Missouri News Network report

By Jose Luis Adriano

In a session already marred by uncertainty about COVID-19 and vaccine rollout, Gov. Mike Parson used his State of the State to reemphasize his dedication to education funding, infrastructure and public health.

The speech, initially planned to take place in the House chamber, was switched to the Senate chamber last minute. Officials said the switch was made with safety in mind after several senators tested positive for the virus because the Senate chamber’s seats are more spread out. House Minority Leader Crystal Quade said the last-minute change caused confusion in the chamber, and she wasn’t sure if she still had an assigned seat to watch the speech.

Despite the technical difficulties, Parson used the speech to praise the state’s handling of the pandemic.

“We have worked nonstop to take a balanced approach, fight the virus and keep Missourians as safe as possible,” he said.

The governor pointed out that Missouri was one of the first states in the country to submit its COVID-19 vaccine plan and said the state has now administered nearly 400,000 doses. Despite being among the first states to submit a plan, however, Missouri’s vaccine rollout is the slowest in the nation. Thus far, only 4.5% of Missouri’s population has been vaccinated, according to The New York Times.

Quade said she was disappointed in the lack of discussion on specific COVID-related policies and investment in pandemic relief.

“With as much talk as the governor had about workforce development, which of course we support, we would like to see more investment and conversation from him around COVID,” Quade said.

Specifically, she said she would have liked to see better coordination of the vaccine rollout discussed and further support for small businesses through grants.

“The bottom line is that we have been working day in and out to fight COVID-19, while also dealing with civil unrest, violent crime and a difficult budget,” Parson said.

The governor expressed optimism that the legislature would send a COVID-19 liability lawsuit bill to his desk shortly. The bill was discussed last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee and intends to protect businesses and organizations in the state from COVID-19 liability lawsuits.

Parson also called for a $4 million investment to support telehealth and telemedicine in the state, amid an increase in demand for the services during COVID-19. Similarly, he asked for $20 million for 50 new community mental health and substance abuse advocates and new stabilization centers in the state. Parson said that Medicaid coverage will expand to an additional 275,000 people in the state.

Parson said his administration will continue investing in K-12 education and assessing the impact of virtual learning on students.

“Though we may not understand these impacts for some time, it is important that we test and adjust education accordingly to help all students succeed,” Parson said.

He said he intends to expand Career Ready 101, a program that helps high school students prepare for the workforce. Parson also asked for an increase of more than $13 million for A+ scholarship for college students.

Included in the year’s budget proposal was a $10 million request for airport infrastructure. In his speech, Parson also called on the House to approve a $100 million one-time expenditure for clearing the backlog of maintenance projects for buildings and facilities and $25 million to fund the transportation cost-share program.

Parson ended the speech by recognizing health care workers, law enforcement employees, teachers and farmers, as well as “all Missourians who have been on the frontlines of the COVID-19 crisis.”

Proposed state budget benefits from federal COVID-19 relief funding

by Adam Satrya Jackson

Gov. Mike Parson proposed a well-funded 2022 state budget thanks to federal cash buoying pandemic-related revenue losses.

Many of Parson’s budget priorities are consistent with his administration’s longstanding goals, from workforce development to infrastructure.

State Budget Director Dan Haug said the optimistic projection for the $34.1 billion budget is a product of savings secured from CARES Act funds for state and local governments.

Parson’s budget proposal is just the first step in drafting the next state spending plan. Lawmakers will use the document as a starting point for crafting the final version, which they must pass by May. The new budget year starts July 1.

Medicaid

Medicaid takes up the largest chunk of the pie. Medicaid expansion was passed by voters in August via ballot initiative and will tack an additional $1.9 billion onto the state’s budget.

Most of the additional costs are covered by the federal government, while the state expects to pay around $120 million out of the general revenue fund.

The expansion permits coverage enrollment for Missourians in households with incomes at or below 133% of the federal poverty guidelines. The budget proposal expects 275,000 additional Missourians to qualify and enroll in the program.

The governor played to the key of frequent Republican talking points surrounding expansion of the program, emphasizing the need for cost-saving measures by “staying vigilant in maintaining the program’s integrity by protecting against fraud and waste.”

Haug said the state is saving some money on Medicaid expansion because it will be possible to move some people already receiving assistance into the expansion program, which has a better federal reimbursement rate.

