The Missouri Assessment Program’s current thresholds cause confusion on whether students are reading at grade level

&nbsp;BY:&nbsp;ANNELISE HANSHAW <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>

Missouri parents may soon have a better understanding of whether their child is performing at or above grade level on the state’s standardized test under a&nbsp;<a href="https://instatrac-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/GovWatch/text/pdfs/23/bill-text/truly-agreed-to-and-finally-passed-sb68.pdf?c=47771" target="_blank">sweeping education bill</a>&nbsp;awaiting the governor’s signature.&nbsp;

The legislation contains a provision that would require the state’s education department to add a fifth category to Missouri Assessment Program results, reporting “grade level” in addition to the current levels of “below basic,” “basic,” “proficient” and “advanced.” The new provision would include students in grades 3 to 8.&nbsp;

State Rep. Brad Pollitt, a Sedalia Republican and former school superintendent, introduced the bill to make student performance more transparent to parents and lawmakers.

As an educator, he learned that students at grade level score at the upper end of “basic,” but many people incorrectly assume “proficient” means performing at grade level, he told The Independent.

“In order to have accurate conversations about where our students are at, we need to know what grade level is,” he said.

The Missouri Assessment Program, often referred to as the MAP test, began in the 1990s with five scoring thresholds. But in response to the federal No Child Left Behind Act,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/04info/billtext/tat/sb1080.htm" target="_blank">state lawmakers required</a>&nbsp;the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to align MAP with federal performance standards.

In December 2005,&nbsp;<a href="https://dese.mo.gov/media/pdf/mofinal2005standardsettingtechreport" target="_blank">educators met to determine the new standards</a>&nbsp;in line with the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP. They set thresholds based on the percentage of students scoring proficient on the NAEP so that the proportion of students deemed proficient on the state test would be close to the amount reported by the national test.

The National Center for Educational Statistics and the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nagb.gov/content/dam/nagb/en/documents/naep/achievement-levels-descriptions.pdf" target="_blank">NAEP’s governing board have repeatedly clarified</a>&nbsp;that proficiency reflects “solid academic performance” and “does not signify being on grade level.”

But policymakers, parents and other stakeholders speak about proficiency and grade level interchangeably. And candidates for public office, misinterpreting what proficient means, have used MAP data to push anti-public-education policies.

During former state Sen. Bill Eigel’s run for governor last year,&nbsp;<a href="https://abc17news.com/politics/your-voice-your-vote/2024/07/31/missouri-governor-candidate-interview-bill-eigel/" target="_blank">he told ABC17</a>&nbsp;that “less than a third of our children are able to do reading, writing, arithmetic at grade level.” At the time,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile/overview/MO?sfj=NP&amp;chort=1&amp;sub=MAT&amp;sj=MO&amp;st=MN&amp;year=2024R3&amp;cti=PgTab_OT&amp;fs=Grade" target="_blank">33% of Missouri fourth graders</a>&nbsp;scored proficient or advanced in reading on the NAEP, and math had higher performance levels.

Despite the test’s administrators explaining that this is not a measure of grade level performance, politicians and media reports still repeat the misrepresentation.

“Part of my frustration has been that people criticize public education pretty hard and say we’re failing our kids because 35% of our students in third grade or fifth grade are proficient or advanced in reading,” Pollitt said. “We may have 35% that are above grade level, but maybe 60% of our kids are at grade level. And I think that changes the conversation.”

In a House committee hearing in January, lobbyists for public-education groups spoke in favor of the bill.

Brandt Shields, director of governmental relations for the Missouri School Boards’ Association, said a fifth category would be more “informative” for stakeholders.

“Having only four categories is almost a crude way of trying to differentiate how those scores are interpreted,” he said.

No one spoke in opposition, but the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s lobbyist warned that the change would require work groups to set the new standards, which is&nbsp;<a href="https://instatrac-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/GovWatch/text/pdfs/23/-fiscal-note/0140-h.01-i.-o-r-g-hb371.pdf?c=83132" target="_blank">estimated to cost just over $1 million</a>.

The language passed by the legislature exempts the department from having to employ work groups, but Pollitt said it is up to administrators to decide.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748348123067.png" alt=" State Rep. Brad Pollitt, a Sedalia Republican, presents a bill to the House Education Committee to require the reporting of grade-level equivalence data on statewide assessments (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption> State Rep. Brad Pollitt, a Sedalia Republican, presents a bill to the House Education Committee to require the reporting of grade-level equivalence data on statewide assessments (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>The Missouri Assessment Program’s current thresholds cause confusion on whether students are reading at grade level</h2>&nbsp;BY:&nbsp;ANNELISE HANSHAW <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>Missouri parents may soon have a better understanding of whether their child is performing at or above grade level on the state’s standardized test under a&nbsp;<a href="https://instatrac-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/GovWatch/text/pdfs/23/bill-text/truly-agreed-to-and-finally-passed-sb68.pdf?c=47771" target="_blank">sweeping education bill</a>&nbsp;awaiting the governor’s signature.&nbsp;The legislation contains a provision that would require the state’s education department to add a fifth category to Missouri Assessment Program results, reporting “grade level” in addition to the current levels of “below basic,” “basic,” “proficient” and “advanced.” The new provision would include students in grades 3 to 8.&nbsp;State Rep. Brad Pollitt, a Sedalia Republican and former school superintendent, introduced the bill to make student performance more transparent to parents and lawmakers.As an educator, he learned that students at grade level score at the upper end of “basic,” but many people incorrectly assume “proficient” means performing at grade level, he told The Independent.“In order to have accurate conversations about where our students are at, we need to know what grade level is,” he said.The Missouri Assessment Program, often referred to as the MAP test, began in the 1990s with five scoring thresholds. But in response to the federal No Child Left Behind Act,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/04info/billtext/tat/sb1080.htm" target="_blank">state lawmakers required</a>&nbsp;the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to align MAP with federal performance standards.In December 2005,&nbsp;<a href="https://dese.mo.gov/media/pdf/mofinal2005standardsettingtechreport" target="_blank">educators met to determine the new standards</a>&nbsp;in line with the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP. They set thresholds based on the percentage of students scoring proficient on the NAEP so that the proportion of students deemed proficient on the state test would be close to the amount reported by the national test.The National Center for Educational Statistics and the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nagb.gov/content/dam/nagb/en/documents/naep/achievement-levels-descriptions.pdf" target="_blank">NAEP’s governing board have repeatedly clarified</a>&nbsp;that proficiency reflects “solid academic performance” and “does not signify being on grade level.”But policymakers, parents and other stakeholders speak about proficiency and grade level interchangeably. And candidates for public office, misinterpreting what proficient means, have used MAP data to push anti-public-education policies.During former state Sen. Bill Eigel’s run for governor last year,&nbsp;<a href="https://abc17news.com/politics/your-voice-your-vote/2024/07/31/missouri-governor-candidate-interview-bill-eigel/" target="_blank">he told ABC17</a>&nbsp;that “less than a third of our children are able to do reading, writing, arithmetic at grade level.” At the time,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile/overview/MO?sfj=NP&amp;chort=1&amp;sub=MAT&amp;sj=MO&amp;st=MN&amp;year=2024R3&amp;cti=PgTab_OT&amp;fs=Grade" target="_blank">33% of Missouri fourth graders</a>&nbsp;scored proficient or advanced in reading on the NAEP, and math had higher performance levels.Despite the test’s administrators explaining that this is not a measure of grade level performance, politicians and media reports still repeat the misrepresentation.“Part of my frustration has been that people criticize public education pretty hard and say we’re failing our kids because 35% of our students in third grade or fifth grade are proficient or advanced in reading,” Pollitt said. “We may have 35% that are above grade level, but maybe 60% of our kids are at grade level. And I think that changes the conversation.”In a House committee hearing in January, lobbyists for public-education groups spoke in favor of the bill.Brandt Shields, director of governmental relations for the Missouri School Boards’ Association, said a fifth category would be more “informative” for stakeholders.“Having only four categories is almost a crude way of trying to differentiate how those scores are interpreted,” he said.No one spoke in opposition, but the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s lobbyist warned that the change would require work groups to set the new standards, which is&nbsp;<a href="https://instatrac-production.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/GovWatch/text/pdfs/23/-fiscal-note/0140-h.01-i.-o-r-g-hb371.pdf?c=83132" target="_blank">estimated to cost just over $1 million</a>.The language passed by the legislature exempts the department from having to employ work groups, but Pollitt said it is up to administrators to decide.

