Category Archives: Missouri General Assembly

HCS HB 573: if you put marshmallows and sprinkles on a mud pie it’s still a mud pie

13 Wednesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The House Judiciary Committee met yesterday and voted 11-6 to move HB 573 (on gutting Title IX in Missouri) forward with a lot of amendments.

Representative Dean Dohrman (r) [2016 file photo].

The summary [pdf] of HCS HB 573:

HCS HB 573 — DUE PROCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
SPONSOR: Dohrman

COMMITTEE ACTION: Voted “Do Pass with HCS” by the Standing Committee on Judiciary by a vote of 11 to 6.

This bill provides, students in higher education, due process protections and allows students to request that Federal Title IX procedural hearings be heard before the Administrative Hearing Commission (Section 173.1898 RSMo).

This bill allows any students in an institution of higher education who have received a disciplinary action in a Title IX case to appeal to the Administrative Hearing Commission (Section 173.1905).

The Administrative Hearing Commission shall compile relevant statistics on the cases it hears (Section 173.1907).

This bill provides institutions of higher education guidance for Title IX formal complaints. This guidance includes interim measures that avoid depriving any student of an education during investigation and resolution of the formal complaint.

Notice of the right to request a hearing before the Administrative Hearing Commission must be provided.

This bill sets forth hearing procedures for Title IX formal complaints.

To reach a determination of responsibility, the decisionmaker or decisionmakers shall apply either the preponderance of the evidence standard or the clear and convincing evidence standard. However, the preponderance of the evidence standard may only be used if it is also used in all other discriminatory harassment complaints involving faculty (Section 173.1910).

The bill specifies that failure to provide due process for a Title IX proceeding will entitle students to a civil cause of action. It will be considered a breach of contract for the institution of higher education and be considered an illegal act by the Attorney General for purposes of investigation (Section 173.1915).

This bill authorizes the Attorney General to investigate alleged or suspected violations and outlines information that should be collected regarding procedures and policies for formal complaints (Section 173.1925).

The bill defines “exempt record” and “personally identifiable information,” and provides that any record related to a Title IX formal complaint or investigation would be considered an exempt record (Section 173.1930).

The bill contains an emergency clause.

PROPONENTS: Supporters say that, under current Title IX laws, principles of “justice for all” are lost. They system currently denies accused parties of certain rights, like being able to face their accuser or being represented by counsel. If they are represented by counsel, counsel is not permitted to speak at the hearings. The school hearings do not always occur in person; rather, sometimes they occur only in writing. Additionally, decisions can be reached very quickly, whereas, for regular trials, there is more time to prepare. It is arguably more comfortable for an accuser to go through an institution’s disciplinary process rather than proceed in court because they are not open to crossexaminations. The legislation does not address whether the hearings are confidential, but they should be. There are some institutions that are better than others at allowing the parties as much time as they need to prepare.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Dohrman; Chris Slusher; and Michael J Colona.

OPPONENTS: Those who oppose the bill say that arms are not as overreaching as they are in a courtroom, which is part of the reason people prefer not to go through the criminal process. Part of the reason school hearings do not go as far as actual criminal trials is because they do not always need an investigation and a hearing. Complainants just want to feel safe where they are; sometimes the resolution is as simple as changing classroom or dorm room. There are proposed federal changes they are waiting on, and they will know better how to proceed with hearings going forward. They also say this is incorrect to add private institutions because the hearing commission is designed to hear appeals from state agency action, and some of the institutions are not state agencies. There are many conflicts between this legislation and federal law, so some of the institutions feel like they will have to choose between the two.

Testifying against the bill were Council on Public Higher Education; Chris Bowser, State Technical College of Missouri; Missouri Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence; Planned Parenthood Advocates in Missouri; The Associated Students of The University of Missouri; J P Hasman, St Louis University; Kate Nash; Andrea Hayes, University Of Missouri; Lyman Mitten III, Southeast Missouri State University; Kelli Wilson; Kayla Everett, Mizzou College Democrats; and Mark Falkowski, Columbia College.

Still, in the bill text:

“…Throughout the process of handling a formal complaint filed under 20 U.S.C. 78 Sections 1681 to 1688, or any amendments thereto, the institution of higher education shall:
(1) Ensure that all parties use the terms “complainant” and “respondent” and refrain from using the term “survivor” or any other term that presumes guilt before an actual finding of guilt…”

We all know survivors.

