Any talk of changes to how the Missouri House functions following allegations of staff intimidation during the investigation of Speaker Dean Plocher will have to wait until after the legislative session ends on May 17, Majority Leader Jon Patterson said Monday.
Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican expected to take over as speaker next year when Plocher’s final term in office expires, told reporters he’s ready to move on from the Plocher ethics inquiry that has hung over nearly the entire legislative session.
“We maintained all along, we were going to let the process play out,” Patterson said. “I believe in the House. I believe in our members. I believe in the committee process. The committee spoke rather decisively, and that’s good enough for me.”
Last week, the House Ethics Committee voted to drop its months-long investigation.
Plocher immediately declared himself fully exonerated, but the chair of the committee — GOP state Rep. Hannah Kelly of Mountain View — said the inquiry was undermined by obstruction from the speaker’s office.
That includes alleged intimidation of possible witnesses, Kelly said. To illustrate her point, she released a March email from Lori Hughes, director of administration for the Missouri House, detailing numerous incidents she believed were designed to intimidate nonpartisan legislative staff members.
Patterson said Monday he had not seen the letter.
“After the session is over, we’re going to look at the rules,” Patterson said. “We’re going to look at how things are functioning, and we really want to make this a great place for people to come and work and serve their state.”
While he says he hasn’t read Hughes’ letter, Patterson said he will “go talk with her, and we’ll do that after session.”
Patterson’s comments came hours before the ethics committee reconvened Monday evening to discuss a new complaint, this one believed to be focused on Kelly because she recused herself from the proceeding.
The interim chair of the committee, GOP Rep. Rick Francis of Perryville, told Missourinet after the hearing that the panel completed its work and would release its findings after speaking to the subject of the complaint. House rules indicate that at the initial hearing for a new complaint, the ethics committee can vote to dismiss or to proceed to a “primary hearing” where testimony can be accepted.
The dismissed Plocher investigation was focused a series of scandals that emerged last fall. The speaker was accused of pushing for the House to enter into an $800,000 contract with a private company outside the normal bidding process; threatening retaliation against legislative staff who pushed back on that contract; improperly firing a potential whistleblower; and filing false expense reports for travel already paid for by his campaign.
Last month, the ethics committee rejected a report that recommended a formal letter of disapproval for Plocher, that he hire an accounting professional to manage his expense reports moving forward and that he refrain from retaliation against any legislator or House employee who cooperated with the committee.
The report included a letter from a private attorney hired by the committee to collect evidence for the investigation, who wrote that she had never encountered “more unwilling witnesses in any investigation in my career.”
“The level of fear expressed by a number of the potential witnesses,” she wrote, “is a daunting factor in completing this investigation.”
The report also detailed how one witness, who was anonymous, feared their employment was at risk for testifying before the committee. Another potential witness was allegedly “highly encouraged” not to testify by a Republican lawmaker close to the speaker.
Hughes’ March 5 letter to Kelly included references to “20 pages of notes I have compiled along with the numerous emails I have received from employees documenting their fear of being retaliated against or even wrongfully terminated. I feel the need to share some things that are most relevant, while attempting to protect staff that do not want me to share details.”
She went on to write that in her more than “21 years of state government service, I have never witnessed or even been involved in such a hostile work environment that is so horrible that I am living in fear every day of losing my job.”
“I cannot continue to idly sit by and hope that the speaker’s office will stop harassing myself and other staff members,” she wrote. “I believe wholeheartedly in my role as director of administration, I have an obligation and duty to bring these horrific actions to your attention.”
Plocher has denied engaging in intimidation or obstruction, telling reporters last week: “I adamantly deny that I obstructed anything.”
“A bipartisan majority of the committee found that there was absolutely no merit in the accusations in the complaint filed against me,” he said.
In an interview last week, House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, a Springfield Democrat, said Hughes’ allegations were “deeply concerning.”
But with less than two weeks left before the legislative session ends, and a laundry list of unfinished business — including the state budget — she didn’t see any hope of a discussion about changes or fixes taking place this year.
To see someone with “20 years of experience in human resources chronicle the intimidation, the fear and a hostile environment” taking place in the statehouse was “very troubling and very sad,” said state Rep. Deb Lavender, a Manchester Democrat.
“If anybody in this building is truly working for the people of our state, it’s our nonpartisan staff,” she said. “And to know that they were working in a hostile environment this year does not speak well of any elected officials in this building.”
This story was originally published in The Missouri Independent, part of the States Newsroom.