Missouri lawmakers add grade-level performance to standardized test results

The Missouri General Assembly seems likely to return next Monday to decide whether pay up to half the possible $3 billion projected cost for stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jason-hancock/">JASON HANCOCK</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/state-senator-throws-first-punches-of-2024-missouri-governors-campaign/">Missouri Independent</a>

The last time Missouri was in danger of losing an NFL franchise, deep disagreements between the governor and lawmakers over whether the state should pay for a new stadium led to litigation and the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article49229835.html#storylink=cpy" target="_blank">threat of a constitutional showdown.</a>

It was 10 years ago when then-Gov. Jay Nixon and the legislature quarreled over&nbsp;a $1 billion plan to build a new St. Louis stadium for the Rams.&nbsp;

Expecting GOP resistance, Nixon, a Democrat, came up with a strategy that didn’t involve the legislature. That sparked a group of legislators to file a lawsuit to block Nixon’s plan and threaten to refuse to allocate money the governor committed to the stadium when the General&nbsp;Assembly reconvened in January 2016.&nbsp;

But that looming clash fizzled when&nbsp;the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2016-01-04/its-official-the-st-louis-rams-want-to-move-to-los-angeles" target="_blank">Rams announced an intention to move to Los Angeles</a>&nbsp;two days before the 2016 session began. NFL owners&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462848857/nfl-votes-to-move-rams-to-los-angeles-with-option-for-chargers-to-join-them" target="_blank">overwhelmingly agreed to let them do it</a>&nbsp;soon after.&nbsp;

A decade later, Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe is pushing a plan for the state to pay up to half the costs of a new stadium for the Kansas City Royals and renovations to Arrowhead Stadium for the Kansas City Chiefs.&nbsp;

Both teams have expressed interest in leaving Missouri when the lease on their current stadiums expire in 2030, and Kansas lawmakers have put a deal on the table that would use state incentives to pay for up to 70% of the costs of new stadiums.

Kehoe has one advantage Nixon didn’t — a legislature dominated by his own party. But while the governor successfully convinced the Missouri House to sign off on a stadium funding plan earlier this month in the final days of the session, the Senate was in no mood to play ball.&nbsp;

House Speaker Jon Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican, alerted his colleagues on Friday that the governor is expected to call the legislature back into session as early as next week to debate stadium funding. The governor may also include a&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/20/missouri-special-session-may-provide-new-life-for-500-million-budget-bill/">$500 million construction package on the special session agenda</a>, a move seen as vital to winning over support in the Senate for any stadium plan.&nbsp;

But with partisan tensions running high after a tumultuous end to the regular legislative session, and serious heartburn among Republicans over the idea of spending hundreds of millions to subsidize sports franchises, the outcome is anything but certain.&nbsp;

“I love the Kansas City Chiefs. I’m obnoxious during football season,” state Rep. Darin Chappell, a Republican from Rogersville, said in a recent interview with&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ksgf.com/episode/nick-reed-05-20-25-session-recap-with-rep-darin-chappell/" target="_blank">KSGF</a>. “… But I’ve got constituents trying to pay their rent and feed themselves, and they’re struggling. And I’m going to take their money and give it to billionaires so multimillionaires can play in a prettier place? That’s obscene.”

Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, a Shelbina Republican, said state funding for stadiums is “an easy demagogue topic.” But losing the teams to Kansas, she contends, would cost much more than the proposal put forth by the governor.&nbsp;

“My personal belief is both the direct and indirect dollars accruing to Missouri businesses from the Chiefs and Royals being located here far exceeds what they are asking,” she wrote on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10236461280174694&amp;id=1312548800&amp;mibextid=wwXIfr&amp;rdid=g7soDX6nEvZ4rUCO" target="_blank">social media</a>. “I also believe if they left the state it would tear out the heart of Missouri, leaving two big concrete structures as a forever reminder of what might have been.”

The Chiefs and the Royals face a deadline at the end of June on whether they will accept the offer from Kansas.

The proposal floated by Kehoe and set to be debated next week would pay up to half the cost — estimated to be up to $3 billion — as well as up to $50 million in tax credits for any direct investments made by the teams.&nbsp;

The stadium plan&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/15/stadium-funding-gun-rights-law-among-casualties-of-missouri-senate-breakdown/">died in the regular session</a>&nbsp;when the Senate twice used a rare procedural rule to end debate on controversial bills on abortion and paid sick leave.&nbsp;The move infuriated Democrats, who vowed the Senate will not function normally until they feel they can trust the GOP to work towards compromise.

There is also lingering bipartisan anger over the projects that were lost when the House sunk a capital improvements bill. The $513 million would have paid for projects at eight hospitals around the state, supported a new nuclear reactor at the University of Missouri to make cancer treatments and a new mental health hospital in Kansas City.

The rollout of Kehoe’s plan didn’t help soothe the tensions.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle complained that the governor kept the legislature in the dark on stadium funding plans, then demanded it sign off on the proposal with little debate and no details on the cost.

The lack of legislative involvement echoes 2015, when lawmakers took umbrage at Nixon’s efforts to work around them by trying to use existing incentive programs to help fund a new St. Louis stadium. &nbsp;Republicans and Democrats demanded Nixon either submit a proposal to the legislature or put it on the ballot for a vote.&nbsp;

&nbsp;“We will not stand idly by as the people of this state are committed to millions of dollars in debt without proper legislative approval or a public vote,” a group of House members said in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/14/missouri-house-speaker-letter-blasts-state-money-for-stadium/73914594/" target="_blank">a letter to Nixon at the time</a>.

Lawmakers will get their wish this time around to have a say on whether Missouri taxpayers should help subsidize Kansas City stadiums.&nbsp;

Kehoe is optimistic, arguing that keeping the teams in Missouri&nbsp;“is a critical piece of economic development. And I’d like to see us make sure we can solidify our offer with legislative approval.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748263709817.png" alt="GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs, is pictured on Sat. Feb. 8 (Anna Spoerre/The Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption>GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium, home of the Kansas City Chiefs, is pictured on Sat. Feb. 8 (Anna Spoerre/The Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure><h2>The Missouri General Assembly seems likely to return next Monday to decide whether pay up to half the possible $3 billion projected cost for stadiums for the Chiefs and Royals</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/jason-hancock/">JASON HANCOCK</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2023/02/20/state-senator-throws-first-punches-of-2024-missouri-governors-campaign/">Missouri Independent</a>The last time Missouri was in danger of losing an NFL franchise, deep disagreements between the governor and lawmakers over whether the state should pay for a new stadium led to litigation and the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article49229835.html#storylink=cpy" target="_blank">threat of a constitutional showdown.</a>It was 10 years ago when then-Gov. Jay Nixon and the legislature quarreled over&nbsp;a $1 billion plan to build a new St. Louis stadium for the Rams.&nbsp;Expecting GOP resistance, Nixon, a Democrat, came up with a strategy that didn’t involve the legislature. That sparked a group of legislators to file a lawsuit to block Nixon’s plan and threaten to refuse to allocate money the governor committed to the stadium when the General&nbsp;Assembly reconvened in January 2016.&nbsp;But that looming clash fizzled when&nbsp;the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.stlpr.org/government-politics-issues/2016-01-04/its-official-the-st-louis-rams-want-to-move-to-los-angeles" target="_blank">Rams announced an intention to move to Los Angeles</a>&nbsp;two days before the 2016 session began. NFL owners&nbsp;<a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/12/462848857/nfl-votes-to-move-rams-to-los-angeles-with-option-for-chargers-to-join-them" target="_blank">overwhelmingly agreed to let them do it</a>&nbsp;soon after.&nbsp;A decade later, Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe is pushing a plan for the state to pay up to half the costs of a new stadium for the Kansas City Royals and renovations to Arrowhead Stadium for the Kansas City Chiefs.&nbsp;Both teams have expressed interest in leaving Missouri when the lease on their current stadiums expire in 2030, and Kansas lawmakers have put a deal on the table that would use state incentives to pay for up to 70% of the costs of new stadiums.Kehoe has one advantage Nixon didn’t — a legislature dominated by his own party. But while the governor successfully convinced the Missouri House to sign off on a stadium funding plan earlier this month in the final days of the session, the Senate was in no mood to play ball.&nbsp;House Speaker Jon Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican, alerted his colleagues on Friday that the governor is expected to call the legislature back into session as early as next week to debate stadium funding. The governor may also include a&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/20/missouri-special-session-may-provide-new-life-for-500-million-budget-bill/">$500 million construction package on the special session agenda</a>, a move seen as vital to winning over support in the Senate for any stadium plan.&nbsp;But with partisan tensions running high after a tumultuous end to the regular legislative session, and serious heartburn among Republicans over the idea of spending hundreds of millions to subsidize sports franchises, the outcome is anything but certain.&nbsp;“I love the Kansas City Chiefs. I’m obnoxious during football season,” state Rep. Darin Chappell, a Republican from Rogersville, said in a recent interview with&nbsp;<a href="https://www.ksgf.com/episode/nick-reed-05-20-25-session-recap-with-rep-darin-chappell/" target="_blank">KSGF</a>. “… But I’ve got constituents trying to pay their rent and feed themselves, and they’re struggling. And I’m going to take their money and give it to billionaires so multimillionaires can play in a prettier place? That’s obscene.”Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, a Shelbina Republican, said state funding for stadiums is “an easy demagogue topic.” But losing the teams to Kansas, she contends, would cost much more than the proposal put forth by the governor.&nbsp;“My personal belief is both the direct and indirect dollars accruing to Missouri businesses from the Chiefs and Royals being located here far exceeds what they are asking,” she wrote on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10236461280174694&amp;id=1312548800&amp;mibextid=wwXIfr&amp;rdid=g7soDX6nEvZ4rUCO" target="_blank">social media</a>. “I also believe if they left the state it would tear out the heart of Missouri, leaving two big concrete structures as a forever reminder of what might have been.”The Chiefs and the Royals face a deadline at the end of June on whether they will accept the offer from Kansas.The proposal floated by Kehoe and set to be debated next week would pay up to half the cost — estimated to be up to $3 billion — as well as up to $50 million in tax credits for any direct investments made by the teams.&nbsp;The stadium plan&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/15/stadium-funding-gun-rights-law-among-casualties-of-missouri-senate-breakdown/">died in the regular session</a>&nbsp;when the Senate twice used a rare procedural rule to end debate on controversial bills on abortion and paid sick leave.&nbsp;The move infuriated Democrats, who vowed the Senate will not function normally until they feel they can trust the GOP to work towards compromise.There is also lingering bipartisan anger over the projects that were lost when the House sunk a capital improvements bill. The $513 million would have paid for projects at eight hospitals around the state, supported a new nuclear reactor at the University of Missouri to make cancer treatments and a new mental health hospital in Kansas City.The rollout of Kehoe’s plan didn’t help soothe the tensions.Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle complained that the governor kept the legislature in the dark on stadium funding plans, then demanded it sign off on the proposal with little debate and no details on the cost.The lack of legislative involvement echoes 2015, when lawmakers took umbrage at Nixon’s efforts to work around them by trying to use existing incentive programs to help fund a new St. Louis stadium. &nbsp;Republicans and Democrats demanded Nixon either submit a proposal to the legislature or put it on the ballot for a vote.&nbsp;&nbsp;“We will not stand idly by as the people of this state are committed to millions of dollars in debt without proper legislative approval or a public vote,” a group of House members said in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/14/missouri-house-speaker-letter-blasts-state-money-for-stadium/73914594/" target="_blank">a letter to Nixon at the time</a>.Lawmakers will get their wish this time around to have a say on whether Missouri taxpayers should help subsidize Kansas City stadiums.&nbsp;Kehoe is optimistic, arguing that keeping the teams in Missouri&nbsp;“is a critical piece of economic development. And I’d like to see us make sure we can solidify our offer with legislative approval.”