Childhood development, K-12 and higher education

The governor’s proposal looks to fully fund the education formula for K-12 schools and expects funding for higher education to return to pre-pandemic levels, although questions regarding exactly how much cash the federal government ends up providing for the upcoming fiscal year remain unanswered.

UM System President Mun Choi requested $438 million from lawmakers Tuesday, including $10 million for the NextGen Precision Health Institute. Choi asked for the NextGen funding to be considered part of the university’s core funding instead of being treated as an addition to the budget.

Parson’s budget recommendation is below that request and does not make NextGen a core element of UM funding, although lawmakers could change that.

Popular scholarship programs such as the A+ Schools Program, Bright Flight and Access Missouri are seeing increases in funding at similar levels to this year.

Additionally, the plan calls for funding workforce development programs that incentivize a pipeline for high-demand jobs in the state, such as the Fast-Track scholarship program and MOExcels, which the legislature did not fund last budget cycle because of concerning COVID-19 projections.

Infrastructure

Reflecting Missouri’s well-documented infrastructural needs, the proposal requests $25 million from the state for transportation cost-share programs “to help communities fulfill other infrastructure projects,” the governor said.

“You cannot fund workforce development without infrastructure,” Parson said in his speech.

Twenty-one percent of the state’s rural roads are in poor condition, and 9% of the state’s rural bridges are in poor or structurally deficient condition, with the state ranking as one of the 20 worst states in the nation in both categories. Missouri has the second-lowest fuel tax in the nation.

Patrick McKenna, director of the Missouri Department of Transportation, said additional stimulus dollars in the recently passed Relief Act also play a large role in filling gaps in revenue.

“Actually, that was something we advocated for,” he said, “which was to create a kind of a backstop for state DOTs related to revenue losses from COVID.”

Cash for port improvements and maintenance repairs to state facilities are also part of the budget proposal — as well as expansion of high-speed broadband services to bridge the digital divide among rural communities, which have been disproportionately affected during the pandemic.

Other priorities

Parson’s budget includes a 2% pay raise for state employees and an incentive program.

Pandemic-specific costs also continue. The budget calls for $2.4 million for dashboards and data analysis capabilities, such as the site the state has built for COVID-19 related statistics.

Parson’s proposal also includes $100 million set aside in case of unforeseen problems.

“I am committed to leaving Missouri in a better financial position than I found it,” the governor said.

State lawmakers receive vaccinations meant for other employees

by Rachel Behrndt, Judy Lucas and Grace Zokovitch

Missouri lawmakers and members of their staff received COVID-19 vaccinations Wednesday that were intended for other state employees.

Lisa Cox, public information officer for the Department of Health and Senior Services, told the Missourian in an email that the Missouri Disaster Medical Assistance Team had been stationed at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, vaccinating eligible state employees from the Missouri Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Safety. All of those employees were in the tiers approved for vaccinations by the state, Cox said.

House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, was one of the lawmakers who got the vaccine and sent her staff to get vaccinated as well.

She said she became aware of the vaccinations via a message on an app from a member of the Senate. She then alerted Democratic members of the House, the Senate and their staff by sending out a short email that read: “Vaccines are currently at capitol plaza hotel for state employees. Must have employee ID.” The Missourian acquired this email from a staff member in the House.

“I saw members from several different departments, whether that was the Attorney General’s Office, the House, Senate staffers,” Quade said. “I mean, it seemed like all state employees were welcomed in there, and the individuals who were working were definitely saying yes to all of that.”

Quade said she received an email from Dana Miller, chief clerk and administrator for the House, about two hours after she received the vaccine. In the email, Miller clarified that “the vaccination event scheduled today was for the Department of Public Safety and MoDOT employees who were within eligible tiers for the vaccine.” The Missourian received the email from another state representative.

Those employees would be considered essential workers, a part of the Phase 1B, Tier 1, vaccination group. This phase includes first responders, emergency management and public works employees.

Cox also verified that the vaccination site was not open to all state employees, as Quade had been led to believe.

Cox said this kind of confusion can create problems for the vaccination rollout across the state.

