New law changes conditions of probation and parole

(Missouri Digital News) -- A Missouri House bill went into effect on Tuesday, Aug. 28, that could allow some convicted criminals to have shorter parole.

The new law allows some parolees to earn credits toward parole periods for complying with the conditions of their release. Supporters of the bill say it will help save taxpayers' money by reducing the number of non-violent offenders that the state has to supervise.

The law's sponsor, Rep. Gary Fuhr, R-St. Louis, says that this law could help lighten the financial load for taxpayers in Missouri.

"There are various estimates of them that can save anywhere from $50,000 up to several million dollars depending on how many people actually comply with their probation or parole provisions," Fuhr said.

Those who do not follow the conditions of their probation will be sent to a mandatory 120-day correctional rehabilitation facility or returned to prison. 

Casey Guernsey -- Marathon of Legislative Activity

This week was a ‘marathon’ of legislative activity that benefitted our rural district tremendously. I was also thrilled to see the Proposition B reform legislation sent to the Governor and a positive response from his office indicating his support of the necessary reforms. As a result, around 1,500 people showed up to rally the Governor and ask him to sign the bill into law as soon as possible. I would strongly encourage you to contact his office asking him to sign the ‘Prop B reform’ legislation into law. We also passed out of the house three bills of particular benefit to our district, they are as follows:

HB 828 – Prevailing Wage Reform

Prevailing wage is the requirement that employers pay employees a specified hourly wage higher typically higher than a normal rate. In Missouri it applies to certain categories of work, determined by statute, rules, and regulations. One of these categories is construction. Prevailing wage was never meant to apply to maintenance of buildings and simple repairs; for instance, things like repainting an old building. Recently, the Missouri Supreme Court determined that employees repainting old buildings were actually doing construction work, so they should be paid prevailing wage. This bill fixes the court case, to bring “prevailing wage” back to where it was intended – without this fix “prevailing wage” could be extended to a ridiculous point where you can’t even legally hire a neighborhood kid to paint your shed without having to pay them upwards of $20 an hour.

HB 1008 – Highway Construction Contracts

The Missouri Department of Transportation is not like a business – it can’t always build projects the cheapest way possible because there are limits on how state agencies can spend money. Most of the time this is good, state money is public money and there should be restrictions on how it is spent. However, sometimes the protections get in the way, and make projects cost more than they should. This bill simply allows MODOT to enter into a type of payment agreement that it normally could not. This payment agreement would be flexible, allowing for changes in highway revenues, but also allowing private contractors and MODOT to work together more efficiently through greater public-private partnerships.

HB 708 – American Law in American Courts

Unless you’re a lawyer, going to court is often bad. It’s a confusing and stressful time – under American laws. Now imagine you go to court, and instead of using American law, the judge decides that he’s going to try your case under New Zealand law, or Brazilian law, or even a religious law like Sharia. Good luck. It’s hard enough for the average citizen to figure out what’s going on under American laws. Worse – courts across the country have begun to use these foreign laws in their cases, and if we don’t do something, this might become the norm instead of an exception. We have seen a startling emergence of judicial activism applying Sharia law to settle court cases. That’s why we passed HB 708 – a measure to make sure that Missouri courts use Missouri and American law when they decide cases. They can still look at foreign laws that are the same as ours, but they can’t use a different remedy or outcome than would happen under our law. It just makes sense. In a Missouri law, you should be subject to the laws of Missouri and of the United States. New Zealand, Brazilian, or Sharia law has no place here unless it’s the same as ours.

A Moment with Mike for February 16th, 2010

After a week of blizzard-like conditions that caused everything in the state Capitol to come to a grinding halt, things were back to normal as we played catch up on the work we missed. Committees and hearings took up most of our time but there was some action on the House floor and a couple of pieces of legislation were passed that took aim at protecting Missouri businesses and consumers.

One piece of legislation approved would fix problems that have resulted from workers’ compensation legislation passed in 2005. While that bill was meant to make Missouri a more attractive location for prospective employers, it had a few unintended consequences that have produced the opposite effect. One of those consequences stems from a lawsuit where the court ruled an employee who sustains a work-related injury could sue a co-employee for negligence. Work related injuries are meant to be covered by the workers’ compensation system, but this change opened up the potential for additional civil action. The end result has made it harder for employers to recruit and retain employees in key supervisory positions where they could be subjected to lawsuits. The new legislation would specifically bar employees from filing lawsuits against their co-workers for injuries that qualify under the workers’ compensation system. With this change, we can ensure work-related injuries are dealt with in the workers’ compensation system and protect employees from costly civil lawsuits.

Another court case produced the second unintended consequence of the 2005 workers’ compensation reform. In this case, the court ruled that occupational diseases are not the exclusive domain of workers’ compensation. The ruling means that cases can be pursued in civil court for damages against employers. Of course, this makes Missouri a less attractive location for businesses as they face the threat of costly litigation. The measure we passed fixes this problem by stating that occupational diseases are covered by the workers’ compensation system and therefore would not be handled as lawsuits filed against employers.

Another bill approved last week would protect consumer choice, create construction jobs and provide more affordable housing opportunities for all Missourians. This legislation (HB 46) would extend a law approved by the General Assembly in 2009 that preserves a home buyer’s right to decide whether to have fire sprinklers installed in a new home. That consumer protection, set to expire January 1, 2012, will be extended to 2019.

