Bipartisan House bills would close ‘loophole’ that allows domestic abusers to have guns

A bipartisan effort to change Missouri gun laws aims to keep domestic abusers from having firearms.

Representatives Donna Lichtenegger (left) and Tracy McCreery co-present their bills aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of individuals with a history of domestic violence. (photo; Chris Moreland, Missouri House Communications)

House Bills 2276 and 1849 are sponsored by Representatives Donna Lichtenegger (R-Jackson) and Tracy McCreery (D-St. Louis), respectively.  Both bills would expand the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm to include those who have been convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors or who have a full order of protection against them.

Representative Lichtenegger said the issue is personal for her because of her own experience with domestic violence.

“When I was four I can vividly remember my mother getting beaten nightly by my drunken father.  Because of that I ended up in a children’s home because he threatened to throw acid in my face,” said Lichtenegger.  “When I was 15 or 16 – don’t remember the age, really, because I don’t remember the night very well – but someone came into my room and beat the crap out of my head.  There’s just no other way to put that.”

Both representatives say the bill would fill in a “loophole” in Missouri law created by the passage of Senate Bill 656 in 2016.  Under the state’s original concealed carry law, Missourians who were found guilty of a domestic violence misdemeanor or who were subject to an order of protection were denied concealed carry permits.  That prohibition was nullified by SB 656.  Federal law denies guns to those with misdemeanor domestic violence convictions or full orders of protection against them, but since Missouri law doesn’t, only federal agents and courts can pursue such cases in Missouri.

“This has been part of federal law since 1997 but the only place that it appeared in Missouri law prior to the enactment of SB 656 was in our CCW chapter, so when we passed 656 we kind of accidentally took those protections out,” said McCreery.  “This actually, truly is an issue that shouldn’t be about political party, so I hope the fact that we’ve worked together on this kind of symbolizes how this is just a good, sensible public policy.”

The bill was presented Tuesday night to the House Committee on General Laws.  Several advocates for domestic violence victims told lawmakers they strongly support the legislation.

Judy Kile, Executive Director of COPE, a shelter in Lebanon, told the committee her twin sister’s husband shot and killed her in a murder-suicide.  He had a history of domestic violence.

“Yesterday was our birthday but one of us isn’t here,” said Kile.  “We need to get the guns out of their hands if they are known to be domestic violence offenders.”

Carla Simpson, who works for New House Shelter in Kansas City, said her sister’s husband also shot her to death in a murder-suicide.

“My brother-in-law was pretty much a law-abiding citizen except for the domestic violence; except for the abuse he caused my sister and he had been to court and he had been convicted of domestic violence,” said Simpson.

She said if a judge had been able to order that her brother-in-law not be allowed to have guns, “I think that Mike would have thought twice about having guns in his house and my sister may still be alive today.  I’m here in her memory.”

Both bills also make gun possession illegal in Missouri for those who are unlawfully in the country or have renounced his or her citizenship.

No one spoke against the proposals in Tuesday night’s hearing.  The committee has not voted on either bill.  Last year similar legislation received a hearing by a House committee but that panel did not vote on it.

House votes to require notification of both parents when minors seek an abortion

The Missouri House has voted to require the notification of both parents when a minor in Missouri seeks to have an abortion.

Representative Rocky Miller (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The House voted 113-37 on Monday to pass House Bill 1383.  It would require that a parent or guardian giving consent for a minor to have an abortion notify any other custodial parent or guardian in writing before the minor gives her consent.  It would not apply in an emergency or for custodial parents or guardians that have been found guilty of certain crimes, are listed on the sex offender registry, are the subject of an order of protection, have had parental rights terminated, or for whom the whereabouts are not known.

Missouri law now requires that a minor seeking an abortion and one parent or guardian of that minor give written consent before the procedure can be performed.

HB 1383 is sponsored by Representative Rocky Miller (R-Lake Ozark).

“It just comes down to common sense,” said Miller.  “We just need to be able to notify the other parent if the other parent is a good parent.  In addition this bill has the added benefit of notifying a good parent if the other parent … happens to not be a good parent.”

The bill was opposed by many Democrats including Stacey Newman (D-St. Louis), who argue that teens could be put in danger because the parents it would require them to notify could be abusive.

