Chamber leader owns up to role in anti-referendum legislation

Last edited 1:04 p.m., Feb. 3, 2026 [Editor's note: Comment from Rep. Jeff Knight, R-Lebanon, has been added.]

Missouri legislation that aims to curb the city’s zoning referendum process had a hazy origin, but at last night’s Springfield City Council meeting, a Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce official shouldered some responsibility for it.

House Bill 2847 would impact only the Queen City by disallowing voter referendums for zoning changes. The state legislation targets home-rule cities partially located in counties with populations of 260,000-300,000 – a description that matches only Springfield.

The measure was filed by Rep. Jeff Knight, R-Lebanon, whose district does not include Springfield.

In past Springfield Business Journal reporting, Morrow neither confirmed nor denied the chamber’s involvement in the legislation, saying only that the chamber is in Jefferson City weekly.

“We don’t get to file bills; legislators do that,” he said at the time.

Knight told SBJ only that organizations and developers in Springfield had approached him, but he declined to name them.

Morrow’s appearance last night before council acknowledged the chamber’s role in prompting the legislation.

In his remarks during the public comment period of the council meeting, Morrow said the city needs investment.

“People have to choose to put their capital at risk here instead of somewhere else, and that choice depends heavily on certainty,” he said.

Morrow said the use of ballot referendums to overturn or threaten to overturn zoning cases is largely unique to Springfield.

“Every voice in the process matters, and every voice must be protected – but zoning referenda go beyond protecting voices. They remove zoning authority from elected representatives, and they introduce a new higher level of uncertainty and unpredictability that discourages investment,” he said.

That’s probably why most Missouri cities don’t allow zoning cases to be overturned in this way, he said, calling Springfield the exception in Missouri and not the rule.

Morrow said Springfield has by far the lowest signature threshold among Missouri cities.

“The chamber has long believed that greater clarity here would benefit everyone and that complex zoning decisions are best made by elected officials after hearing all voices and reviewing all facts rather than citywide ballot language that cannot possibly capture the nuance of complex zoning cases,” he said.

Morrow enumerated places in the zoning process where public input is heard, from neighborhood meetings to hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, with the ability to file protest petitions to require supermajority council votes.

“Having a voice doesn’t always mean having the final say or having the final authority,” he said.

Morrow said the city and chamber are longstanding partners, which means mutual support and accountability, but neither needs permission to advocate for its constituents. He added that the city has argued the chamber’s position on referendums in court in the past based on the belief that the zoning referendum charter provision is inconsistent with state law and the state constitution.

Councilmember’s concerns
Councilmember Brandon Jenson outlined a litany of concerns about the chamber’s actions in using legislation to curb referendums, hitting hard on the fact that an outside legislator was solicited to file the House bill and on the lack of communication with a council Morrow referred to as a partner. He said he first heard about the legislation through news media.

Jenson thanked Morrow for clarifying that the bill was filed at the request of the chamber, though Morrow said the chamber never tells elected officials what to do. Rather, they advocate, and when legislators agree, they sometimes file legislation.

“That was a disappointing answer, but I respect your position,” Jenson said.

Morrow countered that his answer was a truthful one.

Jenson said he has attended multiple chamber meetings over the past several years regarding the development of regional legislative priorities.

“In those rooms, in every one of those meetings, a discussion was included regarding the importance of keeping decisions local,” he said, adding there was consensus that local control will result in the best future.

“I know that we have differing opinions on this section of the charter, but at the end of the day, the charter is the collective voice of 75 years of Springfieldians,” Jenson said. “And so I don’t take it lightly whenever there’s legislation filed that seeks to undercut that, rather than trying to facility a conversation here locally.”

Jenson said he recognized part of what had driven the chamber to support the bill is inaction by the city.

Morrow said he remains committed to cooperation.

“I by the way remain committed to that, too – if there are ways for us to reach consensus about a path forward that everybody could be supportive of, I would love to do that,” he said.

Morrow said he believes it’s OK to get legal clarity about how the referendum relates to state law.

“That doesn’t mean that you’re somehow not for local control,” he said. “I mean, it’s not an inappropriate place to look. It may not be the best place to look, and I’m open to other suggestions on that.”

Jenson was critical of the move of the chamber pushing for a bill to be filed in the statehouse to take the question away from local residents.

