Only democrats - especially Kansas City democrats - would whine about such a thing. Perhaps it is not surprising that a lowly freshman would complain about not getting Professional Registration while getting Budget. If I were the Speaker - I would bounce him from Budget and put him on Professional Registration. Talboy and Levota know better. Brent Martin was on to something despite Levota’s protestations.

Richard took Special Committees down from 27 to 7. Special Committees under the House rules allow the Speaker to appoint ALL members with input from the minority leader.

Now - 20 more committees are added to those appointed by the minority leader - the Speaker has the ability to veto minority appointments - does so sparingly - and he is being unfair? Sounds like Kander is demonstrating why he wasn’t accepted.

Get over it - recognize that things are a lot better than they were the last two years - recognize you’re in the minority - recognize things are much better than they were under Democrat majorities - stop your whining.

I love it when reporters use terms like “obscure,” which means they are not familiar with something. They should more appropriately call them “a committee I know very little to nothing about because I have never bothered covering it or examining the bills it shaped and sent through the process.” A legislative committee is only as unimportant as its legislation. Professional licensing committees have potential for great good or great mischief. They are not obscure to lobbyists and special interests. A reporter might inquire about which special interest that is regulated or licensed by the state has such fascination for this freshman state representative. It may be the crux of the story. Meanwhile, I challenge reporters not to confuse “obscure” with “unimportant.” Or declare something obscure simply because the long-shrinking resources of news organizations have meant it’s not practical to send reporters to cover such a committee, and develop knowledge of its work, at the expense of other news deemed higher in daily priority. There used to be a Miscellaneous Bills Committee, which sounds very obscure. It became the dumping ground a few years back for abortion legislation - hardly an obscure topic. What’s most important about committees is who the speaker puts in control of them, so favored legislation can shoot forward and unfavored legislation can wither and die. If a reporter doesn’t follow the committee because he dismisses it as “obscure,” perhaps because of a goofy or boring-sounding committee name, or because he is too lazy or indifferent or busy to look into its meeting agendas and membership or to do research, that is sad.

Mo House Democrats - be thankful that you are even allowed into the chamber you could be treated like the GOP is in the US House… where they as the minority are allowed no excess to bills and no amendments from the floor.

Mo House Republicans - See the above and read about Queen Nancy.

THEN DO THE SAME! As you can see… being ‘nice’ gets you nowhere not with Democrats and not with the press. Both will HATE YOU no matter what.

Missouri Republicans! - GROW A PAIR!

Tony Messenger, commenter Mckenna is on point, and you are not. There is nothign “obscure” about the professional registrations and licensing committee; as a matter of fact, that along with Rules are the best fundraising committees in the House. Therefore, it makes sense that Speaker Richard would attempt to block Rep. Kander’s appointment to Professional Registrations. Being that Kander is on the House Dem Campaign Committee, he would be able to raise a lot of money from Professional Registrations, then donate it to the HDCC (which as a member he is obligated to do), which would help Dems take back the majority in 10, when there will be 90 open seats. Partisan move by Richard, sure, but an understandable one, and one that shows that Richard, Kander, LeVota and Talboy each understand what you do not; that Professional Registrations is by no means “obscure”.

Also, it should be noted that Rep. Kander raised 130K in his house race, which shows his incredible fundraising ability. Strategically, Richard would not want to give a great fundraiser even more tools. Get your facts straight, Messenger.

Under the decade long Bob Griffin regime as Missouri House Speaker, the committee he used to bypass other logical committeee assignments for bills was called Critical Issues Committee. If HE deemed it critical, it went there - even if it was a bill regulating the length of elephant trunks and there already existed an Elephant Trunk Regulation Committee (now THAT meets a definition of Obscure Sounding But Interesting). It became a graveyard for abortion bills, both anti and pro choice, in a period after the Webster decision from the U.S. Supreme Court when Speaker Griffin - who had the juice to do it - decreed that NO bills on abortion would move from his chamber or through his chamber. That chamber being half of the legislative process, it resulted in lots of chatter and emotion but no legislative advances for any abortion bills for several years.

To the points raised by McKenna and Melvin, all valid and you get no argument from me. But allow me to add vwery charitably that state government journalists are being asked to do more and more with smaller and smaller staffs - including postings on blogs, often at the expense of the kind of traditional deep intensive coverage in print for which the Post-Dispatch and other substantial news organizations are known. I am grateful for the institutional memory of Post-Dispatch reporters like Virginia Young and Jo Mannies that helps them recognize news and put it into valuable historical context. More’s the pity that Jo is now part-time and semi-retired. But I hear Virginia is feeling spry and that is reassuring.

My how history repeats itself…………

Mr. Acres comment at the end says it all. This IS NOT about the legislative process or about the intellectual ability of a member of the Missouri General ASSembly. It is about your ability to raise $$$. How soon we forget how Roddy Boy Jetton got his seat as speaker.

Perhaps Mr. Kandor should accept his position as a “Freshman” member and use his large, $130K, campaing purse for the benefit of the HDCC. By sending $ to other Democratic candidates, he can support the effort to move into the majority and then he, like Roddy Jetton, can “purchase” the Speaker’s position. Then HE could be making the committee appointments. What’s sauce for the goose, as they say…………..

Mr. Acres et al,

While I appreciate the history lesson (and some of you are absolutely correct, I have not ever covered the professional licensing committee), I think the larger point is missed.

Mr. Acres says that McKenna is on point and I’m not. Actually, I think we’re both on point. My point, that seems to be getting lost in the discussion about what committee may or may not be obscure, is that the news release sent out by Kander was extremely partisan in tone. It clearly was, and while that’s not unusual coming out of Jefferson City, it’s a change in the tone emanating from the leadership of both parties in the session’s opening days. That was the point.

As for my choice of the word “obscure,” I stand corrected. Every committee has a chance to be “powerful”. It’s all in how the committee is used by the speaker and its members. Since no committees have begun their work in 2009, they all have a chance to become powerful, or obscure.

That being said, it struck me as unusual for a freshman member who was named to the budget committee (which I think we would all agree will be important this year), to complain about being knocked off of one committee. If, indeed, it’s all about fund-raising, then that helps make my point about partisanship, doesn’t it?

Any who would like to further my legislative education, please contact me personally at tmessenger@post-dispatch.com. Thanks for the discussion!

Thanks!

Tony

Tony, good article. I think it is good to bring up while Nixon is saying he wants to work with Republicans, others in the party though seem to be singing a different tune.

tsquare, it’s all payback for EXACTLY what the GOP did to the US House and Senate Democrats under Hastert, etc. and McConnel, et al.

Tim:

I wish you were right… I do. But you are dead wrong.

The reforms put in place by Newt in 1995 held until just this month… these reforms in how the House worked and conducted itself saw to it that the process was open and honest and that the rights of the minority were respected.

This is no longer the case…

So no… you are not correct.