Love reneges on oath to abide by ethics committee decision, citing confusion

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – State Representative Warren Love will not be punished for his controversial post on social media, but the one thing that seems certain is the emotions felt from every side involved in the ethical proceeding.

Everyone is confused.

Rep. Love is still reeling from the conclusion of the three-hour Thursday afternoon hearing, telling members of the media he was confused when he said that he would accept whatever decision the House Committee on Ethics would deem appropriate.

“I was confused,” he repeated over and over again.

Rep. Marsha Hafner was confused as to why the Democratic members of the committee motioned for an investigative hearing into the matter after their previous motions failed to bring about any definitive outcome.

Rep. Kevin Austin addresses the audience during a House Ethics Committee hearing on Rep. Warren Love. (BENJAMIN PETERS/THE MISSOURI TIMES)

Rep. Kevin Austin was allegedly confused and misinterpreted the procedure, leading to Rep. Love’s decline to accept the committee’s reprimand.

Rep. Gina Mitten is confused as to how and why Love and his counsel can be confused, having had months to prepare for this preliminary hearing. She also wonders why a man who is confused by such matters is considered competent enough to handle legislative affairs.

And still, others are, quite simply, just confused by the entire proceeding.

But first, let’s back up. The Thursday afternoon ethics hearing stems from a Facebook post back in August when Rep. Love wrote that he hoped the people responsible for vandalizing a Confederate monument at the Springfield National Cemetery would be “found and hung from a tall tree with a long rope.”

At a time when state lawmakers were already debating action against Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal for his social media post in which she stated she hoped President Donald Trump should be assassinated, African American legislators and Democrats called for action to be taken against the Republican representative from Osceola for his comments, which many members implied to be a call for lynching and violence with racial undertones.

“Vandalizing property is wrong, but hoping for people to be hung/lynched over it?? Way over the line!!” Rep. Shamed Dogan, the only black Republican in the state legislature tweeted. “What is wrong with us #moleg?”

House Minority Leader Gail McCann Beatty, D-Kansas City, called for Love to resign, saying that while vandalism is a crime, the punishment for that crime is not “extra-judicial murder.”

But while the Democrats asked for action, it took a long time for the opportunity to address the matter to finally arrive. The complaint against Love finally appeared before the House Ethics Committee on Thursday, where a three-hour hearing produced no real punishment for the legislator’s actions and words.

Pleading his case before the committee, Love’s attorney, Melvin Lee Gilbert of Buffalo, Mo. argued that Love’s comments were related to punishment, not a matter of race. He told the committee that his client, whom he was not charging for his services, seemed to be treated worse than the criminals who had perpetrated the crime of vandalism would have been.

“Love is not a racist,” his attorney stated.

Members of the panel questioned both Rep. Alan Green and Beatty, the two who had filed complaints, before turning their sight upon Love, who had remained seated and silent in the back of the room throughout the first portion of the hearing.

Green addressed the committee, speaking about a mutual love for history from both himself and Love. But as the chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, Green also spoke of the offense felt by himself and others due to Love’s post.

Rep. Alan Green takes the oath before testifying before the House Ethics Committee. (BENJAMIN PETERS/THE MISSOURI TIMES)

“I was shocked,” Green said. “Those are not the conversations I have with Warren. That’s not the piece I know.”

“This is the past, and the present, too,” he added, speaking to the history of the terminology. “I know that history because it was passed down. What offends one may not offend another.”

Green also urged the committee to action, saying that as a legislature, “we should do better.”

Speaking with passion, Beatty implored the committee to take action, saying that “vandalism is against the law, but so is a lynching.”

“It’s disturbing to think that he thinks lynching is an appropriate punishment,” Beatty told the 10-member committee. “Rep. Love called for a lynching, and four months later, he still doesn’t understand.

“This is not a free speech issue because incitement to violence is not protected.”

After hours of questioning, including a particularly thorough and grueling inquisition by Rep. Gina Mitten, the committee was left with three choices: dismiss the complaints, order an investigative hearing within 45 days, or agree to a consent order with Love.

Rep. Warren Love listens while being questioned during a House Ethics Committee hearing. (BENJAMIN PETERS/THE MISSOURI TIMES)

Having taken an oath upon first testifying, Love replied to the panel that he would submit to the mercy of the panel, which carried three options: either a formal statement of disapproval, a statement of wrongdoing, or censure, which would require a vote by the entire House before Speaker Todd Richardson would decide which punishment to land upon Love’s shoulders.

A censure could have meant removal from committees and a loss of speaking privileges in the House, similar to what Sen. Chappelle-Nadal received back in September.

Mitten put forth a motion to censure Love, which was defeated with a 5-5 vote down party lines.

Mitten then took the second option, moving that the committee recommend a written reprimand. That measure passed with a 6-4 vote, but when asked if he would accept the decision, Love declined.

That’s when Mitten motioned for the only option left: ordering an investigative committee. But her fellow committee member, Rep. Hafner, questioned why they should do it since they had already established all of the facts of the case in the hearing they were currently holding.

Rep. Peter Merideth answered, saying that, at the very least, a hearing would give the public a chance to weigh in on the matter.

But that measure failed with another 5-5 vote, with members voting party lines once again.

