HB 886: evidently someone didn’t return a phone call quickly enough

25 Monday Mar 2013

Posted by Michael Bersin in Uncategorized

Tags

HB 886, Kurt Bahr, micromanagement, missouri

A bill, introduced today:

HB 886

Authorizes the General Assembly to remove any department director or deputy director if it determines that the removal is necessary for the betterment of the public service

Sponsor: Bahr, Kurt (102)

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2013

LR Number: 2087H.01I

Last Action: 3/25/2013 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)

[….]

Heh. I bet that’s a really interesting story.

2 thoughts on “HB 886: evidently someone didn’t return a phone call quickly enough”

Michael Bersin said:

March 26, 2013 at 11:37 am

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 886
97TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE BAHR.
2087H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 106, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to removal of department directors.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 106, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 106.215, to read as follows:
106.215. 1. The general assembly is hereby authorized to remove from employment or service any department director or deputy director when it determines that such removal is necessary for the betterment of the public service in a manner consistent with the provisions of this section.
2. A petition signed by sixteen members of the house of representatives and filed with the chief clerk of the house containing allegations supporting the need for removal of the director or deputy director shall initiate the process. After the removal petition has been filed, the chief clerk shall give a written notice to the secretary of the senate and the director or deputy director of the intention to remove him or her from office.
3. If the requirements under subsection 2 of this section have been met the house standing ethics committee shall gather information regarding the allegations set for in the petition and shall conduct at least one hearing to allow the director or deputy director to present a defense to the allegations against him or her. This hearing shall be a closed meeting and not open to the public. Within thirty days of its first meeting, the committee shall file a report of its findings with the chief clerk of the house and the secretary of the senate.
4. After the committee has filed its report, the members of the house of representatives shall vote on the removal of the director or deputy director. If a majority of the members of the body vote to remove the director or deputy director, then the senate shall vote on the removal. If the majority of the whole number of votes of both houses is in the affirmative, then the director or deputy director shall be relieved of his or her employment with the state immediately and shall be removed from the position he or she holds.
5. For the purposes of this section, “betterment of the public service” shall include instances of misconduct, perjury before any committee of the general assembly, violation of any state statute, a conviction or plea of guilty for committing any crime, habitual drunkenness, willful neglect of duty, corruption in office, incompetency, or any offense involving moral turpitude or oppression in office.

[emphasis in original]
Only sixteen members sign the petition? A closed hearing? Yeah, this would never be a politically motivated action.
What happens if the General Assembly isn’t in session? Just asking.

Loading...

Reply
Bob Yates said:

March 26, 2013 at 7:07 pm

Given the fact that there is no protection for being fired for sexual orientation, does having a same gender partner meet the rather low standard here?

Loading...

Reply

	Steve Duane Phipps on No Kings – Warrensburg,…
	No Kings – War… on Warrensburg, Missouri – No Kin…
	Campaign Finance: pr… on Campaign Finance: for billiona…
	Campaign Finance: wa… on About that ‘inconvenient…
	Campaign Finance: ke… on About that ‘inconvenient…

Show Me Progress

~ covering government and politics in Missouri – since 2007

HB 886: evidently someone didn’t return a phone call quickly enough

Like this:

2 thoughts on “HB 886: evidently someone didn’t return a phone call quickly enough”

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Share this:

Like this:

2 thoughts on “HB 886: evidently someone didn’t return a phone call quickly enough”

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

Discover more from Show Me Progress