“…’A lot of people come with a lot of ideas. I talk to constituents, they may mention something to me, I look into it. There’s some reason the law is the way it is. We can or can’t proceed with their suggestion,’ Dohrman told The Star…”
What the hell does that even mean?
Representative Dean Dohrman (r) [2016 file photo].
It’s about HB 573 and SB 259 and gutting Title IX in Missouri – for someone with a personal agenda.
Toward the end of October 2018, McIntosh met with state Rep. Dean Dohrman, R-La Monte, a friend who would sponsor the House version of the bill. McIntosh followed up with Dohrman and his staff by sending a series of articles decrying what he called a lack of due process for those accused of sexual assault on campus.
[….]
For the next month, the McIntoshes and Dohrman’s legislative staff worked together to write the bill.
They exchanged drafts, with both McIntosh and his wife outlining provisions they wanted included. The bill was crafted such that the expulsion of McIntosh’s son could have been retroactively appealed to the board of commissioners that his mother presided over.
In an email to Dohrman last fall, a nonpartisan legislative analyst assisting with the bill said, “You should be aware that significant legal concerns are likely to be raised regarding this legislation.”
Dohrman said he didn’t involve himself in the details of the bill’s drafting.
“I put in some input here and there, of course, but that’s a complicated matter and I thought it was best for me to hear it out through the whole process before I put in my two cents, if you will,” he said. “It wasn’t a blind acceptance on my part.”
“When I get a bill that’s extremely complicated I kind of let the person work it out,” Dohrman told The Star in recent interview. “You know, and we had (legislative research) involved, and I was there of course. I just kind of let it work out to see where it went.”
Dohrman said that McIntosh’s involvement shouldn’t lead people to believe lobbyists write all laws.
“A lot of people come with a lot of ideas. I talk to constituents, they may mention something to me, I look into it. There’s some reason the law is the way it is. We can or can’t proceed with their suggestion,” Dohrman told The Star. “Lobbyists, of course, that’s their job, and they’re there more often, but it’s an open process, as it should be.”
[…]
“…It wasn’t a blind acceptance on my part…” Narrator: “It was.”
“…Dohrman said that McIntosh’s involvement shouldn’t lead people to believe lobbyists write all laws…” This one.
“…Lobbyists, of course, that’s their job, and they’re there more often, but it’s an open process, as it should be….” “Open process”. That’s laughable. We wouldn’t be reading about this sordid tale if the republican majority in the General Assembly had managed to gut CLEAN Missouri provisions about Missouri Sunshine Law access to legislative communications.
Jane Dueker @JaneDueker
[….]
Outing a college kid is disgusting. If he has to defend himself they will out the girl. Funny how “victim” advocates are pushing for and glorifying that. Proving even more why the legislation is necessary. It was a hit piece for so many reasons. 11:16 PM – 23 Apr 2019
Kingdom Principles, Inc. – Active
612 E. Capitol Avenue
Jefferson City, MO 65101
[….]
Lobbyist From To
Alsager, Matthew Dennis 02/27/2018 Present
Altmann, Jeffrey 03/13/2019 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 Dueker, Jane E 03/13/2019 Present
Flotron, Francis ‘Franc’ E. 03/07/2019 Present
Harness, Kathryn 03/07/2019 Present
Harris, James 03/07/2019 Present
Hawk, Shanon M 03/13/2019 Present
Hemphill, Deanna Lynn 03/08/2019 Present
Hirschman, Janet 03/07/2019 Present
Hubbard, Rodney R 03/14/2019 Present
King, Tracy 03/08/2019 Present
Lakin, Joe 03/10/2019 Present
Licklider, Samuel G. 03/13/2019 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
Swain, W ‘Wes’ Scott 03/12/2019 Present
Zamkus, Jason Matthew 03/07/2019 Present
[emphasis added]
Who’s paying for what? Their web site:
Kingdom Principles.
Dean Dohrman (r), the sponsor of HB 573:
Representative Dean Dohrman (r) [2016 file photo].
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.
“…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.
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.”
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.
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
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:
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
Ladies and Gentlemen, our Missouri General Assembly:
“Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.” – Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755)
Dean Dohrman (r) [2017 file photo].
A bill introduced today by Representative Dean Dohrman (r):
HB 577
Requires school districts to display “In God We Trust” in prominent locations in all schools
Sponsor: Dohrman, Dean (051)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2019
LR Number: 0953H.01I
Last Action: 01/15/2019 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 577
Next House Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: Bill currently not on a House calendar
[….]
You think painted in three foot high letters at the center jump circle on the school basketball courts will be enough?
Representative Dean Dohrman (r) [2016 file photo].
A bill, prefiled on Wednesday:
HB 1528
Requires students at public and private institutions of higher education to pass an examination on the provisions and principals of American civics as a condition of graduation
Sponsor: Dohrman, Dean (051)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2018
LR Number: 5087H.01I
Last Action: 12/06/2017 – Prefiled (H)
Bill String: HB 1528
[….]
Who’s going to pay for this new unfunded mandate?