“The vaccine is available at a very limited supply right now, and that’s a nationwide issue, so that’s why our priority groups exist,” Cox said. “Obviously, I don’t know fully what happened, and with that said, if there is ever a concern that wastage may be on the cusp, then obviously we would rather it be in anyone’s arm than be thrown in the trash.”

Quade said the people administering the vaccine at the hotel made it seem like there was more than enough.

“The folks that were working there made it seem like there was excess, and they were just kind of waiting around,” Quade said. “If they aren’t all used, sometimes they have to throw them away depending on the timeline and then sometimes they will take them back to the headquarters where they then recycle them.”

The representative said the confusion in Jefferson City on Wednesday speaks to a larger issue in the vaccine rollout.

“This has been such a mess from the administration standpoint, like even folks in Jefferson City don’t know what’s going on,” Quade said.

Several lawmakers are out because of positive COVID-19 tests, and Quade said while she regretted that the vaccines weren’t meant for her, she was glad members of her staff were able to get vaccinated.

“Folks are not wearing masks and not being safe,” Quade said. “So, of course, when there was an opportunity, I was like, ‘Put your coats on guys.’”

Cox said the vaccination site will continue giving shots to first responders all week.

Gov. Parson launches new COVID-19 vaccination dashboard

By Hannah Norton

Gov. Mike Parson announced a new COVID-19 vaccination dashboard Thursday evening. The dashboard includes data from health care providers across the state and is expected to be updated daily.

The new dashboard launches two days after the New York Times reported Missouri was ranked last out of all 50 states in vaccine rollout. Including U.S. territories and three small countries in agreements with the U.S. (Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands), Missouri is ranked 57th out of 59 locations.

In a release Tuesday evening, Parson said he spoke with the National Governors Association, White House Officials and other federal partners about the CDC’s vaccination data.

“Missouri is not alone in our frustration on how vaccination data is being reported by the CDC,” Parson said in the release. “I and many other Governors expressed concern that vaccination data from the CDC is being misrepresented and does not fully reflect the situations we are seeing at the state level.”

However, Missouri and CDC data nearly mirror one another.

Missouri’s new dashboard reports that 4.5% of Missourians have received one or more doses of the vaccine as of Tuesday evening. The dashboard was last updated Tuesday and includes data through last Sunday.

CDC data, reported by the New York Times, shows 4.3% of the Missouri population has received one or more doses.

Missouri’s dashboard also shows 1.3% of Missouri residents have received two doses of the vaccine, while CDC data shows 1.2%.

Parson said the CDC’s data are “marginal and are being used to misinform Missourians that the state is falling short in vaccine administration, or worse, that the state itself is stockpiling vaccines.”

He explained that vaccine doses are sent directly to local providers rather than to the state itself.

“Our data shows vaccine distribution and administration rates in Missouri are similar to other states,” Parson said.

Parson encourages Missourians to use the state’s dashboard “as one of the best resources to get the latest vaccine numbers without the political rhetoric others may include in their reporting.”

Alaska and West Virginia, the states ranked first and second in vaccine rollout respectively, both have Republican governors. North Dakota, the fifth-ranked state, also has a Republican governor.

The data, broken down

The new dashboard states 275,079 Missourians have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, while 81,231 people have received both doses.

It also features a bar graph with doses administered over time. So far, the highest-performing day was Wednesday, Jan. 20, with 24,656 doses given.

Vaccination data is categorized by age group, sex, race and ethnicity. To date, Missourians 85 years and older have received the most doses of the vaccine (11.8%), while 15 to 24-year-olds have received the least (2.0%).

Twice as many females (6%) have been vaccinated as males (2.9%).

The dashboard also includes data by county. Boone County has administered the second-most vaccines, with 6.4% of residents receiving one dose. Cape Girardeau County has had 9.3% of its residents vaccinated for the first time.

People who receive the vaccine in Missouri but reside outside of the state do not appear on the dashboard.

The Missouri dashboard does not indicate how many vaccines the state has received, but CDC data reports that Missouri has distributed 665,300 doses.

The new vaccination dashboard is available through the state’s public health COVID-19 dashboard and the general state vaccination website.

Fight looms over effort to create scholarships for public school students to attend private schools

By Wicker Perlis

Two very different pictures were painted Tuesday of proposed bills to create an Education Savings Account program that would allow some public school students to attend private schools under scholarship.