A decade after losing an NFL team, Missouri lawmakers set to debate stadium funding plan

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ceilidhkern/">CEILIDH KERN</a>

On the evening of May 14, when the House side of the Missouri legislature was almost a ghost town, state Rep. Mark Sharp’s phone started buzzing with messages telling him that “things are getting ready to blow up in the Senate.”

Sharp, a Kansas City Democrat, started making his way to the Senate when he heard chanting. Protesters were in the Senate expressing their opposition to HJR 73, which would&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/13/awmakers-bill-would-ask-voters-to-restrict-missouri-abortion-access/" target="_blank">put an abortion ban on the 2026 ballot</a>.

After visitors were cleared out to stop the protest, security began to let people back in, and Sharp and dozens of other representatives crammed into the spaces along the edge of the Senate floor to watch what would happen next.

“You had about 50 reps on the Senate floor … maybe 20 Democrats and another 30 Republicans all mixed together. All kinds of camera crews. I’ve never seen the Senate that packed before,” Sharp said.

“Then, they moved for the previous question, and then did it again on Prop A,” he added. “Then they adjourned. I was literally stunned.”

After a session considered uncharacteristically productive and bipartisan by recent standards, the Missouri Senate, on the second-to-last day of the 2025 session, broke with its own longstanding tradition and&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/15/missouri-lawmakers-undo-paid-sick-leave-put-abortion-on-ballot/" target="_blank">overrode a filibuster</a>.

To do it, Senate Republicans pulled out a rarely used procedural tool called a “previous question,” or PQ, to close debate and force votes on the abortion bill and a bill to&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/04/18/paid-sick-leave-missouri-proposition-a-at-risk/" target="_blank">repeal paid sick leave protections</a>.

Senate Republicans’ use of the PQ shocked the Missouri legislature for a number of reasons, one being that the tool is very rarely used, because it’s seen as antithetical to the chamber’s tradition of unlimited debate.

The other is that the move came after a session in which Republicans and Democrats, despite their disagreements, were able to find some common ground and collaborate on legislation.

Legislating from the Missouri legislature’s ‘superminority’

Republicans have held a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers of the Missouri legislature&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/11/05/status-quo-election-leaves-missouri-republicans-with-legislative-supermajorities/">since 2012</a>. This year, Democrats held 10 of 34 Senate seats and 52 of 161 House seats.

Even so, this session was marked by considerable bipartisan cooperation — a stark contrast from previous years, when Republican infighting dominated the Senate and made it difficult to get much of anything to the governor’s desk.

While&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/" target="_blank">extreme political polarization nationally</a>&nbsp;might make bipartisan cooperation seem impossible, it’s a requirement in the Missouri legislature if Democrats want to get anything done, said state Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Kansas City Democrat.

“I would not be successful as a legislator if I worked in a silo or if I worked on purely hyperpartisan issues. That’s not going to get me anywhere as a Democrat in the superminority of Missouri,” she said. “It all comes down to me finding common ground with others.”

Sharp said: “<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2023/02/20/mark-sharp-special-committee-urban-issues-missouri/" target="_blank">As a member of the superminority</a>, we have to constantly, constantly be talking to these folks in the majority party daily. They’re the ones controlling everything.”

Republican House leadership — including House Speaker Jon Patterson of Lee’s Summit, Majority Floor Leader Alex Riley of Springfield and committee chairs — have control over every step in the legislative process, including whether a bill is introduced and referred to a committee.

Because of that, “at every corner, we should be working across the aisle to make sure that these bipartisan pieces of legislation are given a chance … because we know the partisan ones won’t,”&nbsp; Sharp said.

He said “it can be frustrating” to be a Democrat working in the Republican supermajority-controlled Missouri legislature, but “you’ve got to have a short memory.”

Despite being in the supermajority, many Republicans were “absolutely” interested in working with Democrats, Nurrenbern said.

One of those Republicans was Sen. Kurtis Gregory from Marshall. He and Nurrenbern together represent Clay County in the Senate, and “as soon as we were both elected, we sat down and talked about what we could do together to move Clay County forward,” she said.

When Nurrenbern decided to file a bill to create a Clay County Sports Authority, she reached out to him and said, “I would like you to champion this with me.”

“He was an absolutely great supporter every step of the way to get that done,” she said. “He was … excited to carry that legislation with me.”

But the collaboration wasn’t just one-way, Nurrenbern said. Sen. Mike Henderson, a Desloge Republican, also asked for her input on a massive education bill he was working on.

“He came to me right away and said: ‘Maggie, I’d really like your input on this. You’re a former educator. I respect your opinion on these provisions, and I want to work with you on this,’” Nurrenbern said.

State Sen. Tracy McCreery, an Olivette Democrat, cosponsored several bipartisan bills this session and said it was “refreshing” to work across the aisle.

“I’m in a district that’s 50/50, and I feel like my constituents want me to work together with people of all political stripes and all backgrounds to find common-sense solutions,” McCreery said. “They appreciate that politicians aren’t fighting all the time and calling each other names.”

While some issues consistently divide Republicans and Democrats in the Missouri legislature, others offer more opportunities for bipartisan cooperation, such as economic development and health care.

“All of the things I worked on successfully with colleagues from the other side of the aisle are just issues that are going to help make people’s lives a little bit better,” McCreery said.

Making legislation ‘a little less bad’

For Democrats in both chambers of the Missouri legislature, getting a policy over the finish line often means amending another bill to include their language. It’s especially critical in the House, Sharp said.

“Freshman Democrats feel like their specific House bills should be moving. That’s now how it works. … Republicans aren’t going to pass a bill in your name,” Sharp said.

McCreery said it’s “pretty common” for Senate Democrats, when they’re unable to block the passage of a bill, to try getting some of their own bills added as amendments to soften the impact.

“Once the supermajority decides that a bill is going to move and make it out of the chamber, you, as a senator, have to decide. Do I want to try to stop it, or do I want to try to make a bad bill a little less bad by putting some good things on it?” McCreery said.

McCreery said one example was a “terrible”&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/03/28/gov-mike-kehoe-poised-to-sign-legislation-that-could-raise-missouri-utility-bills/" target="_blank">omnibus utility law</a>&nbsp;that passed early in the session, which she said will increase Missourians’ utility rates.

“I voted no on it, but I was able to get some consumer protections in there for low-income people,” she added. “It was a tough decision, but I didn’t have the ability to stop the bill, so then I had to make a decision to try to put some things in there that can make it a little less harmful to people.”

Nurrenbern said she tries to remember “that we, as Senate Democrats, are just 10 of 34 senators” and that “while we should have a mark on the legislation that is passed, it is going to be not as large a mark as the Republican supermajority.”

“I don’t think a single piece of legislation got across the finish line without Democratic input,” she added. “But we also recognize that we’re not going to be overdemanding or overbearing in our asks. The asks that we put forward are reasonable, I think, and are really in the spirit of serving Missouri well.”

Sharp said that unlike in previous years, House leadership — and especially Patterson, who just completed his first session as speaker — was more open to keeping an open dialogue with Democrats.

“I will give House Speaker Patterson this: he did a very good job of working with Democrats, (and) particularly African-American Democrats in Kansas City,” Sharp said. “He made time for us regularly in Jefferson City and in Kansas City.”

That shift meant that “a few more opportunities were thrown to members of my caucus,” Sharp said, with Patterson and various Republican committee chairs being more willing to help some of Democrats’ bills move through the legislative process.

Those opportunities meant that Democrats, including freshmen, were able to add their bills’ language as amendments to Republican legislation, including bills banning hair discrimination in schools, extending a tax credit for donations to diaper banks and&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/16/ending-missouris-tampon-tax-wont-make-period-products-much-more-affordable/" target="_blank">eliminating sales taxes on diapers and feminine hygiene products</a>.

