Tag Archives: Elections

Kansas teachers union objects. Strenuously.

Here are a few items from today’s missive from Kansas National Education Association, the teachers union, along with commentary.

KNEA says: “Jeff Melcher, the man who has fought to completely eliminate collective bargaining and other rights for teachers continued his war today with his bill intended to end teacher representation.”
The bill simply mandates elections every three years on whether teachers are satisfied with their current representation, which is almost always KNEA or an affiliate. It’s not surprising the union is opposed to this. Accountability, after all.

KNEA says: “Make no mistake, the intent of this bill is to end professional representation for teachers and leave them as at-will indentured labor.”
Indentured labor! Government employees as indentured labor! By whom are teachers indentured? Other government employees (principals and superintendents)? What, do principals and superintendents get masters and doctors degrees in learning how to indenture the teachers that work for them? Why do professionals like these need a labor union to manage their relationship? Who would want to enter a profession where a labor union is needed to protect them from their bosses (or oppressors, as the teachers union would lead us to believe)?

KNEA says: “In a very fundamental way, this war on teachers and schools is about selling off public schools to the highest corporate bidder and making a quality education a privilege not a right.”
Here we see bashing of capitalism. You see, the teachers union believes that education can’t be run by the private sector. Never mind that charter schools and for-profit schools are successful in many areas of the country — but their teachers are not often union members. Second, with school choice programs the state still pays for students to attend private and charter schools. All that changes is parents have the privilege of choice for the children.

KNEA says: “Would force the teachers to pay for state mandated elections.”
No, the union pays for the elections.

In Wichita, the phased approach to water supply can save a bundle

In 2014 the City of Wichita recommended voters spend $250 million on a new water supply. But since voters rejected the tax to support that spending, the cost of providing adequate water has dropped, and dropped a lot.

The events surrounding the need for a new water supply is a troubling episode in the history of Wichita government. During the prelude to the November 2014 election, citizens were presented with a gloomy scenario that could be fixed only with a sales tax and the spending of $250 million. After voters said no to that, new plans emerged that are much less expensive. Lily Tomlin once said “No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.” This episode shows Wichita city leaders — both in and out of government — reinforcing the truth of Tomlin’s observation.

On December 1, 2015, the Wichita City Council held a workshop on the topic “Phased Approach for New Water Supply.”1 Alan King, Director of Public Works and Utilities, was the presenter. King emphasized that the impetus for a new water supply was for drought protection: “We presently have enough water with our current water resources to last us through our planning period of 2060, without drought.”

He continued: “When we come and talk to you about additional water resources, it is really only for one purpose, and that is drought protection. If there was no drought, we have no need. The water resources that we come in and are talking to you about, the only value they have for us is in drought protection.”

But a city document leading up to the sales tax election presented a different scenario. It threatened a lack of water for even residential use: “Building a new supply, along with conservation efforts, is the lowest cost option for providing sufficient water through 2060. Significant conservation will be needed if the current supplies are the sole sources of water for the coming decades; sever [sic] conservation requirements could be harmful to local businesses and quality of life. Adding a new water supply would provide enough water for future growth for the community’s residential, commercial, and industrial base.”2

This is an important point. We have sufficient water except for a period of extended drought. Even in that case, there is sufficient water for residential, commercial, and industrial use. The purpose of a new water supply is to avoid restrictions on outdoor watering, and in the most extreme drought, a savings of 15 percent of indoor water usage.

In his December presentation to the council, King presented several phases that the city can take. The first three have no cost, and King said these are underway.

After that, the city can spend $23 million for new wells and rehabilitation of existing wells at the ASR site.

After that, there is the possibility of “operational credits,” which involve a change to state regulations. If the state approves, the city can receive credits for sending ASR water directly to Wichita instead of recharging it in the Equus Beds. If not approved, the city could spend $47.2 million for new recharge wells in 2022. If these wells are built, the cost rises to $70.2 million. (On January 22 King made a presentation to the Equus-Walnut Regional Advisory Committee on this topic.3)

Phased Approach for New Water Supply. Click for larger.
Phased Approach for New Water Supply. Click for larger.
There is also the matter of the parallel pipeline. The existing pipeline from the Equus Beds and ASR to the city’s downtown water plant is old and won’t support higher rates of water transmission. The proposed parallel pipeline provides not only redundancy of a major part of our water infrastructure, but also increased capacity. The cost of this, estimated in 2014 at $86 million, was included in the $250 million price tag for ASR expansion. If the parallel pipeline cost is added to the previous phase costs, the cost rises to either $109 million or $156.2 million, depending on the fate of the operational credits regulation reform.

