Modifies provisions relating to Missouri state highway patrol salary increases
Summary
HB 1065 repeals and replaces Missouri’s existing statute governing Highway Patrol salary increases. The bill authorizes the superintendent of the Highway Patrol to prescribe policies for salary increases and requires an annual salary schedule report to be submitted before January 1 to the governor, the speaker of the House, and the president pro tem of the Senate. That report must include comparisons of patrol salaries with officers in the three largest police departments in Missouri and with state patrol or highway patrol agencies in nearby states, including Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Kansas.
The bill also allows the governor to add recommendations to the report and send it to the legislative leaders, who may refer it to the appropriate standing committees for review. If called, the superintendent must testify before the committee on the salary report. In addition, the bill includes a service-credit provision for Highway Patrol members who served in the U.S. Armed Forces and were reinstated within 90 days after an honorable or other-than-dishonorable discharge, treating that military service as patrol service for certain purposes, while excluding credit if the member voluntarily extended military service beyond the original term.
Impact
HB 1065 would update section 43.080, RSMo, by formalizing an annual salary-review and reporting process for Missouri Highway Patrol compensation and by tying that review to comparisons with major municipal police departments and surrounding-state law enforcement agencies. It would affect the Highway Patrol superintendent, the governor, and legislative leadership by creating a structured mechanism for salary oversight and potential legislative review, and it would preserve or clarify certain service-credit rules for reinstated patrol members with prior military service.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable or at least supportive treatment of the bill, as it is framed as a salary-parity measure for Highway Patrol members. No committee transcript or recorded vote is provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or debate in the supplied materials. The bill’s purpose appears administrative and compensation-focused rather than controversial, which typically draws interest from law enforcement and budget stakeholders more than from the general public.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is fiscal: the bill’s salary-comparison and parity framework could create pressure for higher Highway Patrol pay, which may raise budget concerns for state policymakers. Another possible issue is the role of legislative committees in reviewing the superintendent’s report and whether the bill effectively mandates or merely encourages salary parity with other agencies. The military service-credit language could also prompt questions about eligibility and how broadly service time should count toward patrol benefits, though no explicit objections are included in the provided record.