Tag Archives: Missouri

Politics/Government, Uncategorized

CLICKABLE MISSOURI VOTER GUIDE: BE PREPARED FOR ELECTION TUESDAY NOVEMBER 6, 2012

VOTE NEXT TUESDAY, November 6th. 

Voter Guide for Missouri General Election Provided by the Law Offices of Michelle M. Funkenbusch

Finding your polling place and sample ballot:

 Absentee Voting:

  • If you will be absent from your voting district on election day, or meet one of the other qualifications for absentee voting, you can request a ballot and return it by mail or fax, or vote in an early/absentee voting location–but you’ll need to plan ahead.  Details and information about absentee voting are here.

Information about candidates:

How to find your candidate’s names, your US Rep, State Rep, and State Senate District numbers:

BEWARE that many/most district numbers have changed this year in Missouri, thanks to the new census data and re-districting. Your state representative district number is almost certainly changed, and many state senate districts and US representative districts have changes boundaries, too–sometimes by a little and sometimes by a lot. Here is how to find your updated info:

November 2012 Ballot Issues:

MISSOURI CONSTITUTIONAL Amendment 3

  Judges
OFFICIAL BALLOT LANGUAGE
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to change the current nonpartisan selection of supreme court and court of appeals judges to a process that gives the governor increased authority to:
  • appoint a majority of the commission that selects these court nominees; and
  • appoint all lawyers to the commission by removing the requirement that the governor’s appointees be nonlawyers?
There are NO estimated costs or savings expected if this proposal is approved by voters.
FAIR BALLOT LANGUAGE
A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to change the current nonpartisan selection of supreme court and court of appeals judges to a process that gives the governor increased authority to appoint a majority of the commission that selects these court nominees. This measure also allows the governor to appoint all lawyers to the commission by removing the requirement that the governor’s appointees be nonlawyers.
A “no” vote will not change the current constitutional provisions for the nonpartisan selection of supreme court and court of appeals judges.

Proposition A
Law enforcement
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
  • allow any city not within a county (the City of St. Louis) the option of transferring certain obligations and control of the city’s police force from the board of police commissioners currently appointed by the governor to the city and establishing a municipal police force;
  • establish certain procedures and requirements for governing such a municipal police force including residency, rank, salary, benefits, insurance, and pension; and
  • prohibit retaliation against any employee of such municipal police force who reports conduct believed to be illegal to a superior, government agency, or the press?
State governmental entities estimated savings will eventually be up to $500,000 annually. Local governmental entities estimated annual potential savings of $3.5 million; however, consolidation decisions with an unknown outcome may result in the savings being more or less than estimated.
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to allow any city not within a county (the City of St. Louis) the option of establishing a municipal police force by transferring certain obligations and control of the city’s police force from the board of police commissioners currently appointed by the governor to the city. This amendment also establishes certain procedures and requirements for governing such a municipal police force including residency, rank, salary, benefits, insurance, and pension.  The amendment further prohibits retaliation against any employee of such municipal police force who reports conduct believed to be illegal to a superior, government agency, or the press.A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding St. Louis City’s police force.If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

Proposition B
Tobacco
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
  • create the Health and Education Trust Fund with proceeds of a tax of $0.0365 per cigarette and 25% of the manufacturer’s invoice price for roll-your-own tobacco and 15% for other tobacco products;
  • use Fund proceeds to reduce and prevent tobacco use and for elementary, secondary, college, and university public school funding; and
  • increase the amount that certain tobacco product manufacturers must maintain in their escrow accounts, to pay judgments or settlements, before any funds in escrow can be refunded to the tobacco product manufacturer and create bonding requirements for these manufacturers?
Estimated additional revenue to state government is $283 million to $423 million annually with limited estimated implementation costs or savings. The revenue will fund only programs and services allowed by the proposal. The fiscal impact to local governmental entities is unknown. Escrow fund changes may result in an unknown increase in future state revenue.
 
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to create the Health and Education Trust Fund with proceeds from a tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products.  The amount of the tax is $0.0365 per cigarette and 25% of the manufacturer’s invoice price for roll-your-own tobacco and 15% for other tobacco products.  The Fund proceeds will be used to reduce and prevent tobacco use and for elementary, secondary, college, and university public school funding.  This amendment also increases the amount that certain tobacco product manufacturers must maintain in their escrow accounts, to pay judgments or settlements, before any funds in escrow can be refunded to the tobacco product manufacturer and creates bonding requirements for these manufacturers.
A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products or the escrow account and bonding requirements for certain tobacco product manufacturers.
If passed, this measure will increase taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Proposition E
Health care
Shall Missouri Law be amended to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the legislature?No direct costs or savings for state and local governmental entities are expected from this proposal. Indirect costs or savings related to enforcement actions, missed federal funding, avoided implementation costs, and other issues are unknown.
 
