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.

Missouri House proposes repeal of the state’s prevailing wage law

The Missouri House has proposed repealing the state’s prevailing wage law.  Backers say the bill will allow more public works projects to move forward.  Opponents say it will lower wages and drive more people onto public assistance programs.

Representative Jeffery Justus (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Missouri’s prevailing wage law sets a minimum salary that must be paid to individuals working on public projects, such as the construction or repair of bridges, school buildings, and fire stations.  If House Bills 1729, 1621, and 1436 pass, bidders on such projects would pay the state or federal minimum wage, whichever is higher.

The bills are being carried on the House Floor by Representative Jeffery Justus (R-Branson).  He is one of those who say eliminating the prevailing wage would allow public tax dollars to accomplish more in any given project because the law artificially inflates the wages paid to workers.

“Imagine our state as we go into the future being able to, at the same cost of building a road for 100 miles, be able to build 110 miles; imagine being able to repair 11 bridges for the same cost for what you can [repair] 10 bridges for now.  Imagine school buildings – being able to build where get an extra four or five rooms for what we’re paying for less now.  Imagine a sewer plant having the capacity of 5-million gallons being able to do 5-million 500-thousand gallons for the same amount of money,” said Justus.

Democrats argued that repealing prevailing wage would cause workers to receive less in wages and benefits.  St. Louis representative Karla May, a member of the Communication Workers of America (CWA) and of the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists (CBTU), said that law exists for a reason.

“The reason why the government had to step in to create prevailing wage is because of the greed of companies and contractors not willing to pay workers and not willing to maintain good working conditions,” said May.  “The only reason laws exist is because we have bad actors.”

Representative Doug Beck (D-St. Louis), a pipefitter for the UA Local 562, told lawmakers that voting to repeal the prevailing wage law would be “foolish.”

Representative Karla May (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“You’re telling your constituents – especially your construction constituents – that you want them to make less money.  That is what will happen; that is a fact.  They will also have less healthcare.  Job fatalities go up.  Safety issues go up – they all go up.  That’s what happens.  Less pensions; we’ll be paying for this through the state some way or another  way,” said Beck.

Republican Cheri Toalson Reisch (Hallsville), who worked as the city clerk and later mayor of Hallsville, said prevailing wage is not a union vs. non-union issue.

“This is a taxpayer issue.  I don’t care if you’re a union representative or not.  That has nothing to do with this bill,” said Reisch.  “I’ve spent almost my entire life being a taxpayer watchdog.  I have personally done millions upon millions and millions of water, sewer, street, and building construction projects that had to go prevailing wage.  I can tell you it does add 30-percent to the cost to my taxpayers.”

The House voted 89-62 to send the bill to the Senate.  Last year a similar proposal was sent to the Senate but that chamber failed to pass it.

House budget leader has plan to restore higher ed funding, but wants agreement on tuition first

The Missouri House budget committee has a plan to continue funding of Missouri’s colleges and universities at the amount budgeted last year, but in exchange lawmakers want those institutions to freeze tuition.

Representative Scott Fitzpatrick (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick (R-Shell Knob) said the solution comes from money the state set aside for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).  Because federal funding for the program was uncertain, the state set aside funds for CHIP.  Now that federal funding has come through, Fitzpatrick has said the state could restore all $68-million that Governor Eric Greitens (R) proposed cutting from higher education.

Fitzpatrick said full restoration is his goal, but he is seeking agreement from the state’s institutions that they will hold down tuition.

“I want to make sure that if we’re putting that money back it’s going to result in holding down the cost of college for Missouri students, so I’m in the process of trying to seek a deal on holding down tuition with the institutions in the state in exchange for making a full restoration,” said Fitzpatrick.  “So far that deal has not been agreed to and so what we did was we put, out of the $68-million we took $30-million of that, which is the amount that it takes to fully fund the Access Missouri Scholarship, which is the state’s need-based scholarship program, and we fully funded that scholarship because if tuition is going to go up I want to make sure that we are putting some of that money into a place where it’ll help the people that are having to pay that tuition offset it.”

Fitzpatrick told the rest of the committee that if the institutions agree to his plan he will put that $30-million back toward their state support.  If they don’t agree, he will leave that $30-million where it is and might move some of the remaining $38-million to other things.

“My goal is to help the institutions out but I also want that to translate into the cost of college being held down, and I don’t plan to seek an agreement that tuition won’t be raised every single year but I do think if we’re going to be spending close to $70-million on just going back into institutional budgets that there should be some consideration for that,” said Fitzpatrick.

Representative Kip Kendrick (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The leading Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Kip Kendrick (Columbia), said he’s still undecided on whether he supports the chairman’s proposed agreement, but he thinks the committee’s members all want to see tuition as level as possible and keep higher education affordable for Missourians.

“It’s hard to make an argument against fully funding the only needs-based scholarship program we have in the state of Missouri,” said Kendrick. “Access Missouri provides access, as it says – it’s in the name. It provides access to many Missourians – middle-class and lower-income individuals – to higher education. It’s an important program, it’s been underfunded for a number of years, so it’s hard to necessarily argue with where it currently stands.”