Either way, the cost is much less than the $250 million the city asked voters to consider in November 2014. And I think I’m being charitable of motives when I say “consider.” The clear and revealed preference of the city council and the city’s political class was passage of the sales tax, meaning the city would spend $250 million to achieve something the city now says can be provided for $109 million or $156.2 million. (Well, everyone except then-city council member and now-mayor Jeff Longwell, but his vote against placing the sales tax on the ballot was a naked political calculation.)

In information the city presented to voters in the run up to the November 2014 election, the city promised large water bill increases if the sales tax vote failed, writing: “If a new water supply is funded only through water rate increases, the capital cost portion of the rate will increase an estimated 24%. This is in addition to anticipated annual rate increases.”4

Possible water bill increases. Click for larger.
Possible water bill increases. Click for larger.
King’s 2015 presentation to the council showed increases of nine percent for residential, commercial, and industrial customers.5

Citizens ought to wonder what lessons may be learned from this. Furthermore, I don’t believe there has been any coverage of this in the city’s mainstream news media. That is a problem, too. For more on this problem, see Wichita Eagle, where are you?


Notes

  1. City of Wichita workshop. Phased Approach for New Water Supply. Video available at https://youtu.be/mNQ26-VZBSA.
  2. Building A Better Future: A Proposed Sales Tax for Basic Services, City of Wichita, June 13, 2014. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/Government/Departments/Finance/FinancialDocuments/Sales%20Tax%20Proposal%20for%20Basic%20Services.pdf.
  3. Equus-Walnut Regional Advisory Committee Meeting Notes. Available at http://www.kwo.org/RACs/2016_RAC%20Notes/doc_EQW_Min_January_012216_mu.pdf.
  4. Plans & Background on Proposed 1¢ Sales Tax, City of Wichita, 2014. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97azj3TSm9MS0lCQncxQkp4ODg/.
  5. Phased Approach for New Water Supply, Presentation to Wichita City Council, December 1, 2015, page 30. Available at http://wichita.gov/Government/Council/Agendas/2015-12-01%20Phased%20Approach%20for%20New%20Water%20Supply.pdf.

WichitaLiberty.TV: The caucus and the presidency, Wichita prepares a new regulatory regime

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Looking back at the Kansas presidential caucus and should it matter who becomes president. A new regulatory regime in Wichita probably won’t help its stated purpose, but will be harmful. Then, more about regulation. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 113, broadcast March 13, 2016.

Wichita Pachyderm Club Guide to Kansas Presidential Caucus

On March 4, 2016 the Wichita Pachyderm Club featured representatives of Republican presidential campaigns. Phil Ruffin spoke on behalf of Donald Trump, Kansas State Treasurer Ron Estes for Marco Rubio, and Oklahoma Congressman Jim Bridenstine for Ted Cruz. Other campaigns did not respond to requests. This is an audio presentation.

WichitaLiberty.TV: Super Tuesday wrap up

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Radio show hosts Joseph Ashby and Andy Hooser join Bob Weeks to discuss Super Tuesday results and the contests going forward. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 112, broadcast March 6, 2016.

Shownotes

WichitaLiberty.TV: Radio talk show host Joseph Ashby

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Radio talk show host Joseph Ashby visits the KGPT studios to explain presidential politics. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 109, broadcast February 14, 2016.

Shownotes

WichitaLiberty.TV: Journalist, novelist, and blogger Bud Norman on presidential politics

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Journalist, novelist, and blogger Bud Norman joins host Bob Weeks to discuss presidential election politics. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 108, broadcast February 7, 2016.

Shownotes

Ranzau petition to Kansas Supreme Court

A filing by a group seeking to recall a county commissioner declares “facts” that can’t possibly be known at this time.

Those hoping to recall Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau have filed a petition with the Kansas Supreme Court seeking to overturn the finding of the Sedgwick County District Attorney. That finding was the petition did not meet the grounds and conditions proscribed in Kansas law.

(Many news headlines and reporting use phrases like “District Attorney blocks petition.” That’s not accurate. The DA simply ruled that the petition did not meet the legal requirements.)