The bill text, as prefiled:
SECOND REGULAR SESSION HOUSE BILL NO. 1528 [pdf]
99TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVE DOHRMAN. 5087H.01I D. ADAM CRUMBLISS, Chief Clerk
AN ACT
To amend chapter 170, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to the Missouri higher education civics achievement examination.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 170, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto one new section, to be 2 known as section 170.013, to read as follows:
170.013. 1. Any student pursuing an associate’s or bachelor’s degree from a public or private institution of higher education, except those attending private trade schools, shall successfully pass an examination on the provisions and principles of American civics with a score of seventy percent or greater as a condition of graduation from such institution. The examination shall be known as the “Missouri Higher Education Civics Achievement Examination”.
2. The examination required under this section shall consist of at least fifty questions, but shall not exceed one hundred questions, and shall be similar to the one hundred questions administered to applicants for United States citizenship by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services division of the Department of Homeland Security. Subject matter on the examination shall include the United States Constitution, the United States Bill of Rights, governmental institutions, historical manifestations of federalism, and history of constitutional interpretation and amendments.
3. The examination required under this section may be included within any other examination that is administered on the provisions and principles of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the state of Missouri, and in American history and American institutions, as required in subsection 3 of section 170.011.
4. Institutions of higher education may use online testing to comply with the provisions of this section.
I could be good with this if the members of the Missouri General Assembly had to take and pass the same test before they could be sworn in. But we should expect a higher passing score from them, right?
The roadmap for one of the greatest legislative achievements in the modern era of the Missouri General Assembly:
SB 376
Designates “Old Drum” as the historical dog of the state of Missouri
1/31/2017 S First Read–SB 376-Hoskins S199
2/9/2017 Second Read and Referred S General Laws Committee S244
2/15/2017 Hearing Conducted S General Laws Committee
2/15/2017 Voted Do Pass S General Laws Committee
2/15/2017 Motion to pass bill as consent taken by S General Laws Committee – Consent vote adopted
2/16/2017 Reported from S General Laws Committee – Consent S291
2/21/2017 Removed S Consent Calendar S323
3/2/2017 Reported from S General Laws Committee S400
3/30/2017 Bill Placed on Informal Calendar S605
4/11/2017 SA 1 S offered & adopted (Hoskins)–(1709S01.01S) S822
4/11/2017 Perfected, as amended S822
4/10/2017 Reported Truly Perfected S Rules, Joint Rules, Resolutions and Ethics Committee S847
4/13/2017 S Third Read and Passed S878-879
4/18/2017 H First Read H1592
4/19/2017 H Second Read H1602
4/26/2017 Referred H General Laws H1839
5/1/2017 Hearing Conducted H General Laws
5/2/2017 Voted Do Pass H General Laws
5/3/2017 Reported Do Pass H General Laws H2148
5/3/2017 Referred H Rules – Legislative Oversight H2148
5/8/2017 Voted Do Pass H Rules – Legislative Oversight
5/8/2017
Reported Do Pass H Rules – Legislative Oversight H2234
5/12/2017 H Third Read and Passed
5/12/2017 Truly Agreed To and Finally Passed
The bill text:
FIRST REGULAR SESSION
[P E R F E C T E D] SENATE BILL NO. 376 [pdf]
99TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR HOSKINS.
Read 1st time January 31, 2017, and ordered printed.
Read 2nd time February 9, 2017, and referred to the Committee on General Laws.
Reported from the Committee February 16, 2017, with recommendation that the bill do pass and be placed on the Consent Calendar.
Removed from the Consent Calendar February 21, 2017.
Re-reported from the Committee March 2, 2017, with recommendation that the bill do pass.
Taken up for Perfection April 11, 2017.
Bill declared Perfected and Ordered Printed, as amended.
ADRIANE D. CROUSE, Secretary. 1709S.01P
AN ACT
To amend chapter 10, RSMo, by adding thereto two new sections relating to the designation of state dogs.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 10, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto two new sections, to be known as sections 10.112 and 10.113, to read as follows:
10.112. The dog known as “Old Drum”, whose death became the subject of an 1870 Missouri Supreme Court case and the delivery of a famous speech as the closing argument to the case known as the “Eulogy to Old Drum”, is designated as the historical dog of the state of Missouri.
10.113. The dog known as “Jim the Wonder Dog” is designated as Missouri’s Wonder Dog.
Speed of lightning, roar of thunder, there will always only be one true Underdog…
…Speed of lightning, roar of thunder
Fighting all who rob or plunder…
A bill introduced today:
HB 674
Designates “Old Drum” as the state historical dog and “Jim the Wonder Dog” as Missouri’s Wonder Dog
Sponsor: Dohrman, Dean (051)
Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2017
LR Number: 1360H.01I
Last Action: 01/19/2017 – Introduced and Read First Time (H)
Bill String: HB 674
Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled
Calendar: HOUSE BILLS FOR SECOND READING
[….]
To amend chapter 10, RSMo, by adding thereto two new sections relating to the designation of the state dogs.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 10, RSMo, is amended by adding thereto two new sections, to be known as sections 10.112 and 10.113, to read as follows: 10.112. The dog known as “Old Drum”, whose death became the subject of an 1870 Missouri Supreme Court case and the delivery of a famous speech as the closing argument to the case known as the “Eulogy to Old Drum”, is designated as the historical dog of the state of Missouri.
10.113. The dog known as “Jim the Wonder Dog” is designated as Missouri’s Wonder Dog.
[emphasis in original]
Meanwhile, the state university in Dean Dohrman’s (r) legislative district just took another massive budget hit because of the agenda of the republican controlled Missouri General Assembly.