“…To reach a determination of responsibility, the decisionmaker or decisionmakers may apply either the preponderance of the evidence standard or the clear and convincing evidence standard. However, the preponderance of the evidence standard may be used only if it used as the standard for all other discriminatory harassment complaints involving faculty…”

WTF?

“…173.1927. If any entity of the federal government brings suit against an institution of higher education for complying with the requirements of sections 173.1898 to 173.1935, the attorney general shall have authority to bring suit on behalf of the institution against any entity in order to defend the requirements established under sections 173.1898 to 5 173.1935…”

So, this really is about gutting Title IX.

The emergency clause:

“…Section B. Because of the importance of protecting the due process rights of individuals in Title IX proceedings and ensuring that individuals accused of sexual misconduct are able to defend their character, the enactment of sections 173.1898, 173.1905, 173.1907, 173.1910, 173.1915, 173.1920, 173.1925, 173.1927, 173.1930, and 173.1935 of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace, and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and the enactment of sections 173.1898, 173.1905, 173.1907, 173.1910, 173.1915, 173.1920, 173.1925, 173.1927, 173.1930, and 173.1935 of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval…”

So, who benefits from the “emergency”, really?

Earlier in the bill:

“…2. Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 610, any record related to a formal complaint or investigation under 20 U.S.C. Sections 1681 to 1688, or any amendments thereto, at an institution of higher education, or at the administrative hearing commission, which contains personally identifiable information about a party to the formal complaint is an exempt record…”

That means the information would not be an open and accessible public record under the Missouri Sunshine Law. The “respondent” can “defend their character” in a closed hearing under current Title IX procedures and under these bill procedures and requirements.

So then, again, why the emergency clause? Who benefits?

On a complete reading – HCS HB573: a recipe for legislative mud pie – sprinkles, marshmallows, and baking optional.

Previously:

HB 573: Why? Who? (March 9, 2019)

SB 259: Really? For what purpose? (March 11, 2019)

HB 573 and SB 259: Let the army of lobbyists go forth… (March 12, 2019)

HB 573 and SB 259: What took you so long? (March 12, 2019)

HB 573 and SB 259: What took you so long?

12 Tuesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, Missouri Senate, social media

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Today’s expression of moral outrage on Twitter.

A pop up social media account:

Demand Due Process
@Somethi75740529
America’s colleges and universities have been turned into kangaroo courts, thanks to Obama’s 2011 Dear Colleague Letter. I’m a mom fighting a broken system.
Joined March 2019

Ironically anonymous.

Uh, if this has been a problem since 2011, what took you so long to express your outrage, Mom? Why the “emergency clause”?

Is it privilege and/or a lot of available money?

Well, the account follows Mike Pence, Betsy DeVos, and James Lankford (Oklahoma?), so the answer is probably “yes.”

Another circumstance? Do tell.

Previously:

HB 573: Why? Who? (March 9, 2019)

SB 259: Really? For what purpose? (March 11, 2019)

HB 573 and SB 259: Let the army of lobbyists go forth… (March 12, 2019)

HB 573 and SB 259: Let the army of lobbyists go forth…

12 Tuesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House, Missouri Senate, social media

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

…in a mighty wind.

Title IX is a right wingnut issue these days. Who? Why?

The sponsor of HB 573, Dean Dohrman (r), at a university homecoming parade in 2017:

Representative Dean Dohrman (r).

Bet they reconsider the invitation for the next one?

Who’s paying for all of this? Why are they paying for this? They’re not particularly transparent:

It’s not a “coalition” until you show everyone else who is in it.

At the Missouri Ethics Commission:

Kingdom Principles, Inc. – Active
612 E. Capitol Avenue
Jefferson City, MO 65101
[….]

Associated Lobbyists
Active
Lobbyist From To
Alsager, Matthew Dennis 02/27/2018 Present
Bernskoetter, Brian 03/12/2019 Present
Berry, Dave 03/08/2019 Present
Brown, Travis Howard 03/08/2019 Present
Brunnert, Zachary ‘Zach’ 03/07/2019 Present
Clarkston, Heath 03/05/2019 Present
Dempsey, Tom 03/08/2019 Present
Dozier, Cheryl Lynne 03/07/2019 Present
Flotron, Francis ‘Franc’ E. 03/07/2019 Present
Harness, Kathryn 03/07/2019 Present
Harris, James 03/07/2019 Present
Hemphill, Deanna Lynn 03/08/2019 Present
Hirschman, Janet 03/07/2019 Present
King, Tracy 03/08/2019 Present
Lakin, Joe 03/10/2019 Present
McCracken, David 03/07/2019 Present
McIntosh, Richard 02/27/2019 Present
Nelson, Doug 03/05/2019 Present
Robbins, Thomas 03/12/2019 Present
Schaefer, Kurt 03/05/2019 Present
Schlosser, Lynne 03/08/2019 Present
Stouffer, Bill 03/07/2019 Present
Zamkus, Jason Matthew 03/07/2019 Present

That’s going to cost a lot of money.

