The biggest fight Monday between Republicans and Democrats on the House Budget Committee as they finalized a spending plan for floor debate was over the time allotted to do the work, not any particular item in the $50.7 billion plan.
Throughout the daylong hearing, Democrats said state Rep. Cody Smith, the committee’s chairman, wasn’t allowing enough time to propose amendments or hear why he cut $2 billion from Gov. Mike Parson’s January budget proposal.
And to show their displeasure when the time came to vote, many Democrats voted “present” and state Rep. Deb Lavender, D-Manchester, invoked a little-used rule to force a reading of each roll call and how members voted as each of the 17 spending bills was completed.
Smith had no patience for that maneuver, and the committee voted to suspend the rule on “verifying the roll” to speed up its work.
Smith delivered his budget proposal to the committee on March 14 but declined that day to answer questions about his changes. On Monday, when the committee convened shortly after 10 a.m., Smith said he would allow four hours for discussing amendments.
Democrats have circulated copies of an invitation to a March 14 Cape Girardeau fundraiser for Smith’s campaign for treasurer to explain his hurry on that date. On Monday, they accused him of cutting the budget debate short for another fundraiser.
“We all came in planning a day that was going to take us till 11 or 12 tonight so that we all had the opportunity to introduce amendments we’ve worked on,” Lavender said in an interview after the hearing. “This morning at 10, we were told that we would not have that opportunity. So this year’s debate is pretty much the chairman’s show with very little input from any members on the committee in a public forum.”
In an interview with The Independent after the budget was completed, Smith denied his political schedule has intruded on his legislative work. He acknowledged he had limited the time more severely than in the past but said it made little difference in the final product.
“I am doing things a little bit differently this year, as you can see, and in an effort to try to expedite the process,” Smith said, “but I think it is largely the same if we spend twice as long in the committee.”
The budget will be debated in the full House next week, Smith said.
Missouri is in the third year of the largest surplus in state history — at the end of February, the treasury held about $6.4 billion in general revenue and other funds that can be spent like general revenue.
But House rules put most of that spare cash off limits. So in most instances, an amendment to increase spending on one line of the budget requires a corresponding cut on another.
Smith used his power as chairman to eliminate a net $200 million in general revenue from Parson’s original proposal. He removed items like a $52.8 million plan to redevelop the old Missouri State Penitentiary site for tourism and $100 million in extraordinary transfers to a fund dedicated to repair and maintenance needs of state facilities.
And he added $100 million to the Department of Transportation budget for low-volume road repair and improvement, as well as $727.5 million in general revenue and borrowed funds to pay for improvements on Interstate 44.
Smith’s power over the committee extends to amendments offered during markup sessions like the one held Monday.
He started the day with a 12-page spreadsheet with changes from the proposal he offered March 14. The changes, made all together on a voice vote, included:
• Shifting a proposal for $10 million in grants to study psilocybin mushrooms as a mental health treatment to $10 million to study ibogaine.
• $2.5 million to buy up to 1,800 acres for a new park in McDonald County, home of Budget Committee Vice Chairman Dirk Deaton.
• Dedicating up to $150 million in federal COVID relief funds to the public school foundation formula. The appropriation is intended to soak up any funds that can’t be spent otherwise by the federal deadline.
Republicans hold more than two-thirds of legislative seats and 25 of the 37 on the Budget Committee. With rank-and-file members backing him on almost every issue, Smith can defeat any amendment he doesn’t like.
A teacher pay proposal from Democratic state Rep. Kathy Steinhoff is an example. Steinhoff, who taught math in Columbia Public Schools, said she wanted to use money from the Career Ladder program, which was revived last year after more than a decade with no funding, for the pay boost because it will reach more teachers.
Last year, 139 districts participated in the program that pays teachers a stipend of up to $5,000 to take on additional responsibilities, using $21.6 million of the $36.3 million appropriated. In the current year, funding was boosted to $69.3 million and Parson proposed spending $75.1 million in the coming year.
Exactly how much participating districts will use this year is uncertain because they must certify that eligible teachers performed the required duties, Deputy Commissioner of Education Kari Monsees said Monday.
Smith cut the line to $55.1 million in his budget plan. Steinhoff’s proposal would have used that money for stipends to every certified public school teacher who is rated satisfactory or better in their annual evaluations.
Schools need help recruiting teachers, she said. During most of her time as a teacher, Steinhoff said, there were ample applicants for her job. Now, she said, there are eight math teacher slots in Columbia schools that are not filled.
Better pay is one of the most important recommendations of a Teacher Recruitment and Retention Blue Ribbon Commission formed in 2022.
Fewer than half of the state’s teachers are participating in Career Ladder, Steinhoff said. The only teachers she would exclude from the stipend are those working for districts who are boosting their pay to at least $38,000 with special state support.
Parson’s budget proposal on teacher pay, which Smith didn’t touch, would boost that minimum to $40,000. Legislation to mandate that as the minimum teacher pay is also under debate.
“If we include this and the baseline salary grant, we’ve got a chance of reaching 100% of our teachers and impacting their compensation through state efforts,” Steinhoff said.
Republicans opposed to the change said they didn’t want to disrupt funding for the Career Ladder. Smith made sure the amendment would be defeated by giving it faint praise.
“Perhaps that has merit,” he said, “but this is maybe not the right time.”
