Press "Enter" to skip to content

Bitter debate over Senate journal belies frustrations from previous question

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – After nearly 40 hours of a filibuster on SJR 39 was cut off by a Republican previous question early Wednesday morning, the Senate reconvened Thursday at 11:00 a.m. and started a fireworks show underlined by the idea that Senate Democrats, and a handful of Republicans, have lost faith in President Pro Tem Ron Richard’s leadership.

As soon as Majority Floor Leader Mike Kehoe, R-Jefferson City, called for a routine waiver of the reading of the journal, House Minority Leader Joe Keaveny, D-St. Louis, objected to a waiver. After a brief back and forth with the presiding Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, Keaveny’s objection was recognized, and the reading of the journal for Monday, March 7, the legislative day upon which the filibuster took place, took nearly 45 minutes.

This was the first in a string of efforts by Senate Democrats to effectively shut down the chamber.

After the reading, Keaveny requested that the journal be amended to include comments by Sen. Bob Onder, R-St. Charles, wondering if the Missouri Highway Patrol could be used to retrieve Sens. Jill Schupp and Maria Chappelle-Nadal after they had left the chamber. Many Senate Democrats confirmed Onder had made the request, but Onder said it was a “tongue and cheek” request that wasn’t meant to be taken seriously.

Of all people in the chamber, Onder’s comments seemed to anger no one more than Sen. Bob Dixon, R-Springfield, one of the three Republicans who voted against the previous question early Wednesday morning. When inquired about the events of Onder’s request, Dixon was visibly livid.

Sen. Bob Dixon speaks about his anger with Senate leadership's decision to move to previous question on the floor of the Senate Thursday, March 10. (Travis Zimpfer/THE MISSOURI TIMES)
Sen. Bob Dixon speaks about his anger with Senate leadership’s decision to move to previous question on the floor of the Senate Thursday, March 10. (Travis Zimpfer/THE MISSOURI TIMES)

“I saw the senator’s face, and I am about to drop my teeth out of my head as to what is going on,” Dixon said. “I did not hear anything, even in voice inflection, in a sense of tongue in cheek. I am rather disgusted this morning. I am trying to deal with the contempt in my heart. When we get to a vote on this, this will be a test of character. This will be a test of whether the office that we hold is above the party that we serve… I heard it, I saw it, and then I was out in one of the side galleries, and I actually observed the doormen trying to figure out how to summon the highway patrol. Don’t tell me it was not done or that it was tongue in cheek.”

He slammed his hands on his desk and his voice rose to a yell, stilling the chamber. He made it clear his frustration extended well beyond what Onder had or had not said.

“I am a senator, and I am disgusted at the slope and the speed with which this body is descending,” he screamed. “When one member is disrespected, when any member has their rights disregarded in such a dastardly way, every Senator loses. And not only that our constituents are disrespected, the people are disrespected.”

Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, and Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, concurred with Dixon, illustrating that a small contingent of Republicans had their own frustrations with leadership’s decision early Wednesday, including the decision not to recognize Sen. Scott Sifton, D-St. Louis, when he raised a point of order.

“The fact of the matter is, the words reflected in this amendment are an action that happened,” Silvey said. “To say this did not happen is ridiculous.”

Silvey also stated his own misgivings and concerns with the decision by Republican leadership to move to previous question, speaking about his time in the House and as a member of House leadership.

“I was led to believe this is a different place,” he said of the Senate. “I was led to believe senators are autonomous. There is no top down leadership in the Senate, and no offense to you Mr. President, but you do not tell me how to vote. You did not elect me. The people of Clay County voted to elect me.

“What happened yesterday at the end of the debate was disturbing at best. The fact we had members seeking recognition and ignored regardless of party should offend everyone in this room. This might be silly to people watching… but I believe what we are having this week is more about a senate joint resolution, it’s more than just about a silly amendment to the journal. It’s more than just about what procedural chicanery we’re going to have… what this debate is about is the soul of the Senate.”

Schaaf also spoke about his time in the House and went on a long diatribe highlighting the differences between the House and the Senate, especially the need to respect and honor debate.

“I was personally offended for [Sifton],” Schaaf said. “The beauty of the Senate’s design is destroyed… by not following our rules. Now, after seeing my fellow senators disrespected in the way they were, I fear I myself could be treated that way.”

He added that while he agreed with Onder’s initial resolution designed to safeguard religious liberties, he said he voted against it because forcing it through by previous question had caused it to obtain “the stink of tyranny.”

Democrats were also incensed. They spoke for hours about things to include in the journal, including the fact that the floor was unjustly taken from Chappelle-Nadal after the Senate recessed for a few hours. She had been speaking when the recess was called and Onder was given a chance to speak when recess was finished.

“I had the floor, you took that away from me, and more importantly you took it away from 203,000 people,” Chappelle-Nadal said. “You took away my voice and I’m even madder than I was ten minutes ago. You haven’t even seen mad yet.”

On an amendment to recognize that action, Senators voted along party lines not to include it in the journal, with only Silvey and Dixon joining the Democrats. Schaaf was absent.

“Today, I became invisible,” Chappelle-Nadal said after the vote. “The colleagues who I have known have recognized I do not exist in this body. ”

UPDATE 10:20 a.m. March 11, 2016: Edits made for clarity