But other House bills with bipartisan support were casualties of the Senate’s breakdown. That included Sharp’s bill requiring some people with DUIs to install ignition interlocks in their car, which he said was on the Senate agenda but was effectively “killed” when the PQ was used.

The impact of a PQ in the Missouri legislature

With the use of the PQs, “all of that bipartisan cooperation and collaboration was pretty much thrown out the window,” according to McCreery.

At the time, Republicans and Democrats had been negotiating to find a compromise on Republicans’ bill to repeal Proposition A’s paid sick leave protections, passed by voters last fall.

“We were working right up to when we were given word that negotiations were finished,” McCreery said. “I went into that Wednesday still feeling hopeful that we would figure something out.”

<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/15/stadium-funding-gun-rights-law-among-casualties-of-missouri-senate-breakdown/">According to the Missouri Independent</a>, Democrats told Republican leadership they would stop filibustering the two bills if language were changed to remove references to gender-affirming care for minors — which is already illegal in Missouri — from the abortion bill and to allow for minimum wage to rise with inflation.

McCreery — who was leading the filibuster when the PQs were used — said “the PQ may have been used against me, but it’s bigger than me.”

“Shutting down the debate was done against the will of the people. And that’s what makes this more harmful and harder to look the other way on, because the PQ was used on me, but shutting down debate was used against 1.5, 1.6 million Missourians that voted for Prop A or voted for Amendment 3,” she said.

That move “eroded my trust and confidence to negotiate in good faith with Republican senators,” Nurrenbern said.

While Democrats said negotiators were on track to find a solution, Sen. Nick Schroer, a Republican from Defiance, said on the day of the PQ that “goalposts were being moved” in those negotiations, which ultimately “hit a logjam.”

Gov. Mike Kehoe was working behind the scenes in the lead-up to the PQ to try to prevent it and improve the chances of the Missouri legislature passing his proposed stadium funding plan,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/15/stadium-funding-gun-rights-law-among-casualties-of-missouri-senate-breakdown/">according to the Missouri Independent</a>.

In the lead-up to the PQ, Nurrenbern and other Democrats said that while they enjoyed the bipartisan cooperation, “That is not going to be the case next session.”

“It marked a change in how we are going to operate as senators,” Nurrenbern said. “There are a lot of motions that happen throughout the legislative day in the Missouri Senate, and we are going to use every opportunity to make our point that it’s paramount to negotiate in good faith.”

McCreery said she didn’t want to speculate about how Democrats might proceed, but did say that “it’s going to be much harder to get things done, even things that are perceived as nonpartisan or noncontroversial. There was a lot of harm done not just to this session, but future sessions as well.”

“I’m certainly disappointed with how session ended this year, and I have a long memory,” she added. “I don’t anticipate that I’ll go into special session this summer or regular session next January with all of this disrespect just put behind me.”

Preparing for the special session and 2026 in the Missouri legislature

Gov. Mike Kehoe recently announced that he&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/16/missouri-governor-will-call-lawmakers-back-into-session-for-royals-chiefs-stadium-funding/">will call lawmakers back to Jefferson City</a>&nbsp;for a special session sometime this summer to vote on a bill to provide state funding for a&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/13/new-stadium-funding-plan-for-chiefs-royals-clears-missouri-house/">new Royals stadium and a renovated Chiefs stadium</a>.

Nurrenbern said she doesn’t know “what the call is for special session yet, but I would certainly expect to see some of that spill over.”

McCreery said Democrats “have not had any discussions” about the special session.

“I will say, as someone who is a proud resident of the St. Louis region, to see all of the destruction that happened on Friday night with the tornado, it’s going to be really hard to think about giving $900 million or more to a wealthy team owner when we’ve got so much destruction in the St. Louis region that is going to have to be dealt with,” she said.

Sharp — who has been a vocal advocate for&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/01/missouri-legislature-stalls-bill-state-stadium-funding/" target="_blank">finding a way to keep the Royals and Chiefs in Missouri</a>&nbsp;— said an even bigger barrier to getting the stadium bill passed will be senators’ lingering resentment over the House&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/09/missouri-house-republicans-surprise-senate-by-killing-500-million-construction-bill/">failing to pass a massive construction bill</a>.

However, he said he’s optimistic that House leadership will put it up for a vote during the special session to clear the way for the Senate to pass the stadium bill.

At a&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/16/missouri-governor-will-call-lawmakers-back-into-session-for-royals-chiefs-stadium-funding/">press conference</a>&nbsp;after the end of session, Kehoe told reporters he understands lawmakers’ concerns about the construction bill.

“I’ve heard and listened to quite a few senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle on that very same issue, and I understand what their concerns are,” Kehoe said. “I think it’s fair to say everything is on the table of what that special session might look like.”

As Democrats prepare for the sessions to come, Nurrenbern said she hopes to see bipartisanship in the Missouri legislature again.

“Everybody comes from a different walk of life, from a different area of the state, and we work best — and the institution works best — when we come together for the common good,” she said. “I hope we get back there sooner than later.”