Those in favor of the bills told the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education that “school choice” would allow students to escape public schools that are failing or not meeting their needs. Those opposed said it would take money out of the public school system, only making the conditions at underperforming public schools worse, and said it lacked accountability.

One of the bills, proposed by Rep. Travis Fitzwater, R-Holts Summit, would cover tuition for any public school student whose family has an income up to twice that of what is required to qualify for free and reduced price lunches to attend a private school.

These income requirements ensure that scholarships go to students with the most need, Fitzwater said.

Fitzwater’s bill would be funded through donations from the public, which can be fully claimed as a tax credit, as long as the credit does not exceed 50% of the contributors total tax burden to the state.

The other bill, proposed by Rep. Phil Christofanelli, R-St. Peters, is funded in a similar way, but the qualifications for an eligible student are different.

All public school students would be eligible for scholarships, with the notable exception of those living in cities with a population of less than 30,000 or counties that do not have a chartered government.

Christofanelli said the 30,000 population limit was a “political reality” because many lawmakers from smaller towns oppose such programs for their communities

The program would receive $50 million in state funding to offset the tax credits.

Among the first to challenge the proposals was Rep. Ian Mackey, D-St. Louis. Mackey said he was concerned by the scope of these programs, questioning its size compared to those of states with existing school choice programs.

“It just seems like we’re plunging headfirst way into the deep end,” Mackey said.

“Big problems need big solutions,” Fitzwater later replied.

One major concern of those in opposition was the anticipated drain on funding for public schools that would result from students leaving the public school system.

Scott Kimble, director of legislative advocacy for the Missouri Council of School Administrators, said the bills would lead to $50 million being transferred from public schools to private schools.

“Fifty million dollars is not insignificant,” Kimble said.

Kimble also pointed out that the public school system has already seen a decrease in funding due to the COVID-19 pandemic and revenue shortfalls, including a decrease in revenue coming in from casinos.

Mike Wood, legislative director of the Missouri State Teachers Association, said the legislature should commit to working on turning around underperforming or failing school districts.

Wood said if certain students were allowed to leave those schools and school districts, he would “worry about kids that are left behind in those struggling schools.”

Wood also voiced concerns that private schools may not be held to the same standards as public schools and that there is less accountability to the legislature with private schools than with public — even if public funds begin streaming into private schools through scholarship and waiver programs.

“It’s really interesting to me that you would mention accountability,” said Rep. Ben Baker, R-Neosho. “Over one-third of teachers say their children are behind.”

“I didn’t say it was great accountability, but we have accountability (in public schools,)” Wood said.

Many representatives and citizens shared personal stories in support of school choice.

Rep. Justin Hill, R-Lake St. Louis, had to leave the hearing in order to help his own son with testing for learning disabilities, a responsibility he said was passed onto him by the Wentzville school board, which was unable to provide such testing.

“My public school has failed us,” Hill said. “This is probably the most important bill of the year.”

Isabella Uccello, a student at St. Agnus Elementary School in Springfield, uses a wheelchair and has learning disabilities. Her mother, Rebecca Uccello, has been a public school teacher for 24 years but had to pull Isabella out of public school when her needs could not be accommodated.

“They gave us lip service,” Rebecca Uccello said. “They listened to our advice, and they didn’t change anything.”

Sue Slay, a Columbia parent, voiced her displeasure with Columbia Public Schools’ handling of COVID-19. Many students only recently returned to in-person instruction.

“(CPS) has enraged an entire community,” Slay said.

Rep. Cheri Toalson Reisch, R-Hallsville, agreed with Slay. Toalson Reisch represents an area with four school districts, and CPS was the only one that did not have in-person classes in the fall.

“I give them a big fat F,” Toalson Reisch said. “My three rural districts, they have been in school doing it right.”

Treasurer Scott Fitzpatrick testified in support of both bills. He said his office worked with the sponsors in order to “feel comfortable that whatever were to pass, we can implement it.”

Committee Chair Chuck Basye, R-Rocheport, said the committee will vote on the bills Feb. 2.

Fewer agencies could inspect agriculture facilities under proposed legislation

By Mallory Daily

A bill that would limit who can conduct inspections of agricultural facilities is being considered by lawmakers in the Missouri House Agriculture Policy Committee.

