Firefighter bill of rights draws supporter calls for due process and opposition from districts citing litigation risk

Representative Colin Mollenkamp, joined in sponsorship by Representative Ealy, introduced House Bill 11‑90, described as a "firefighter bill of rights" that would set statutory due‑process protections for career firefighters, emergency medical technicians and 911 dispatchers employed by public agencies.

Mollenkamp said the bill aims to provide consistent procedural protections across the state's many fire departments, including limits on coercive investigatory practices, protections against retaliatory reassignment and the right to seek elected office without employer interference. "This bill outlines...due process to protect those that really are putting their lives on the line for all of us every day," he told the committee.

Representatives of the Missouri State Council of Firefighters testified in favor. Steven Davis, the council's secretary‑treasurer, and Taylor Seedorf, vice president, said the organization represents thousands of firefighters statewide and argued a uniform statutory framework would reduce arbitrary practices, protect employees and clarify employer obligations. Seedorf told the committee a single set of rules would help firefighters and employers "play by the same set of rules," and said he would support including career and, potentially, volunteer firefighters in a consistent approach.

Opposition came from fire‑district counsel and lobbyists who said some provisions are unworkable and could spur litigation. Steve Carroll, testifying on behalf of Melville Fire Protection District, said the bill contained provisions that could interfere with routine administrative decisions, including reassignment and internal investigations, and predicted increased legal costs for districts. He noted a related omnibus Senate bill (SB143) was expected to address some firefighter provisions and said that version had already removed several problematic sections.

David Klarich, representing Robertson Fire Protection District, urged caution and said a one‑size‑fits‑all statute could be burdensome to small districts without legal resources. Committee members asked whether the bill covered volunteers (the bill's language applies to employees of public agencies) and whether language would conflict with existing collective bargaining agreements; sponsors and supporters said much of the proposed language reflects practices already present in some contracts and sought statutory clarity to protect rights across jurisdictions.

The committee took testimony both for and against the bill and concluded the hearing with the record left open for further consideration and potential amendment.