This&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/23/navigating-bipartisanship-republican-run-missouri-legislature/" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;first appeared on&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/" target="_blank">Beacon: Missouri</a>&nbsp;and is republished here under a&nbsp;<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748264614507.png" alt=" State Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat from Olivette, prepares for Senate Republicans to force a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban abortion on May 14 (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent)." />
 <figcaption> State Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat from Olivette, prepares for Senate Republicans to force a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban abortion on May 14 (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/ceilidhkern/">CEILIDH KERN</a>On the evening of May 14, when the House side of the Missouri legislature was almost a ghost town, state Rep. Mark Sharp’s phone started buzzing with messages telling him that “things are getting ready to blow up in the Senate.”Sharp, a Kansas City Democrat, started making his way to the Senate when he heard chanting. Protesters were in the Senate expressing their opposition to HJR 73, which would&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/13/awmakers-bill-would-ask-voters-to-restrict-missouri-abortion-access/" target="_blank">put an abortion ban on the 2026 ballot</a>.After visitors were cleared out to stop the protest, security began to let people back in, and Sharp and dozens of other representatives crammed into the spaces along the edge of the Senate floor to watch what would happen next.“You had about 50 reps on the Senate floor … maybe 20 Democrats and another 30 Republicans all mixed together. All kinds of camera crews. I’ve never seen the Senate that packed before,” Sharp said.“Then, they moved for the previous question, and then did it again on Prop A,” he added. “Then they adjourned. I was literally stunned.”After a session considered uncharacteristically productive and bipartisan by recent standards, the Missouri Senate, on the second-to-last day of the 2025 session, broke with its own longstanding tradition and&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/15/missouri-lawmakers-undo-paid-sick-leave-put-abortion-on-ballot/" target="_blank">overrode a filibuster</a>.To do it, Senate Republicans pulled out a rarely used procedural tool called a “previous question,” or PQ, to close debate and force votes on the abortion bill and a bill to&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/04/18/paid-sick-leave-missouri-proposition-a-at-risk/" target="_blank">repeal paid sick leave protections</a>.Senate Republicans’ use of the PQ shocked the Missouri legislature for a number of reasons, one being that the tool is very rarely used, because it’s seen as antithetical to the chamber’s tradition of unlimited debate.The other is that the move came after a session in which Republicans and Democrats, despite their disagreements, were able to find some common ground and collaborate on legislation.<h2>Legislating from the Missouri legislature’s ‘superminority’</h2>Republicans have held a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers of the Missouri legislature&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2024/11/05/status-quo-election-leaves-missouri-republicans-with-legislative-supermajorities/">since 2012</a>. This year, Democrats held 10 of 34 Senate seats and 52 of 161 House seats.Even so, this session was marked by considerable bipartisan cooperation — a stark contrast from previous years, when Republican infighting dominated the Senate and made it difficult to get much of anything to the governor’s desk.While&nbsp;<a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/" target="_blank">extreme political polarization nationally</a>&nbsp;might make bipartisan cooperation seem impossible, it’s a requirement in the Missouri legislature if Democrats want to get anything done, said state Sen. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Kansas City Democrat.“I would not be successful as a legislator if I worked in a silo or if I worked on purely hyperpartisan issues. That’s not going to get me anywhere as a Democrat in the superminority of Missouri,” she said. “It all comes down to me finding common ground with others.”<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748264585541.png" alt="State Rep. Mark Sharp, a Kansas City Democrat, speaks during a press conference during the 2025 legislat" />
 <figcaption>State Rep. Mark Sharp, a Kansas City Democrat, speaks during a press conference during the 2025 legislat</figcaption>
 </figure>Sharp said: “<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2023/02/20/mark-sharp-special-committee-urban-issues-missouri/" target="_blank">As a member of the superminority</a>, we have to constantly, constantly be talking to these folks in the majority party daily. They’re the ones controlling everything.”Republican House leadership — including House Speaker Jon Patterson of Lee’s Summit, Majority Floor Leader Alex Riley of Springfield and committee chairs — have control over every step in the legislative process, including whether a bill is introduced and referred to a committee.Because of that, “at every corner, we should be working across the aisle to make sure that these bipartisan pieces of legislation are given a chance … because we know the partisan ones won’t,”&nbsp; Sharp said.He said “it can be frustrating” to be a Democrat working in the Republican supermajority-controlled Missouri legislature, but “you’ve got to have a short memory.”Despite being in the supermajority, many Republicans were “absolutely” interested in working with Democrats, Nurrenbern said.One of those Republicans was Sen. Kurtis Gregory from Marshall. He and Nurrenbern together represent Clay County in the Senate, and “as soon as we were both elected, we sat down and talked about what we could do together to move Clay County forward,” she said.When Nurrenbern decided to file a bill to create a Clay County Sports Authority, she reached out to him and said, “I would like you to champion this with me.”“He was an absolutely great supporter every step of the way to get that done,” she said. “He was … excited to carry that legislation with me.”But the collaboration wasn’t just one-way, Nurrenbern said. Sen. Mike Henderson, a Desloge Republican, also asked for her input on a massive education bill he was working on.“He came to me right away and said: ‘Maggie, I’d really like your input on this. You’re a former educator. I respect your opinion on these provisions, and I want to work with you on this,’” Nurrenbern said.State Sen. Tracy McCreery, an Olivette Democrat, cosponsored several bipartisan bills this session and said it was “refreshing” to work across the aisle.“I’m in a district that’s 50/50, and I feel like my constituents want me to work together with people of all political stripes and all backgrounds to find common-sense solutions,” McCreery said. “They appreciate that politicians aren’t fighting all the time and calling each other names.”While some issues consistently divide Republicans and Democrats in the Missouri legislature, others offer more opportunities for bipartisan cooperation, such as economic development and health care.“All of the things I worked on successfully with colleagues from the other side of the aisle are just issues that are going to help make people’s lives a little bit better,” McCreery said.<h2>Making legislation ‘a little less bad’</h2>For Democrats in both chambers of the Missouri legislature, getting a policy over the finish line often means amending another bill to include their language. It’s especially critical in the House, Sharp said.“Freshman Democrats feel like their specific House bills should be moving. That’s now how it works. … Republicans aren’t going to pass a bill in your name,” Sharp said.McCreery said it’s “pretty common” for Senate Democrats, when they’re unable to block the passage of a bill, to try getting some of their own bills added as amendments to soften the impact.“Once the supermajority decides that a bill is going to move and make it out of the chamber, you, as a senator, have to decide. Do I want to try to stop it, or do I want to try to make a bad bill a little less bad by putting some good things on it?” McCreery said.McCreery said one example was a “terrible”&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/03/28/gov-mike-kehoe-poised-to-sign-legislation-that-could-raise-missouri-utility-bills/" target="_blank">omnibus utility law</a>&nbsp;that passed early in the session, which she said will increase Missourians’ utility rates.“I voted no on it, but I was able to get some consumer protections in there for low-income people,” she added. “It was a tough decision, but I didn’t have the ability to stop the bill, so then I had to make a decision to try to put some things in there that can make it a little less harmful to people.”Nurrenbern said she tries to remember “that we, as Senate Democrats, are just 10 of 34 senators” and that “while we should have a mark on the legislation that is passed, it is going to be not as large a mark as the Republican supermajority.”“I don’t think a single piece of legislation got across the finish line without Democratic input,” she added. “But we also recognize that we’re not going to be overdemanding or overbearing in our asks. The asks that we put forward are reasonable, I think, and are really in the spirit of serving Missouri well.”Sharp said that unlike in previous years, House leadership — and especially Patterson, who just completed his first session as speaker — was more open to keeping an open dialogue with Democrats.“I will give House Speaker Patterson this: he did a very good job of working with Democrats, (and) particularly African-American Democrats in Kansas City,” Sharp said. “He made time for us regularly in Jefferson City and in Kansas City.”That shift meant that “a few more opportunities were thrown to members of my caucus,” Sharp said, with Patterson and various Republican committee chairs being more willing to help some of Democrats’ bills move through the legislative process.Those opportunities meant that Democrats, including freshmen, were able to add their bills’ language as amendments to Republican legislation, including bills banning hair discrimination in schools, extending a tax credit for donations to diaper banks and&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/16/ending-missouris-tampon-tax-wont-make-period-products-much-more-affordable/" target="_blank">eliminating sales taxes on diapers and feminine hygiene products</a>.But other House bills with bipartisan support were casualties of the Senate’s breakdown. That included Sharp’s bill requiring some people with DUIs to install ignition interlocks in their car, which he said was on the Senate agenda but was effectively “killed” when the PQ was used.<h2>The impact of a PQ in the Missouri legislature</h2>With the use of the PQs, “all of that bipartisan cooperation and collaboration was pretty much thrown out the window,” according to McCreery.At the time, Republicans and Democrats had been negotiating to find a compromise on Republicans’ bill to repeal Proposition A’s paid sick leave protections, passed by voters last fall.“We were working right up to when we were given word that negotiations were finished,” McCreery said. “I went into that Wednesday still feeling hopeful that we would figure something out.”<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/15/stadium-funding-gun-rights-law-among-casualties-of-missouri-senate-breakdown/">According to the Missouri Independent</a>, Democrats told Republican leadership they would stop filibustering the two bills if language were changed to remove references to gender-affirming care for minors — which is already illegal in Missouri — from the abortion bill and to allow for minimum wage to rise with inflation.McCreery — who was leading the filibuster when the PQs were used — said “the PQ may have been used against me, but it’s bigger than me.”“Shutting down the debate was done against the will of the people. And that’s what makes this more harmful and harder to look the other way on, because the PQ was used on me, but shutting down debate was used against 1.5, 1.6 million Missourians that voted for Prop A or voted for Amendment 3,” she said.That move “eroded my trust and confidence to negotiate in good faith with Republican senators,” Nurrenbern said.While Democrats said negotiators were on track to find a solution, Sen. Nick Schroer, a Republican from Defiance, said on the day of the PQ that “goalposts were being moved” in those negotiations, which ultimately “hit a logjam.”Gov. Mike Kehoe was working behind the scenes in the lead-up to the PQ to try to prevent it and improve the chances of the Missouri legislature passing his proposed stadium funding plan,&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/15/stadium-funding-gun-rights-law-among-casualties-of-missouri-senate-breakdown/">according to the Missouri Independent</a>.In the lead-up to the PQ, Nurrenbern and other Democrats said that while they enjoyed the bipartisan cooperation, “That is not going to be the case next session.”“It marked a change in how we are going to operate as senators,” Nurrenbern said. “There are a lot of motions that happen throughout the legislative day in the Missouri Senate, and we are going to use every opportunity to make our point that it’s paramount to negotiate in good faith.”McCreery said she didn’t want to speculate about how Democrats might proceed, but did say that “it’s going to be much harder to get things done, even things that are perceived as nonpartisan or noncontroversial. There was a lot of harm done not just to this session, but future sessions as well.”“I’m certainly disappointed with how session ended this year, and I have a long memory,” she added. “I don’t anticipate that I’ll go into special session this summer or regular session next January with all of this disrespect just put behind me.”<h2>Preparing for the special session and 2026 in the Missouri legislature</h2>Gov. Mike Kehoe recently announced that he&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/16/missouri-governor-will-call-lawmakers-back-into-session-for-royals-chiefs-stadium-funding/">will call lawmakers back to Jefferson City</a>&nbsp;for a special session sometime this summer to vote on a bill to provide state funding for a&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/13/new-stadium-funding-plan-for-chiefs-royals-clears-missouri-house/">new Royals stadium and a renovated Chiefs stadium</a>.Nurrenbern said she doesn’t know “what the call is for special session yet, but I would certainly expect to see some of that spill over.”McCreery said Democrats “have not had any discussions” about the special session.“I will say, as someone who is a proud resident of the St. Louis region, to see all of the destruction that happened on Friday night with the tornado, it’s going to be really hard to think about giving $900 million or more to a wealthy team owner when we’ve got so much destruction in the St. Louis region that is going to have to be dealt with,” she said.Sharp — who has been a vocal advocate for&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/01/missouri-legislature-stalls-bill-state-stadium-funding/" target="_blank">finding a way to keep the Royals and Chiefs in Missouri</a>&nbsp;— said an even bigger barrier to getting the stadium bill passed will be senators’ lingering resentment over the House&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/09/missouri-house-republicans-surprise-senate-by-killing-500-million-construction-bill/">failing to pass a massive construction bill</a>.However, he said he’s optimistic that House leadership will put it up for a vote during the special session to clear the way for the Senate to pass the stadium bill.At a&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/16/missouri-governor-will-call-lawmakers-back-into-session-for-royals-chiefs-stadium-funding/">press conference</a>&nbsp;after the end of session, Kehoe told reporters he understands lawmakers’ concerns about the construction bill.“I’ve heard and listened to quite a few senators and representatives from both sides of the aisle on that very same issue, and I understand what their concerns are,” Kehoe said. “I think it’s fair to say everything is on the table of what that special session might look like.”As Democrats prepare for the sessions to come, Nurrenbern said she hopes to see bipartisanship in the Missouri legislature again.“Everybody comes from a different walk of life, from a different area of the state, and we work best — and the institution works best — when we come together for the common good,” she said. “I hope we get back there sooner than later.”This&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/stories/2025/05/23/navigating-bipartisanship-republican-run-missouri-legislature/" target="_blank">article</a>&nbsp;first appeared on&nbsp;<a href="https://thebeaconnews.org/" target="_blank">Beacon: Missouri</a>&nbsp;and is republished here under a&nbsp;<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.