“In my opinion, a transparent and consistent response – what one would expect from a century-long partner like the chamber – would have been to actively call for a charter amendment and/or to support a resolution in the judicial system,” Jenson said.

Outside influence
Jenson was especially critical of using a lawmaker from outside of the city to achieve the chamber’s goal.

“Having that bill filed by a non-Springfieldian, that doesn’t feel transparent or consistent; that does feel like trying to shape outcomes behind the scenes – especially when there was no notice given to what you’ve said is your key partner in the city,” he said.

Morrow said that if he has failed to meet an expectation, he apologizes.

“If there was an expectation that each individual item on a legislative agenda should be arrived at collaboratively with the city, I think that’s probably an unrealistic expectation,” he said, adding that if the city’s willing to do that with their agenda, the chamber would consider doing the same.

Jenson said the failure to even provide a notice to the city of the legislation being filed caught city officials unaware.

“The filing of this bill has impacted the credibility of the chamber of commerce in some folks’ view,” he said. “It’s also causing reputational harm to the city. There have been a lot of folks that believe that the city is somehow connected to this. I don’t know how many questions City Manager [David] Cameron has had to field about when the city knew about this, how we had communicated about it.”

Jenson pointed to existing distrust of the government.

“The filing of this type of bill in the political climate that we’re facing, with the potential ballot issues that we have coming up – it’s shot this city in the foot; it’s shot the chamber in the foot,” Jenson said. “And I don’t understand why a partner would do this and then not own the mistake whenever they make it.”

Morrow again said that expectation would be out of the ordinary. He also said the chamber requested support from the city and state for years, and someone finally filed a bill.

Withdrawal suggested
Morrow said that he inquired if Rep. Knight would be open to pulling the bill to allow a more collaborative discussion at the local level, but it’s unclear whether he is willing to do that. He added that Springfield is not the only city asking for help on the issue.

Jenson said the threshold for referendums is rather low, being based on the number of voters in the last municipal election rather than the number of registered voters.

“A much better solution to this issue, rather than legislation at the state level that seeks to preempt a section of our charter that’s existed for at least 50 years, is to be a partner in helping to drive voter turnout,” Jenson said.

He added that he is open to having a conversation about charter changes while involving the public in it.

Jenson said he intends to bring a resolution forward at the next council meeting to oppose House Bill 2847.

Councilmember Craig Hosmer also weighed in with a question, asking if Morrow had contacted legislators in Springfield.

“And they chose not to?” Hosmer said.

“Well so far, I guess,” Morrow said.

Hosmer, who was in the state legislature for 12 years, said he would have been offended if someone bypassed local representatives to find someone to affect longstanding and seldom-used public policy in the city.

“It’s legislation telling the city of Springfield you can no longer do a referendum of zoning changes,” he said.

Councilmember Callie Carroll spoke up to point out that the chamber website lists priorities, and one supports improving the existing initiative petition system.

“That is something that has been there,” she said.

Council influence
Some on council, particularly Hosmer, have consistently spoken out against the chamber having undue influence on council policy. The chamber-backed state legislation seeking to discontinue zoning referendums would remove one tool from the public for challenging unwanted development.

Another recent change, highlighted in a Jan. 29 public meeting by Planning and Zoning Commissioner Eric Pauly, was seen by Pauly as augmenting the business and development voice.

Pauly, who was in the audience of a town hall meeting by Councilmember Abe McGull and Hosmer, asked a question about council’s decision not to reappoint two commission members, Bruce Colony and Betty Ridge, who were eligible to be reappointed for another term. A third commissioner, Christopher Lebeck, was not eligible for reappointment because of absences and left P&Z, and all three were replaced by council.

“When you look at the three that were appointed to those positions and look at their background and history, there seems to be a lot more of a slide toward development, toward business and toward the chamber of commerce,” Pauly said during the forum. “I think that we have skewed that particular commission in a way that doesn’t fully represent the city of Springfield.”

McGull said that was an executive choice.

“The facts that we had at that time suggested that it was time for a change – that’s all,” he said. “That’s the way the city works.”

The new P&Z members are Jennifer McClure, owner of organizational consulting firm JM Consulting Services LLC; Christopher Souliere, owner of Soul Properties and a board member of Home Builders Association of Greater Springfield; and David Jacquez, an agent with real estate firm Murney Associates, Realtors.