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the legislature.
A “no” vote will not amend Missouri law to prohibit the Governor or any state agency, from establishing or operating state-based health insurance exchanges unless authorized by a vote of the people or by the legislature.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

The officially approved ballot language CITED above for all four November ballot issues is here.

Key Statewide Races:

Governor:

Jay Nixon (I) – platform
Dave Spence – platform

Lieutenant Governor:

Peter Kinder (I) – website
Susan Montee – website

Secretary of State:

Jason Kander – website – wikipedia
Shane Schoeller – website – wikipedia

Treasurer:

Cole McNary – website – wikipedia
Clint Zweifel – website – wikipedia

Attorney General:

Chris Koster (I) – website – wikipedia
Ed Martin – website – wikipedia

All other offices/candidates
Editorial

Editorial: Fireman’s Retirement Fund Trial Against St. Louis City This Week… Why The World Needs Lawyers

Local Trial Attorney Explains Complex Legal Issues At Stake in Trial Held This Week in Fireman Fund Case

Sometimes, you have to thank God there are geeky lawyers and judges willing to actually read the law.  The Fireman’s Retirement Fund trial against the City of St. Louis is the perfect example of why the world needs lawyers.  The mind-numbing law related to the Fireman’s Retirement Fund is more complicated than the Godfather trilogy. I am still trying to figure out who did what, when, and why (both in the Godfather and in the ordinances, city charters, statutes, and Missouri constitution).

While I have sometimes disagreed with the Honorable Judge Robert H. Dierker, I enjoy reading his opinions. Dierker is a renowned conservative, and sometimes controversial, intellectual St. Louis trial judge.  He was the perfect man to sift through years and years of law on who has authority to do what when it comes to pension plans and city charters.

Dierker was assigned the grave duty of wading through the “tangled skein of cases, statutes and constitutional provisions”, as he called them, that relate to the Fireman’s Retirement System in St. Louis.  Most lay people probably don’t have a strong grasp on the issues involved in this firestorm and neither do most St. Louis lawyers. . . because these issues deal with striking new 2012 city ordinances based on law that dates back fifty to a hundred years. Whenever you have to cite law in your argument from the 1800’s, you know it’s going to be a long night.

As to the main issues, in a nutshell, the City overhauled the pension plan for firemen because it became too taxing on the City budget.   But promises are promises, right?  The plaintiffs, the firemen, filed suit against the City to seek declaratory and injunctive relief to annul the ordinances enacted by the City in 2012.

One ordinance imposed restrictions on the authority of the FRS trustees to litigate changes in the City’s pension plan for firefighters.  Another ordinance purported to repeal the existing pension plan and substitute a new plan with significant reductions in benefits for firefighters not yet retired.

 In his lengthy preliminary opinion: Dierker wrote:

“Pension Crisis Looms Despite Cuts” warns a front page headline in the The Wall Street Journal, September 22-23, 2012, p. 1. Playing out their parts in this national drama, the trustees of the Firemen’s Retirement System of St. Louis (FRS for short), Local 73 of the International Association of Fire Fighters, three active firefighter members of FRS, one retired beneficiary, and the City of St. Louis are  before this Court as a result of the City’s efforts to curb its pension costs, which now consume an annual sum exceeding 50% of the actual payroll of active duty firefighters.”

On page 22 of his opinion, Dierker ruled that at this “preliminary injunction stage, the Court’s conclusion that the law forbids the merger of the FRS into the new plan militates in favor of granting a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo.”  Dierker issued this preliminary injunction Sept. 28 — three days before the start of the FRS’ fiscal year.

Among other things, the questionable ordinance transfers the assets of the Firemen’s Retirement System, the current plan, to a new plan called the Firefighters’ Retirement Plan… FRS to the FRP… got it?

As described in Dierker’s 34-page order, the ordinance raises firefighters’ contribution rate from 8 percent to 9 percent and reduces the pension benefits. While firefighters currently may retire with full pension benefits after 20 years of service, they would not be entitled to retire with full benefits until they reach 55 years of age and have 20 years of experience.

In essence, this stopped the City’s attempted overhaul from taking effect. In the Memorandum and Order, Dierker concluded the City lacked the authority to merge the assets of the current pension system into a new system, although the city could repeal the current system.