In the filing, under a section title “Statement of Facts,” paragraph 2 starts with “It is the will of the electors of Sedgwick County’s District 4 to seek the removal of Richard Ranzau from office …”

I’d like to know how the petitioner knows the will of the electors (voters) of district 4, specifically that they want to remove Ranzau from office. Since August 2008, Ranzau has prevailed in all four elections regarding his current office. In each election the revealed preference — or “will” — of the voters is that they preferred Ranzau to the alternatives, both other Republicans in two primary elections, and Democrats in two general elections. Each election was contested by experienced politicians who had held offices including that of Sedgwick County Commissioner, Wichita City Council Member, Kansas State Representative, and Kansas State Senator.

The only fact we know so far is that there are 100 citizens of Sedgwick County (not just district 4 residents) who have signed up to become recall petition circulators. Should the recall petition be approved, these circulators would have to gather a large number of valid signatures in a short period of time. If that petitioning effort is successful, there will be an election. It is at that time — and only that time — that the electors (voters) of district 4 express their will regarding the recall of Richard Ranzau.

WichitaLiberty.TV: Radio talk show host Joseph Ashby

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Radio talk show host Joseph Ashby visits the WichitaLiberty.TV studios to help us understand the Republican presidential debate and nomination contest. View below, or click here to view in high definition at YouTube. Episode 104, broadcast December 20, 2015.

Kansas Legislature and Elections: 2016 Preview

Pachyderm 2015-12-04 Bright Carpenter 02Natalie Bright and Marlee Carpenter of Bright and Carpenter Consulting briefed members and guests of the Wichita Pachyderm Club on the results of the 2015 session of the Kansas Legislature, and what to look for in next year’s session and elections. December 4, 2015.

The accompanying visual presentation may be viewed here.

WichitaLiberty.TV: Wichita outreach, city council, and entrepreneurship

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: A look at Wichita community outreach and communications, rewriting city council history, and entrepreneurship. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 102, broadcast December 6, 2015.

Shownotes

Campaign contribution changes in Wichita

A change to Wichita city election law is likely to have little practical effect.

Currently Wichita city code prohibits certain entities from making campaign contributions to candidates for city council and mayor: “Contributions by political committees as defined by K.S.A. 25-4143, as amended, corporations, partnerships, trusts, labor unions, business groups or other such organizations are expressly prohibited.”

The intent of this law is to limit the influence of businesses and unions on city elections. This week the Wichita City Council will consider striking this portion of city code. The contribution limit of $500 to a candidate for the primary election, and $500 again for the general election, is proposed to be retained.

The practical effect of removing the restriction on campaign contributions from corporations and other entities is likely to be minor. Here’s why.

Last year, lamenting the role of money in national elections, a Wichitan wrote in the Wichita Eagle “Locally, I understand that elections for the Wichita City Council underwent ideal, nonpartisan campaign-finance reform years ago, and that these limits are scrupulously practiced.” This view is naive and doesn’t reflect the reality of current campaign finance practice in Wichita. That is, the stacking of contributions from multiple members of interested groups. For example, a frequent practice is that a business might have several of its executives and their spouses make contributions to a candidate. Because the contributions are made by multiple people, the money is contributed within the campaign finance limitation framework. But the net effect is a lot of money going to a candidate’s campaign in order to advance the interests of the business, thereby circumventing the intent of campaign finance restrictions.

Stacked campaign contributions received by James Clendenin from parties associated with Key Construction. Click for larger version.
Stacked campaign contributions received by James Clendenin from parties associated with Key Construction. Click for larger version.
Here’s how a handful of self-interested groups stack campaign contributions.

Stacked campaign contributions to Lavonta Williams from Key Construction associates. Click for larger version.
Stacked campaign contributions to Lavonta Williams from Key Construction associates. Click for larger version.
In 2012 council members James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita) and Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) were preparing to run again for their offices in spring 2013. Except for $1.57 in unitemized contributions to Clendenin, two groups of related parties accounted for all contributions received by these two incumbents for an entire year. A group associated with Key Construction gave a total of $7,000 — $4,000 to Williams, and $3,000 to Clendenin. Another group of people associated with movie theater owner Bill Warren gave $5,000, all to Clendenin.

Stacked campaign contributions to Jeff Longwell from Key Construction associates. Click for larger version.
Stacked campaign contributions to Jeff Longwell from Key Construction associates. Click for larger version.
In July 2012, as Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell (then a city council member) was running for the Sedgwick County Commission, his campaign received a series of contributions from a Michigan construction company. Several executives and spouses contributed. At the time, Longwell was preparing to vote in a matter involving a contract that the Michigan company and its Wichita partner wanted. That partner was Key Construction, a company that actively stacks contributions to city council candidates.

Longwell has also received stacked contributions from Key Construction.