State Rep. Kent Haden, R-Mexico, said the bill, HB 574, would protect agricultural facilities against “fishing expeditions’’ from inspectors. He also noted the need for agricultural facilities to have additional protections against the risks of biosecurity breaches, such as the introduction of the deadly African swine fever into confined animal herds by unauthorized or inexperienced inspectors.

“These viruses are out there that could be brought in by someone not knowing it,” said Haden.

The bill is similar to one filed last year that was scheduled for debate on the House floor the day the chambers adjourned because of COVID-19. This bill differs slightly in that it sets a class B misdemeanor for violations to the stated provisions.

The current version of the bill also includes new language that would limit who can provide evidence or testimony in court regarding conditions or activities on farm grounds or facilities. Rep. Tracy McCreery, D-St. Louis, noted concern about this additional language.

“I feel like we’re going to be stepping into another branch of government and limiting the ability of folks that are trying to do the right thing within the judicial branch,” McCreery said.

The bill would grant exclusive authority to certain regulatory agencies to provide evidence or testimony in civil or criminal prosecution regarding any on-farm violations of state law. Such agencies include the Missouri Department of Agriculture, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the local county sheriff and the United States Department of Agriculture.

Bob Baker, a representative of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, spoke in opposition to several sections within the bill. As the bill is currently drafted, if an employee or a neighbor noticed illegal activity on an agricultural property, they would not be able to offer their witness testimony in court, said Baker.

“Ironically, this is not even good for the farmers,” said Baker. “If a crime is committed on their farm, (the farmer) cannot testify.”

Haden said it is unlikely this section will be revised, although he will likely consider revisions that would ensure the bill does not prohibit the authority of municipal police departments and state highway patrol officers from enforcing the law on agricultural properties.

More organizations submitted written testimony in opposition to the bill, but copies were not provided to the Missourian on Tuesday.

The bill’s supporters contended it would offer farmers clarity about the authority of inspectors and their purposes for inspecting farm facilities.

“Also, it provides clarity to those respective agencies, so they know what authority they have,” said Mike Deering, a representative of the Missouri Cattlemen’s Association. In addition to the Cattlemen’s Association, supporters of the bill include the Missouri Soybean Association, the Missouri Pet Breeders Association, the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, the Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Corn Growers Association.

According to informational testimony by Eleni Bickell with MOST Policy Initiative, information about who is authorized to conduct on-site inspections of which agricultural facilities is often unclear, and ambiguity often exists about how frequently such inspections must occur. Bickell noted off-farm food safety inspections would not be affected by this bill.

The bill would prohibit county health officials from having authority to complete environmental inspections of facilities.

“I don’t know any county health departments that have anybody who has expertise enough to go into one of these units,” said Haden.

Charter counties and any cities not located in a county are exempt from the provisions within this legislation.

Sen. Jeanie Riddle, R-Mokane, has introduced a similar bill, SB 254, that has not yet been assigned to committee.

House approves $320 million in rent assistance

By Mark Ossolinski

As the economic fallout from COVID-19 continues to impact Missouri residents, state legislators are moving to quickly distribute hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid to struggling renters and landlords.

The House Budget Committee voted unanimously Tuesday to advance House Bill 16, which sets the parameters for the state’s distribution of about $320 million in aid that the federal government allocated to Missouri as part of its $25 billion Emergency Rental Assistance Program launched Jan. 5.

The measure was passed by the full House on Thursday.

“Most importantly, we want to be able to give relief out to both the renters and the landlords out there that are seeing difficulties because of the pandemic,” said State Budget Director Dan Haug during a hearing with committee members Tuesday morning.

Under guidance from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, renter households eligible for the relief are those with a household income “at or below 80% of the area median.” Also eligible are households with one or more individuals who qualify for unemployment benefits or have experienced a reduction in income, incurred “significant costs” or experienced financial hardship because of COVID-19, or can demonstrate “a risk of experiencing homelessness or housing instability.”

The federal government allocated emergency rental assistance funds to states based on population, with Missouri originally earmarked for $410 million to be distributed to both the state and to cities and counties with populations over 200,000. Those eligible localities had to apply for funding, after which it was determined that the state’s total need for rental assistance would be closer to $320 million, Haug said.