Associated Lobbyists
Inactive
Lobbyist From To
Iman, Kyna 03/07/2019 03/08/2019

That was a short association.

Meanwhile:

550 KTRS St. Louis @550KTRS
Why is dark money in Missouri attempting to raise support for legislation that would weaken #TitleIX regulations? @tonymess explains, discusses with @McGrawMilhaven:

Why is a dark money group attempting to pass legislation that will weaken Title IX regulations on college campuses in Missouri? Metro columnist Tony Messenger discusses this disturbing situation.

10:12 AM – 12 Mar 2019

Yeah, about that “emergency clause”.

Previously:

HB 573: Why? Who? (March 9, 2019)

SB 259: Really? For what purpose? (March 11, 2019)

SB 259: Really? For what purpose?

11 Monday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri Senate

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

Who benefits?

SB 259
Implements a process for due process proceedings for Title IX complaints at institutions of higher education
Sponsor: Romine
LR Number: 1129S.01I
Committee: Education
Last Action: 3/11/2019 – Formal Calendar S Bills for Perfection–SB 259-Romine
[….]
Calendar Position: 32
Effective Date: August 28, 2019

The bill summary:

SB 259 – This act implements a procedure for due process proceedings for complaints made under Title IX of the Federal Education Amendments, which protects people from discrimination based on sex in education programs.

TITLE IX HEARINGS (Section 173.1898 and 173.1900)
Under this act, any individual in the state of Missouri has the right to defend their character and the right to due process protections guaranteed under the Constitution of Missouri, the United States and the Bill of Rights in any proceeding related to Title IX.

Any student at an institution of higher education may, under this act, request a due process hearing before the Administrative Hearing Commission with respect to any formal Title IX complaint filed with the institution. The Commission shall assign a commissioner to hear the case within 10 days of receiving notice of the request.

After review of all evidence presented, the commissioner shall issued findings, conclusions, and a decision in the matter and forward the decision to the student and the president of the institution of higher education. A final decision shall be issued by the Commission within 60 days from the conclusion of the hearing.

Any party to a case may request an expedited hearing by the Commission. If a party requests an expedited hearing, the Commission shall assign a commissioner to hold a hearing and render a decision within 60 days of the receipt of the request for an expedited hearing.

APPEALS HEARINGS (Section 173.1905)
Any student at an institution of higher education may request a hearing before the Commission with respect to an appeal of any Title IX case if the student received disciplinary action by the institution in the case. Within 10 days of receiving notice of the request, the Commission shall assign a commissioner to hear the case and shall enter an order staying the disciplinary action until the Commission issues its final decision or order.

After review of all evidence presented, the commissioner shall issue findings, conclusions, and a decision in the matter and forward the written decision to the student and to the president of the institution of higher education. The Commission shall issue a final decision or order within 60 days from the conclusion of the hearing.

A student may request an expedited hearing by the Commission to challenge a disciplinary action that involves suspension or expulsion. If a student requests an expedited hearing to challenge such disciplinary action, the Commission shall assign a commissioner to hold a hearing and render a decision within 60 days of the receipt of the request for an expedited hearing.

MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS (Section 173.1907 and 173.1920)
Under this act, the Commission shall compile relevant statistics on the cases it hears under this act. The Commission shall also promulgate rules to implement this provision, including the requirements for the types of statistics to be compiled.

Any institution that conducts any type of Title IX training shall maintain and publish on its website any materials used in the training. Such institution shall also maintain and publish on its website information and procedures related to such complaints.

GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES (Section 173.1910)
For all formal Title IX complaints, an institution of higher education shall provide students fair, equitable, and individualized interim measures that avoid depriving any student of his or her education pending the investigation and resolution of the formal complaint. If emergency measures that will deprive any student of his or her education are deemed necessary, the institution is required to provide the affected student with the opportunity for an expedited hearing.