“This bill puts pregnant girls in grave danger of abuse from their abusers, from their traffickers, from their incestuous fathers, step-fathers, their custodial male parent, and yet we hear on this floor with previous bills that each one of you is against sex trafficking and child abuse … and yet each one of you knows exactly what dangers our teens face.  Each one of you women knows exactly how any angry parent could react, and each one of you women knows exactly why teens may only notify, may only talk to one parent – that parent that they trust for very good reason,” said Newman.

Representative Crystal Quade (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Representative Crystal Quade (D-Springfield) said the bill could force teens to contact parents they don’t want to contact.

“What worries me about this bill are the young women who, as we’ve discussed, are abused by their parents, potentially, and don’t have the guts, don’t want to, don’t have the financial means, it’s purely not their path of coping, to go to the courts to get a piece of paper that says they don’t have to reach out to their potential abuser,” said Quade.  “As someone who doesn’t speak to their biological father I understand what it means to reestablish connections when you don’t want to, and if we as a legislative body are forcing young women to reestablish connections because they don’t want to go to court for whatever reason, it’s shameful.”

Newman said, “every major credible medical organization strongly opposes this bill.”

“They strongly oppose the idea of minors who request confidential services … they strongly oppose any type of intervention, any type of parental consent,” said Newman.

Miller disputed that argument, saying the American Medical Association’s position supports his proposal.

“’Physicians should strongly encourage minors to discuss their pregnancy with their parents.  Physicians should explain how parental involvement can be helpful and that parents are generally understanding and supportive.’  That is straight from the American Medical Association, so anybody that says differently is lying and it’s upsetting,” said Miller.  “I haven’t had any, any, any hard proof to me that there’s a problem with notifying a good parent.”

Miller argued that the majority of Americans believe in parental notification when a minor seeks an abortion.

“You’re worrying about these bad things that could happen but there’s an overwhelming amount of good that does happen when you discuss these things,” said Miller.  “You must have parental involvement when it’s involving a child like this.”

HB 1383 goes to the Senate, where similar legislation has been approved by committees in recent years but has not been passed in that chamber.

Missouri House creates committee to investigate felony charge against Gov. Greitens

The Missouri House has created a committee that will investigate the charge on which Governor Eric Greitens (R) has been indicted.

Representative Jay Barnes and House Speaker Todd Richardson (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Greitens was indicted by a St. Louis grand jury for felony invasion of privacy.  Greitens is accused of taking, without consent, a photo of a woman with whom he had an affair in 2015.

House Speaker Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) and other Republican members of House Leadership said Thursday they would begin identifying the legislators that would investigate that charge.  On Monday Richardson announced the committee will be chaired by Jefferson City Republican Jay Barnes.

“This committee’s task is going to be to investigate facts.  We’re going to do so in a way that is fair, thorough, and timely, and we’re going to do it without any preordained results,” said Barnes.  “We are going to be asking questions of witnesses on both sides and hope to have a process with full involvement from everyone involved in this matter.”

Barnes, an attorney, has been tasked with heading other investigative committees including one into the state’s involvement in a fraudulent deal to bring to Moberly a sucralose producer under the name Mamtek.

He is joined on the committee by its vice chairman, Don Phillips (R-Kimberling City) and representatives Jeanie Lauer (R-Blue Springs), Kevin Austin (R-Springfield), Shawn Rhoads (R-West Plains), Gina Mitten (D-St. Louis), and Tommie Pierson, Jr (D-St. Louis).

Representative Pierson, one of two Democrats on the committee, said it’s unfortunate that the panel is needed but the process should be as prudent as possible.

“I did accept to be on the committee because I feel that I will be fair and honest and open to hearing and allowing the process to run its course,” said Pierson.  “That’s what I hope to see happen.”

Meanwhile, said Richardson, the House will continue its other work.

“We are going to continue to move forward with the substantive legislation that we have spent the bulk of this session working on,” said Richardson.  “Yes, Representative Barnes and his committee are going to have a big task but that is not going to deter us or limit our ability to move forward on priorities that the people of Missouri sent us here to do.”

The committee will hold its first hearing later this week.

House considers barring public contracts with companies boycotting Israel

The state House’s Speaker is asking his colleagues to bar state and local governments from contracting with any company that is boycotting Israel.

Missouri House Speaker Todd Richardson (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Speaker Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) is sponsoring only one piece of legislation this year:  House Bill 2179.  It would prevent any public entity in Missouri from entering into contracts with such companies.  It’s being called the, “Anti-Discrimination Against Israel Act.”