Missouri Democrats ponder options after Senate breaks down over abortion, paid sick leave

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rebecca-rivas/">REBECCA RIVAS</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>

The Missouri Veterans Commission has received $80 million&nbsp;from sales taxes collected from marijuana dispensaries and other fees since the state’s cannabis program began in 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Of that, $33.8 million has come in during the current fiscal year, which began in July and ends June 30.

The money goes towards the operational needs of the state’s seven veterans homes, including payroll and maintenance of existing infrastructure, a commission spokeswoman said.

While it may appear that the money is a big boon for veteran homes across the state, the cannabis funds have rolled in just as revenue from casinos has rapidly dropped off, said Democratic state Sen. Steve Roberts of St. Louis, who is vice chair of the commission.

The commission receives funds from the $2 fee people pay to enter a casino, he said, but those numbers have declined significantly since the pandemic. The marijuana funds are helping fill that hole, he said, but money for the state’s veterans home remains in limbo every year.

“We still need to find a mechanism to ensure that [veterans homes] have the funding they need,” Roberts said, “because just with the casinos and marijuana funds, it’s not enough. And it’s forcing the commission to continue to have to go back to the legislature to ask for additional money.”

Republican state Rep. Dave Griffith of Jefferson City, who is also a board commissioner, compared the situation to a business unable to make a long-range plan.&nbsp;

“The Missouri Veterans Commission can’t do that,” Griffith said. “They have to go from year to year to year to see what is appropriated by the General Assembly.”

He disagrees with House members who believe that marijuana funding is the solution, he said, and that general revenue can be appropriated elsewhere.&nbsp;

“The Senate actually has done a better job of taking care of the veterans commission and some of the properties that we’ve got,” Griffith said. “It’s frustrating for me that it seems like every time we want to try to do something for veterans, we’re looking at vices — gambling and drug use.”

Missourians voted in November 2018 to adopt a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana, and it also requires fees and taxes generated by the program, minus operational expenses, be transferred to the commission.&nbsp;

Then in 2022, voters approved another amendment to legalize adult-use marijuana. With these sales, revenues from taxes and fees are divided between three causes: grants for substance use prevention, the public defenders system and the veterans commission.&nbsp;

In fiscal year 2024, the commission received $19.4 million between both medical and adult-use sales, and $33.8 million in 2025.

In the fiscal year that begins in July, the commission is&nbsp;<a href="https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills251/hlrbillspdf/0010H.06S.pdf" target="_blank">set to receive</a>&nbsp;$32.6 million.

However, future funding depends on the health of the cannabis industry, which can experience ups and downs, Griffith said.

Both Roberts and Griffith said they’re committed to finding more stable funding for veterans.&nbsp;

“We’re very fortunate that this is a bipartisan issue,” Roberts said. “There are veterans homes in Democratic and Republican districts, and all the senators I’ve talked to seem to be very supportive.”

Roberts pointed to Gov. Mike Kehoe’s State of the State address in January, where he addressed the underfunding of the homes and need for continued support.&nbsp;

“Under the Kehoe administration,” the governor said, “no veterans homes will close due to a lack of state funding.”

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748173279566.png" alt=" State Rep. Dave Griffith, a Republican from Jefferson City, speaks at the House Health and Mental Health committee Feb. 17,(Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications)." />
 <figcaption> State Rep. Dave Griffith, a Republican from Jefferson City, speaks at the House Health and Mental Health committee Feb. 17,(Tim Bommel/Missouri House Communications).</figcaption>
 </figure>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/rebecca-rivas/">REBECCA RIVAS</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/briefs/missouri-senate-committee-advances-bill-to-ban-texting-while-driving/">Missouri Independent</a>The Missouri Veterans Commission has received $80 million&nbsp;from sales taxes collected from marijuana dispensaries and other fees since the state’s cannabis program began in 2020.&nbsp;&nbsp;Of that, $33.8 million has come in during the current fiscal year, which began in July and ends June 30.The money goes towards the operational needs of the state’s seven veterans homes, including payroll and maintenance of existing infrastructure, a commission spokeswoman said.While it may appear that the money is a big boon for veteran homes across the state, the cannabis funds have rolled in just as revenue from casinos has rapidly dropped off, said Democratic state Sen. Steve Roberts of St. Louis, who is vice chair of the commission.The commission receives funds from the $2 fee people pay to enter a casino, he said, but those numbers have declined significantly since the pandemic. The marijuana funds are helping fill that hole, he said, but money for the state’s veterans home remains in limbo every year.“We still need to find a mechanism to ensure that [veterans homes] have the funding they need,” Roberts said, “because just with the casinos and marijuana funds, it’s not enough. And it’s forcing the commission to continue to have to go back to the legislature to ask for additional money.”Republican state Rep. Dave Griffith of Jefferson City, who is also a board commissioner, compared the situation to a business unable to make a long-range plan.&nbsp;“The Missouri Veterans Commission can’t do that,” Griffith said. “They have to go from year to year to year to see what is appropriated by the General Assembly.”He disagrees with House members who believe that marijuana funding is the solution, he said, and that general revenue can be appropriated elsewhere.&nbsp;“The Senate actually has done a better job of taking care of the veterans commission and some of the properties that we’ve got,” Griffith said. “It’s frustrating for me that it seems like every time we want to try to do something for veterans, we’re looking at vices — gambling and drug use.”Missourians voted in November 2018 to adopt a constitutional amendment legalizing medical marijuana, and it also requires fees and taxes generated by the program, minus operational expenses, be transferred to the commission.&nbsp;Then in 2022, voters approved another amendment to legalize adult-use marijuana. With these sales, revenues from taxes and fees are divided between three causes: grants for substance use prevention, the public defenders system and the veterans commission.&nbsp;In fiscal year 2024, the commission received $19.4 million between both medical and adult-use sales, and $33.8 million in 2025.<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748173223267.png" alt=" The Division of Cannabis Regulation transfers funds from medical marijuana sales tax revenues and fees to the Missouri Veterans Commission. Similarly, the division transfers funds from adult-use cannabis sales tax revenues and fees to the commission, Missouri Public Defender System and DHSS for its substance use disorder grant program." />
 <figcaption> The Division of Cannabis Regulation transfers funds from medical marijuana sales tax revenues and fees to the Missouri Veterans Commission. Similarly, the division transfers funds from adult-use cannabis sales tax revenues and fees to the commission, Missouri Public Defender System and DHSS for its substance use disorder grant program.</figcaption>
 </figure>In the fiscal year that begins in July, the commission is&nbsp;<a href="https://documents.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills251/hlrbillspdf/0010H.06S.pdf" target="_blank">set to receive</a>&nbsp;$32.6 million.However, future funding depends on the health of the cannabis industry, which can experience ups and downs, Griffith said.Both Roberts and Griffith said they’re committed to finding more stable funding for veterans.&nbsp;“We’re very fortunate that this is a bipartisan issue,” Roberts said. “There are veterans homes in Democratic and Republican districts, and all the senators I’ve talked to seem to be very supportive.”Roberts pointed to Gov. Mike Kehoe’s State of the State address in January, where he addressed the underfunding of the homes and need for continued support.&nbsp;“Under the Kehoe administration,” the governor said, “no veterans homes will close due to a lack of state funding.”

Missouri veterans homes rely on money from ‘vices.’ Lawmakers say it’s not enough 

By MATT PIKESt. Joseph Post<div><iframe style="border-radius:12px" src="https://open.spotify.com/embed/episode/32gwLFkZhzGE11vYaEqqDo?utm_source=generator" width="100%" height="352" frameBorder="0" allowfullscreen="" allow="autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; fullscreen; picture-in-picture" loading="lazy"></iframe></div>

KFEQ Week in Review

A package of incentives aimed at
increasing child care in Missouri failed this past legislative session, the
third year in a row the measure couldn’t win approval in the Missouri Senate.

St. Joseph state Rep. Brenda Shields, a
Republican, says her measure got bogged down as lawmakers attempted to leverage
it to promote their agendas.

“Once again, I think that people realized,
I mean, it’s a priority of the governor’s. They realized it’s a priority and so
they think that they want to wheel and deal, because they think it’s going to be
a package that goes somewhere,” Sheilds tells KFEQ/St. Joseph Post. “And then they
get to asking too much and it’s just something we can’t do.”

The measure ran into a brick wall the
last two legislative sessions as squabbles between Republican leadership in the
Missouri Senate and the Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative Republicans, locked
up the Senate and blocked several bills from passing.

The child care package failed the past
two legislative sessions, despite support from then-Gov. Mike Parson and the Missouri
Chamber of Commerce. Gov. Mike Kehoe has taken up the issue and given the measure
his support. Still, it ran into other objections this past legislative session and,
once again, could not break through Senate filibusters.

“A lot of the objections are, you know,
that maybe women shouldn’t be working; women should be staying at home. I don’t
know how we ever overcome that objection,” Shields says. “But we’re going to regroup
this summer and we’re going to look at the package. &nbsp;And we’re going to see if there is anything we
can do any different that might be able to get it across the finish line.”

The tax incentive package is capped at
$60 million. It would provide up to $20 million in tax breaks for three
groups:&nbsp; businesses that help employees
offset the cost of child care, individuals who donate or invest in child care,
and child care centers which add staff or expand capacity.

