Legislative Rules Committee holds three St. Louis board bills after clerical and review concerns

The Legislative Rules Committee convened July 15 and paused action on three board bills after members identified clerical errors and gaps in required legal and fiscal sign-offs.

Committee members raised concerns during review of Board Bill 50s floor substitute after the clerk explained the substitute restored language that had been removed by an earlier amendment. The deputy clerk summarized the change as returning the section to the "original intent" and said the floor substitute reinstated references to certain commercial/market sections. A member of the committee said she was not comfortable voting to engross the bill without confirmed legal and financial review: "I don't particularly feel comfortable, you know, voting to engross this bill, just given the conversation that we're having this morning," the committee member said.

After a motion to engross Board Bill 50 was moved and seconded, the roll-call vote did not clear engrossment; the chair announced the motion failed. The committee later agreed to reconsider that vote and then voted to hold the floor substitute in committee for further work rather than advance it.

Board Bill 41 also revealed a major clerical discrepancy. The deputy clerk's reading of an amended provision said the ordinance "may give preference" to certified community development corporations, but a committee member said Amendment 1 (which would have made that change) did not pass and that the bill should instead retain "shall give priority" language. Committee members described this as a "big clerical error" requiring correction and agreed to hold the bill in committee while staff confirm which amendment language was adopted.

Members similarly found an incorrect exhibit attached to Board Bill 34; the committee voted to return that bill to the Public Infrastructure and Utilities Committee so staff could correct the exhibit and associated text.

Throughout the meeting members pressed for clearer internal procedures to prevent repeated lapses: they asked that legal and fiscal analysts' sign-offs be explicitly documented before items reach engrossment, that amendment votes be verified using meeting records, and that the shared drive be organized to avoid multiple conflicting drafts. The deputy clerk said staff would work on a checklist process to require fiscal, legal and clerk sign-offs before committee action.

The committee took formal motions to hold the three bills in committee and recessed the items for further review. No final policy actions or ordinance adoptions occurred; the meeting adjourned after members recorded no objections to the hold motions.

The committee did not record written public testimony at the meeting. The bills will return to committee after clerical corrections and documented legal and fiscal review are completed.