The casual observer might not detect the stacking of campaign contributions by looking at campaign finance reports. That’s because for city offices, the name of the company a contributor works for isn’t required. Industry and occupation are required, but these aren’t of much help. Further, contribution reports are not filed electronically, so the information is not easy to analyze. Some reports are even submitted using handwriting, and barely legible handwriting at that.

The campaign finance reform that Wichita really needs is quite simple. It’s called a pay-to-play law, and it can be a simple as this: “A councilmember shall not participate in, nor use his or her official position to influence, a decision of the City Council if it is reasonably foreseeable that the decision will have a material financial effect, apart from its effect on the public generally or a significant portion thereof, on a recent major campaign contributor.”

In other words, you can make contributions to candidates. You can ask the council to give you contracts and other stuff. But you can’t do both. It’s a reform we need, but our elected officials are not interested.

WichitaLiberty.TV: Radio talk show host Andy Hooser of the Voice of Reason

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Radio talk show host Andy Hooser of the Voice of Reason introduces himself to Wichita and talks about millennials, local politics, and the presidential races. View below, or click here to view in high definition at YouTube. Episode 99, broadcast October 25, 2015.

The Facebook page for The Voice of Reason is here.
Mid America Ag Network is here.
The Voice of Reason with Andy Hooser podcast is here.

Wichita can implement transparency, even though tax did not pass

Wichitans have to wonder: Was transparency promised only as an inducement to vote for the sales tax? Or is it a governing principle of our city?

During the campaign for the one cent per dollar Wichita city sales tax last year, a city document promised this if the tax passed: “The process will be transparent, with reports posted online outlining expenditures and expected outcomes.”

The “Yes Wichita” campaign promised “Reports will be measured and reported publicly.”

Useful information from the city on Facebook.
Useful information from the city on Facebook.
These are good ideas. The city should implement them even though the sales tax did not pass.

We were promised a website if the tax passed. If it’s good for citizens to have this type of information if the sales tax had passed, it’s good for them to know in any circumstance.

Why is this information not available? Is the communications staff overwhelmed and have no time to provide this type of information? During the sales tax campaign Wichita city staff had time to prepare news releases with titles like “City to Compete in Chili Cook-off” and “Jerry Seinfeld Returns to Century II.”

Then, there are posts like this. Is this preventing staff from providing useful information like the city promised if the sales tax passed?
Then, there are posts like this. Is this preventing staff from providing useful information like the city promised if the sales tax passed?
Since then the city has hired additional communications staff, adding a Strategic Communications Director in March. Now, while the city’s Facebook page has some useful information, there is also time to promote Barry the Bison playing golf.

Now Wichitans have to wonder: Was transparency promised only to get people to vote for the sales tax? Or is it a governing principle of our city?

A Republican dark horse?

Wondering if “the GOP isn’t on course to nominating their very own [Michael] Dukakis?” the Weekly Standard suggests a few possibilities, including Kansas’ Mike Pompeo:

Who could such a mysterious dark horse be? Well, it’s not as if every well-qualified contender is already on the field. Mitch Daniels was probably the most successful Republican governor of recent times, with federal executive experience to boot. Paul Ryan is the intellectual leader of Republicans in the House of Representatives, with national campaign experience. The House also features young but tested leaders like Jim Jordan, Trey Gowdy and Mike Pompeo. There is the leading elected representative of the 9/11 generation who has also been a very impressive freshman senator, Tom Cotton. There could be a saner and sounder version of Trump—another businessman who hasn’t held electoral office. And there are distinguished conservative leaders from outside politics; Justice Samuel Alito and General (ret.) Jack Keane come to mind.

From An October Surprise For the GOP?

‘Roast of Trump’ best left unserved

A celebrity roast of Donald Trump provides insight into the honoree’s character.

Anyone who is thinking of supporting Donald Trump for president might want to view the Comedy Central Roast of Trump. This was recorded in 2011, and several roasters referred to Trump’s possible presidential candidacy. You can find it on YouTube.

In these roasts the humor is raunchy and vulgar. The language is foul. I’m not sure I understand all the jokes, and I’m a little ashamed to admit that I do understand many. The roasters — a collection of has-beens like Larry King and celebrities who seem to do nothing but appear on roasts — poke fun at the roastee, in this case Donald Trump.

Well, it’s much more than poking fun. The roasters skewer Trump. No aspect of his life seems off limits. Multiple jokes refer to his several young wives and his sex life. These jokes are often funny. They’re funny because they exaggerate some aspect of Trump. They have to have a whiff of plausibility, some grounding in reality, in order to be funny.