Treasury Department guidelines require that 90% of that allocation go to rent and utility assistance, while 10% be devoted to “housing stability services” such as case management, eviction prevention services and administrative costs.

According to Kip Stetzler, director of the Missouri Housing Development Commission — the agency tasked with administering the housing aid — tenants will be able to apply for assistance through MHDC’s online portal as early as Feb. 1.

The state will also continue to administer the Missouri Emergency Rental Arrears Program, which provides relief to landlords affected by the pandemic using CARES Act funds.

There is currently a federal moratorium on evictions, which President Joe Biden extended for tenants who have fallen behind on rent because of the pandemic.

The $320 million figure — $311 million of which was distributed to the state Jan. 23 — marks a significant jump from the $28 million in CARES funding for housing assistance that has been available in the state since December.

Committee members pressed Stetzler on how his agency plans to distribute the federal aid quickly to those in need, especially in light of the fact that it has thus far spent less than half of the CARES funds.

Stetzler said the estimated number of households at risk of eviction in the state is between 150,000 and 230,000, and the estimated rent shortfall is between $294 and $417 million.

“So, certainly, I think the need is there,” Stetzler said.

Rep. Peter Merideth, D-St. Louis, expressed concern over the pace at which housing aid has been disbursed to tenants in the state thus far.

“There’ve been a lot of pots of money like this,” Merideth said. “Of roughly $30 million, only half of that ends up getting spent, but we tell people we’re out of funding and they can’t apply anymore. And I want to make sure that’s not the case with this money.”

Merideth also said he has heard from eviction mediators that the application for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program can take between five and 10 hours to complete, and asked Stetzler if the process can be made more efficient.

“No, that’s always the challenge,” Stetzler said. “We have to balance out trying to get this money out the door as quickly as possible to those that need it, but also making sure that we keep an eye on applications from folks that don’t qualify.”

“The degree of difficulty is somewhat higher with this bill (than with the CARES funding),” said Rep. Cody Smith, Budget Committee chairman. “So I want to be as intentional as we can be about how this is going to be allocated.”

Missouri senators discuss environmental legislation

By Judy Lucas

The Senate Committee on Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources heard testimonies on two bills concerning environmental regulations Monday.

SB 40 addresses fines issued by the Department of Natural Resources. SB 37 proposes regulations on the fertilizer anhydrous ammonia.

Sponsored by Republican committee member Eric Burlison, SB 40 proposes a greater level of oversight for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources concerning issuing fines or penalties on businesses.

Ray McCarty, president of Associated Industries of Missouri, spoke at the hearing.

He said the issue arose after several business-owning members of the association reached out about their inability to acquire detailed information regarding why they were being fined by the Department of Natural Resources and how much they were expected to pay.

McCarty said this hasn’t been an issue in the past. However, business owners he’s spoken to recently have been unable to obtain detailed explanations regarding the exact calculations of the fines being issued.

When a business or an individual is fined by the Department of Natural Resources, the department and the alleged violator attempt to work out an agreement.

If they can’t do so, the alleged violator can appeal and receive a breakdown of how the department came to the final cost of the fine, along with its exact reasoning.

Business owners want this breakdown when they are fined, not after they appeal to the department, McCarty said.

“We aren’t asking them to prepare something they haven’t already prepared,” McCarty said. “They obviously prepared it when they figured out what the total amount should be. We’re asking them to show their work.”

Republican Senator Mike Bernskoetter sponsored SB 37, which proposed modifications to the regulatory track of the potentially dangerous fertilizer anhydrous ammonia.

He and a few others who testified on the bill argued the Department of Agriculture should take full responsibility for regulating the chemical.

The fertilizer is currently regulated by multiple governmental bodies instead of just one. This causes confusion for farmers around the state who utilize the fertilizer on a daily basis, supporters said.

Tony Benz, deputy director and government consultant for the Missouri Agribusiness Association, testified in support of the bill.

“We have multiple agencies — state, federal — that are overseeing exactly the same duties,” Benz said. “We believe this is a good bill that streamlines that and makes it a little more clear for our members to know what rules they need to follow and when.”

Benz said the bill would be the first step in delegating the authority to administer the anhydrous ammonia from the EPA under the Clean Air Act to the Department of Natural Resources.

