like so much legislation, it stalled out in the Senate.  Lauer is cautiously optimistic for better results this year.

“The difference this year may be that we have been able to run the Senate version of the bill through the Senate committee, and that was actually voted out by a vote of 9-1,” said Lauer.  “Then we come to the same point of getting on the floor in the Senate.”

HB 1456 was sent to the Senate on a vote of 111-31.