Shields insists it is an approach that
can work, stating this is a problem the state cannot solve on its own.

“So, we’re asking the business community
and we’re asking individuals in our state who care about this to donate and contribute
and build first and then the state will get involved.” 

You can follow&nbsp;Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

By BRENT MARTINSt. Joseph PostA package of incentives aimed at
increasing child care in Missouri failed this past legislative session, the
third year in a row the measure couldn’t win approval in the Missouri Senate.St. Joseph state Rep. Brenda Shields, a
Republican, says her measure got bogged down as lawmakers attempted to leverage
it to promote their agendas.“Once again, I think that people realized,
I mean, it’s a priority of the governor’s. They realized it’s a priority and so
they think that they want to wheel and deal, because they think it’s going to be
a package that goes somewhere,” Sheilds tells KFEQ/St. Joseph Post. “And then they
get to asking too much and it’s just something we can’t do.”The measure ran into a brick wall the
last two legislative sessions as squabbles between Republican leadership in the
Missouri Senate and the Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative Republicans, locked
up the Senate and blocked several bills from passing.The child care package failed the past
two legislative sessions, despite support from then-Gov. Mike Parson and the Missouri
Chamber of Commerce. Gov. Mike Kehoe has taken up the issue and given the measure
his support. Still, it ran into other objections this past legislative session and,
once again, could not break through Senate filibusters.“A lot of the objections are, you know,
that maybe women shouldn’t be working; women should be staying at home. I don’t
know how we ever overcome that objection,” Shields says. “But we’re going to regroup
this summer and we’re going to look at the package. &nbsp;And we’re going to see if there is anything we
can do any different that might be able to get it across the finish line.”The tax incentive package is capped at
$60 million. It would provide up to $20 million in tax breaks for three
groups:&nbsp; businesses that help employees
offset the cost of child care, individuals who donate or invest in child care,
and child care centers which add staff or expand capacity.Shields insists it is an approach that
can work, stating this is a problem the state cannot solve on its own.“So, we’re asking the business community
and we’re asking individuals in our state who care about this to donate and contribute
and build first and then the state will get involved.” You can follow&nbsp;Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

Rep. Shields ready to try again as child care package fails 3rd year in a row

Changes to the program could also result in thousands of low-income families losing access to federal assistance that helps them buy food

BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/cbates/">CLARA BATES</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>

Missouri could lose around $400 million in federal funding for food assistance under a&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/22/repub/u-s-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid/">plan approved by Congressional Republicans</a>&nbsp;Thursday — which would strain the state budget and likely strip thousands of low-income families of food aid across the state.

Those cost-shifts could put pressure on the legislature to slash the state’s SNAP program or fill in the federal funding gaps by cutting other state services.

Roughly one-tenth of Missouri’s population, or&nbsp;<a href="https://dss.mo.gov/mis/clcounter/history.htm" target="_blank">over 650,000 people,&nbsp;</a>receive SNAP benefits.

“This is about parents not eating so their kids can, or children going to school hungry,”&nbsp;<a href="https://mobudget.org/mbp-press-house-reconciliation-cuts-medicaid-snap/" target="_blank">said</a>&nbsp;Amy Blouin, president and CEO of the progressive think tank Missouri Budget Project.

Another provision in the bill that cleared the U.S. House would create stricter work reporting requirements for SNAP, which could cut or reduce benefits for&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/expanded-work-requirements-in-house-republican-bill-would-take-away-food" target="_blank">150,000 Missourians, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates.</a>

“This bill would raise costs on families and make it harder for Missourians of all ages to meet their basic needs,” said Blouin.&nbsp;

The legislation aims to extend President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, a move the&nbsp;Congressional Budget Office projected<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/21/repub/cbo-analysis-shows-u-s-house-gop-budget-measure-tilted-toward-upper-income-taxpayers/">&nbsp;would decrease resources for low-income families while increasing resources for top earners.</a>&nbsp;The&nbsp; package passed in the House early Thursday could cut $267 billion from SNAP over 10 years, according to the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf" target="_blank">CBO’s preliminary analysis</a>&nbsp;earlier this week. It would also cut<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/22/repub/u-s-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid/">&nbsp;over $600 billion</a>&nbsp;from Medicaid.&nbsp;

Under the proposal passed by the House, SNAP costs would be shifted to the states starting in 2028.

The federal government currently covers 100% of SNAP benefits and 50% of the administrative costs. Under the proposal, states would need to cover between 5% and 25% of benefits and 75% of administration.

The share of costs the federal government shifts to states would hinge on states’ error rates, meaning the rate at which states over or underpay benefits recipients. States would need to pay a greater portion of the benefits depending on how high their error rate is.

In 2023, the most recent data available, Missouri’s&nbsp;<a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-fy23-qc-payment-error-rate.pdf" target="_blank">error rate was 10%,</a>&nbsp;which would mean the highest cost share. Missouri would need to cover 25% of the cost of benefits.&nbsp;

A Department of Social Services spokesperson said more recent data isn’t available.

Missouri’s Republican House delegation voted for the bill and Democrats voted against it.

Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Alford&nbsp;<a href="https://alford.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1225" target="_blank">said</a>&nbsp;the bill “strengthens and restores the integrity” of SNAP in order to “ensure it is a temporary life vest for the needy — not a lifestyle.”

Democratic U.S. Rep Emanuel Cleaver&nbsp;<a href="https://cleaver.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-cleaver-votes-against-gop-budget-rips-healthcare-and-food" target="_blank">said</a>&nbsp;the bill&nbsp;amounts to “ ripping health care and food assistance away from vulnerable families, to give another tax break that lines the pockets of billionaires.”

Several parts of the package are expected to change in the Senate and come back to the House for a final vote in the coming months.

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2023/7/1689674819900.png" alt=" " />
 <figcaption> </figcaption>
 </figure><h2>Changes to the program could also result in thousands of low-income families losing access to federal assistance that helps them buy food</h2>BY:&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/author/cbates/">CLARA BATES</a> <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2022/09/21/missouri-judge-once-again-delays-decision-on-closing-agape-boarding-school/">Missouri Independent</a>Missouri could lose around $400 million in federal funding for food assistance under a&nbsp;<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/22/repub/u-s-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid/">plan approved by Congressional Republicans</a>&nbsp;Thursday — which would strain the state budget and likely strip thousands of low-income families of food aid across the state.Those cost-shifts could put pressure on the legislature to slash the state’s SNAP program or fill in the federal funding gaps by cutting other state services.Roughly one-tenth of Missouri’s population, or&nbsp;<a href="https://dss.mo.gov/mis/clcounter/history.htm" target="_blank">over 650,000 people,&nbsp;</a>receive SNAP benefits.“This is about parents not eating so their kids can, or children going to school hungry,”&nbsp;<a href="https://mobudget.org/mbp-press-house-reconciliation-cuts-medicaid-snap/" target="_blank">said</a>&nbsp;Amy Blouin, president and CEO of the progressive think tank Missouri Budget Project.Another provision in the bill that cleared the U.S. House would create stricter work reporting requirements for SNAP, which could cut or reduce benefits for&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/expanded-work-requirements-in-house-republican-bill-would-take-away-food" target="_blank">150,000 Missourians, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates.</a>“This bill would raise costs on families and make it harder for Missourians of all ages to meet their basic needs,” said Blouin.&nbsp;The legislation aims to extend President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, a move the&nbsp;Congressional Budget Office projected<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/21/repub/cbo-analysis-shows-u-s-house-gop-budget-measure-tilted-toward-upper-income-taxpayers/">&nbsp;would decrease resources for low-income families while increasing resources for top earners.</a>&nbsp;The&nbsp; package passed in the House early Thursday could cut $267 billion from SNAP over 10 years, according to the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-05/61422-Reconciliation-Distributional-Analysis.pdf" target="_blank">CBO’s preliminary analysis</a>&nbsp;earlier this week. It would also cut<a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2025/05/22/repub/u-s-house-republicans-push-through-massive-tax-and-spending-bill-slashing-medicaid/">&nbsp;over $600 billion</a>&nbsp;from Medicaid.&nbsp;Under the proposal passed by the House, SNAP costs would be shifted to the states starting in 2028.The federal government currently covers 100% of SNAP benefits and 50% of the administrative costs. Under the proposal, states would need to cover between 5% and 25% of benefits and 75% of administration.The share of costs the federal government shifts to states would hinge on states’ error rates, meaning the rate at which states over or underpay benefits recipients. States would need to pay a greater portion of the benefits depending on how high their error rate is.In 2023, the most recent data available, Missouri’s&nbsp;<a href="https://fns-prod.azureedge.us/sites/default/files/resource-files/snap-fy23-qc-payment-error-rate.pdf" target="_blank">error rate was 10%,</a>&nbsp;which would mean the highest cost share. Missouri would need to cover 25% of the cost of benefits.&nbsp;A Department of Social Services spokesperson said more recent data isn’t available.Missouri’s Republican House delegation voted for the bill and Democrats voted against it.Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Alford&nbsp;<a href="https://alford.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1225" target="_blank">said</a>&nbsp;the bill “strengthens and restores the integrity” of SNAP in order to “ensure it is a temporary life vest for the needy — not a lifestyle.”Democratic U.S. Rep Emanuel Cleaver&nbsp;<a href="https://cleaver.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/rep-cleaver-votes-against-gop-budget-rips-healthcare-and-food" target="_blank">said</a>&nbsp;the bill&nbsp;amounts to “ ripping health care and food assistance away from vulnerable families, to give another tax break that lines the pockets of billionaires.”Several parts of the package are expected to change in the Senate and come back to the House for a final vote in the coming months.