In September, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay blogged that Dierker affirmed the city’s “fundamental positions” when he concluded that the city can create a pension plan without state approval. While the judge said the city can’t merge the current and new pension systems, he said lawmakers seem to have contemplated having the two systems run parallel for at least some of the FRS members.

“We may have to amend the ordinance to comply with the judge’s order,” Slay said on his blog. “But, it creates a path — a local path — to stop the enormous cost increases in FRS, while being fair to taxpayers and firefighters.”

With the preliminary injunction Order, we have a pretty good idea what the Final Order will say, but nevertheless, the trial began Monday morning in Dierker’s courtroom.  So where does that leave us… I think at the end of Disc One of the Godfather Part II.

DWI, Legal Articles, Liquor and DUI News, Missouri Legal News

Another Open Container Bill Fails… No Surprise to St. Louis DUI Attorney

Drinking on The Move in Wentzville: Thoughts from a St. Louis DUI lawyer.

It is not shocking that Missouri (whose unofficial state wildlife is the “Busch”) is known for a highly laissez-faire approach to alcohol regulation. For instance, there is no state-wide law against drinking in public. You can even legally let your children drink.  (See RSMO 311.310).   I am not saying this is a good idea by the way.  There is also no state wide law against open containers in the possession of passengers in vehicles.  This pro-alcohol reputation, supported by a strong alcohol industry lobby, continues to grow based on a recent decision by the Board of Alderman in Wentzille.  This is the second time in a few months that the alderman have voted down a proposed open container law supported by the local Police Chief.

The bill would have banned passengers in motor vehicles from drinking from, or possessing, open containers of alcoholic beverages while driving through Wentzville. Drivers are already banned from drinking by state-wide laws.  The Chief argued that the proposed law is a way to catch drunk drivers “in the act”, as they would not be able to just pass a drink off to a passenger. One argument against the law is that this bill is municipal government overreach and that these laws should not differ from municipality to municipality.

A little over 3% of the cities across the state have municipal laws banning open containers in vehicles including, but not limited to:


Bates City, Bellefontaine Neighbors, 

Cabool, Clarence, Clarkson Valley, 

Columbia, Crystal City, Cuba, Elsberry, 

Foristell, Harrisonville, Hermann, Independence,

Lamar, Lake Lotawanna, Lexington, 

Liberty, Licking, Linn, Maryville, 

Neosho,  New Franklin, Normandy, 

Osage Beach, Salisbury, St. Charles, St. John, 

Trenton, Verona,  Warson Woods, Weston.

This list includes those with bans as of 2005.  There is no more recent comprehensive list that I can find at this time. This list of course means that in 96% of the cities in this state… open containers in vehicles are permissible if in possession of a passenger.  Note, that if the alcohol is in the console or cup holder… a prosecutor will argue it is in the driver’s possession, not a passenger.

What About Buses?

There IS a state law against drinking intoxicating liquor of any kind in a passenger bus except a chartered bus.  (See RSMO 578.315) .   

If you are uncertain about the alcohol laws in your municipality, contact St. Louis DUI Attorney Michelle M. Funkenbusch to assist you, 314-338-3500.

Sources: 

Roberts, J. (2005). Missouri State and Local Open Container Laws. Report 30-2005. Retrieved 7/12/12, from University of Missouri Columbia, Institute of Public Policy. Web site: http://ipp.missouri.edu/files/ipp/attachments/missouri_state_and_local_open_container_laws.pdf

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5780000315.HTM

Read more about the Wentzville decision at:  STLToday Article

Bicycle Law News, Missouri Legal News, Uncategorized

Missouri cyclist killed in accident during charity ride

A 48-year-old bicyclist from Independence died Saturday after he was struck by a vehicle while riding along a rural route of a charity ride east of Buckner.

Michael D. Forbes was riding west shortly after 8 a.m. on U.S. 24 near County Road H when a westbound car struck his rear wheel, according to the Missouri Highway Patrol.

Forbes was riding the route of the Freedom From Cancer Ride, a charity event that started at 7 a.m. in Independence and extended to Lexington and back. Forbes wanted to start earlier than the official race time, so he was actually headed back to Independence as hundreds of other riders were still riding east, said Chris Pace, the event’s coordinator.

Forbes was alone, so other riders didn’t see the accident, Pace said.

Troopers still investigating the bicycle/car accident cited inattention by the 32-year-old driver as a cause. The driver told troopers he had glanced down at his dashboard. When he looked back up, it was too late to avoid hitting the cyclist, said Sgt. Collin Stosberg.

