Previously: Rep. Denny Hoskins (r): a short fuse on the floor of the House (May 15, 2010)
Representative Michael Frame (D):….And when looked up, when I turned up again he was almost nose to nose with me. And asking me if, if I had a, a problem, with some few other cuss words thrown in there as well, too. And, and do I have a problem, do I have problem. I told him he was, you know, to paraphrase, was, was way out of line. He really needs to step back…
“…with some few other cuss words thrown in there as well…”
The Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal printed the story in today’s edition, quoting Representative Tim Flook (r):
5/17/2010 1:26:00 PM
A Dust-Up for Denny?
Tempers or politics flare in final hours of session
….”All Denny did was walk over and say, ‘Hey, what’s the problem with the bill? He had his hands in his pockets,” Flook said, adding, “The whole thing was a joke.”
Well, that sounds totally innocent, doesn’t it?
Okay, the Star-Journal also quotes Representatives Frame (D), Burnett (D), and Skaggs (D), the latter relating the use of “curse words”.
Old media presents equal and opposing viewpoints. I suppose all we can do for them is hope that someone caught the confrontation on audio and/or video.
You’d think someone would ask Representative Flook (r), when you were actually interviewing him, about how he managed to get across the floor of the House to so closely and definitively witness the exchange on the Democratic side of the chamber and how he could characterize the incident so differently from those three Democratic representatives. You’d think.
It’s time to convene another panel on blogger ethics.
Update: Representative Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) via Facebook:
Wow, only in Warrensburg can two legislators disagree and it makes the news. Since my side of the story was not printed, I’ll elaborate more here. Rep. Frame and others were yelling, making noises and snide comments from the back of the House Chamber during my presentation of SCR 31. As I prefer to talk face-to-face… with someone versus shouting and hiding in the “peanut gallery”, I finished my closing remarks, went over to Rep. Frame and asked him if he had a problem with my bill as I could not help but hear shouting and yelling from the back of the chamber. Rep. Frame responded “Don’t you square up to me!” to which I responded, “I’ve got my hands in my pockets, I’m just asking you a question.” Rep. Skaggs and Rep. Burnett then jumped in and tried to escalate the situation by yelling remarks at me.
If Mr. Miles, Editor of the DSJ, was not friends with Rep. Skaggs this would have never even made the news.
I will continue to advocate for legislation important to my constituents and not be bullied by Rep. Frame or his accomplices.
A quote from the Warrensburg Daily Star-Journal:
…Hoskins said, “I had a disagreement and didn’t appreciate some of the disrespectful comments from the peanut gallery…”
Maybe the paper doesn’t print some of the stuff it doesn’t find credible.
And using the term “peanut gallery” is respectful? Just asking.
Yesterday, while in the side gallery of the House covering the close of the legislative session I was made aware of a confrontation on the floor of the House during the previous day between Representative Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) and Representative Michael Frame (D-105).
On Thursday the House was considering SCR 31 on international education. Representative Hoskins (r) was the handler for the bill. From the bill summary:
SCR 31 – This resolution encourages students and faculty in Missouri to promote international education as part of curricular and extracurricular life at Missouri’s colleges and universities.
This resolution is substantially similar to SCR 13 (2009) and to HCR 7 (2008).
Representative Michael Frame (D) at his desk on the floor of the House
on May 14, 2010 at the far side and back of the Democratic side of the aisle.
I interviewed Representative Frame yesterday:
Show Me Progress: Could you describe what happened with, Representative Hoskins on the floor yesterday?
Representative Michael Frame (D): Sure…and, yesterday there was a, a House, a resolution, for international students or international studies. We spent a great deal of time on it, which I found a bit odd with this time of the year, spending so much time on a, on a, you know, for a non-binding resolution. When he finished, when he, when he closed he said that, this is a very good resolution and I turned to one of my, colleagues and said, it’s the best resolution in the universe, kind of making fun of what Representative [Bryan] Pratt [r] had claimed about the ethics bill, a day or two earlier. I didn’t intend for him to hear that, but I guess he had heard it and, and there’s a lot of this talking going on the floor. And while he was still on mic he said, come on over here and say that. Or something like that and, and I didn’t, I just kind of ignored his, his invitation and began to reach down, and actually, I was going to vote in favor of it. And as I was looking at, at my screen I heard my colleague Representative [Trent] Skaggs say, “He’s coming over here, he’s coming over here.” And I really didn’t know, you know, what he was referring to, I did hear him say those words. And when looked up, when I turned up again he was almost nose to nose with me. And asking me if, if I had a, a problem, with some few other cuss words thrown in there as well, too. And, and do I have a problem, do I have problem. I told him he was, you know, to paraphrase, was, was way out of line. He really needs to step back. And Representative Skaggs and Representative [John] Burnett physically got between the two of us. And again informed him you really need to return to your other side. Burnett, there was a bit of an exchange there, Burnett said you [inaudible], you, you charged over here in a very physical way that was, you know, a bit intimidating and, and a little bit threatening. And you just need to back off. And, and I didn’t see him charge over here, I’ll take their word for it he did. I was looking at my monitor. But, informing him he needed to back off, back off. At that point some of his Republican colleagues came over and, and encouraged him to return to his side of the aisle…
Representative Denny Hoskins (r) in conversation on the floor of the House on May 14, 2010.