Any institution of higher education that handles formal Title IX complaints shall adopt grievance procedures that provide for a prompt and equitable resolution, and include the opportunity for both the complainant and the respondent to obtain a copy of the complaint within 10 days, that includes sufficient details set forth in the act; a complete copy of the investigation at its conclusion; and the names of any witnesses disclosed by either party.

Grievance procedures shall specify that both parties shall receive any information to be used at the hearing. Such procedures shall also describe the range of possible sanctions and remedies that the institution of higher education may implement following any determination of responsibility. Possible sanctions may include, but not be limited to, loss of certain campus privileges, removal from campus housing, probation, suspension, or expulsion.

The institution of higher education shall inform both parties of the option to use an informal resolution process, and shall use an informal resolution process if both the parties agree to such a process. Resolution processes may include mediation, education, counseling, or restorative justice.

The institution of higher education shall not limit, prohibit, delete, or screen any evidence to be used at any point during the resolution of a formal Title IX complaint. Any person who makes any decision regarding any formal Title IX complaint, and who is an administrator at the institution of higher education or is employed by the office that handles such complaints shall disclose to all parties any prejudicial beliefs or previous experiences that would provide an actual or perceived bias for a decision.

An institution of higher education that handles Title IX complaints shall adopt hearing procedures for the complaint that meets the criteria set forth in the act.

DUE PROCESS (Section 173.1915 and 173.1925)
Any student of an institution of higher education who fails to receive due process shall have a civil cause of action against any employee of the institution who intentionally denied the student such due process. The student shall be entitled to recover from the employee who denied such due process such relief as may be appropriate.

Failure to provide due process to a student in an Title IX complaint shall be considered a breach of contract between the student and the institution, and be considered by the Attorney General as an unlawful act.

If a person makes a false claim or files a false formal Title IX complaint, the person who was the subject of the false claim or complaint has a civil cause of action against the person who made the false claim or complaint and is entitled to recover from any person who made the false claim or complaint such relief as may be appropriate.

The Attorney General shall have the authority to investigate alleged or suspected violations of the grievance procedures set forth in the act.

Any institution that violates a student’s due process rights under this act shall be fined $250,000. All fines collected in accordance with this act shall be credited to and deposited in the Merchandising Practices Revolving Fund.

The Attorney General shall collect information and statistics from institutions of higher education on their procedures and policies for formal Title IX complaints. Information the institution is required to include is set forth in the act.

PUBLIC RECORDS (Section 573.1930)
Any record related to a formal Title IX complaint or investigation at an institution, or at the Commission, which contains personally identifiable information about a party to the formal complaint is not required to be open to the public. The information may be open in the discretion of the public entity.

ACTIONABLE OFFENSE (Section 537.110)
Under this act, a person shall have a cause of action against a person who publishes, falsely and maliciously, that any person has been guilty of sexual assault or rape.

“….Any party to a case may request an expedited hearing by the Commission. If a party requests an expedited hearing, the Commission shall assign a commissioner to hold a hearing and render a decision within 60 days of the receipt of the request for an expedited hearing….”

Brett Kavanaugh (r) had an “expedited” hearing. And it was also a conveniently short “investigation”.

“…Any person who makes any decision regarding any formal Title IX complaint, and who is an administrator at the institution of higher education or is employed by the office that handles such complaints shall disclose to all parties any prejudicial beliefs or previous experiences that would provide an actual or perceived bias for a decision….”

And then what? We all know survivors.

In the bill text:

…the institution of higher education shall:
(1) Ensure that all parties use the terms “complainant” and “respondent” and refrain from using the term “survivor” or any other term that presumes guilt before an actual finding of guilt…

That tells you all you need to know about this bill.

….173.1927. If any entity of the federal government brings suit against an institution of higher education for complying with the requirements of sections 173.1898 to 173.1935, the attorney general shall have authority to bring suit on behalf of the institution against any entity in order to defend the requirements established under sections 173.1898 to 173.1935….

They know that this bill does not comply with the requirements of Title IX. Incidentally, a possible penalty for failure to comply with Title IX is institutional ineligibility for Title IV funding. Try that on every higher education institution (public and private) in Missouri and see what happens.

….537.110. It is actionable to publish falsely and maliciously, in any manner whatsoever, that any person has been guilty of fornication, adultery, sexual assault, or rape.

“…in any manner whatsoever…”

And if the survivor says anything?