This issue stems from a controversial vote in 2008 in Minneapolis when special interest voters poured into a conference of building code officials working to create a national model building code and secured an outcome that mandates fire sprinklers be installed in all newly-built homes, effective January 1, 2011. While safety is of utmost importance, we believe that there are other methods, such as smoke alarms, that have proven to be very effective and will not drive the cost up so much that home construction is inhibited.

If you have questions, you may reach me at my Capitol number 573-751-9465, at the local district number, 660-582-4014, by email at mike.thomson@house.mo.gov or by mail at Room 401B State Capitol Building, Jefferson City, MO 65101

Petition to Repeal Nonpartisan Court Plan gets Cool Local Reception

An initiative petition circulating around the state that would repeal the current Nonpartisan Court Plan has met with a cool local reception. The petition would place a measure on the ballot that, if approved, would replace the current nonpartisan system for selecting judges with a partisan system in which judges would be elected by party similar to other statewide officeholders. Judges of the Supreme Court and the district Courts of Appeals would serve eight years instead of the current 12.

The measure would also change the way in which judges are appointed. Currently, the statewide Nonpartisan Judicial Commission submits three nominees to the governor, who will choose one of the three. Should the governor fail to do so within sixty days, the commission would appoint one of the nominees to serve on the bench. The ballot initiative would have the governor appoint judicial nominees to fill vacancies with the advise and consent of the Senate. Confirmed nominees would fill positions until December 31st following the next general election after the expiration of twelve months in the office. Governors would be able to make recess appointments, but these appointments would terminate if the advise and consent of the Senate is not given within thirty days after the senate has convened in regular or special session.

Beginning after November 2, 2010, judges of the supreme court whose terms expire shall be replaced by individuals elected by the voters eligible to vote within the state. Each such duly elected individual shall be entitled to serve for the term prescribed. Nothing shall prevent judges of the supreme court who were appointed under a previous method of judicial selection or appointed to fill a vacancy from seeking election to the supreme court. Currently, judges are appointed and then retained by a yes or no vote of the people.

The petition relaxes the restrictions on political activities by judges. Under the initiative, a judge or judicial candidate may announce his or her views on disputed legal or political issues provided that the judge or judicial candidate does not make pledges or promises to render specific rulings or decisions on pending litigation. Judicial candidates and judges who are judicial candidates shall be allowed to solicit, receive and make campaign contributions, and make and receive the benefit of campaign expenditures, as may be provided by law.

The petition is being pushed by a group called "Better Courts for Missouri." On the front page of their website, they describe themselves as "...a coalition of Missourians from all walks of life, dedicated to fixing the method by which Missouri judges are selected. The judges on our highest courts make decisions that profoundly affect every Missourian. Everything from jobs and wages to health care and family values are affected by the powerful judges on those courts. That is why we are dedicated to ensuring that openness, accountability, independence, and excellence are represented in the Missouri Court Plan for selecting judges." They charge that "our highest courts have been under the influence of legal industry special interest groups for years," accusing "these groups" of "wanting nothing more than to take down our tort reform laws." Better Courts for Missouri accuses personal injury attorneys of encouraging courts to "strike down laws for their own financial benefit."

But the petition has met with a cool local reception. County Clerk Lisa Hargrave said that if judicial elections were to become partisan elections, it would lead to greatly increased costs for her office to count ballots, print paper, and advertise the election. "The system is not broken now, so why fix it," she asked. Commissioner Dennis Gabbert said that it would not improve the judicial system and that it would simply bring the level of judges down to political parties and popularity contests. Presiding Commissioner Kevin Austin noted that the State of Missouri just ended the political patronage system that had been used to select Department of Revenue offices for many years and that it wouldn't make sense to go to a partisan system. "We'll all pay more," added Commissioner Rob Ruckman.

Jerry Drake, who would be affected by the judges that he would argue before as a lawyer, said that he was not a fan of the current system, but that he was not convinced that the petition was any answer. The problem he saw with the current selection process was what he called the substitution of the power of a few for the electorate. Having dealt with elected judges on the local level, Drake said that "the judges you elect are no less motivated than that ones that you appoint." But he said that didn't mean that he was going to sign the petition. He said that his main concern was what he called the secrecy behind who was funding the petition. He added that he was concerned that the judiciary would become a tool of special interests who would simply taylor the courts to suit their agendas like they did the legislature. A former legislator, Drake said that the legislature was dominated by special interests and that he didn't want to see the judiciary go the same way.

State Senator Brad Lager, in e-mailed comments to the Sheridan Express, said that he thought the state didn't need to eliminate the court plan, but that some changes were needed that he said would make the court system actually non-partisan. First of all, Lager said that he wanted more common people on the commission than lawyers. He said that as things stood right now, the lawyers on the commission or their firms would end up practicing in front of the judges whom they help pick. He compared it to allowing the CEO's of all the energy companies to pick members of the Public Service Commission. "It is bad public policy and simply not good government," he said.

Other ideas for reform Lager said were needed included increasing the number of people on the panel sent to the Governor. He said that the Governor should be given power to reject a panel of nominees he didn't like, meaning that the commission would have to put forward a new slate. He also said that there needed to be more transparency in the process. "There is no reason that only select lawyers are allowed to know the nominees and learn about them in private closed-door sessions," said Lager in his comments.

Lager said that the state should open up the entire process, saying that all documents, lists, and interviews should be open to the press and public. And instead of letting the Missouri Bar Association pick the members of the Commission, Lager said that everyone nominated to the commission should stand for Senate confirmation, like other boards and commissions appointed by the governor.