Rich Germinder, the director of policy and legislative affairs for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, spoke on behalf of the department. He said the department has been conducting research and will be prepared to provide adequate staff to regulate the chemical if the bill passes.

Missouri senators discuss tobacco regulation, inclusion of vapor products in smoking bans

by Caitlin King

A bill to further regulate tobacco products and modify the Clean Air Act was read to the Committee for Seniors, Families, Veterans & Military Affairs Wednesday morning.

Sponsored by Sen. Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield, Senate Bill 124 would reaffirm the 2019 Tobacco 21 federal law that raises the legal age to purchase “certain tobacco, alternative nicotine or vapor products” to 21 years old.

The Clean Air Act would now include vapor products such as electronic cigarettes and vapor cartridges in the definition of “smoking,” which means those products would be included in the ban on smoking in public places and child day care facilities, outside of designated areas.

Furthermore, vapor products and “electronic nicotine delivery systems” would now be classified as tobacco products, meaning they would be taxed like tobacco products. Penalties and fines for business owners for selling to those under 21 would also increase.

Four witnesses spoke, three for the bill and one against. Supporters of the bill were Heidi Geisbuhler Sutherland with the Missouri State Medical Association, Former First Ward Columbia Councilperson Ginny Chadwick and registered lobbyist Garrett Webb for the Missouri Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Ron Leone, the executive director for the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, spoke against the bill. Leone’s major issue was the increase in fines and penalties that would be placed on business owners.

“This particular provision makes even less sense because what typically happens when somebody sells to a minor, [the business] fires that clerk and that clerk is gone, they go somewhere else to find another job,” he said. “And the small business owner is left to deal with paying the fines and suffering the consequences.”

Additionally, Leone took issue with the classification of electronic cigarettes and vapors as tobacco products because “they don’t contain tobacco, they contain nicotine.”

Chairperson of the SFVM Committee Sen. Bill White, R-Joplin, reminded Leone of the “problem that apparently is not being addressed of minor usage and the cost of health care and injury to those minors.”

Leone clarified, “I’m not here saying any of these products are good for you in any way, shape or form. ... My members are good actors. I can’t tell you what the members that I don’t represent are doing, but my members follow the law. They sell a lawful adult product to adults.”

“Your good actors though should not then be impacted by an increase in fines or a reduction in the or an increase in the duration where you could not sell these products,” Chairperson White responded. “If they’re adequately supervising their staff, they should have minimal concern about an increase in penalty and increase in duration of nonsales, because they are, as you say, good actors, there’s always gonna be a little slip through.”

The bill would also repeal the elimination of penalties if the owner has a tobacco compliance training program. Businesses that sell tobacco products, vapor products, alternative nicotine products or rolling papers, in any quantity, must annually register with the Department of Revenue prior to such sale, provision or distribution. There is a $50 registration fee, which would be used to enforce state tobacco laws and cessation activities. If business owners do not register, the penalties would increase for each offense.

State elected officials to receive first pay raises in more than a decade

By Mark Ossolinski

Missouri lawmakers and statewide elected officials will receive annual pay raises of 2.5% each year for the next two years, the first such raises to make it through the legislature since 2008.

The salary hikes come after the Missouri House of Representatives failed to pass a resolution Thursday that would have prevented the raises from going into effect. House members voted 97-11 to reject the increase, but that tally did not meet the two-thirds majority of the 163-member body required to pass.

Under the Missouri Constitution, pay scales must be set every two years by the independent Missouri Citizens’ Commission on Compensation for Elected Officials. The commission’s recommendations automatically take effect Feb. 1 unless rejected by two-thirds majorities in both chambers.

For the past dozen years, however, lawmakers have rejected the commission’s recommended pay scales, which determine salaries for House and Senate members, the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, state auditor and state treasurer. Many legislators view the rejections of those modest pay hikes as symbolic gestures meant to curry favor with constituents in their home districts.

Even if the resolution, filed by Rep. Andrew McDaniel, R-Deering, had passed in the House, there would not have been sufficient time for it to pass in the Senate before the Monday deadline, with the upper chamber out of session until Monday.

Senate leadership suggested they were not opposed to the raises, regardless of their fate in the House.