The funding, extensive lobbying efforts, and hurry surrounding HB 573 and SB 259 indicate that there’s something more than just the usual right wingnut tentherism and devolution involved here in attacking Title IX. For what purpose?

Previously:

HB 573: Why? Who? (March 9, 2019)

HB 573: Why? Who?

09 Saturday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

Who’s paying for this?

Washington University responds to proposed state Title IX legislation
Kathleen White | News Editor March 7, 2019

Washington University issued a statement opposing proposed Missouri legislation on Title IX Wednesday.
Missouri Senate Bill 259 and Missouri House Bill 573, introduced Jan. 15 and Jan. 16, respectively, both propose changes that would allow more protection for the accused in Missouri Title IX cases than in any other state.
The University wrote in their statement that “SB 259 and HB 573 would interject an alternate process that would be re-traumatizing and re-victimizing. This would have a chilling effect on students’ willingness to come forward with claims and reverse years of effort at our university to create an environment that encourages our students to report incidents of sexual assault and misconduct.”
SB 259 would remove the anonymity of the accuser and allow the accused to personally sue their accuser if the court finds the claim was false. The bill does not make a distinction between claims that are false and those that cannot be authenticated.
HB 573 would allow for the cross-examination of the accuser. Both bills would allow the accuser to see the evidence against them and give students the ability to sue their university if a court finds the student did not receive due process.
“To be clear, at Washington University we are intent on a Title IX process that is thorough and fair to all parties involved,” the University’s statement read. “The proposed state legislation is not the way to get there.”
SB 259 passed out of the Senate’s education committee Feb. 26, HB 573 had its public hearing March 5.

Dean Dohrman (r) [2017 file photo].

The House bill, introduced by Representative Dean Dohrman (r):

HB 573
Creates new provisions relating to rights of accused college students in Title IX proceedings
Sponsor: Dohrman, Dean (051)
Proposed Effective Date: Emergency Clause
LR Number: 0202H.01I
Last Action: 03/05/2019 – Public Hearing Completed (H)
Bill String: HB 573
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill summary [pdf]:

HB 573 — DUE PROCESS PROCEEDINGS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

SPONSOR: Dohrman

This bill defines “institution of higher education” and provides, students in higher education, due process protections and allows students to request that Federal Title IX procedural hearings be heard before the Administrative Hearing Commission (Section 173.1898 RSMo).

This bill allows students to request a hearing for formal Title IX complaints to the Administrative Hearing Commission. Hearing procedures are set forth in the bill and will follow methods used in Missouri civil cases (Section 173.1900).

This bill allows any students in an institution of higher education past or present that has received a disciplinary action in a Title IX case to appeal to the Administrative Hearing Commission (Section 173.1905).

The Administrative Hearing Commission shall compile relevant statistics on the cases it hears (Section 173.1907).

This bill provides institutions of higher education guidance for Title IX formal complaints. This guidance includes interim measures that avoid depriving any student of education during investigation and resolution of the formal complaint.

Notice of the right to request a hearing before the Administrative Hearing Commission must be provided.

This bill sets forth hearing procedures for Title IX formal complaints.

To reach a determination of responsibility, the decisionmaker or decisionmakers shall apply the clear and convincing evidence standard (Section 173.1910).

The bill specifies that failure to provide due process for a Title IX proceeding will entitle students to a civil cause of action.

It will be considered a breach of contract for the institution of higher education and be considered an illegal act by the Attorney General for purposes of investigation (Section 173.1915).

This bill authorizes the Attorney General to investigate alleged or suspected violations and impose the fine of $250 thousand dollars for violations of a student’s due process. The bill further outlines information that should be collected regarding procedures and policies for formal complaints (Section 173.1925).

The bill defines “exempt record” and “personally identifiable information,” and provides that any record related to a Title IX formal complaint or investigation would be considered an exempt record (Section 173.1930).

The bill contains an emergency clause.

There’s strong opposition to this weakening of Title IX:

Weakening Title IX Protections [pdf]
HB 573 – Rep. Dohrman (R-51, Lamont) | SB 259 – Sen. Romine (R-3, Farmington)

These bills weaken protections for sexual assault survivors at colleges and universities by changing how complaints are handled under Title IX, a measure aimed at protecting students from sex discrimination — including sexual assault.