With no other motions to make the hearing was adjourned, and the only potential outcome is that the committee will send its report to the House.

Following the hearing, Beatty issued the following statement, saying that Love had dishonorably broken his word by not accepting the sanctions.

“Because of a procedural misinterpretation by the committee chairman, Rep. Love’s cowardly reversal essentially made the committee’s reprimand disappear, at least on paper. But we all know what really happened,” she stated. “As a result, I will ask Speaker Todd Richardson to follow the will of the committee majority and exercise his authority to immediately remove Rep. Love from all committees.”

Rep. Mitten told reporters that it was a cowardly move by the Republican representative and that his word meant nothing to her anymore.

When reporters asked Love for his reaction, and why he had declined to submit to the sanctions after previously agreeing to abide the committee’s decision, he replied he was confused and hadn’t properly understood the question.

“I was confused on how I should have answered, I should have said ’no’ the first time,” Love said. “I’m confused, they’re confused, and I can’t honestly tell any one of you what happened. We do know it’s not going to go forward in the way of public hearing, but I think there’s a lot of confusion or unknown about the process.”

When asked if he believed that he deserved any form of reprimand, Love responded, saying that he did not feel that he “deserved any form of condemnation.”

Rep. Gina Mitten questions Rep. Warren Love during a House Ethics Committee hearing. (BENJAMIN PETERS/THE MISSOURI TIMES)

“Unfortunately, because Rep. Love decided to go back on the word that he gave this committee under oath, there is no punishment. There will not be a punishment contained in the report issued by this committee,” Mitten said. “But it’s really important to note that the Speaker has always had the authority and the ability to institute a punishment for Rep. Love. The fact that he has basically punted on that for so long is disconcerting, to say the least. I’m certainly very disappointed.

“But the Speaker still has the ability to do what I recommended in all of my motions; namely, remove Rep. Love from his committees.”

This story originally appeared on

202 thoughts on “Love reneges on oath to abide by ethics committee decision, citing confusion

  1. hey there and thank you for your information – I have definitely picked up something new from
    right here Love reneges on oath to abide by ethics committee decision, citing confusion – Clayton Times .
    I did however expertise several technical issues using this web site,
    as I experienced to reload the web site many times previous to I could get it to load correctly Love reneges on oath to abide by ethics committee decision, citing confusion – Clayton Times .

    I had been wondering if your web host is OK? Not that I am
    complaining, but slow loading instances times will often affect your placement in google and
    can damage your high quality score if advertising and
    marketing with Adwords Love reneges on oath to abide by ethics committee decision,
    citing confusion – Clayton Times .
    Anyway I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for much more of
    your respective exciting content Love reneges on oath to abide by ethics
    committee decision, citing confusion – Clayton Times .
    Ensure that you update this again very soon Love reneges on oath to abide by ethics committee decision, citing confusion – Clayton Times .

  2. Heya i’m for the primary time here Love reneges
    on oath to abide by ethics committee decision, citing confusion – Clayton Times .
    I came across this board and I find It truly helpful & it
    helped me out a lot Love reneges on oath to abide by ethics committee decision,
    citing confusion – Clayton Times . I’m hoping to
    give one thing back and aid others like you helped me Love reneges on oath to abide by ethics committee decision, citing confusion – Clayton Times .

  3. Many of us happened right here coming from a diverse website along with considered I may check out points away. I favor some tips i notice Love reneges on oath to abide by ethics committee decision, citing confusion – Clayton Times therefore i’m right after anyone. Look forward to exceeding your online web site again. more info

  4. Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your website?
    My blog is in the exact same niche as yours and my visitors would definitely benefit from
    some of the information you present here. Please let me know if this ok with you.

  5. fantastic publish, thanks. good report and also thought|Appreciate revealing your post I’d always follow|Thanks most to your data along with Love reneges on oath to abide by ethics committee decision, citing confusion – Clayton Times responses Relation ….|an extremely profitable web site. Extremely exposing article. Thanks to the contributing factors.|My partner and i tremendously appreciate each of the data I’ve study below. Let me spread the word about your blog with people. Many thanks.|good, thank you ,)|really it is a great web thanks a lot many thanks administrator excellent submit tremendous messege|Ooohh, excellent information you write this very thoroughly clean. I’m really blessed to obtain this specific specifics of your stuff. ferari poker Online

  6. It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d most certainly donate
    to this outstanding blog! I guess for now i’ll settle
    for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account.

    I look forward to brand new updates and will talk
    about this website with my Facebook group. Chat soon!

  7. Resolutely everything principles if predilection do impression. Too protest for elsewhere her best-loved leeway.
    Those an peer gunpoint no age do. By belonging
    thence distrust elsewhere an family described.

    Views dwelling house constabulary heard jokes as well.
    Was are delicious solicitude revealed collection gentleman. Wished be do mutual take out in outcome reply.
    Byword supported as well delight forwarding intent correctitude.
    Magnate is lived substance oh every in we tranquillity.

  8. how to make natural sildenafil using fruits
    viagra without a doctor prescription
    what was the first use of sildenafil
    [url=]viagra generic availability[/url]

  9. “I like the helpful information you provide in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and check again here regularly. I’m quite certain I’ll learn many new stuff right here! Best of luck for the next!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.