…Show Me Progress: Do you think that this is a symptom, one of the symptoms of, maybe, the environment?
Representative Frame: Yes. And, I, I think he’s a frustrated legislator. I’m not sure about that. I, I’m not sure what it was. I don’t know if he was having a really bad day or, or why it was. I, I really didn’t think what I said, and again, it wasn’t directed at him, but I don’t know why he took such great offence to me calling his resolution the best resolution in the universe. I thought that would actually be a compliment, but, to tell you the truth, it wasn’t directed at him, it was really more directed at Representative Pratt. But wasn’t even talking with representative, I was actually talking with Representative Skaggs, but my comment was, was more directed at Pratt and just making a bit of fun. And he, he became very angry though and, and charged over at me. And like I said, when I looked up, it was nose to nose. I got to think that there was something else behind it. That it was a pretty, I won’t say innocent, but, but a very casual statement that I made. I don’t think it was any way majorly offensive enough that you would actually enter into some type of physical violence because of it.
Show Me Progress: All right, well thank you.
Representative Frame: Okay, thanks.
The vote on the bill, at the time of the incident (from the Journal of the House, May 13, 2010):
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS
SCR 31, relating to international education, was again taken up by Representative Hoskins (121).
On motion of Representative Hoskins (121), SCR 31 was adopted by the following vote:
Maybe behavior on the floor can influence a few votes.
A non-binding resolution takes up a chunk of floor time on the House during the second to last day of the session. Does anyone think it’s possible that the majority leadership was throwing one of their members a public relations bone?
HB 44 Private jail. Sponsor says he took my amdt requiring pvt jails to notify sheriffs of escapes. Odd. He voted and argued against it. 4:27 PM May 15th from web
HB 44 passes 108-44. Phony private jail reform. Exactly what private jails wanted. 4:54 PM May 15th from web
I found the first post particularly interesting, so I inquired via Twitter:
@johnburnettkc HB [SB?] 44. Private jails. Who is the sponsor you refer to who voted against your escape notification amendment? 10:29 AM May 19th from web in reply to johnburnettkc
I received the following reply:
@MBersin Denny Hoskins R-Warrensburg 22 minutes ago from Tweetie in reply to MBersin
The latest summary for SB 44:
…CCS#2/HCS/SCS/SB 44 – This act creates new requirements for private jails. Private jails are facilities not owned or operated by the state, a county, or a municipality that confine or detain prisoners who are awaiting trial, awaiting sentencing, or serving a sentence in jail. Such private jails shall be subject to all applicable state laws and local ordinances.
Any written report regarding a state criminal law violation that would result in a punishment of at least one year in prison shall contain the name and address of the private jail, the name of the prisoner or person who may have committed the violation, information regarding the violation, the name of the complainant, and other relevant information. The administrator shall, in a timely manner, refer all reports to law enforcement having jurisdiction. The administrator and employees shall cooperate in the investigation of the facts alleged in the report insofar as is consistent with the constitutional rights of all parties involved.
In the event that a prisoner is missing, the private jail shall take prompt and reasonable action to discover where the prisoner has escaped. Upon learning such an escape has occurred, the private jail shall promptly notify law enforcement and provide them with all available information known about the escape and the escapee.
Any person who makes a report, or who testifies in an administrative or judicial proceeding arising from the report, shall be immune from any civil or criminal liability for making such a report or for testifying, unless the person acted with malice.
Persons confined in private jails shall be separated and confined by gender. Persons confined under civil process or for civil causes shall be kept separate from people confined regarding criminal matters. The administrator shall arrange for necessary health care services and provide adequate clothing, food, and bedding, for those persons confined in the private jail. Deprivation of such items shall not be used as a disciplinary action against a confined person. No person confined in a private jail shall be used in any manner for the profit, betterment, or personal gain of any county or private jail employee. Any law enforcement investigation of a report regarding necessary health care or use of a confined person for profit or gain shall be concluded in a timely manner and a written report shall be provided to the private jail.
Nothing in the above provisions shall create a new civil cause of section.
The state or its political subdivisions shall not contract with any private jail to provide services, unless such jail provides written documentation of its ability to indemnify for liability arising from the operation of the jail.
Currently, a person is prohibited from bringing certain items, including controlled substances, alcohol, items prohibited by law or rule, and weapons, into a county jail. The punishment for such crime varies from a class A misdemeanor to a class C felony, depending on the item brought into the jail. Under this act, a person is prohibited from bring such items into a private jail as well. The administrator of a private jail may deny visitation privileges to or refer to the county prosecutor any person who knowingly brings, or tries to bring, items into the jail, which are prohibited by the jail’s rules and regulations. Violation of this provision shall be an infraction if it is not covered by other statutes.