House Bill 573 and Senate Bill 259 would compromise the safety of sexual assault survivors and deter students from reporting sexual assault. The bills allow students with a complaint filed against them to bring the investigation to Missouri’s Administrative Hearing Commission, taking campus disciplinary proceedings out of the hands of universities and burdening survivors with onerous legal standards designed for criminal and civil courts.
● By applying the discovery process of civil court proceedings, the bills give the accused the power to obtain personal information and compel communication from the survivor and witnesses before the hearing. Survivors and their friends may be subject to “interrogation” in writing or in-person, which may be videotaped. These powers are inappropriate for the setting and could effectively require survivors to hire an attorney.
● They would allow those with a school sexual misconduct complaint filed against them to sue whoever accused them if the administrative courts decide it was a false claim. The bill does not define “false” or differentiate between claims that are intentionally false versus those that cannot be corroborated.

Reporting sexual violence can be difficult, and many survivors never come forward. These bills make it even less likely that survivors will report a sexual assault.
● Allowing accused perpetrators to cross-examine survivors and witnesses in school disciplinary settings will allow rapists to intimidate survivors into silence.
● The President of the Association of Title IX Administrators estimated that crossexamination process would lead to a 50 percent drop in the reporting of sexual assault on campuses.
● According to RAINN, only 20% of sexual assault survivors currently report their assault to law enforcement due to stigma, trauma, and fear of retribution.

Raising the burden of evidence to a “clear and convincing” standard makes it harder for schools to hold sexual abusers accountable.
● The measures apply legal procedures that are appropriate to criminal and civil proceedings, not school disciplinary actions. They go so far as to prohibit “all parties” from using the term “survivor,” mandating instead the term “complainant.” This level of unnecessary intervention disempowers universities and survivors.
● There is bipartisan agreement that the “clear and convincing” standard is inappropriate for campus disciplinary proceedings. In 2004, the Bush Administration found Georgetown University noncompliant with Title IX for using a “clear and convincing” standard. This standard of proof is unreasonable for school disciplinary action, and most survivors would not be able to meet it — particularly if they cannot hire an attorney.

What is the penalty for non-compliance with Title IX? Does it include losing access to Title IV funding. If so, that’s the quickest way to bankrupt every higher education institution in the state of Missouri.

“…In 2004, the Bush Administration found Georgetown University noncompliant with Title IX for using a ‘clear and convincing’ standard…”

If a “preponderance of evidence” is the Title IX standard, why implement “clear and convincing” standard?

So, who is pushing this legislation?:

Kingdom Principles? At the Missouri Secretary of State web site:

Name Kingdom Principles, Inc
[….]
Type Nonprofit Corporation
Charter No. N000709329
Domesticity Domestic
Registered Agent
McIntosh, Richard
612 East Capitol Avenue
Jefferson City, MO 65101
Status Good Standing
Date Formed 8/15/2018

It’s a 501(c)(4).

Money. Anonymity. A lack of transparency.

Remind everyone, what’s their complaint?

HB 1254: transparency

04 Monday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Representative Gina Mitten (D) [2019 file photo].

A bill, introduced on Friday:

HB 1254
Modifies provisions relating to electronic public records
Sponsor: Mitten, Gina (083)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2479H.01I
Last Action: 03/01/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1254
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Some of the bill text [pdf]:

[….]
Section A. Section 610.025, RSMo, is repealed and one new section enacted in lieu 2 thereof, to be known as section 610.025, to read as follows:

610.025. 1. Any elected or appointed member of a public governmental body or any staff member or employee of the public governmental body who transmits any message relating to public business by electronic means shall also concurrently transmit that message to the custodian of records for the public governmental body in the same format. Any such message received by the custodian shall be a public record subject to the exceptions of section 610.021.

2. No elected or appointed member of a public governmental body or any staff member or employee of the public governmental body shall download or use software designed to send encrypted messages by electronic means that automatically self-destruct on any communication device purchased with public moneys; except that, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit the downloading or use of such software by law enforcement officers for purposes of conducting undercover investigations.

3. No elected or appointed member of a public governmental body or any staff member or employee of the public governmental body shall use software designed to send encrypted messages by electronic means that automatically self-destruct to conduct public business on any personally owned electronic device.

4. Any individual who knowingly or purposely violates this section shall only be held individually liable under section 610.027. A staff member or employee of a public governmental body shall be treated as a member of the public governmental body under section 610.027 only for purposes of determining the appropriate penalty for violation of this section.

Well, Josh?