Richardson told the House Committee on General Laws the bill is a push-back against the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions movement (BDS movement) against Israel.  Richardson says the U.S., and Missouri in particular, have strong economic ties to Israel.

“I think there is a belief, and I think rightly, that while some people that may sympathize with the BDS movement may do it legitimately and with good intention, but at its core the BDS movement seeks the economic destruction of the State of Israel,” said Richardson.  “I think it’s been the longstanding public policy in the United States, and certainly here in the State of Missouri, that the State of Israel legitimately exists.  It’s existed legitimately and been internationally recognized for more than 70 years and those efforts to seek to destroy it are something that we shouldn’t be supporting.”

St. Louis representative Peter Merideth (D) asked whether the bill sets a precedent for the state to take a position or action against those who participate in protests.

“There was talk of some conservative folks across the country wanting to boycott the NFL because of some protests in the NFL and there were businesses saying we’re not going to advertise on NFL games now.  So if that had spread and grown and all of a sudden business across our state are going, ‘We’re going to protest the NFL by boycotting advertisements on the NFL,’ and we said, ‘Well you know what, we benefit economically from the NFL.’  Are we then entitled to, as a state, say as our policy because we economically benefit from the NFL we can tell those businesses they’re not allowed to do business with our state?” Merideth asked.

Richardson said he would not support something to the extent of the position Merideth posed, and said his bill addresses a unique situation.

“You are talking about a deep and long-standing public policy of this country and of this state to support the State of Israel and its continued existence, and Missouri enjoys tremendous economic benefits from that relationship,” said Richardson.

The bill was the subject of two hours of testimony.

Andrew Rehfeld of the Jewish Federation of St. Louis said BDS seeks to end the existence of Israel, and said that’s why the Federation supports HB 2179.

“What we are seeking to do is address the fact that Israel is consistently singled out for this kind of activity, that this activity is aimed at the distinctive character of Israel as a Jewish state, and this legislation makes clear – more than symbolically, I’ll grant you that – but at the same time it sends a statement that the state won’t do business with businesses that want to engage in that kind of discriminatory economic practice,” said Rehfeld.

House Bill 2179 was the subject of about two hours of testimony in a packed hearing room. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Naveen Ayesh told lawmakers the BDS movement is a peaceful attempt at changing oppressive Israeli policies she said she has experienced first-hand.  She argued HB 2179 would be unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court has recognized non-violent political boycotts as protected free speech under the First Amendment.  Legislatures should work towards protecting the rights of Missourians, not punishing them for exercising them, and hopefully push towards a more balanced Middle East foreign policy that grants equal rights for Palestinians and everyone in the Holy Land,” said Ayesh.

The committee voted 12-1 to advance HB 2179, with Representative Merideth casting the lone dissenting vote.  It faces one more committee, which will vote whether to send it to the full House for debate.

Missouri legislature approves human trafficking hotline posters

The first bill to be passed out of the Missouri legislature in 2018 aims to fight human trafficking.

Representative Patricia Pike (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Bill 1246 would require the Department of Public Safety to develop posters that provide information on what human trafficking is and how victims can get help.  It would require those posters to be displayed by certain businesses including hotels and motels, strip clubs, private clubs, airports, emergency rooms, bus stations, and truck and rest stops.

The posters will include the National Human Trafficking Resource Hotline, which is 888-373-7888, and by text is 233733 (BEFREE).

HB 1246 is sponsored by Adrian Republican Patricia Pike.

“This bill works to provide rescue information to the victims and educate the citizens about human trafficking in a statewide and uniform way,” said Pike.  “I believe this bill will save lives, bring victims home to their families, and educate the public further on how to identify human trafficking.  It will also provide law enforcement with increased opportunities to receive tips to help combat trafficking.”

Representative Michael Butler (D-St. Louis) said trafficking is a major issue in Missouri and particularly in St. Louis.  He said the legislation is a sign that the legislature, and the state, are starting to recognize how great that issue is, and said more must be done.

“The greatest fear I have is something like this happening to my daughter.  Many of us, I’m sure, who have children, we think about it every time we’re in the grocery store, every time we’re somewhere public – that you could lose that person and it was your responsibility,” said Butler.  “I just thank [Representative Pike] for making me feel a little more comfortable about what I’m doing here today and whenever I think about that in the grocery store … I think about this bill.”