If, for example, a roaster were to poke fun at Trump for being poor or short, that wouldn’t be funny. Trump is not poor; he’s extremely wealthy, and he’s tall. There’s no platform from which to exaggerate for humorous effect.

But when a roaster crudely jests at how Trump’s ego intrudes on his sex life (it has to do with Trump being more interested in himself than in his partner), that’s pretty funny. It references things that are true about Trump — his massive ego and his several beautiful young wives — and exaggerates a little.

Jokes like this could not have been a surprise to Trump. He (or his people) must have known the nature of the humor employed at these roasts. So the question is: Why did he appear in such a forum? Is this a way to appear presidential?

Examining a Kansas school district election

In its campaign to convince voters to raise taxes, the Auburn-Washburn school district deceives voters. David Dorsey explains.

Eight reasons why the Auburn-Washburn (USD 437) LOB election increase is a ruse

By David Dorsey, Kansas Policy Institute

Auburn-Washburn USD 437 is in the midst of a Local Option Budget (LOB) election, asking district voters to approve an up-to three mill increase in their taxing authority. As part of the effort to convince us to support their request, I received, along with every other USD 437 resident, a propaganda card via USPS last week. The card (of which I have provided both front and back) includes virtually every deceptive tactic used by school districts to cajole voters into supporting a tax increase, including the implication that without this extra money, the futures of little Evan and Clare are in doubt.

I must preface the following remarks by saying that I have largely supported the district’s expansion in the past, having enthusiastically voted in favor of building a new elementary school (Farley) several years ago. I also recognize that as school districts go, USD 437 is well run. Their administrative costs are below the state per-pupil average and are 17th lowest among the 25 largest districts statewide. And undoubtedly the relative quality of USD 437 plays a role in increasing property values in the district. Having said that, it doesn’t detract from the fact that this election is just plain unwarranted. Below is the flip side of the card followed by eight reasons why the election is truly needless.

  1. They already have the money.  As the table shows, USD 437 has a consistent cash reserve balance of about $9 million each July 1. The card says they are going to use cash reserves to cover part of the “Block Grant reductions,” but the $386k in taxes they tell us they need represents less than five percent of the district’s cash reserves. If they pulled the $386k from those reserves (taxes they received in prior years but didn’t spend), they would still have several million more than in 2008 and prior years, and the district didn’t say they lacked sufficient reserves during those years.
  2. They don’t spend the money they budget. In the 2013-14 school year, USD 437 spent nearly $2 million less than budgeted.  Do they really expect the voters to believe they need another $386 thousand (out of a total budget of over $65 million – roughly six-tenths of a percent) to “maintain our excellent schools?”
  3. They use misleading tactics to imply they have, and will continue to suffer budget cuts under the  block grant funding formula. They say (in bold, nonetheless) that the state reduced cash support by over $1.1 million for the current school year. Actually, the truth is under the three-year block grant funding law, USD 437 will get an increase in state aid of $1.4 million from $30.5 million to $31.9 million (4.3%).
  4. They act as if they have no authority over spending. According to the card “expenses are expected to rise next year by $1,252,000.” They speak of costs as if they are analogous to flood waters; that they are simply at their mercy and have no control over them. And this argument gets to the heart of the prevailing mentality that instead of trying to be more efficient with taxpayer money, school districts feel they are justly entitled to more taxpayer money.
  5. It’s simply a last-chance cash grab. Under block grant funding, districts must have LOB elections prior to July 1, 2015 or wait two years.
  6. It’s another false choice, right from the give-us-more-or-we’ll-have-to-cut playbook. The card itemizes six potential ways they “will consider” increasing fees/charges to students and five rather vague ways to reduce expenses. Do they really believe it will take a 1% increase in the LOB (again, that’s six-tenths of one percent of the total budget) to keep from increasing class sizes or from having to “Cut Programs (TBD)?”
  7. Kansas taxpayers are already overburdend and will experience yet another tax increase at the state level. School districts don’t operate in a vacuum. As USD 437 is asking their residents to pony up more money at a local level, the state legislature will be increasing taxes statewide by as much as $470 million. Those of us who will foot this bill can’t simply demand a pay raise to cover our increased food, insurance, transportation, or housing costs. So why should school districts be able to?
  8. It will not improve student outcomes. I saved the most important reason for last. Regardless of the dire implications, the result of this election will have exactly zero effect on the educational outcomes of little Evan and Clare when they enter kindergarten — three years from now!