Nodler: Returning for a Special Session

The Legislature returned to the Capitol this week for a special session called by the governor. While not entirely uncommon, there have been only seven extraordinary sessions called over the past 15 years. Historically, these are occasions when the General Assembly did not address a timely issue during the regular session, ran out of time to debate a particular issue, or needed to correct language in a bill. A special session can last anywhere from a few days to several weeks, and there have been times when the Legislature has been called back for additional special sessions after not completing the work the governor has asked them to do.

One aspect of a special session that is very different from the regular session is that the Legislature is restricted by the “call” issued by the governor. Constitutionally, the General Assembly is only able to address issues specifically referenced in the proclamation issued by the governor. In fact, in 1922, legislation passed by the Legislature was ruled unconstitutional after it was decided the bill went outside of the scope of the governor’s call.

On June 18th, Gov. Nixon issued the call for a special session and asked us to address two issues. The first is an incentive package designed to give tax breaks to certain automotive manufacturers in the state. Specifically, the bill [HB2] addresses the Ford plant in Claycomo that employs nearly 4,000 workers. Ford is finalizing decisions about restructuring operations and locating production lines, and many are hoping that the company will chose Missouri if these tax breaks are available. However, Ford announced plans to stop making the Ford Escape in Missouri by the end of next year, and has given no indication that tax breaks would change their course. In fact, Ford did not even testify in favor of the bill when it was in committee. The incentive package does not come without a cost, so the governor has also asked us to consider a cost-saving plan that would reform the state’s pension system for new employees. The legislation [SB1] would change retirement eligibility for future state employees and require them to contribute 4 percent of their salary to the state retirement plan.

Both of these bills were first considered during the regular legislative session, and I voted “no” on both pieces of legislation. My opinion on these proposals has not changed, and I will not support either measure during the special session. Initially, many hoped the special session would move quickly, but more recent events have stalled the progress of the legislation. I will continue to keep you up-to-date on our continuing work in Jefferson City.