Under the bill the posters must be created by January 1, 2019, and must be displayed by the establishments specified in the bill by March 1, 2019.  Businesses that repeatedly fail to display them could incur fines.  The posters will be printed at the cost of each business that must display them.

House Speaker Todd Richardson prepares to sign HB 1246 so that it may be sent to the governor’s office for consideration. (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The creation and display of such posters was one of the recommendations of the House Task Force on Human Trafficking, which was chaired by Speaker Pro Tem Elijah Haahr (R-Springfield).

Pike said more than 20 states have such posters and it has been shown that trafficking victims who use the national hotline have a better chance of being rescued.

The bill was passed out of the House in January 139-5 and the Senate passed it early this month.  It now awaits action from the governor’s office or it could become law without any such action after 15 days.

Last year a similar bill sponsored by Representative Cloria Brown reached the state Senate but did not come to a vote in that chamber.

The House this week also passed a bill that sets a minimum age for applicants for Missouri marriage licenses.  Sponsor Jean Evans (R-Manchester) said the bill would combat traffickers and abusers bringing minor victims to Missouri to marry them.  That bill has been sent to the Senate for consideration.

House endorses minimum age for Missouri marriage licenses

The House this week voted to set a minimum age at which people in Missouri can get a marriage license, but the bill met more resistance than last year.

Representative Jean Evans (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Marriage licenses can now be issued to persons younger than 15 under certain conditions.  House Bill 1630 would increase that age to 17 and require a court hearing on whether the marriage is advisable.  No licenses would be issued when either party is younger than 15, or when one party is 21 or older and the other party is younger than 17.

Bill sponsor Jean Evans (R-Manchester) began offering the legislation last year as a way to fight human trafficking; particularly cases in which abusers bring young trafficking victims to Missouri to marry them.

“Currently we do not have a minimum age of marriage in Missouri and this bill seeks to correct that,” said Evans.  “In addition it will protect young people from predators and those who might do them harm with forced marriages.”

The bill had bipartisan support, including from St. Louis Democrat Michael Butler, who said it’s appropriate for the legislature to set a minimum age for things like marriage.

“A decision to get married … is a very important decision, and minors in a lot of cases, we know, generally don’t have complete control when that decision is made.  To create a way for young people in our state to be protected from tough decisions that aren’t made by themselves, and we know this is occurring, is something that we should be doing,” said Butler.

Shamed Dogan (R-Ballwin) who argued that Missouri has a serious problem with human trafficking.

“If someone over the age of 21 – someone 30 years-old comes to a high school and engages in sexual activity with a 15 year-old or a 12 year-old or anyone under the age of consent that’s statutory rape, and right now that person can legitimately get married.  That’s a problem,” said Dogan.

Similar legislation passed out of the House last year 139-1, but this year many Republicans opposed the bill.  Some, including Lincoln Republican Wanda Brown, don’t like the requirement that a court hearing decide whether a marriage license should be issued for someone between the ages of 15 and 17.

Representative Wanda Brown (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

“I’m not opposed, necessarily, to raising the age limit for marriage.  What I’m opposed to is telling every parent in this state they’re not fit to make a decision for their child without asking a judge, and of course paying an attorney,” said Brown.  “The bill was brought forward in the name of stopping human trafficking.  This is a made-up concept.  This does nothing to stop the traffickers.  This only takes the parental rights of good, law abiding citizens.”

Others like David Wood (R-Versailles) expressed concern the bill might affect religious populations living in their districts.

“I have a very large Mennonite population.  Mennonite population typically marries relatively young,” said Wood.  “My court could get really backed up waiting on a judge to approve a lot of these weddings when they’re approved by the family, they’re approved by the church, and they’re welcomed in the community.”

Regarding concerns like those of Wood, Evans said her bill is very similar to one in place in Pennsylvania where there are significant, similar religious populations.

“If you’re under 18 you have to have parent permission and go before a judge, and the judge just has to basically say there’s nothing – there’s no ill will here.  There’s not somebody taking advantage of someone.  This is a good fit, the families support it, and go forward and get married,” said Evans.  “It’s very similar to that and it’s worked very well in Pennsylvania where, again, they have much larger communities of Amish and Mennonite even than we do here in Missouri.”