Putting them off “can’t continue forever,” said President Pro Tem Sen. Dave Schatz, R-Sullivan. “Realistically, I think it’s time that the compensation has increased.”

“I don’t think anybody wants to live in a world where the only people in the legislature are people who have personal wealth,” said Sen. Caleb Rowden, R-Columbia, who is the Senate majority leader. “There needs to be a diverse group of folks who are here and who come to us with varying life circumstances and varying views of the world.”

The current salary for both senators and representatives, many of whom work in jobs outside of the legislature, is $35,915. That figure will now increase to $37,711 over the next two fiscal years. The net estimated cost of the raises for all elected officials is $518,729.

In debate on the House floor, an array of lawmakers from both parties echoed Rowden’s concerns about the ability to attract a qualified and diverse array of lawmakers.

Rep. Doug Richey, R-Excelsior Springs, said he was concerned about a continued “gentrification of the General Assembly” if lawmakers’ pay remained stagnant. “We need people to be able to afford to serve the public.”

Rep. Steve Butz, D-St. Louis, agreed: “This body, this state, needs that representation from all forms of walks of life,” he said.

Rep. Chuck Basye, R-Rocheport, emphasized the apolitical nature of the Citizen’s Commission in arguing against rejecting the raises and suggested its very presence on the House floor was a political stunt.

“This isn’t even going to the Senate. They’re not even going to be here tomorrow,” Basye said. “So this is just theater. This is terrible.”

Asked if there had been an intentional plan to allow the resolution to be voted on in the House only to run out of time before Monday, Rowden was firm: “There was no plan.”

Lawmaker again pushes for statewide prescription drug monitoring program

By Wicker Perlis

Thursday brought the latest chapter in a long history of attempts to track and reduce opioid abuse in Missouri.

Sen. Holly Rehder, R-Sikeston, brought a bill before the Committee on Fiscal Oversight that would create a Prescription Drug Monitoring Plan, or PDMP. Missouri is the only state in the U.S. not to have a statewide program monitoring prescription drug use.

Rehder repeatedly pushed for a PDMP program in her eight years as a member of the state House of Representatives. This is her first term in the Senate.

In 2019 a PDMP bill sponsored by Rehder passed in the House, but the bill failed to pass the Senate after being filibustered by the chamber’s conservative caucus. Another version of Rehder’s bill passed the House in 2020, but once again it did not pass the Senate in a session shortened by COVID-19.

Rehder has made changes to the proposed PDMP in hopes that it will make the program more palatable for some Senate conservatives.

Unlike previous versions of the program, Senate Bill 63 would not be a tool for law enforcement. And the bill specifically attempts to protect the gun possession rights of those in the opioid databases.

Rather than helping law enforcement, the PDMP would allow doctors and an oversight board to view prescription records of their patients. Proponents hope this would prevent patients from “doctor shopping,” where a patient goes to multiple doctors in the hopes of maximizing the amount of opioids they are prescribed.

“Information is only utilized by medical professional and patients, not law enforcement,” Rehder said.

While this change may end up garnering support for the program from some members of the conservative caucus, other Republicans wished the bill had not been changed.

“I still prefer a law enforcement tool,” Sen. Bill White, R-Joplin, said.

White added that he wished the program monitored all prescriptions, rather than just opioids.

Rehder also removed a harsh fentanyl abuse penalty.

It is unclear what impact these changes will have on the positions of senators who have historically opposed a PDMP.

When he was a member of the House, Sen. Mike Moon, R-Ash Grove, objected to the program over database security concerns.

“They want to risk the data of all our Missourians?” Moon said in 2019. “I call that a load of male bovine feces.”

Sen. Bob Onder, R-Lake St. Louis, has long expressed doubts about the effectiveness of a PDMP.

“An opioid could be prescribed entirely appropriately but stolen from Grandma or Mom or Dad’s medicine cabinet,” Onder said in 2020. “PDMP is not going to stop that.”

Onder was unavailable for comment on Rehder’s newest bill.

While Missouri does not have a statewide PDMP in place, Rehder noted the success of a Seventy-five jurisdictions in the state have joined that program, encompassing 85% of the state population. Columbia is in that program.

“The question is no longer should we have a PDMP in Missouri because we do have one, the St. Louis County program,” Rehder said. “We will keep going until all counties are covered.