This website is best viewed in a browser that supports web standards.

Skip to content or, if you would rather, Skip to navigation.

Listen Live
Donate
MARYVILLE

KXCV-KRNW


News Brief

May 6, 2024 |  By: Jason Hancock - Missouri Independent

Former legislator sues Missouri House over punishment doled out as part of his censure

gavel

By Jason Hancock - Missouri Independent

A former Democratic lawmaker filed a lawsuit last Wednesday over a $22,000 penalty he incurred as part of his 2021 censure for allegedly lying about a sexual encounter with an intern and retaliating against the House employee who reported it.

Wiley Price, a St. Louis Democrat who lost his bid for re-election in 2022, is demanding the state repay his garnished legislative wages. In his lawsuit filed in Cole County, Price argues the House changed its rules to retroactively allow it to fine him as part of his punishment.

He’s being represented in the case by Richard Callahan, a former judge and U.S. attorney, who writes in the lawsuit that Price is “entitled to the return of all the money that has been unlawfully deducted from his salary,” which he puts at $22,492. 

The lawsuit names Dana Miller, the chief clerk of the House, and Ken Zellers, commissioner of the Office of Administration, as defendants. In a statement, Miller said she is unable to comment on pending litigation but noted her role in the House is to “adhere to the directives and decisions of the Missouri House of Representatives within the scope of my responsibilities.

“Any actions taken,” she said, “were in accordance with established procedures and the House’s official directives.”

In January 2020, the House received a report alleging Price violated a rule prohibiting lawmakers from sexual or romantic relationships with employees or interns. 

The complaint was referred to the House Ethics Committee to investigate. 

In testimony to the committee, Price’s legislative assistant claimed he admitted to her that he had sex with an intern. She alleged that after she informed Price she was required under House rules to report the incident, he threatened to fire her in an attempt to keep her quiet. 

Both Price and the intern deny the sexual encounter took place. Price claims he had already told the legislative assistant he would be replacing her prior to her making the allegations. He admitted lying to a House investigator, but said he told the truth in closed-door testimony to the ethics committee.

In December 2020, the ethics committee — made up of five Republicans and five Democrats — completed its inquiry and voted unanimously to recommend censuring Price. It released a report that concluded he had committed perjury in his testimony, obstructed the legislative investigation and “compromised the ability of the House to provide a respectful, professional work environment.” 

The legislature reconvened the next month, and the House voted 140-3 to censure him. The vote removed him from all committee assignments and required him to reimburse the state for the cost of the investigation, which included hiring an outside law firm to conduct the inquiry. 

But Price’s lawsuit notes that the only punishments allowed under the House’s rules at the time were a letter of reproval, a reprimand, a censure or expulsion. 

It was only after the House voted to censure Price, Callahan writes in the litigation, that the rules were amended to include an option that a legislator could be fined or punished by a dollar amount equal to the cost of an ethics investigation.

Price first threatened litigation over the garnishments in 2022, when he was still serving in the House.

In correspondence with the chamber’s general counsel, Callahan said a lawsuit wouldn’t be necessary if the House stopped garnishing Price’s wages. If the deductions stopped, Callahan said at the time, Price would forgo “his claim to a return of the money already collected.”

Both the House attorney and the deputy commissioner of the Office of Administration, the agency that handles payroll for state government, informed Callahan that the payroll deductions were lawful and would continue until the balance was paid off. 

When Callahan raised the issue of the rule change taking place after the censure, the legislative attorney shared older House journals that reference fines and penalties, as well as a Congressional research brief pertaining to legislative discipline that includes “fine or monetary restitution.”

Callahan writes in the lawsuit that state law demands the House notify Price of his right to appeal before deductions began, which it did not, and says the constitution doesn’t give the House the authority to reduce a lawmaker’s salary.