Evans also said the bill does nothing to prevent a religious wedding ceremony.

Despite increased opposition over last year, a bipartisan 95-50 vote sent the bill to the Senate.  Last year Evans’ similar legislation was approved by a Senate committee but advanced no further.

Another measure backers say will help fight human trafficking became the first bill sent to the governor’s office in 2018.  Speaker Todd Richardson (R-Poplar Bluff) signed House Bill 1246.  The bill, sponsored by Adrian Republican Patricia Pike would require the development of posters displaying information on human trafficking.

House votes to allow production, interstate imports of industrial hemp

The Missouri House has again endorsed getting the state into the industrial hemp industry.

Representative Paul Curtman (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

The House voted 141-4 on Thursday in favor of House Bill 2034, which would exempt hemp from state law governing controlled substances and create a pilot program for hemp production.

“Missouri used to be one of the leaders in the growth and the cultivation of industrial hemp.  This is a huge cash crop.  This is not something that people use for narcotic purposes.  This is simply something that people use for manufacturing purposes,” said bill sponsor Paul Curtman (R-Pacific).  “This is a substantial step in the direction of economic freedom and also property rights as it relates to what our farmers can and can’t grow or what they choose to grow.”

HB 2034 would also allow Missouri manufacturers to import hemp from other states where it can be grown.  Currently they must get it from other nations because of laws that prohibit transport across state lines.

The bill would allow the cultivation of hemp with less than .3-percent THC, the main psychoactive component of cannabis.

That earned the bill support from legislators with a law enforcement background, including Galen Higdon (R-St. Joseph), who is a retired Buchanon County deputy sheriff.  He said it has no value as an illegal drug.

“In our rural areas a lot of what we call ‘ditch weed’ just grows wild, and people from out of state that don’t know this go and harvest that and bag it and sell it and end up getting themselves in trouble with the people they’ve sold it to,” said Higdon.

Representative Allen Andrews (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Higdon said he’s learned that at one time seven different farms grew hemp in his county.

“There was a rope manufacturer, there was a burlap bag manufacturer; and those plants were grown and cut until the federal government banned marijuana throughout the United States,” said Higdon.

During debate several lawmakers raised the question of whether Curtman’s legislation should be tied to legalization of marijuana.  Others, including St. Louis Democrat Deb Lavender, said the topics should be kept separate.

“It is a different plant and I would love to see [hemp] in.  I’m not opposed to [marijuana] either, and I think there’s tremendous financial aspects that the state could benefit from, but for this purpose I think we need to get this up and going for the good of our state, for the good of our farmers,” said Lavender.

Grant City Republican Allen Andrews was one of the four “no” votes on HB 2034.  He said the state Highway Patrol opposes it and said other law enforcement consider hemp as a first step toward legalization of marijuana.

“Our own state Highway Patrol told me two days ago in a meeting that the legalization of industrial hemp will be difficult to police and even more difficult to control, requiring more manpower than is currently available, and will prove to be a detriment from the other patrol safety concerns that they have,” said Andrews.

Curtman said the Patrol is neutral on his legislation.

Farm groups have said that adding industrial hemp to a crop rotation can lead to an increase in yields.  Hemp also grows well in poor soil, including land not suitable for more typical crops such as corn or soybeans.

The bill goes to the Senate where in past years similar legislation has been passed out of a committee but has not been passed by the full chamber.

Missouri House votes to support needle exchange programs to fight IV drug abuse, disease

The Missouri House has proposed easing state law to allow organizations to give clean needles to users of illegal intravenous drugs.  Backers say the bill will help combat a potential outbreak in diseases like HIV and Hepatitis C caused by the sharing of used needles, and will get more people into drug treatment, but not all lawmakers are convinced.

Representative Holly Rehder (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Needle exchange or syringe access programs already exist in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas.  Representative Holly Rehder (R-Sikeston) said those programs are operating in violation of state law regarding drug paraphernalia, but local jurisdictions allow them to operate because of the impact they have.

Legislation sponsored by Rehder, House Bill 1620, would relax state law to allow those programs to operate and to expand to other regions in the state.

Rehder said people who use those programs to get needles are 5-times more likely to get into drug treatment because the programs put them in contact with medical professionals.