Troopers are going to subpoena cellphone records from the driver as a routine part of the investigation, Stosberg said.

Evidence showed Forbes was on the roadway, according to the Highway Patrol.

The victim and his wife, who was volunteering at the event, are well known and liked in the cycling community, Pace said.

“It’s tragic all the way around,” Pace said. “He was a good guy. He’d do anything for anybody.”

Cyclists know their hobby can be dangerous, Pace said, especially with multiplying distractions inside vehicles.

“All I can say is try to ride in a group,” Pace said. “Try to make yourself a bigger target.”

SOURCE: BY CHRISTINE VENDEL, To reach Christine Vendel, call 816-234-4438 or send email to cvendel@kcstar.com.  Posted on Sat, Jun. 30, 2012 09:47 PM

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/06/30/3684614/independence-cyclist-killed-in.html#storylink=cpy
If you are in need of a personal injury lawyer specializing in cycling accidents,  Contact Michelle M. Funkenbusch, Missouri’s Advocate for the Cyclists.
Bicycle Law, Bicycle Law News, Legal Articles, Missouri Legal News

“Going the Distance”: Pennsylvania Passes “Four Foot” Bicycle Passing Law.

Missouri Cycling Advocate on the New “Four Foot” Passing Law in Pennsylvania.

There is no IQ test required to drive a car or ride a bike… but seeing accident after accident in St. Louis and the surrounding area in Missouri, I am glad to see the continued nationwide movement to pass “safe passing bills”.  Every cyclist knows how it feels to have a car, truck or bus pass too close for comfort.   I know many who have been hit by cars and survived to tell their tale, but not all.  How many cyclists have experienced the “red pickup truck” cursing at them as they are passed on a lonely country road wide enough for all to be happy. Or how about the typical teenage girl in the Dodge Neon, texting her girlfriends, who turns straight into a cyclist.  Motorists often misjudge the space needed due to inattentiveness, lack of the expectation of a cyclist, and lack of experience driving by cyclists. To make roads safer for bicyclists and other vulnerable road users, many states have passed “safe passing bills”  to provide bicyclists the protection of law from passing motor vehicles.

On Tuesday, January 24, 2012, the Pennsylvania Senate voted to pass HB170, a bill that would require motorists allow a minimum of four feet when passing a cyclists on the roadway.  If you review the bill, note that it refers to bikes as pedalcycles… not to be confused with motorcycles.  The bill passed the Senate in a 45-5 vote and is now awaiting signature by their governor so it may become law.  Once signed into law the Pennsylvania bill will require that:

  • Bicycles in Pennsylvania must be operated in the right hand lane, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of roadway.
  • This does not apply to a bicycle using any portion of the road due to unsafe surface conditions.
  • Motorists must overtake a bicycle with no less than four feet between the vehicle and the bicycle and at a “prudent reduced speed”.
  • No turn by a motorist may interfere with a bicycle proceeding straight.

Here is the link if you would like to read the bill:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0170&pn=0114

The “four foot” law is significant in that most states that have passed safe passing laws have limited it to three feet.  Three foot laws have come under scrutiny for still being too narrow.  Some driver’s education handbooks instruct to give 6 feet of room when passing a cyclist.

No Three or Four Foot Law in Missouri: Must Pass at “Safe Distance”

Insurance Company lobbyists have continued their success in Missouri in blocking a three or four foot passing laws.  They fear a rise in claims if a clear-cut law is passed.  Currently, Missouri has no specific number of feet that you must overtake a bicycle, but there is a specific  vehicle-overtaking-bicycle law.  Overtaking  law, “304.678.  Distance to be maintained  when overtaking a bicycle.”, (here)  states “The operator of a motor vehicle overtaking a bicycle proceeding in the  same direction on the roadway, as defined in section 300.010, RSMo, shall leave a safe distance, when passing the bicycle, and shall maintain clearance  until safely past the overtaken bicycle.” (italics added)  Penalty: “Any person who violates the  provisions of this section is guilty of an infraction unless an accident is  involved in which case it shall be a class C misdemeanor.”

If you have any questions about Missouri bicycle accident law, contact Michelle M. Funkenbusch, St. Louis Trial Lawyer and Cycling Advocate, 314-799-6602.  Michelle provides free bicycle law education seminars to the community, high schools, scout troops, and adult social organizations. If you would like Michelle to speak to your group, please do not hesitate to contact her.

Finding Private Safe Roads in Missouri For Cycling is a Challenge