Cuts to food aid endorsed by Congressional GOP could cost Missouri $400 million

DEKALB COUNTY—Two people were injured in an accident just before 11a.m. Friday in DeKalb County.

The Missouri State Highway Patrol reported a 2005 Lincoln Aviator driven by an 87-year-old Stewartsville woman was southbound on MO 31&nbsp; approaching U.S. 36 approximately three miles west of Stewartsville.

The driver&nbsp; failed to yield. A westbound&nbsp; 2016 Ford Fusion driven by a 67-year-old Bethany, Illinois man. The car struck the passenger side of the SUV.

DeKalb-Clinton ambulance transported both drivers to Mosaic in St. Joseph. Both drivers were properly restrained, according to the MSHP. The Patrol no longer releases names of accident victims.

DEKALB COUNTY—Two people were injured in an accident just before 11a.m. Friday in DeKalb County.The Missouri State Highway Patrol reported a 2005 Lincoln Aviator driven by an 87-year-old Stewartsville woman was southbound on MO 31&nbsp; approaching U.S. 36 approximately three miles west of Stewartsville.The driver&nbsp; failed to yield. A westbound&nbsp; 2016 Ford Fusion driven by a 67-year-old Bethany, Illinois man. The car struck the passenger side of the SUV.DeKalb-Clinton ambulance transported both drivers to Mosaic in St. Joseph. Both drivers were properly restrained, according to the MSHP. The Patrol no longer releases names of accident victims.

2 hospitalized in St. Joe after car, SUV crash

Buchanan County
wants to expand its Youth Detention Center, but questions remain about
liability.

Presiding Buchanan
County Commissioner, Scott Nelson, says the detention center has only six beds.
The county would like to expand to 24.

Nelson says the
County Commission needs clarity on its liability should any youth get sick or
injured. While the commission waits for that clarification, it moves forward on
expansion.

“The architect is
getting the drawings done,” Nelson tells KFEQmmunity. “We’re going to, I think,
send out an RFQ (Request for Quotation) for construction managers, because we
will use a construction manager on this thing.”

Nelson says the
county is unclear on whether any sick or injured inmate would be covered by the
state Medicaid program. Or, whether the county would be required to pick up the
cost of treatment.

Nelson says
expansion will be costly, anywhere from $5 million to $20 million. He hopes the
county can absorb whatever it might cost in its normal, annual budget.

“I am not a big
tax guy. I don’t want to add any taxes to anybody,” Nelson says. “So,
basically, if the county has the money and we can budget for it over a two, three-year
period and we can do that and be in good shape, we’ll do that.”

St. Joseph Police
Chief, Paul Luster, says expansion is needed even though the focus of the 5th
Circuit Juvenile Office, which covers Buchanan and Andrew Counties, is
rehabilitation.

“There are times
when a crime is so, I will say, violent or heinous where detention is probably
the best option there for that youth, specifically your violent crimes,” Luster
says when asked during his time on KFEQmmunity. “So, then you have to ask yourself
in a county this size is six beds enough?”

Luster says police
need detention space for juvenile offenders, pointing out juveniles cannot be
placed with adult inmates.

“You try to
balance the needs of that of the juvenile justice system, which acts
differently than the adult justice system, of course,” Luster says. “But also
balancing the safety needs of our community and making sure at least the
violent offenders, there’s a place for them to go when we’re out of options.”

Luster says while
the 5th Circuit Juvenile Office focuses on rehabilitation, there is
a need to hold some juvenile offenders, at least for a period of time.

By BRENT MARTINSt. Joseph PostBuchanan County
wants to expand its Youth Detention Center, but questions remain about
liability.Presiding Buchanan
County Commissioner, Scott Nelson, says the detention center has only six beds.
The county would like to expand to 24.Nelson says the
County Commission needs clarity on its liability should any youth get sick or
injured. While the commission waits for that clarification, it moves forward on
expansion.“The architect is
getting the drawings done,” Nelson tells KFEQmmunity. “We’re going to, I think,
send out an RFQ (Request for Quotation) for construction managers, because we
will use a construction manager on this thing.”Nelson says the
county is unclear on whether any sick or injured inmate would be covered by the
state Medicaid program. Or, whether the county would be required to pick up the
cost of treatment.Nelson says
expansion will be costly, anywhere from $5 million to $20 million. He hopes the
county can absorb whatever it might cost in its normal, annual budget.“I am not a big
tax guy. I don’t want to add any taxes to anybody,” Nelson says. “So,
basically, if the county has the money and we can budget for it over a two, three-year
period and we can do that and be in good shape, we’ll do that.”St. Joseph Police
Chief, Paul Luster, says expansion is needed even though the focus of the 5th
Circuit Juvenile Office, which covers Buchanan and Andrew Counties, is
rehabilitation.“There are times
when a crime is so, I will say, violent or heinous where detention is probably
the best option there for that youth, specifically your violent crimes,” Luster
says when asked during his time on KFEQmmunity. “So, then you have to ask yourself
in a county this size is six beds enough?”Luster says police
need detention space for juvenile offenders, pointing out juveniles cannot be
placed with adult inmates.“You try to
balance the needs of that of the juvenile justice system, which acts
differently than the adult justice system, of course,” Luster says. “But also
balancing the safety needs of our community and making sure at least the
violent offenders, there’s a place for them to go when we’re out of options.”Luster says while
the 5th Circuit Juvenile Office focuses on rehabilitation, there is
a need to hold some juvenile offenders, at least for a period of time.You can follow&nbsp;Brent on X @GBrentKFEQ and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.

Buchanan County looks to expand Youth Detention Center

The St. Joseph Friends of the Animal Shelter is celebrating one of the most successful Run, Walk for the Paws 5k's to date.  

Melanie Barnes with Friends, says in its 11th year, the 5k saw record breaking numbers 

"We had over 500 participants, we broke a record there at 508 participants signed up, and then we raised over $17,000 at this event, which is great, which was also a record-breaking opportunity for us to raise that much money," Barnes tells KFEQmunnity host Brent Martin.  

Barnes says every dollar raised helps, but adds that even the amount raised during the 5k hardly covers everything that Friends provides 

"If you're ever a part of a lot of the Friends of the Animal Shelter volunteer group, you know how much money we spend on medical care, on supplies for the shelter, and adoption specials and so honestly that $17,000 we raised is just a scratch, it's just a scratch of what we need," Barnes explains.  "But we couldn't do it, that is a big fundraising event." 

Barnes says the event sees mostly local people participate with their pets, and does usually see more walkers 

"The runners definitely like to get out there and they like to get out there first, and there are some people that run with their dogs too, but we definitely attract those people who just enjoy a nice stroll or walk or want to do something with their pet," Barnes says.  "So, a lot of the other 5k's or 10k's or even I think they had a half marathon this year are a little bit more focused on those serious longer distance runners, where we're focused on a 5k, shorter distance, and that community with a pet." 

<figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748021294068.jpeg" alt="The Run/Walk for the Paws 5k saw record breaking numbers this year supporting St. Joseph Friends of the Animal Shelter/ Photo courtesy of Friends of the Animal Shelter's Facebook" />
 <figcaption>The Run/Walk for the Paws 5k saw record breaking numbers this year supporting St. Joseph Friends of the Animal Shelter/ Photo courtesy of Friends of the Animal Shelter's Facebook</figcaption>
 </figure>By MATT PIKE St. Joseph Post The St. Joseph Friends of the Animal Shelter is celebrating one of the most successful Run, Walk for the Paws 5k's to date. Melanie Barnes with Friends, says in its 11th year, the 5k saw record breaking numbers "We had over 500 participants, we broke a record there at 508 participants signed up, and then we raised over $17,000 at this event, which is great, which was also a record-breaking opportunity for us to raise that much money," Barnes tells KFEQmunnity host Brent Martin. Barnes says every dollar raised helps, but adds that even the amount raised during the 5k hardly covers everything that Friends provides "If you're ever a part of a lot of the Friends of the Animal Shelter volunteer group, you know how much money we spend on medical care, on supplies for the shelter, and adoption specials and so honestly that $17,000 we raised is just a scratch, it's just a scratch of what we need," Barnes explains. "But we couldn't do it, that is a big fundraising event." Barnes says the event sees mostly local people participate with their pets, and does usually see more walkers "The runners definitely like to get out there and they like to get out there first, and there are some people that run with their dogs too, but we definitely attract those people who just enjoy a nice stroll or walk or want to do something with their pet," Barnes says. "So, a lot of the other 5k's or 10k's or even I think they had a half marathon this year are a little bit more focused on those serious longer distance runners, where we're focused on a 5k, shorter distance, and that community with a pet." <figure>
 <img src="https://media.eaglewebservices.com/public/2025/5/1748021326268.jpeg" alt="Photo courtesy of Friends of the Animal Shelter Facebook" />
 <figcaption>Photo courtesy of Friends of the Animal Shelter Facebook</figcaption>
 </figure>You can follow Matt on X @KfeqMatt and St. Joseph Post @StJosephPost.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;

Local