“That becomes the medical professional in their life, so they go and they get a ten-cent needle but they get so much more than that,” said Rehder.  “They get educational material explaining the harm of what they’re doing.  They get a person who’s greeting them where they’re at in life who’s explaining there are options for you.  We have places for you to go that we can get you into to help get you past this addiction, and so that becomes a relationship.”

Lake St. Louis Republican Justin Hill said as a former police officer and drug task force detective he supports the legislation.  He said law enforcement officers are always conscious, when dealing with individuals abusing intravenous drugs, to look out for needles.

“Use extreme caution because you don’t want to be pricked by what?  A dirty needle.  We want clean needles on the street because of the instances where if an officer gets pricked they don’t want to have to take tests for the next two years of their lives every month – go get tested for HIV, go get tested for AIDS, go get tested for Hep C,” said Hill.

Some Republicans who are former law enforcement officers oppose Rehder’s bill.  Cedar Hill representative Shane Roden, a reserve deputy sheriff, called the idea “stupid.”

“We’re not fixing the problem.  We’re just creating Band-Aids.  We’re not actually coming down with any solutions,” said Roden.

Representative Shane Roden (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

Roden argued that with HB 1620, “We’re literally going to put the needle in their arm.”

Still the proposal has broad support including from Democrats.  St. Louis City representative Peter Merideth followed-up Rowden’s statements by asking Rehder, “Do you expect this to cure the problem of opioid addiction in Missouri?”

“No, and no one other than that gentlemen has even insinuated that this is a fix for the problem.  We all, that have stood up, have said it’s a tool in our toolbox,” Rehder replied.

Backers also say the bill will save the state money in costs to Medicaid of treating people who contract conditions like HIV and Hepatitis C by sharing needles.

The House voted 135-13 to send the legislation to the Senate.  In previous years one similar proposal was voted out of one House committee but moved no further through the process.

State Representative’s review finds $36-million of potential savings in Department of Revenue

A state House representative says his review of the Department of Revenue uncovered ways the state could save up to $36-million dollars.

Representative David Gregory (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

St. Louis Republican David Gregory presented to the House Budget Committee what he called a, “Fiscal Opportunity Audit” of the Department.  He explained that he spent 160 hours over several months studying the department, meeting with its staff, and comparing it to counterparts in other states.  He said he found a number of ways the state could save money or generate revenue.

At least one of his findings has come up in other reviews of Missouri tax policy including Governor Eric Greitens’ (R) tax cut plan, and that concerns the state’s business sales tax discount.  Missouri businesses that remit to the state in a timely manner the sales tax they collect get a 2-percent discount.  Gregory said of neighboring states three have no such discount and four cap how much money businesses can retain.  Missouri’s discount is the second highest among all states.

“Let’s say we wanted to implement an arbitrary cap.  We still wanted to be the most business-friendly, we wanted to be the most generous in our area, we can implement a cap of $3000 a month.  That would save $52.7-million a year in state taxes,” said Gregory.

Gregory said he also found that capping the state’s withholding tax discount – a discount that among the states is unique to Missouri – the state could save up to $13-million a year.

As for revenue generation, Gregory said for the Department to hire three more people to investigate notices of auto sales could generate more than $3-million a year.  Hiring two more people to investigate the paying of sales taxes on vehicle purchases might result in $700,000 a year more revenue.

Gregory also looked at what the Department is spending on supplies and that led him to Missouri Vocational Enterprises.  People incarcerated in state prisons work for MVE making products including furniture, clothing, notepads, and a variety of other products.  All state agencies are required by law to purchase any product they need from MVE if it’s made there.

Gregory said when he looked into one specific product, a chair purchased from MVE by the Department, he found that, “the exact same chairs sell online at Office Depot for $150.  Our Department of Revenue paid almost $400 a chair.  That’s too much.  That’s way too much,” said Gregory.  “I like the MVE.  I love the program.  I think it’s a great idea and we’re going to work with them, but paying $400 – requiring a $400 spend on chairs is absolutely ridiculous.”

Overall Gregory said the Department spent $4.2-million a year with MVE.

“If we could get the MVE to commercial rates of one-third of what it is … even if we could just do a 50-percent cut … that’s $2.1-million a year in savings,” said Gregory, who said he’s been talking to MVE’s director and believes changes to that agency’s pricing can be implemented.

In looking at size, Gregory found that Indiana’s Department of Revenue covers about half-a-million more residents over about the same land size with 822 employees compared to 1,145 in Missouri’s Department.  Gregory said he has identified 283 employees he believes the Department could cut without falling behind in its operations.