Kendrick said he hopes before the budget is final money could be found to both restore core funding to colleges and universities and to fully fund Access Missouri.

The budget committee will go through it’s “mark up” process next week.  Individual members of the committee will propose changes they want to make – to increase funding where they think it should be increased and propose where that funding could be pulled from.  From there, the committee will vote on whether to send each budget bill to debate by the full House, which is expected to happen after the legislature’s spring break.

House votes to outline lengths guards can go to, to protect Callaway nuclear plant

The Missouri House has approved a bill aimed at increasing security at the state’s only nuclear power plant.

Representative Travis Fitzwater (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Bill 1797, called the “Nuclear Power Plant Security Guard Act,” would create the offense of “trespass on a nuclear power plant, and make it punishable by up to four years in prison.  The bill also allows armed guards at the plant to use or threaten physical or deadly force if they believe it necessary to protect themselves or others protects them from civil liability for conduct covered in the bill.

Representative Travis Fitzwater (R-Holts Summit), whose district includes Ameren’s Callaway Energy Center, proposed the Act.

Fitzwater called the plant, “a very unique spot in our state, a very unique asset to our economy.  It just gives [guards] statutory authority to protect that facility.”

The bill had bipartisan support, including from Representative Bob Burns (D-St. Louis) who recalled touring the plant when he was first elected to the House 6 years ago.

He said the state can’t do enough to protect the plant, “Particularly with what we’ve been hearing for the past couple of years about our electric grid.  Things like Callaway, those are targets for terrorists, and if something happened to Callaway it wouldn’t just hurt Callaway, it would hurt our whole state and our region.  I mean it could make Chernobyl look like a firecracker.”

The bill passed 134-8.  One of those 8 “no” votes was cast by Kirkwood Democrat Deb Lavender, who said guards at Callaway already have the authority the Act would allow, including authority to use deadly force when there is a “reasonable belief” that it is necessary.

“We already have measures in place that protect this plant.  I don’t think this plant is fragile.  For those of you who don’t know, we hire a SEALS team to attempt to break into Callaway once a year.  They have never been successful,” said Lavender.

The Act now goes to the Senate for its consideration.

Missouri House votes to limit lawsuits against bankruptcy trusts in asbestos illness cases

The Missouri House has voted to limit the ability to file lawsuits against bankruptcy trusts in cases of asbestos-related illness.

Representative Bruce DeGroot (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Bruce DeGroot (R-Chesterfield) said plaintiffs who sue solvent companies for an asbestos-related illness and are awarded money by a jury often then file claims against bankruptcy trusts for the same health issues – what he called “double dipping.”  His legislation, House Bill 1645, would give plaintiffs 30 days from filing suit against a solvent company to disclose any potential claims against a bankruptcy trust.

DeGroot said the bill aims to protect bankruptcy trusts, which compensate those injured by defunct companies, and have finite resources.

“Once that money is depleted it’s gone, and if we are allowing the system as it currently stands to go on, what we’re doing is allowing those trusts to be depleted at a much quicker rate than what they should be,” said DeGroot.  “Who this of course truly affects is that guy standing at the end of the line … by the way, we don’t even who those people are at this point, but by the time they get up and they’re ready to make their claim against the bankruptcy trust, that money won’t be in effect any longer.”

Jefferson City Republican Jay Barnes said current law already allows defendants in these cases to prevent “double dipping” by claimants.  He argued that it could take claimants longer than 30 days to know whether they have a claim against a trust, and under DeGroot’s bill many sick with mesothelioma would die before they could get to a trial.

He also said DeGroot’s bill would do the opposite of protecting bankruptcy trusts.

Representative Jay Barnes (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“Under current law a claimant is not required to file a trust claim … they don’t have to take any assets from a trust under current law.  And [Representative DeGroot], who says his bill is to protect trust assets, requires them to make claims from these trusts,” said Barnes.  “Under current law there is a situation where there could be zero claim against the trust and if this bill passes, every person who has a claim against a trust must make a claim against a trust … it does the exact opposite of what [Representative DeGroot] says is the purpose of the bill.”

Representative DaRon McGee (D-Kansas City) said the concept that individuals who pursue claims against trusts after suing solvent companies is double dipping is a “myth.”

“If four defendants are responsible for an injury and you sue two solvent defendants and are forced to pursue the other two through trusts, this is not ‘double dipping.’  You’re getting the full dip that you’re entitled to,” said McGee.

Kansas City Republican Kevin Corlew said the bill would allow plaintiffs to pursue claims against trusts in a more efficient way while at the same time pursuing cases against solvent companies.

“It’s often not the plaintiff’s fault that this information isn’t brought forth, it’s the plaintiff’s lawyers who are trying to make sure that they get recovery here and then make sure that they get recovery later through the system.  All this is saying is seek recovery at the same time,” said Corlew.

The House voted 96-48 to send the bill to the Senate, which is considering its own version of the proposal.