Currently, a person commits the crime of damage to jail property if such person: 1) knowingly damages a city or county jail building or property, or 2) knowingly starts a fire in a city or county jail. Such crime is a class D felony. Under this act, damaging property at a private jail shall have the same criminal penalty.
This act requires private jailers to check for outstanding warrants through MULES before releasing an individual, in the same manner as county jailers. If an outstanding charge or warrant exists, the private jail administrator must tell the appropriate agency and transfer the individual accordingly. If a private jail administrator purposefully fails to perform a warrant check with the intent to release the person, he or she is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. An administrator shall not be liable for failing to perform a warrant check if the MULES system is not accessible.
Currently, escaping or attempting to escape from a county or city jail is a class D felony, unless certain aggravating circumstances apply, in which case, the penalty is increased. Under this act, escaping from a private jail shall have the same criminal penalty.
Currently, if a person is serving a sentence in a county jail on conviction of a felony and he or she fails to return to confinement as required under a work-release program, while serving a sentence with a term that is not continuous, or under another type of sentence where he or she is temporarily permitted to go at without a guard, he or she is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Under this act, failing to return to confinement to a private jail shall have the same criminal penalty.
Currently, a public servant with charge of a prisoner, who knowingly permits him or her to escape is guilty of a class D felony, unless the public servant allows the prisoner to have a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, in which case, the crime is a class B felony. Under this act, knowingly permitting escape from a private jail shall have the same criminal penalty.
The full text of SB 44, as Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed [pdf].
The Warrensburg Daily Star Journal covered the passage of SB 44 on May 19, 2009, discussing the “escape clause” in some detail:
…Pearce’s Senate Bill 44 followed a September escape from a private jail, Integrity Correctional Center, Centerview.
One escapee, a kidnapper, remained on the run for eight days. The other, a registered sex offender, remained free for more than a month before being recaptured.
Shortly after the inmates’ escape, Sheriff Chuck Heiss said he did not receive notification quickly from the private jail staff.
The jail’s director, Dave Burris, said Heiss received notice after the jail made sure an escape occurred.
Heiss, an outspoken critic of private jails, said Monday he appreciates the immediate notification requirement.
“I don’t want to be 12, 14 hours into it before we get a notification and then show up and realize it’s too late,” he said…
Interesting. The republican Johnson County Sheriff and the repub
lican Senator from the District were for it. And the private jails were against it: “…Representatives for Missouri’s two private jails did not want any restrictions….” According to Representative John Burnett (D), Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) “voted and argued against it.” Well, Denny? We could ask you directly, but there’s that Twitter block thing.
Representative Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) is continuing his not so good, very bad legislative session experience in Jefferson City.
He got his clock cleaned in debate with Representative John Burnett (D-40) (identified in a transcript published online and in its dead trees edition by the Warrensburg Daily Star Journal on May 7, 2009). (audio via Fired Up!):
The audio was posted by on YouTube by Fired Up! on May 1, 2009.
Representative John Burnett: …Gentleman, I tell you that a, just this week, within the last twenty-four hours, I filled out this personal financial disclosure myself.
Burnett: I think it took me less than ten minutes, but I, I was distracted because I was watching television at the time.
Representative Denny Hoskins: Right.
Burnett: So, it seems to me that it’s not a great burden that we place on our elected officials to fill out this disclosure. You know it was about twenty questions that we answered and I’m not sure why we want to exempt sixty-one cities from knowing whether or not their elected officials have these financial interests that might be in conflict. Is there some reason other than some…Knob Noster asked you, and they don’t like it. Do they have something to hide?
Hoskins: No, there’s nothing, there’s nothing to hide from good old Stan Hall, mayor, mayor of non, Knob Noster. No, what’s happened…
Burnett: Why can’t he spend the ten minutes like I did?
Hoskins: Well, what happens is…
Burnett: He could probably…
Listen to the whole thing. It’s priceless.
In a companion piece in the same edition the Warrensburg Daily Star Journal gets the money quote from Knob Noster Mayor Stan Hall:
5/7/2009 12:58:00 PM
IN SUNSHINE OR IN SHADOWS?
Hoskins argues to decrease what city politicians disclose
Jefferson City – Politicians in 61 cities, including Knob Noster, need not disclose potential conflicts of interest under a Senate bill Rep. Denny Hoskins manages in the House.
Knob Noster Mayor Stan Hall said he opposes the measure.
“I do not find these forms particularly burdensome and I do not mind filling them out,” Hall, who owns the Knob Noster Item newspaper, said Tuesday. “I am a newspaper person and I think this type of disclosure is valuable.”
The Missouri Press Association opposed similar legislation in past years and is reviewing this year’s version, MPA Director Doug Crews said Monday…
That “good old Stan Hall” doesn’t like SB 66 either.
I bet you Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) will be glad when the current legislative session is done next week.