Gregory emphasized to the committee that his findings were just that; not recommendations or proposals.  The budget subcommittee that deals with the Department will consider whether to explore them further or act upon them.

House Budget Committee Chairman Scott Fitzpatrick said the Department will be given time to react, “As opposed to us doing it through the budget right now and maybe forcing the changes to occur too fast.”

“What happens now is I want to see to it that we implement and execute on those observations if the budget committee and the General Assembly agrees with me,” said Gregory.  “A lot of them aren’t things you can just do overnight, so generally like I said in my presentation, my recommendation’s going to be that we work with management over a course of 12, 18, 24 months and see what we can do together to execute.”

Gregory said any changes the Department does experience could take years and some could require legislation.  At some point he hopes to see a similar review done with other state agencies.

House rejects greater penalties for assaulting, killing police dogs, following emotional debate

The Missouri House has defeated a bill to increase penalties for assaulting or killing a law enforcement animal amid emotional debate led by black Democrats, who emphasized what they say those dogs represent to their communities.

Representative Robert Cornejo (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

House Bill 1649 would increase those penalties as high as a class-C felony, which carries up to ten years in prison, for killing a police dog or injuring it to the extent it cannot continue to be used as a police dog.

The sponsor of House Bill 1649, St. Charles Republican Robert Cornejo, has offered similar legislation for several years.  He said the penalties for hurting or killing a police dog are too lenient.

“Even if you treat it as property, with the tens of thousands of dollars that are invested in this property I don’t think that the punishment should be the same as failing to return a library book that’s worth ten bucks.  I think this is something that is right-sizing the punishment,” said Cornejo.

The bill was given initial approval last week but only after many Democrats spoke against it saying that police dogs have, in the words of Minority Leader Gail McCann Beatty (Kansas City), “been used as a weapon against black citizens.”

House Minority Leader Gail McCann Beatty (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications)

During debate before the vote whether to send the bill to the Senate, Representative Bruce Franks, Junior, (D-Ferguson) spoke with Cornejo about what police dogs meant to him.

“I can remember when I was in elementary school how much I would hate watching civil rights videos because of what they did with those dogs,” said Franks.

Some Republicans also talked about issues they had with the legislation.  Shamed Dogan (R-Ballwin) said under HB 1649 the penalties for killing or disabling a police dog would be greater than those for second degree rape or assaulting a person in a nursing home.  He also said the bill leaves no room for self-defense against a police dog and does not account for incidents in which a dog might be used improperly by police.

“This piece of legislation does not allow me to stand my ground against a police dog,” said Dogan.  “It is the irony of all ironies that those of us who support the Second Amendment would say that I have a right to self-defense, that I have a right to use deadly force against other people when I believe that my life is in jeopardy from them, but if I’m being charged at by a police dog then that right just goes away and I have to take whatever that dog is going to give me.”

Some Republicans said the issues that were raised caused them to change from favoring the bill in last week’s vote to opposing it.  Rolla Republican Keith Frederick told Beatty the legislation needs to be reconsidered.

Representative Shamed Dogan (photo; Tim Bommel, Missouri House Communications

“I think if I were in the African American community and hearing the discussion that you’ve done today, I would very much be saying to myself, ‘You know, this is not good optics, for sure; it’s not a good perception,’” said Frederick.

The vote on the bill was 73-68, short of the 82 needed to send it to the Senate.  Cornejo noted that there were 14 members absent for that vote and said the bill could be brought up again for consideration, or that the issue should still receive attention.

“I think if we had full attendance the bill would’ve passed,” said Cornejo.  “I know, speaking with somebody already since the vote, there may be a motion to [reconsider] or we could revisit this issue as an amendment on the floor in the future.”

Beatty said she was, “a little bit,” surprised that the bill failed.

“I was very impressed by the fact that folks actually listened,” said Beatty.  “I don’t think when we did the perfection [vote] that people understood the deep-seeded anguish that people felt over this particular bill, particularly when we were basically saying that animal’s life takes precedent.”

Democrats also called for other bills dealing with police matters to be advanced.

“Until we face this issue head-on and look at the legislation that’s out there and really deal with the issue little pieces like this are not going to fix it and there’s going to be unintended consequences,” said Beatty.