HJR 56, HJR 57, HJR 58: Missouri voters have already spoken

03 Sunday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

That has never stopped the right wingnut republican controlled Missouri General Assembly from overturning their will.

Introduced on Friday by Representative Jeff Pogue (r):

HJR 56
Repeals campaign finance provisions
Sponsor: Pogue, Jeff (143)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2286H.01I
Last Action: 03/01/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HJR 56
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR SECOND READING

And:

HJR 57
Modifies provisions relating to redistricting and lobbying
Sponsor: Pogue, Jeff (143)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2282H.01I
Last Action: 03/01/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HJR 57
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR SECOND READING

And:

HJR 58
Repeals Section 1 of Article XIV of the Constitution of Missouri relating to medical marijuana
Sponsor: Pogue, Jeff (143)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2280H.01I
Last Action: 03/01/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HJR 58
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTIONS FOR SECOND READING

In sum, repealing or altering the provisions in initiatives overwhelmingly approved by Missouri voters in the November 2018 general election.

Those who hold power and advantage never give it up willingly.

Previously:

That wasn’t $200,000.00 well spent (November 7, 2018)

HB 1247: Oh, sure, it’s all laughs and giggles until someone loses the encryption key

02 Saturday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

We can’t figure out why he hasn’t yet introduced a bill about banning water fluoridation.

A bill, filed on Friday by Representative Andrew McDaniel (r):

HB 1247
Requires the state and political subdivisions thereof to accept virtual currency as legal tender
Sponsor: McDaniel, Andrew (150)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2267H.01I
Last Action: 03/01/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1247
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

You think someone is getting ready to pitch another reality show offshoot of “Doomsday Preppers”? Just asking.

Previously:

HB 1052: Matchlock or flintlock? (February 25, 2019)

HB 1052: it’s all in the details (February 26, 2019)

HB 1108: Why choose? Buy one of each. (February 27, 2018)

HB 1127: Bottoms up…

01 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

A bill introduced on Wednesday by Representative Jeff Porter (r):

HB 1127
Provides a definition for Missouri bourbon whiskey
Sponsor: Porter, Jeff (042)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 0963H.04I
Last Action: 02/28/2019 – Read Second Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1127
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar

The bill text:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION
HOUSE BILL NO. 1127 [pdf]
100TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE PORTER. 0963H.04I DANA RADEMAN MILLER, Chief Clerk

AN ACT

To amend chapter 311, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to Missouri bourbon whiskey.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:

Section A. Chapter 311, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be known as section 311.025, to read as follows: 311.025.
To qualify as “Missouri Bourbon” or “Missouri Bourbon Whiskey”, and to be labeled as such, a product shall be a spirit that meets the following conditions: all corn used in the mash must be Missouri-grown corn; the product shall be mashed, fermented, distilled, aged, and bottled in Missouri; and the product shall be aged in Missouri in oak barrels manufactured in Missouri.

Think of the possibilities. An amendment that it has to aged in an oak barrel for 100 years? It then becomes someone else’s problem.

If it’s aged for two or three seconds it’s just moonshine (Yes, we know that’s not “technically” correct).

Welcome to Missouri.

HB 1203: on a roll

01 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Missouri General Assembly, Missouri House

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

….Since 1976, the Hyde Amendment has blocked federal Medicaid funding for abortion services (since 1994, there have been three extremely narrow exceptions: when continuing the pregnancy will endanger the woman’s life, or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest). This means Medicaid cannot cover abortion even when a woman’s health is at risk and her doctor recommends she get an abortion.

[….]

Since Congress first passed the Hyde Amendment 40 years ago, anti-women’s health politicians extended similar policies to other federal health insurance programs, including coverage for federal employees and their families, military personnel and their families, Native Americans, Alaskan Natives, and inmates in federal prisons….

Representative Mike Moon (r) [2019 file photo].

Just another abortion bill, filed yesterday by Representative Mike Moon (r):

HB 1203
Prohibits the state of Missouri from remitting taxes to the federal government until the federal government prohibits the use of any federal funds for abortion
Sponsor: Moon, Mike (157)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 2451H.01I
Last Action: 02/28/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 1203
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING

Any other reasons? Just asking.

Pre 1973 medical instruments.

Previously:

HB 126 and HB 127: catering to their single issue base (December 3, 2018)

HB 964 and HB 971: the “Gish Gallop” of legislation (February 20, 2019)

HB 1017: Anything else? (February 21, 2019)